# Talk:Owodo

Hi AirshipJungleman29 I have addressed the concerns you raised previously about the verifications. 

Regarding Despite holding the title of Ogiso, Owodo encountered resistance from both the Edionnisen ("Great Nobles") and various regional rulers. In contrast with predecessors such as Oriagba and Oduwa, who maintained effective alliances with the nobility, Owodo faced challenges in this area. this is how I read the source.
Source says Owodo proved not to be as deft in the political scheming like Oriagba and Oduwa. He ascended the throne with a deep seated hatred for a particular section of members of the royal council. He saw them as predators waiting to usurp the throne of the king and always treated them with suspicion and disdain.
Despite holding the title of Ogiso, Owodo encountered resistance… and source says He ascended … treated them with suspicion and disdain., I think this shows nobles resisted, distrusted him, and that him ascending means who was holding the title of Ogiso.
…from both the Edionnisen ('Great Nobles') and various regional rulers. and source refers to a particular section of members of the royal council (clearly the Edionnisen) as those he hated and who resisted him. I know it doesn't name "regional rulers", but the broader context of stifled prosperity and multiple power centers implies it. BTW, I would remove it entirely if you think I should.
In contrast with predecessors such as Oriagba and Oduwa, who maintained effective alliances… and source says Owodo proved not to be as deft in the political scheming like Oriagba and Oduwa. This is pretty direct if you ask me: Oriagba/Oduwa were skilled; Owodo was not.
WP:OR on all three. Consult a dictionary if you can't understand why. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 Okay, I just removed that entirely, since I realise that the way I wanted to rephrase it was already appearing elsewhere and better placed there. Please take a look for me again and tell me about the duplications. Thank you for looking already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I have told you about certain duplications already in the review (not fixed). You can find more examples by reading the article. I don't want to enter a WP:FIXLOOP for someone who can't be bothered to read the article they wrote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 I have worked on it now. Please take a look and tell me what you think so that I can renom. I totally understand you, Airship, I was just asking if you can find another (if I probably missed them) that you didn't already mention. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes (in around 30 seconds): conversion of public land into private property. Again, why couldn’t you find this in the article you wrote? Please do not ping me again, I have no desire to work with you anymore. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, observations and suggestions. I have worked with them. I will go ahead and renominate the article now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
What I meant by The Edionnisen confirmed Owodo's rule was that they crowned him, but I have changed that to As kingmakers, the Edionnisen oversaw Owodo's accession…
I have also fixed the WP:LEADLENGTH issue.
Please help me specify exact areas where there are duplications so that I can work on them too, thank you so much!
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverosie, you haven't done anything wrong, nor has VWF, there's just some improvements to make. I'm not familiar with our content assessment system (Airship will be) but AFAIK this sort of thing happens a lot. We should give VWF a chance to reply Kowal2701 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Thank you so much for being so kind. I don't blame myself now, nor do I blame VWF, whose contributions to Wikipedia have been rich and informative. I'm still quite new here, so I wasn't sure if I was in the clear. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 19:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier Reverosie, I don't blame any GA reviewer that may have missed key details here or there concerning articles like this, they take days of reading to fully grasp. You aren't the only one who has passed a VWF article, and I'm not the only one who has had issues with a VWF article, the best we can do is discuss the key issues that need to be addressed without taking things to a personal level. Thanks for your contribution. Sohvyan (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701: Thank you! @Reverosie: You haven’t done anything wrong although I understand the feeling as I am feeling even worst for not taking into consideration what have been said here before using the source in the first place. There’s nothing much for to add btw, if the reliability of a source I used was questioned, and two other editors I trust think so, I’m left with trying to clean up my mess, lol; remove thay source from other articles I’ve used it on.
On another note, @AirshipJungleman29:, thank you for weighing in, although I saw above where you mentioned that you weren’t able to do a proper review because of “copyvio” issues, but I’m afraid you didn’t raise any such thing as copyvio issues on your review, let alone mention it. But at the end of the day, notes taken, improvements made. Thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you're right Vanderwaalforces, I mistyped copyvio when I meant source misrepresentation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Owodo/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs) 21:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Catjacket (talk · contribs) 05:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Vanderwaalforces, I'm going to review this. I've seen the discussions from the first two GANs, but need to go back through them in detail. I note in particular the discussion about RSs in the 2nd one, which I think is a key issue here. I will update you soon. This is my first GA review, but I have worked a decent amount on related content, so if I miss something in the process plz let me know.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Format/grammar Comments
Lead:

Benin should link to Edo people, not Benin Kingdom. Confusing to describe a kingdom using its successor as an adjective.
Confusing use of italics. Place names should not be italicized. Words translated from other languages can be.
Don't repeat Edionnisen twice in one sentence.
Early Life: 

The last paragraph is mostly repeated in the first paragraph of the 'Reign' section. Merge them in the reign section, it makes more sense since it starts with his coronation.
Reign:

Use of "Contemporary accounts" makes it sound like these accounts are contemporaneous with Owodo. 'Modern historians' or something would be clearer.
'Senior Noble' should not be capitalized, unless it's a title. Maybe replace with Edionnisen?
What does Ughoron mean?
If Ekiogiso is a place name, it should not be italicized.
Is Osogan one creature or many? Some sentences use plural, but the story of Evian uses the singular. If disputed, an explanatory sentence or note would help.
Fall:

Another confusing use of 'contemporary accounts'
Evian referred to both as a Senior Noble and as a commoner. Which one was it?
@Catjacket: You're doing pretty well for your first review, thanks for spotting those. Most of your comments have been addressed. A few points: Senior Noble is indeed a title and must be capitalised; A Senior Noble isn't an Edionnisen; Osogan was described only as man-eating creature, whether it was a single entity or several isn't known; Evian is indeed a commoner, one who isn't royalty, a Senior Noble (which isn't the same as a Great Noble (Edionnisen)) isn't royalty and is a commoner, although an Edionnisen might not be a commoner because they're the kingmakers. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for making those adjustments, they look good. On the Osogan subject - is there any analysis for what historical group or phenomenon they might represent? Or are they purely mythical? Right now the article kind of treats them as historical actors with mythical attributes, like if we treated the story of the Minotaur and the Labyrinth as the real history of Crete. Does Omoregie talk about them as if there really were some sort of man-eating creatures terrorizing the countryside, or as a legendary or metaphorical reflection of some other historical occurrence? Catjacket (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@Catjacket I see that it’s Omoregie called it a “monster” actually. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm ok. That's concerning. Does he distinguish between mythology and history at all? We shouldn't conflate the two, but whatever discussion we have comparing them in this context should be well-sourced. Catjacket (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@Catjacket Definitively, calling it a monster is literally saying it’s legendary, so I would have to fix those sentences the same way I did for Udagbedo. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I did clarify it here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Looks great. Catjacket (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)


### Citations and Sourcing
The discussion of sources at the last GAN was thorough, and the nominator has addressed the concerns expressed there. However, I want to raise similar concerns about Ọmọregie and his books that Sohvyan raised about Ero 2003. I am torn on whether or not Omoregie can be considered WP:RS, and I think it merits an in-depth discussion. On one hand, the point was made in GAN2 that he is considered a respected historian in the local community. In general I would like to assume competence and good faith from authors who are presenting perspectives and indigenous knowledge from outside the scope of Western scholarship (a la Solomana Kante). But I do have some serious concerns: 
1. Omoregie's books are self-published. Normally, this alone would be disqualifying. His standing in the local community could perhaps make him (to quote WP:SPS) "an established subject-matter expert", but as far as I can tell "his work in the relevant field" has definitely not been "published by reliable, independent publications." It's only been self-published, or appeared as opinion articles in local newspapers. This isn't super clear either way, but it makes me want to seek out some supporting evidence before I allow his work to be included in a GA. 
