The Rendille speak a Somaloid language, while the Gabra, Sakuye and Gareeh have abandoned their original “Somaloid” language for Borana [104, 105]. There is also an overlap of clan names, rituals and beliefs among these historically “Somaloid” populations and a third set of populations speaking various Somali dialects[104, 105]. The putative center of origin of the eastern Cushitic speakers (including the eastern highland Cushitic speakers that are mostly found in Ethiopia) is in southern Ethiopia [106].
Speaking a similar language does not mean both groups are necessarily genetic. Although both groups have similar levels of T (I am assuming that this group is using "K2" as its name) the same can't be said about E1b1b1 let alone their mtdna. This was previously discussed on your talk page as well which I am sure you are well aware of. AcidSnow (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be featured on the related tab, ethnic groups do not have to be exact copies of each other. They just have to show strong affinities (genetic or linguistic). The Rendille are both genetically as well as linguistically related to Somalis, even more so than the Amhara who are already listed. Lastly, I believe the reason why you are so aggressively against the listing of the Rendille on the Somali page is mainly because of their more 'African' culture. You clearly have a bias and need to just accept science and move on.Wadaad (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The request for formal mediation concerning Anti-Hinduism, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
In this book it states that "Mogadishu was reorganized to house more than 50,000 newly arrived Italians" but than goes on to say that "Mogadishu had a population of about 30,000 Somalis and 20,000 Italians". I am not exactly sure which number is right. As of now, I believe that 50,000 Italians did arrive to Mogadishu, but only 20,000 stayed and the 30,000 went to other cites. Why do these number very so much? There's a lot of info on the Italians in Eritrea and constancy in the numbers of how many that lived there. But for Somalia, there prescence was documrented just no constancy in how many were there.
There are also 4,000 Italian immigrants according to Ethnologue currently living in Somalia,[1] but just before that it states that "all of the people from India and Italy have left".
The point of arrival is not necessarily the same as the place of settlement. The Villaggio Duca degli Abruzzi was another place that many of the Italian settlers later moved to, as was Genale. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more searching using specific terms and I have found some more numbers regarding these figure. Anyways, do you know how I can view the book? AcidSnow (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you can view the book. At any rate, Donati doesn't mention "meticci" nor do Poddar et al. discuss Mussolini's law vis-a-vis Italian Somaliland [2]. Italian also was not the main language used in higher education during the Somali Democratic Republic. In fact, to ensure and safeguard the primacy of the Somali language, the Supreme Revolutionary Council during its tenure officially prohibited the borrowing and usage of Italian and English terms. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Donati does mention how they were called "meticci" (see here) including how they were able to obtain Italian citizenship. As for "Poddar et al", who is that? If your referring to Michael B. Lentakis, he does mention it in that book because its the wrong link (my bad); his book on "Ethiopia: A View from Within" is the one I was referring to (see here). Other than how I gave you a wrong link I dont see why you removed the whole thing. AcidSnow (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did see Donati; it doesn't mention "meticci" nor does the closed link above. The other link also pointed to the wrong book. At any rate, the law that Lentakis alludes to pertains to Ethiopia, not Italian Somaliland or Eritrea. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late replay, Middayexpress. I have been quiet busy lately. Anyways, what exactly do you see for the Donati link since I have highlighted part of the sentence? If your unable to view the link, then read this; "meticcis" are clearly defined as people of Italian and Somali decent. As for the law, its true that Lentakis does mention Ethiopia, but why would he start discussing how it would effect the Italians in Somalia and Eritrea if it would not? In Roy Patemans Eritrea: Even the Stones are Burning, he clearly states that it was also implemented in Somaliland and Eritrea. AcidSnow (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly am I post to see? Most of the document discuss Somali Bantus and only mentions the Italians a few times. My bad on the "clearly defined", I meant that people of Somali and Italian decent were called "meticci". There's also a Somali word these which is "missoni" (or something like that), but I don't have the link at the moment to give. Anyways, you did not give a response to the other part of my previous reply. AcidSnow (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did reply to that as well. "Meticci" refers to mixed individuals in general, not just those of Somali and Italian ancestry. It is the Italian equivalent of the French "métis" (see métis). For the rest, please see the very bottom of the aforementioned page for the system used in Italian Somaliland. