Talk:Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori. 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/20080214095059/http://www.pbs.org:80/princeamongslaves/ to http://www.pbs.org/princeamongslaves/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214095059/http://www.pbs.org:80/princeamongslaves/ to http://www.pbs.org/princeamongslaves/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Futa Djallon vs. Fouta Djallon

I edited a reference to Futa Djallon in the first paragraph to be Fouta Djallon to match 1. the linked article, and 2. a later reference in this article. I don't know which spelling is correct, but it is confusing to use two spellings in the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGGenuine (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Title change (article move) needed

The title does not match the name of the subject. Moving. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"Delay that order." I cannot get an authoritative source that even discusses the name problem. There are at least four different forms, excluding obvious errors. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit required under “Life”

I am unsure how to edit article; but, can address questions about the end of this Life section. Foster’s Field is the name given to Thomas Foster’s Pine Ridge (outside of current day Natchez) plantation. A written online source that might be used to support this is https://www.whyislam.org/muslim-heritage/prince-among-slaves/

MMaxG (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

I have requested the page be protected due to the high level of IP vandalism and OR happening. --Kbabej (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Supporting short-term protection. Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori exists. There have been additions and reverts going back more than three years - heated up recently - as to whether Gaye and Chatman, his great-grandchildren, deserve mention in the article. Given that they are not themselves subjects of articles, my opinion is no. (That he left children behind - yes; about their descendants - no.) Other editors may disagree. The proper place to try to reach consensus is here at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I agree. The great-grandchildren are not notable, and it's OR. There are obvious OWN issues with this article, and ideally the partial block will help with that. --Kbabej (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

New Comments

The Legacy section should remain. Adds additional information of Prince Sori's journey from Prince, to being enslaved, to being free and what happened to his children and their decendents left behind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2600:387:f:d18::b (talk)

It is interesting that a few editors disagree if Gaye and Chatman are to be mentioned as Decendents of Prince Sori. What is the intended purpose of the article if not to bring awareness of Prince Sori's journey? Why put blocks and protection on the page if his decendents want to continue the legacy. African American History is lacking such tangible figures in America's history. I request to allow the Legacy section to remain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2600:387:f:d18::b (talk)

Thank you for finally beginning discussion here. It would be helpful to others if you went back to using your Wikipedia login when editing, rather than the ever-changing IP addresses you edit under.

The intended purpose of the article is to give a biography of the subject. With one possible exception, nothing in the section you would have appear under Legacy would bring "an awareness of Prince Sori's journey, and that one possible exception (the information contained in the Henry Clay quote) is material that would belong in the biography proper and not in a legacy section. As to your main complaintm, that you want the article to include material on two-centuries-removed family details of modern descendants, Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and as such, genealogical information should only be used to help understand the subject. The fact that 'the House of Sori' (undefined) has awarded made-up titles to some descendants is both unreferenced and too self-serving to be noteworthy. That a family descended from the individual has held a reunion is both unreferenced and non-noteworthy. The peacocking about the biography shoud be avoided (it can't be described as ground-breaking based on personal opinion - it requires third-party source to call it that), and the uncited quote from the book, indicating that a famous person once wrote a one-sentence description of the man, adds nothing to an understanding of the person's legacy (though it does contain within it an episode that might be relevant, not for a legacy section but for the biographical account itself). The aspects of his legacy that contribute to a biography of him remain in the article, just without being set off in a separate section.

Equally important, the changes you have been making are not restricted to the Legacy section. You have changed, for example, the person's title, contrary to the cited source, the number of children without giving a source for the change, the death date of a peripheral character that was correct (you are using the article subject's death date when the sentence is referring to the death date of the peropheral individual), a description of the person's academic studies that is anachronistic and does not match the cited source, a description of those he was sold to that is problematic ('the British' describes an entire nationality, when he was sold to very specific British people), removal of a tag that indicated more citations are needed (they are, as there are whole paragraphs that are uncited, and tags should not be removed unless/until the problem has been addressed) and removal of the page's short description (which are being added to all Wikipedia pages), and so much more, all at once. This is not a productive approach, because dozens of changes made as a single edit are likely to be reverted all together if too many of the changes are problematic, rather than other editors taking the time to go through the dozens of different changes all contained within a single mass edit one by one, particularly what that has already been done once on this page and you have completely ignored the individual critiques and simply repeatedly done a bulk-replacement. To avoid the problems you have been experienced here, you simply must work collaboratively. Agricolae (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I note that in an edit summary you say this is no different than other royal families. Setting aside the issue of whether this is a 'royal family' in the same sense as, say, the Buonapartes, to the degree to which the comparison is useful it is not supportive of inclusion. We don't general take notice of non-sovereign (or no-longer-sovereign) 'royal families' awarding self-generated titles upon themselves, independent of where they are from, let alone doing so on the page about a person who died almost two centuries before. Agricolae (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have now gone through and justified as individual edits every single difference between the current version of the article and the version from a few years ago that the IP editor repeatedly has been reverting to, explaining each change with a detailed edit summary. Having done this work, and with many of the changes being technical and grammatical, if there are any of these individual edits that one would like to contest, they should likewise be individually addressed. A blanket revert would amount to straight-out disruptive editing. Agricolae (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Page name

The name of this page is problematic. I can find no mention of it prior to the creation of this Wikipedia page, though it has since spread through the internet echo chamber to be repeated in numerous sources and into print. It is not a name he used for himself. He signs in Arabic simply as Abd al Rahman, and contemporary transcriptions of his signature such as 'Abdul Arahama' reflect the same practice. We also know that his name incorporated that of his father, as he appears as "Prince Ibrahim/Ibrahima' in contemporary writings. While disambiguation is necessary, the form taken here is neither natural Arabic nor African naming, in particular, the placement of the 'ibn'. He was Abd al Rahman, son of Ibrahim Sori, where Sori was a nickname coined for his father, not a family name. As such, in Arabic practice, he would have been 'Abd al Rahman ibn Ibrahim' or 'Abd al Rahman ibn Ibrahim Sori', but not 'Abd al Rahman Ibrahim ibn Sori'. In Sub-Saharan African practice, the 'ibn' was usually omitted, making him 'Abd al Rahman Ibrahim' or 'Abd al Rahman Ibrahim Sori'. Add to that the fact that they tended to represent classical Arabic names differently - his father is usually called Ibrahima rather than Ibrahim, while there are any number of ways of representing Abd al Rahman - and there is a wide range of ways we could correctly represent and disambiguate the name, none of them being the way we do in the namespace (which is immediately contradicted in the body, where he is called 'Abdul-Rahman ibn Ibrahim Sori'). In one sense, in spite of arising from an error on Wikipedia, this has become the way people refer to him, so do we just let sleeping dogs lie and accept that Wikipedia has irreparably contaminated the discourse on this, or should fix this here, however belatedly, in the face of actual scholarly sources now using the flawed name we originally concocted? Agricolae (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

With the absence of any feedback, I am going to be bold. Agricolae (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

As he decendent of Abd al Rahman, I would say correct it. However, historians and the media have associated Sori and his legacy to the incorrect naming convention. 161.30.201.48 (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)