2. Omoregie's books were supposed to be published by a credible publishing house, but for some reason it never happened. He self-published instead. Who knows why the publisher eventually rejected the manuscript, but the fact that they did doesn't help his credibility. 
3. It is well-established that oral traditions have been manipulated in modern-day Benin for modern-day political purposes. This makes me skeptical of any content on the subject that isn't coming from a very credible, peer-reviewed source. But Akinola specifically calls out Omoregie as one of the inventors of this new history. Being tagged in credible journals for pushing pseudohistory isn't great. 
4. Omoregie provides incredibly precise dates, and "Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing". I don't have access to a copy of his works, but haven't seen an explanation anywhere for how he got that information, or what traditionists he consulted. Considering the general difficulty of dating events from oral history, I would expect to see this information widely adopted by other specialists if it were considered credible, but I have not found other historians who rely on Omoregie's dates. When Bondarenko discussed the various historians who have proposed dating the founding of the Oba dynasty and therefore indirectly Owodo's reign, he didn't even bother mentioning Omoregie's dates. This is a clear WP: REDFLAG. 
5. Most of Omoregie's written output is plays and novels. I suspect that he allowed his creativity to bleed into the 'historical' writing.
In GAN2, Kowal2701 argued in favor of Omoregie = RS by making 2 points. First, he claimed that Omoregie is "relatively widely cited". I believe this is an exaggeration. I tried to dig up all the citations I could for Omoregie's books and found that they were few and sometimes dodgy:

A single footnote for uncontroversial information repeated in Egbarehva and elsewhere.
A thesis that cites interviews with Omoregie, and includes his works in the bibliography, but does not actually have a footnote pointing to those books for any particular fact.
A book chapter that cites Omoregie's unpublished manuscript but was written 10 years after the manuscript was published.
A paper that clearly did not go through any real editing process in a non-historical pay-to-publish journal.
Interestingly, Bondarenko and Roese do footnote Omoregie a few times in two papers, even though Bondarenko also called the work of Omoregie's group of Bini intellectuals "pseudohistorical".
Some closely related papers do not cite Omoregie when you might otherwise expect that they would, such as this one on oral traditions and Owodo. The only paper that cites Omoregie in a similar way to this article (as the main source for a historical narrative) is the pay-to-publish one. So overall the citation evidence is mixed. 
Kowal2701's second point was that, if we decided that Omoregie was non-RS, the only alternative would be to "write Edo history from a Yoruba POV". I don't understand this argument at all. Using non-reliable sources is not a remedy for POV, it's just stacking problems on top of each other. Omoregie's work should be evaluated on its own merits, not based on the author's ethnicity. There are plenty of RS's on the history of Benin. There are few for the history of Igodomigodo, but the guidelines are clear that we should delete the article if the only alternative is to rely on non-RS. I'm not saying we should delete this article, there is plenty of good info here. But can an article that relies so heavily on a source with so many questions be a GA? I'm skeptical. Would love some feedback and thoughts.

@Catjacket: Why Omoregie's series was not published by the original planned publisher isn't a business of mine, nor should it be of yours. In the previous GAN that just concluded, the issue of source reliability was resolved, and my improvements to this article were almost entirely based on the various feedback from that review. If you had concerns like this regarding the Omoregie source, why did you decide NOT to bring it up before this review, and decide to bring it up AFTER opening the THIRD review of this article? I think this is utter disrespect to a fellow editor, I must say. I don't know what explanation you have as to why you think bringing this here for a third review is better than addressing any concerns you have before DECIDING to take up the responsibility of a GA review (your first, at that). I think I am being overly lenient in how I allow editors to criticise my work and actually listen to them.
I have over 15 GAs, this means that I have come across different perspectives from different editors; it also means that I know exactly what a GAN review is and what it is not. Addressing what really concerns this review and sourcing, I would say that Omoregie, from what I have seen, is clearly a subject-matter expert; his works has been published in newspapers (some of which the sources you mentioned above do cite), his works have also been published by other publishers that are not Nareso. Again, it's been established in the previous review that this source is reliable, and it was based on that feedback I used in improving the article for future review.
Perhaps you were trying to ping @Kowal2701 and Sohvyan:, if you mention a user and save your edit without your signature, it doesn't deliver to them. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Vanderwaalforces, the only disrespect I see is coming from you. You have the temerity to demand that GA reviewers aren't allowed to assess your work, because you "know exactly what a GAN review is and what it is not"? What nonsense is this? You twice submitted an article to GAN with serious sourcing deficiencies, and now think you can get angry when a reviewer takes their time to investigate? I suggest you at least strike your first paragraph of absolute tripe and apologise to the editor who is actually acting in good faith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 No please, do not put words in my mouth, or rather, do not misinterpret me, nowhere in my reply did I demand that GA reviewers aren't allowed to assess your work. I know exactly what a GA review is, yes I do, and that is not "nonsense" AFAIK. I know exactly what I mean by I am too lenient, yes, I exactly know, even though I might not be able to explain.
@Catjacket Did you read my comment as "not allowing you to do your review"? if you do, I'm very sorry, with my experience I cannot possibly think that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest @Vanderwaalforces, I read your comment as an attempt to bully me into letting the Omoregie source slide and not interrogate it too thoroughly.
I know that you are a reliable and experienced editor, and in general I admire your work, so I was very surprised at your reaction. I do not think your intent was to silence me, but that is nevertheless how it came across. I can imagine that re-submitting the same article 3 times is frustrating, but it is my job as reviewer to critically examine your work. You certainly are not forced to be "overly lenient" or "actually listen" to me (within the bounds of WP policies), but I will still review this article as thoroughly and honestly as I can, and you can do what you like after that. Catjacket (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@Catjacket my sincere apologies. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Apology accepted! Catjacket (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I do not understand what you're angry about, unless it's simply having your work challenged. Like I said above, this is my first review, so if I'm putting these concerns in the wrong place, I'm open to feedback on that. I certainly did not intend to disrespect you - I wanted to review an article before sending in nominations of my own, and had worked on similar topics. I did not see the GAN2 while it was active. Now that it's closed, I thought it would be inappropriate to put my concerns there. If you're mad that I missed the last GA review, my bad. Perhaps you're suggesting that I should have waited for someone else to take up the review and then voiced my concerns? Or should I have put it on the talk page instead of opening a review?
But regardless of what you wish I had done instead of reviewing this article, it doesn't invalidate the concerns. If you nominated this article for a GA review, you should expect a thorough evaluation of the entire article and be open to constructive criticism. I'm not going to rubber stamp the article just because it's the third nomination, and I do not believe that the last GAN adequately reviewed Omoregie's credibility, as explained above. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
What books has Omoregie had published from non-Nareso publishers? The only one I found was a YA popular history about the 16th century, which I didn't think was super relevant. Otherwise it's Edo grammar and the like.