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Meticci" refers to...", yes I know now. I have already corrected myself. As for the page your previously mentioned, I repeat its all about Bantus. Is there something wrong with the sources I have provided? AcidSnow (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a problem. Since "meticci" refers to mixed individuals in general, there's no point in suggesting that it just referred to those of Somali and Italian ancestry. Also note that the bill Mussolini passed actually parallels the law that the Somali Republic's civilian government itself adopted upon independence ("any woman citizen who marries an alien loses her Somali citizenship if, by her marriage, she acquires her husband's citizenship"; see Paolo Contini (1969) [3]). As for the link, the page is not all about Bantus; see the footnote there on the official system in Italian Somaliland. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing, Rome is not Mogadishu's sister city (the link alludes to a novel/fiction). Almaty/Alma-Ata and Istanbul are its actual sister cities. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"just referred to ...", yes I believe we have already established that. I have provided you with other links that dont suggest it is an exclusive term. There's even "misioni" in Somali which exclusively refers to these types of people, though I dont remember were I found it. "the bill Mussolini passed....", so why can't it be included in the article? As for your page 323 in the link you gave me, it is all about Bantus. For the footnote, please see bellow:
"1 Rachel Swarns, "Africa's Lost Tribe Discovers American Way," New York Times (10 March 2003).
2 No reliable census figures exist on Somalia; population estimates by region and by clan and ethnic group are even more unreliable and subject to gross exaggeration for political purposes. The five percent figure suggested here is not derived from a census, but is only a "best guess" approximation based on the author's years of fieldwork in Somalia and the opinions of other long-time observers. If Somalia's total population is somewhere near seven million people - again a consensus figure accepted in most publications - then the 5% estimate offered here would amount to a total Bantu population of about 350,000. Given the concentrations of Bantu along the relatively densely populated Jubba and Shabelle river valleys, and the large Bantu populations which have arrived in Mogadishu and Kismayo as internally displaced persons, these figures seem reasonable, but should taken only for what they are - a best guess. Though demographics have obviously changed since the colonial era, a colonial census of Italian Somalia (which would obviously not have included the population of British Somaliland) in 1935 concluded that 6.2% of the population was "Negroid groups" a figure which is not far off the estimate given above. See Istitutocentrale di sta- tistica, VII censimento générale délia populazione V (Rome, 1935)"
"These types of people...". lol At any rate, there is no dedicated Somali word for "Somali-Italian" mixes. What I can tell you is that the Somali parent in such unions was very rarely from a noble clan because marriage is a very involved process among the upper caste groups wherein the entire extended family is involved. For the demographic system in use in Italian Somaliland, see the phrase above that begins "though demographics". Middayexpress (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Dervish Army, I have no Idea what happened to my link. I found it using my phone (forr some reason I am able to view more pages then one can using a computer), but when I linked it to my computer I became unable to view it. Here's a link for 15,000 in 1902 (page: 113) and 20,000 in 1903 (page: 127). As for the twin cities, my bad once again. AcidSnow (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first link says nothing about 15,000 troops in 1902 [5]. For its part, the second link says that "in 1903-04, one of the encounters against the Mullah was said to have consisted of 10,000 British troops accompanied by 15,000 allied Ethiopian troops, and that the Dervish force was 20,000 men, with 8,000 of them cavalry" [6]. That's 25,000 British/Ethiopian troops vs. 20,000 Dervish troops, quite different from what you wrote. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"quite different from what you wrote...", not at all since my refs do support what I have said.
