Talk:Futa Tooro

Merge proposal

I'm proposing the larger Kingdom of Fouta Tooro be merged into Futa Tooro. While Kingdom of Fouta Tooro is longer and more detailed, the title:

• Does not reflect the reality of this state/ region. It was, for most of its history NOT a Kingdom, but a series of states either let by clan elders or relgious leaders, or by aristocracies.
• Futa Tooro is more a cultural than geographic term, and describes all the states/communities which have occupied this area. The Kingdom of Fouta Tooro article describes a number of these historical states.
• Futa Tooro, while used now to describe a region which is no longer a state, was not used as a regional name PRIOR to the founding of the Fulbe state there. Thus the political history cannot be meaningfully seperated from the description of the region (as you might for Madagascar or Alsace).

I'll give this a week for folks to weigh in. If I don't hear anythin, I'll make the change. T L Miles (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose. Yeah I know I seem kinda biased, but I think there should be a separate article for the state and another for the region. I mentioned the previous state because I felt it would give better context. Futa Toro (the state) was pretty important in the history of the region, and it's a shame the article doesn't reflect that. As for your first point, I respectfully disagree. The kingdom of Futa Toro WAS a kingdom. The region may not have been a state for most of its existence (most land isn't, lol) but there was a definate state ruled by kings/monarchs and not just a bunch of elders. I do agree with you that Futa Toro is a cultural term, but that term is more closely associated with the Fula than any other people living in that region. Even before they Muslim, Futa Toro was dominated by Fulas. I like your last point, but I believe it actually supports keeping the article. Anywayz, I respectfully oppose a merger.Scott Free (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Of, course I walked away and forgot to come back! I think Scott is correct, but the articles need to be edited to focus one on the region (which Scott rightly points out has usage far beyond the state, AFTER its founding and as Terkur prior to the state's founding) and one of the Fula Jihad state. I'll remove the merge headers and add this to my "to do" list, though it may be a while judging from my previous response time! T L Miles (talk)

Well after the fact, glad that the articles were not merged as it would have complicated things. Presently however it looks like this article needs further development along the lines discussed above and to discuss socioeconomic & cultural dimensions. Editing should also assure complementarity of this and article on Senegal River.--A12n (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)