Thanks for fixing the pings. I should have also added @AirshipJungleman29 and @Reverosie. If y'all have any thoughts, please let me know. Catjacket (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@Catjacket I think I found some in sources, for example
Omoregie, Osaren "The Royal Guards of Great Benin: Fortunes of Isienmwenro People," Sunday Observer (Benin City/ Nigeria), February 9, 1997, pp.8-9.
Omoregie, O. S. B. Emotan and the Kings of Benin. London: Longman Group Limited, 1972. [8]
https://search.worldcat.org/title/23236265
https://search.worldcat.org/title/18629952 This one was, as a matter of fact, used for teaching in schools/colleges in Edo
https://search.worldcat.org/title/40850308
Idia: Mother of Oba Esigie also appears to be published by Thomas Nelson
Omoregie, O.S.B. 1987. The theocratic monarch of Uhe. Weekend Voice, issue of 18–20 September, Benin City.
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I've been quite busy so I haven't had much chance to edit as of late, I appreciate the ping.
Firstly, I don't see any issue with questioning the validity of a source on a new GA review, the previous one had obviously closed. I'm drawn what you said here.
There are plenty of RS's on the history of Benin. There are few for the history of Igodomigodo, but the guidelines are clear that we should delete the article if the only alternative is to rely on non-RS. I'm not saying we should delete this article, there is plenty of good info here. But can an article that relies so heavily on a source with so many questions be a GA? I'm skeptical.
This was presicely the question I was asking myself reading through the Ogiso articles.
On the Ogiso era, Joseph Nevadosky had this to say.
the Ogiso Era is problematic. It is farther back in time. It is opaque. Most historians view the Ogiso Era as a system of autonomous chieftaincy villages to state organization on a scale of political evolution.Ogiso means "sky kings" - a name that should raise some cautionary red flags.
Boilerplate texts takes the Ogiso as a "First Dynasty." Though this is a hazy period in Benin history, which the late Bradbury [1,2] and some other scholars have dismissed as "mythical," 
Joseph Nevadosky's thoughts on Omoregie's credibility as a "historian"
The first example is Omorogie's [18,19] narratives compiled in Great Benin (1997-1999), and self-published separately beginning with The Age of Odionwere (600-900 AD) to The Age of Ogiso Foundation (900-1050 AD, The Age of Ogiso Reform (1050-1130 AD and The Age of Ikaladerhan (1130-1200 AD). Somewhere between mythic and make-believe recounting, there is no referencing, bibliography, source interviews, or historical methodology.
Omoregie initially said that he collected his information from the last surviving member of a guild of court recorders, the Ughoron. Before his death in 2015 Omoregie claimed his family was descended from the Ughoron and so he was exposed to the early history of Benin.
There is no oral or palace evidence for the existence of such a group. There is no family history of such an individual.
Omorogie claims that the stories are legitimate history, that is, historical fact. Some basic fact-checking reveals that Omoregie must have been a young boy when he collected this information, a remarkable feat that fits in somewhere between the genie in a lamp or a note in a bottle found on a beach at Carmel. It is a narrative conceit professed by a self-actuated savant.
The full article can be read here [[9]]
Omoregie's stories are fascinating to read, but can they be used a reliable source for actual history in the manner that these Wikipedia articles use them? To me that is an obvious no.
It's not lost on me that without him as a reliable source, these articles don't have the notability to exist individually (though largely single sourced articles are frowned upon anyway). The main issue to me is the way his work is being used as a legitimate recounting of history, when many historian as seen above, have discounted it. Sohvyan (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Good points. Nevadomsky also says this about Bondarenko which surprised me Dmitri Bondarenko, a Moscow-based social anthropologist in the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute for African Studies, takes the Ogiso stories at face value, employing them to develop an evolutionary scheme for the early political development and incipient state centralization of pre-dynastic Benin. While most scholars accept the Ogiso a necessary precondition to state formation, Bondarenko accepts as credible the list of pre- dynastic Ogiso, and for a reason: it works well with his Marxist reconstruction of evolutionary development. An elastic Marxist- aligned structure serves as an excellent framework for an evolutionary schema resting upon the extended Omoregie mytho- history boilerplate. In a plethora of essays and publications on the Ogiso era he offers a chronological litany of early rulers, each accorded sophisticated achievements that advance the political and social agenda in lock step with evolutionary state formation theory, an approach reminiscent not only of Marx but other 19th century evolutionists and current adherents. There is an extraordinary convergence of mythic history and historical Marxism in Bonderanko's [27-31] work, especially in his Pre-Imperial Benin (2001), A Popular History of Benin: The Rise and Fall of a Mighty Forest Kingdom [32], and Homoarchy: A Principle of Culture's Organization (2006).
I'd be sceptical of Bradbury, he's late colonial and African art history as a discipline even today is pretty backward. It's worth noting Nevadomsky also says Although it reminds one of the Arthurian Legends, Omorogie's narratives are taken seriously, and says that Igbafe and Bondarenko used his work. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I  believe the "taken seriously" requires the context so I'll drop the full quote
Although it reminds one of the Arthurian Legends, Omorogie's narratives are taken seriously. When the assertions are mythologies posed as historical facts that occurred in a "time long ago," the Edo public, like everyone else, relies on the authority of the teller. (The author has a doctorate degree in educational administration and served government in that capacity.) That such story telling is now be committed to print only exacerbates the problem of validity, and illumination, imposing a false sense of social and historical disambiguation.
The full quote is actually more damning, it is highlighting the further proliferation of unreliable accounts due to omoregie's work.
The reason bondarenko uses omoregie's list is clearly stated, they work well for his own purposes.
Bondarenko accepts as credible the list of pre- dynastic Ogiso, and for a reason: it works well with his Marxist reconstruction of evolutionary development.
Bondarenko himself says he simply has no choice because of how scant the sources are to begin with. In general he does not consider the account of this period reliable.
The evidence for the period separating the times of the two Benin dynasties, that of the ogiso and that of the oba, is extremely scanty and does not look trustworthy.
In fact we have to either operate with the sources which are in our disposal, or abandon trying to reconstruct an important episode of the Benin kingdom's history.
- Between the Ogiso and Oba Dynasties: An Interpretation of Interregnum in the Benin Kingdom (2004)
The time of the so-called “1st (Ogiso) Dynasty” − probably the early 10th − first half of 12th centuries, is one of the most mysterious pages of the Benin history. The sources on this period are not abundant. Furthermore, it is obvious that archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence, rather scarce, should be supplemented by an analysis of different records of the oral historical tradition, while it is well known that this kind of sources is not very much reliable. [..] For the Bini, all the Ogiso reigned in unmemorable times, before the Moon and the Sun appeared, prior to the social creation of the world 
- Ancient Benin: Where did the First Monarchs Come from? (2001)
We've already seen his quite damning quotes on how he distrusts post 70s local Edo historians, and even in his use of the Ogiso accounts for his own constructions, he still acknowledges the tales as mythical.
It wouldn't make sense to see bondarenko's analysis of sources he acknowledges as mythical, as a green flag to directly use those sources as historically accurate, the way this article does. Especially with all the direct criticism it has from other scholars.
As for Bradbury, I am very much in agreement that many colonial sources of African history are inadequate, and there is some of his work that I would dispute using other scholars, but I can't think of an account specific to this situation that would present his mythical view of the Ogiso period as untrustworthy. I know he collected a vast amount of traditions while exploring Edo communities. Sohvyan (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Sohvyan and @Kowal2701 for providing sources to flesh out the discussion. I figured y'all'd be helpful, but this exceeded my (high) expectations! I've read the Osadolor chapter, but unfortunately the Juniper Publishers website appears to be malfunctioning so I can't get Nevamdosky's full article. I will trust that the quotes are accurate and a fair summary.
Clearly this is a complex issue. While personally I agree that Omorogie's history should not be taken very seriously, ultimately I believe it would be WP:POV to exclude the Bini perspective entirely. This is particularly informed by Osadolor, who does a good job illustrating the issues with the popular history approach while also pointing out that it A/ does have some advantages, B/ is not always in opposition to professional historians, including on issues like whether Oduduwa = Ekaladerhan and C/ is widely accepted in Benin itself, including by the Oba and his court. We simply cannot claim to provide a comprehensive view of the history of Benin and Igodomigodo if we don't at least discuss the works that the Oba thinks are legit. Osadolor's conclusion pretty well sums it up:
 Since most of the local authors are informants to researchers and visiting scholars on Benin history and culture, the community establishes faith in the quality of their knowledge. Their views or rather their works, consciously or otherwise, begin to represent the community's view of their recorded tradition. Thus, local historiography has the capacity to enlarge the range of sources for Benin studies, and obviously form a good starting-point of historical inquiry even for academics in search of material for research and teaching. Although some of the works lack concern for problems of method - historical and epistemological - they are genuinely illuminating and exploratory and nourish a strong sense of local identity among Benin people.
TLDR: if the people of Benin think pop history authors like Omorogie are credible, then we can't just ignore them.
So, I think the path that might lead towards this article becoming a GA is this: the lead has a sentence describing some of the methodological issues and historiographical controversies surrounding the material, and then there is a thorough discussion of all of the above (Nevamdosky, Osadolor, Bondarenko, Akinola) in a separate Historiography section. All the Ogiso-related articles should contain a similar section, even if the articles don't cite Omorogie. I also think that we should not cite him for dates at all. Catjacket (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
That's a good solution imo. It might be a challenge to summarise all this neutrally in a couple sentences for the lead, but hopefully doable. Pinging Sohvyan and Vanderwaalforces for their thoughts Kowal2701 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
What bizarre timing for the juniper publishers website to go down, fortunately an internet archive backup was saved [10] so perhaps you can access this @Catjacket
I agree this is a decent compromise, but I think the sections highlighting the methodological/historiographical controversies should be a long as is needed, with disclaimers as to what sort of information is presented in the main body of an article (if omorogie's work is staying). Weighing a metric of evolving beliefs with reliability can become problematic, especially when it concerns events presented as historical facts.
This is been a fruitful exchange and I believe we can come to an agreement on any issues that arise. It was due to @Oramfe's submissions in some Ogiso related talk sections that I got to know some details of Omorogie's work, so I also trust his knowledge and thoughts on this topic if he has anything to add. Sohvyan (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I based my analysis off of Intricacies of a Great Past: A Survey of the Non-Academic Historiography of Benin in: A Place in the World (2002) by Osarhieme Osadolor. Of Akinola, it said (sorry for the quote farm, I tried collapsing these but to no avail) Akinola's criticism of the Benin local historians of the early 1970s has to be viewed in the context of his attempt, being a Yoruba historian, to 'demolish' Benin traditions. In his view, they sought 'to establish ... an unbroken link between the Ogiso era in Benin and that of the Obas while denying the seniority of Ife monarchy as well as the Benin dynasty's allegiance to it.' (Akinola 1976:29) However, Akinola himself left out facts which conflicted with his view. During his research, the Oba of Benin, Akenzua II, proved unwilling to speak to him. Akinola did not collect evidence from the palace and town chiefs. Rather he relied mainly on the works of Percy Amaury Talbot and other writings on Yo rub aland, and of course, extensively on Egharevba, as the evidence from these writings did not conflict with his thesis. Akinola spent time in Benin researching the subject but he may have discarded information from the most important informants, i.e. nobles and chiefs, because they contradicted his thesis or view. It seems, therefore, that Akinola's contribution to the debate on the origin of the Eweka dynasty is the use of historiog raphy in furtherance of cultural chauvinism-of which academic historiography is not free.
On Omoregie it said:
O. S. B. Omoregie published Idia: Mother qf Oba Esigie (l987b) in the Edo language, which is supplementary to Ozedo Six (1987 a) in the Edo language and Benin under the Ogiso Monarchy (1988). Omoregie's Ozedo Six deals with Benin history from the early times through the Ogiso period before the Eweka dynasty. He traces the foundation of the first Period of the Ogiso era to A.D. 600, although socio political institutions were already evolving as a result of social move ments that required concert and continuity of action over a considerable period of time. Ubini, the 'land of inexhaustible resources' (ehe ne emwi i na vbe), attracted the settlement of 31 communities (,wards', idun mwun) in the proper sense within metropolitan Benin before the begin ning of the Eweka dynasty (Omoregie 1987a:l). Omoregie's work shows that Benin did not have its origin in Egypt. Rather the found ing of Benin responded to local geographical factors and the socio economic culture of the people. Contacts \vith other cultures stimulated the process of state formation. O. S. B. Omoregie is not a profes sionally trained historian. He was educated at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, where he earned a Bachelor's degree in history, and in Toronto, Canada, where he received the M.A. and the Ph.D in educational planning. Although he worked briefly as a history teacher, he made a career in the public service as Chief Inspector of Education, and as educational planner in Benin City and Lagos till 1987. After retirement he founded the School of Edo Education, Benin City, in 1988. He is the author of some 31 books on subjects ranging from local history to poems, language, literature and education. Omoregie seems to have been influenced by Jacob Egharevba with whom he had worked as research assistant. Being members of the educated elite of Benin themselves, he and Aisien had much local credibility as regards their knmvledge of the controversial aspects of Benin history.
and
The history of local historiography in the 1990s began with the publication of O. S. B. Omoregie's The Trials rif Ogiso Owodo (1990). The book is a historical play featuring the events which led to the fall of the Ogiso monarchy in Benin during the twelfth century A.D. It dramatizes how, with a mix of political ineptitude, domestic envy and bewildering credulity, Owodo, the last of the 31 Ogiso rulers, found himself in a chain of trials which ended his reign with murderous acts, terminating the royal succession line, and leading to his depo sition, banishment and subsequent death. The play fairly accurately follows the events as known from historical narratives. To dramatize such a major historical event demands a painstaking reconstruction of the epoch as well as an exercise in imaginative thinking. Omoregie's earlier book, Benin under the Ogiso Monarchy (1988) has provided the textual basis for the literary plot of The Trials qf Ogiso Owodo. The play, focusing on the events that led to the fall of Ogiso dynasty, tried to determine the motives of the actors at the time. To account for human actions, even in the present day, is hazardous. For the historian to make statements about the actors and the rea soning and inner prompting behind those actions, can plunge him into the deepest of deep water (Smith 1978:7). However, Omoregie's historical play demonstrates that work on local history does not stop with writing and publishing, but extends into dramatic productions, performed in schools and theatres.
and
Generally speaking, the non-academic local historians of Benin embarked on ambitious ventures to improve the understanding of the past and present of their society. They defended their views in debates on Benin history vis-a-vis ivory-towered academic historians. However, this was an ambivalent relationship. On the one hand, academic historians working on Benin had to rely on the works of local authors because some of them had impressive collections of historical materials. On the other hand, local authors have to admit the weakness of their kind of historiography. Yet, they are very com mitted. They virtually finance their publications themselves. Jacob Egharevba established his own printing press. O. S. B. Omoregie set up Neraso Publishers Limited, while Ekhaguosa Aisien had Aisien Publishers. Aghama Omoruyi established Cultural Publications and Daniel N. Oronsaye published his book himself.
Ultimately I think the crux of this whole debacle is tensions between local conceptions of history and Western ones. It's a grey area, but maybe he ought to be placed in the same camp as Eghargevba, Johnson, Ntara etc. as recorders of tradition, his obituary says Born in the Ogbesọn village, Omoregie claimed his family was descended from the Oghọrọn guild (the record keepers of the Ogisos, the first kings of Benin), and thus he was exposed to the stories of the Ogisos. Using these very stories, he reconstructed the Ogiso period of Benin history in his magnum opus, “Benin under the Ogiso Monarchs: Foundations of Benin Civilization” which was advertised as a forthcoming in the 1980s by Heinemann Educational Publication Nigeria Limited, the book remained stillborn. Undaunted, Omoregie self-published the work in 1999 under his Neraso Publishers imprint. The book, Great Benin, comprises five thematic volumes: The Age of Iso Norhọ (850 BC–600 AD), The Age of Odionwere (600–900 AD), The Age of Ogiso Foundation (900–1050 AD), The Age of Ogiso Reform (1050–1130 AD), and The Age of Ikaladerhan (1130–1200 AD). Though this had been a hazy period in Benin history, which the late Robert Bradbury and some other scholars dismissed as “mythical,” Omoregie’s tenacity in researching and documenting this period filled a major hiatus in Jacob Egharevba’s works. 
If still unconvinced, would attribution address the concerns?
Kowal2701 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! This is exactly the kind of content I was hoping exists, and can help determine the credibility of sources. I'll read it and check back in. But to your attribution suggestion, I don't think that's lacking rn. Maybe a historiography section that discusses the issues with sources would be better. Probably every article on Igodomigodo needs a similar section, at least until Omoregie's work gets incorporated into the widely accepted corpus of sources like Johnson has, for example. Catjacket (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
My impression is that the University of Benin's history department is a bit of an insular 'walled garden' similar to Molefi Kete Asante's Temple University group (members listed here). How we navigate this idk Kowal2701 (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@Catjacket: Thank you all for above, I have been able to summarise the above and come up with a Sources section. Kindly take a look. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I proposed that a section with a disclaimer about the work should be as long as it needs to be, but I had assumed a good faith interpretation of what was discussed would be applied. What has been posted is quite an obfuscatory and largely irrelevant wall of text.
The main topic raised by Catjacket was questioning the reliability of Omorogie's work, not the impact of Omorogie's work. This is the crucial matter seeing as Vanderwaalforces is using his stories directly as a historical account on wikipedia. Not only does this new section fail to highlight the unreliability of Omorogie's work that we reached consensus on, it includes so much additional bloat and misdirection. It defeats the entire purpose of the article.
This article is about Owodo, not Omorogie. Omorogie is only relevant in so far as his reliability (as the source used), is discussed. Otherwise the article should not exist by wikipedia standards. Additionally this makes the subtitle of the new wall of text very bizzare. "Sources" as a title here does not explain anything and it reads like an attempt to cover up the fact that the narrative of the text is primarily sourced from Omorogie.
I'm appalled by the interpretations of what was discussed. Just to highlight some of the absurd obfuscation at play;
"Joseph Nevadomsky examines Omoregie's accounts in the context of how myths can become accepted as historical fact."
No you just made that up. This is not the context of Joseph Nevadomsky's examination. It is Omorogie himself who presents his work as historical fact to the public, which (more importantly) is dismissed by scholars. This ommission of scholars and Nevadomsky himself rejecting that is very obfuscatory.  Historical fact is based on scholarly consensus, and scholars interpreted the Ogiso era as mythical and unreliable as shown in the discussions (including bondarenko who used them).
Joseph Nevadomsky's relevance to Omorogie in this article is in whether or not he finds him a reliable historical source, which he does not.
"Joseph Nevadomsky [...] characterises Omoregie's account as that of a "self-actuated savant"
Another obfuscatory phrase. The actual quote from him is  "It is a narrative conceit professed by a self-actuated savant", why would you leave out the actual criticism of Omorogie by Nevadomsky in that sentence and solely include that latter irrelevant part?
This is precisely why I said weighing beliefs with reliability is problematic. The impact of Omorogie's work is something that should be discussed in an article about Omorogie, not individual Ogiso articles.
The only thing needed in a section of this Owodo article would be;
- Scholar's views (bradbury, nevadomsky, bondarenko etc) on the Ogiso era as myth, rather than historic fact.
- Scholar's views of Omorogie's reliability as a historian.
- Disclaimer of Omorogie being the main source for the body.
Otherwise, since it has already been shown that Omorogie's work isn't anywhere near the standards of RS, the articles should not exist.
Reliability of sources was the primary bone of contention. Sohvyan (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with @Sohvyan, at least on the overall assessment of the section. This article does not need a full discussion on Omorogie's process and sources (although making a standalone article for him would be a good idea). It needs an acknowledgment that much of the content coming from Omorogie, is considered somewhere between highly tenuous and outright junk by certain other scholars. @Vanderwaalforces IMO your section doesn't fairly summarize the discusison we've had here. You appear to have selected only the least damning quotes from Nevadomsky, for example.
The section should acknowledge that Omorogie is the only source for much of the detail on Owodo's life, discuss Nevadomsky, Akinola, and Bondarenko's objections to his work, and then discuss its acceptance and importance in Benin, with Osadolor as the main source. There are actual arguments to be made on both sides, and they should be clear. Maybe @Vanderwaalforces could write the pro-Omorogie section and @Sohvyan write the anti? 2-3 sentences each should be enough.
On a separate note, having a 'Sources' section at the beginning and a 'Historiography' section at the end seems repetitive. I would recommend that the historiographical portions of that last section (about scholars debating whether Ikaladerhan = Oduduwa etc.) be added to the section that discusses Omorogie's reliability, and 'Legacy' be a different section. Also, don't forget to add a sentence in the lead about the reliability debate, so that anyone skimming through the article can be aware. Catjacket (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Catjacket Ah I see, is there a source from here that I didn’t use? I am exhausted. So @Sohvyan can you please use those sources and sort of rework the section please as Catjacket proposed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
How about:
Much of the history of the Ogiso has been reconstructed and self-published by Osarẹn Ọmọregie, a former history teacher and government official, reportedly using oral traditions. Anthropologist Joseph Nevadomsky strongly criticises Omoregie's work as "somewhere in between mythic and make-believe", saying that there is "no referencing, bibliography, source interviews, or historical methodology". He also says that Omoregie's claim to have obtained this information from the last surviving member of the Ughoron (supposedly the Ogiso's court historians), and his later claim of descent from the Ughoron, as "narrative conceit professed by a self-actuated savant". Likewise, several scholars have dismissed the Ogiso era as mythical.  Nevertheless, historians such as Dmitri Bondarenko and Philip Igbafe have utilised Omoregie's work, and it has gained acceptance and popularity in Bini society, with Osarhieme Osadolor saying it fosters "a strong sense of local identity among Benin people".
Can someone add Bondarenko if he says anything generally about Omoregie's work/Ogiso era. Others such as Akinola appear to just be on the Ikaladerhan narrative? Wikipedia library isn't accessing Cambridge atm so I can't write the second paragraph on historiography of the Ikaladerhan narrative. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Good start, though I think there's some more information on the pro-Omorogie side in Osadolor about popular historians having access to lots of valuable documents. Reading just what you have above, I would conclude that the article is all junk and should be deleted. I also think Akinola should be included, because he's speaking to the validity of the whole group of popular scholars, not just the Ikaladerhan story. Catjacket (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I like Kowal’s version, and I would also reach the same conclusion reaeding it as you Catjacket. That said, I think that is just the result of the actual historic reliability of most ogiso works. To try to find a counter balance would be to invent legitimacy where there isn't any. To my knowledge there hasn't been any kind of hidden document that could show otherwise but I stand to be corrected.
I've been writing a second short summary, on matters concerning ekaladerhan and the historiography. Its taking a while because I'm trying to make it as compact and to the point as possible. Its looking to be shorter than kowal's paragraph, but once it's done I will post a highlighted breakdown here of the sources that went into it's creation. The breakdown will be very long but I'll do my best to make it easy to follow. I'm also working bondarenko into kowal's write up. Sohvyan (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I hear you @Sohvyan, but I think the key information here is Osadolor. He strikes a pretty good balance, explaining why people in Benin find Omorogie and his clique credible, and why their approach (their collections of documents, for example) has some real advantages. Again, I personally agree that they are not very credible, but as long as there is a well-sourced argument for their credibility I believe that they should be included. Wikipedia is biased enough against African sources and authors as it is. How much am I allowed to intervene directly in the article as the reviewer? Could I add a sentence or two myself? Either way, I'll wait to see your version.
I think the Elakaderhan thing is a great thing to have, but probably doesn't belong on this page. Maybe Igodomigodo, or even better a standalone page. Catjacket (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I think a little on Ikaladerhan narrative is due, partly because it’s most discussed in sources and also Owodo is a key player in the Ife-Benin stuff. I think as a reviewer it’s probably best to get input from VWF on substantial changes first, idk the norms though Kowal2701 (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@Catjacket I believe Osadolor's comments on Omoregie's stories giving "a strong sense of local identity" to Edo peoeple is actually enough reason for them to see it as "credible". It was Omoregie who published the first controversial story of Ekaladerhan going to Ife and turning into the already widely known Yoruba prince Oranmiyan:
"The present writer's attention was drawn to the first of these new traditions in 1970, a work under the title of 'Edo History' in typescript by a certain S. B. Omoregie. […] The Benin notables indeed had a prince from Ife in Yorubaland. But Omoregie identifies this prince with Ekaladerhan, the only son of Ogiso Owodo, who had been exiled to Ughoton on his father’s order. Ekaladerhan eventually fled from Ughoton and wandered into he forest until he came to Ife where he settled under the name Omonoyan."
Akinola - The Origin of the Eweka Dynasty of Benin: A Study in the Use and Abuse of Oral Traditions(1976). p21
The goal, as Bondarenko pointed out, being to establish an exceptional antiquity for the Edo people.
This recent tendency to try to "nativize" traditions is not new and has been observed by other scholars. Bradbury who documented certain rites that pointed to the Yoruba origin of the Benin monarchy noted:
source quote
“Up to recent times, in an annual rite, the Oba’s cheeks were imprinted, in chalk, with Yoruba tribal marks, which were then erased, at the sacrifice of a cow."
"All these symbolize the acceptance of an alien form of kingship and its moulding to the forms of an already existing culture."
"This Edo attitude to Ife origins as in contrast with that found in the great Yoruba kingdoms where pride in the Ife derivation of the kingship is not, so far as I know, tempered by the desire to assert a separate and more fundamental cultural self-sufficiency."
R. E. Bradbury - Benin studies(1973). p8-9
This revisionary trend also appears earlier. Stefan Eisenhofer noted that even Egharevba made revisions of his own on the Ogiso, transposing the documented innovations of Oba Ewuare back in time onto Ogiso Ere.
source quote
"It seems then that in the 1950s Egharevba turned the Ogiso ruler Ere into an earlier mirror image of Ewuare by duplicating Eghoghomaghan and by the treating as equal ivory-carving and the existence of carpenters and woodcarving."
"In fact, in analyzing the different editions of the Short History, one gets the impression not only that the carver Eghoghomaghan was duplicated and retrojected, but also that Ere himself was nothing more than Oba Ewuare projected into the past."
"At this point we may safely say that ivory court carving was first ascribed to Ere in the 1950s as one facet of a mirror image of Ewuare. This is also indicated as well by the fact that Tong and Cordwell, who both worked in Benin and studied the Benin carvers in the early 1950s, speak of Ewuare as being the founder of the carvers guild of Benin, but have nothing to say about Ere."
"Taking Egharevba's data on Ewuare into account one may safely assume that the origins of ivory carving have only recently been backdated."
Stefan Eisenhofer - The Origins of the Benin Kingship in the Works of Jacob Egharevba(1995). p155-156
None of these things add to the credibility of the Ogiso stories, in fact they only increase their unreliability, but they do also speak to the motive for the modern revision of ancient traditions in Benin, as observed by Bondarenko.
Next, an analysis of Ekaladerhan is due since he, and theories around him, are mentioned in this article.
As shown below, in the first 2 times the story of Ekaladerhan is documented in history, there is zero mention of him leaving Ughoton following his banishment from Benin, nor any mention of him in relation to Ife.
Source quote - 1st recorded story of "Ekaladerhan".
"I used to be told in a vague way the tale of the foundation of Guatun (Ughoton) A son of a king named Caladesan (Ekaladerhan) was its founder. Either his mother as false, or else he was accused of attempting one of his father's wives. Anyhow, he fled from Benin, and after much wandering and some magic with a palm-tree and a turtle, took up his home at Guatun, where the turtle is sacred to this day, as it is also at Ilaro, to the west of Lagos Colony, and in many other places. Caladersan's town throve, and he defeated an army sent by the King of Benin. His independent sovereignty was allowed, but he was never to return to Benin."
Cyril Punch (1891)
That's it, no departure to Ife.
Source quote - 2nd recorded story of "Ekaladerhan" by Egharevba.
"the oracle declared that Ekaladerhan, the only son of the Ogiso, to be the cause, and that it was Ekaladerhan’s nature and destiny that prevented other children being born to the Ogiso, and he must therefore be killed or offered as a sacrifice to enable the Ogiso’s wives to have children. Esagho then induced all the other women in the harem to join with her to worry Ogiso daily to allow Ekaladerhan to be killed in order to open the way for them to have children. As a result of their united efforts, the Ogiso banished Ekaladerhan with his mother from the City instead of killing him, and Ekaladerhan eventually became the founder of the village of Ughoton (Gwatto) on the bank of a river after a long course of wandering in the forest. The day of Ekaladerhan’s banishment from the City of Benin is still remembered by the Benin people as it was very cool and there was neither rain nor sun. Any such day is called ‘Ede Ekaladerhan’ or Ekaladerhan’s day to this day."
"Three years after the banishment of Ekaladerhan, the Ogiso’s wives still remained barren and so the Ogiso sent two men and two women to consult the oracle-once more through the same diviner. The oracle declared Esagho to be the cause of the barrenness of the women and that she must be killed in order that the other wives of the Ogiso might have children. The diviner further stated that he had told the same thing to the woman whom the Ogiso sent for the same purpose three years before, that the senior wife of the Ogiso was the cause of the barrenness and not Ekaladerhan as she reported to the Ogiso."
"The people brought the news home to the Ogiso who, on hearing it, became very sad and lamented the banishment of his son and instantly ordered Esagho to be executed. After this, the Ogiso hastily despatched messengers to Ughoton to beg his son to return to the City with the messengers and overlook the treatment he had suffered."
"But Ekaladerhan, complying with the advice of an old woman there, refused to return. The Ogiso sent troops repeatedly to bring Ekaladerhan but Ekaladerhan dug pits into which the troops fell and perished. Consequently, the elders, who had intended to make Ekaladerhan Ogiso after the death of his father, now gave up the intention on account of the  soldiers he had killed in the pits. Although Esagho was killed, the Ogiso’s wives had thereafter no children. The last Ogiso was ultimately banished from the throne for maladministration and especially for the commission of kirikuvua, that is, for ordering the execution of a pregnant woman. He was, on this account, banished from the throne and took refuge at Ihimwirin, just outside Benin City, where he died very miserably."
Joseph Egharevba - A short history of Benin (1st (1936) - 4th (1968) edition)
Again, in both recordings of the earlier Ekaladerhan tradition, there is no departure of Ekaladerhan from Ughoton, nor any mention of him in Ife.
As both Bondarenko and Akinola point out, and as is evident from a simple observation of the older Benin traditions like those shown above, the new theories of Ekaladerhan later stumbling his way into Ife come from Omoregie's era of revisionists.
WP:WEIGHT requires that controversies regarding minority views be clearly identified and explained.
As per WP:GEVAL, my assessment of this tradition is that, when talking about the fate of Ekaladerhan, any reference to him becoming Oranmiyan or Oduduwa should be within a context that highlights the revisionist nature of that version of the story, along with the scholarly critiques that accompany it.
VWF uses a source from an obscure Edo historian that does not acknowledge the full context/origin of the story, and in doing so, creates a False balance in the article. This is what the source VWF uses says:
source quote
"Another version of this story has it that, although the Bini people sent a delegation to the King of Ile-ife, for a king, little did the Binis know that the Yoruba king was the same banished son of Ogiso Owodo, Ekaladerhan. According to this version, Ekaladerhan, the son that Owodo drove away, wandered in the forest for some time. When he got to the Yoruba town of Ile-Ife, he killed a wild animal that was disturbing the people of the town, As a mark of gratitude the people of Ile-Ife made him their King. Thus, it was to this (Bini) King of Ife that the people of Benin made their request.[...]
Oranmiyan arrived at Ugbeku, the then capital of Benin, with a large number of Yoruba chiefs and servants."
Isaac Imue Irabor - Benin: A Simple Historical Perspective (1996)
Osadolor accuses Akinola of chauvinism for his assessment of Omoregie & co, but he doesn't acknowledge that Akinola raises legitimate narrative conflicts. All Akinola does is observe and document the change over time in Benin tradition, that is; Oduduwa birthing the first Ogiso, being changed over time to the last Ogiso somehow birthing Oduduwa. I actually think he is very generous compared to critiques from Nevadomsky. Osadolor interpreting those observations as him trying to 'demolish' Benin traditions, is more revealing of his own motivations as a local Edo historian.
Bondarenko, nevertheless, gives the full context for the origin of all involved viewpoints. In talking about the context of Ekaladerhan, the ethnicity of Oduduwa and Oranmiyan, the founding of Benin’s Oba dynasty, and the correlation of Yoruba/Edo tradition as captured by Benin rites, he says:
source quote
"among the common people the story of Ekaladerhan that ends with the Prince’s banishing from Benin and subsequent dethronement of his father, the last Ogiso Owodo, is known (and was recorded hundred years ago). There is no doubt that the apocryphal versions are not ancient and are not popular. Their authors are representatives of the nationalistally-minded part of the Bini intelligentsia who are seeking to ground the idea of an exceptional antiquity for their people."
Dimitri M. Bondarenko (2003) - Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty — Page 68
 “Generally speaking, there are no reasons to exclude that Oduduwa, and especially Oranmiyan, could be (and were [Stride and Ifeka 1971:310; Babayemi 1979; Smith 1988:81]) historical figures. If one proceeds from this premise (as the majority of historians do, explicitly or implicitly), it should be recognized that Oduduwa and Oranmniyan were no doubt Yoruba, outstanding members of the Ife royal dynasty.”
Dimitri M. Bondarenko (2003) - Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty — Page 71
 "In fact, the dramatization of a battle between Oranmiyan and the enemies trying to prevent him from entering Benin City, forms a part of the Oba inthronization rites”
Dimitri M. Bondarenko (2003) - Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty — Page 79
Bondarenko highlights many other points such as the Benin to Ife burial rites and the overwhelming consensus of scholars who agree with the earlier Benin traditions about the Yoruba foundation of the dynasty. Its these considerations along with other points raised in this discussion, that informed the following Summaries;
The first summary is an edit of Kowal2701's summary, its an introduction for contents that concern the Ogiso as sourced from Omoregie's era.
The second summary concerns elucidating the context of any article that mentions Ekaladerhan.
Summary 1 - On the credibility of Omoregie and the Ogiso as myth.
The Ogiso once occupied the immemorial position of pure myth and legend. A historical account of the Ogiso has been reconstructed and self-published by Osarẹn Ọmọregie, a former history teacher and government official, who reportedly obtained oral traditions from the last surviving member of the Ughoron (supposedly the Ogiso's court historians). Anthropologist Joseph Nevadomsky strongly criticised Omoregie's work as "somewhere in between mythic and make-believe", saying that there is "no referencing, bibliography, source interviews, or historical methodology". On the Ughoron, he added that there is no oral evidence, palace evidence, nor family history of them, describing Omoregie's later claim of descent from the Ughoron, as "narrative conceit professed by a self-actuated savant". Dmitri Bondarenko, pointing out a scarcity of sources on the Ogiso, has cited Omoregie, as has a few other scholars. Nevadomsky highlighting this, cautions against the creation of orthodoxy from imaginative fiction. The work of Omoregie has also gained some acceptance and popularity in Bini society, with Osarhieme Osadolor saying it fosters "a strong sense of local identity" among the Edo people.
The information on Ogiso Owodo in this article is largely sourced from the work of Osarẹn Ọmọregie.
Summary 2 - Fate of Ekaladerhan and the distortion of oral tradition.
"Rigorous historiography and early traditions showed that the Benin institution of kingship was founded by a foreign Yoruba prince, Oranmiyan, and his group of followers from Ile-Ife. Anthropologists have noted that in contrast to other Yoruba kingdoms that take pride in an Ife kingship origin, the Edo population as of late prefer to temper such origins with culturally self sufficient traditions. Some newly revised traditions narrate that Ikaladerhan, who was formerly thought to have perished at Ughoton, instead, left Ughoton and found his way to Ile-Ife, where he eventually became known as either Oranmiyan in some accounts, or Oduduwa, King of Ife. These claims of an Edo origin for both the Benin and Ife kingships, have come under severe scrutiny, Bondarenko described them as unpopular, inauthentic works from the Bini-intelligentsia who are seeking to ground an exceptional antiquity for their people in Nigeria."
I've replaced the relevant text with these in the article, and I think with relative adjustments they can be applied elsewhere if necessary. Despite what I think are positive changes to the accuracy, I'm still not sure on the article as a whole, mainly the factual tone of the story elements related from Omoregie.  @Catjacket, @Kowal2701, @Vanderwaalforces, Your thoughts? Sohvyan (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Reads a bit slanted but a good start. If we’re going to include Akinola it needs attribution and Osadolor's response included (we shouldn’t be analysing a source's content, that’s OR). WP:WIKIVOICE says we aim to describe disputes, not partake in them, while the anti-Ikaladerhan side should be given much more weight, AFAICT there are enough professional historians pro-Ikaladerhan, who we can’t discard. I also don’t think we should present POVs in scholarship through a negative paradigm, they ought to stand on their own and beside other POVs, weighted according to preponderance in RS. Imo the rest of the article just needs more attribution, having the first section and a sentence in the lead on this seems sufficient Kowal2701 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm having computer issues and can't be as responsive as I'd like to be rn, but in general I agree with @Kowal2701. @Sohvyan you have produced a very good description of the anti-Omorogie position, but "fostering a strong sense of local identity" is not a complete summary of the pro-Omorogie side, or even a complete summary of what Osadolor says on the topic. @Kowal2701 please make the changes you were talking about. I'm going to put the review on hold until I'm in a position to be more engaged, I'm very sorry about this, but please continue the discussion. If you guys can come to a consensus on the section I am not going to overrule you, outside of making small phrasing or grammar tweaks. I will be as engaged as I can considering my hardware issues. Catjacket (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I did not include Akinola's comment of Omoregie & co's work being "amateurish", because while this is pointed out in more detail by Nevadomsky (on Omoregie), I was more so focused on his observation of the Ekaladerhan tradition. I've added the attribution to Akinola and Bradbury, and a direct quote from bondarenko, but I'm not sure exactly where to include Osadolor's "response", or even what to include, because from what I can tell Osadolor doesn't actually engage with the dispute concerning Ekaladerhan, but if you can find that and also his points concerning a more "pro-Omoregie" position for why his Ogiso works can be better seen as credible as @Catjacket pointed out, please add it Kowal. In terms of "pro-ikaladerhan" I'm assuming you mean a scholar who compares the previous tradition with the new one and makes a point for why the new one is more valid? In which case I can't think of any such scholar.
Also this just occurred to me, is it sensible for a "picture of Ekaladerhan" to be what is used for an article about Owodo? Sohvyan (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Let's not get lost in the Ekaladerhan issue - there should be a separate page on him that describes that debate in detail. All we need here is a general discussion of the reliability of the sources used for Owodo's life. The Ekaladerhan issue should be mentioned, but not explained in full. Catjacket (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
I did an edit, lmk what you think (one ref needs to be converted to sfn). Also found this source by an American art historian which says that the Ikaladerhan narrative is found in Bradbury's archives dating to the 1950s. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701 Tysm Kowal, I will go ahead and fix the lead in this regard. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701 what's the page range you cited from in this work? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
pg 286 Going by Omoregie’s narrative, Oranmiyan is the direct descendant of Ogiso Owodo, (the last of the Ogiso dynasty),  hence, distancing him from the narrative and link with the Yoruba race.65 This perhaps is why most Benin scholars66 prefer his narrative to that of Jacob Egharevba Kowal2701 (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Great, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I have also fixed the lead now per the recent section added. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Kowal2701.
@Vanderwaalforces some of your later edits make the opening paragraphs too repetitive. I've made the disclaimer a shorter stand alone sentence in the lead, so it is more visible. I've also removed it from the next paragraph since it is explained there in greater detail anyway.
Overall I think the article looks better than it did at the time Catjacket raised the issues of reliability. To me, despite the disclaimer, Nevadomsky's point about unreliable works making facts harder to come by still ring true. One of the criteria for a Good Article is to "contain factually accurate and verifiable information", The historical and factual manner Omoregie's works are presented in are still problematic, but that's left to @Catjacket to judge.
My last issue is with the picture, I think it should only be used in an article dedicated to Ekaladerhan. Sohvyan (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
@Sohvyan You’ve don’t an amazing job, I must say. Tysm. For the picture, it is actually very ideal, especially as that’s Owodo’s son. I’ve also once added a picture depicting someone’s father in his own article because there was no depiction of the person. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome, however using a picture of someone's father to represent them is also wrong. There is no pictorial representation for the other Ogisos, I'm not sure why that would be different for Owodo. As @Catjacket pointed out, there should be a separate page for ekaladerhan which would have all his details.
@Kowal2701 I think the addition you made about the Ekaladerhan narrative belongs there too, not in the paragraph on Omoregie's reliability in relation to Owodo. Sohvyan (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I just made some small edits to improve clarity and grammar in a few areas. The only meaninful change I made was restoring the phrase that @Vanderwaalforces had at the end of the lead section, in a shortened version. @Sohvyan's version conveyed so little information as to be meaningless to the average reader IMO, but it can be workshopped if necessary. Just needs to say why the fact that much of the article derives from Omorogie is relevant.
Overall, however, I'm ready to give this article a pass on the GA Review. @Sohvyan has raised important points, but I think that GA status should not be limited to topics free from historigraphical dispute. Particularly considering the need to provide better coverage of African and oral history, we need to find ways to bring valid perspectives that are not well-represented in traditional academia into the process. This article (including the cooperative, well-researched, and mostly polite discussion we have had here) should be a model for how controversial sources like oral tradition can be extensively but critically used to make quality Wiki pages. I am also completely agnostic on the presence or absence of the photo of Ikaladerhan. Catjacket (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
@Catjacket I saw your edit! Thank you so much! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
My pleasure! Good work, and congrats on another GA. Let's keep the momentum going and make that Ikaladerhan article. Catjacket (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Points taken. I appreciate the willingness of everyone here to dig more deeply into the reliability of sources for a better grasp of the presented information. Sohvyan (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)