This is about our other discussion which never ended: "the phrase above that begins "though demographics"", are you messing with me?!?!?! It clearly states "Negroid groups" which is a reference to Bantus -_-! As for the "dedicated Somali word", you better hope I dont find that link again because I would love to prove you wrong as of now. AcidSnow (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. lol If only 6% of the population in Italian Somaliland consisted of "Negroid groups" according to the colonial authorities, it obviously follows that the remaining 94% consisted of "non-Negroid groups". That is the territorial system I was referring to. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see the 15,000 soldier figure for 1902, but the link was incorrect [7]. The passage in full reads: "By the time our second expedition was launched in June 1902, his following was estimated at 15,000, of whom 12,000 were said to be mounted and 1500 armed with rifles. Against this, our Expeditionary Force consisted of some 2000 rifles, partly King's African Rifles, but principally locally-enlisted and locally-trained Somalis." Again, quite a different context here as well since it's not so much alluding to the Dervishes vs. the British, but rather the Dervishes vs. Somali colonial troops. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, Middayexpress, what's wrong with adding the discriminatory laws that had no affect on the Italians and Somalis and the mixed Italian Somalis?
I have found many books that stated that there was no racism towards the Somalis from the Italians despite Mussolinis attempt. AcidSnow (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather complex. Mussolini actually didn't have a single vision; he was idealogically amorphous. For instance, he once bragged that he would unite the Somali territories, including the occupied areas. So he regarded himself as a savior of sorts. Middayexpress (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a page about the Somali Resistance Movement or should all of this be included in the Somaliland Campaign? The page mostly discuses things that involved Britain and not Italy. AcidSnow (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow. The Somaliland Campaign is on the Dervish State's resistance movement in British Somaliland. There wasn't anything comparable to that two decade-long struggle in Italian Somaliland because the ruling Majeerteen Sultanate and Sultanate of Hobyo in the northeast were assured non-interference through treaties they had signed with Italy. Direct rule thus only occurred in central and southern Somalia, where there were no similar local polities in place. By consequence, the central/southern resistance struggle is largely covered on the Sheikh Hassan Barsane page. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily true since Hassans forces routinely fought the Italians in Italian Somaliland and so had other Somali resistance groups; which included the Sultans when they were told to step down. As for the Sheikh Hassan Barsane page, its poorly sourced (one source) and badly laid out. I will quickly fix the lay out shortly.
Direct rule indeed only occurred in the south, where there were no comparable sultanates in place ("Italian rule was direct except in the northern protectorates of Italian Somaliland, where treaties had been signed with the sultans: in the southern part the clans were forcibly subdued and colonized" [8]). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, these were not all under one movement, such as Dervish in the north, but they all had the same goal. Should we make a single article covering all of these and if there are major ones they will also obtain their own article? AcidSnow (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Majeerteen Sultanate's and Sultanate of Hobyo's colonial relations are already discussed on their respective pages. The southern struggle is covered on Sheikh Barsane's page. Middayexpress (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow. "Mongobay" is a personal website, not a reliable source. Both Somalis and Italians were also allowed to establish parties under the British military administration. The largest such party was obviously the SYL, not the HDM. The election database also doesn't claim that the HDM was the largest [9]; so insinuating that it was is undue and misleading. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Middayexpress. I never said that, throughout the paragraph I am talking about Italian supported parties not parties in general. You realize that I can read, right? As for "Mongobay", all the info they have is from the "Library of Congress", but I am unable to use them because they dont have permanent links. I will go and try to find a new link now. AcidSnow (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The HDM was not originally nationalistic like the SYL was. They were originally Pro-Italian rule, but would later change that to another 30 years of Italian rule; which is completely different from the SYL that wanted 0 more years. AcidSnow (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The HDM had a primarily Rahanweyn/Digil and Mirifle. It wasn't pro-Italian, though it did receive some Italian funding. The party actually in most points agreed with the SYL's platform, and became the opposition from the right [10]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow. The RfC finally expired, and an administrator erroneously closed it in favor of the page move when there was clearly no consensus for it (five votes for the proposal vs. five votes against it). Despite this, one of the accounts that supported the move has attempted to edit the list and here as well in that direction. I've left a detailed explanation of the situation here. Your input there would be appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a formal move review of the RfC. Your input there would be appreciated. Whatever the outcome, I'll start drafting a proposal for a long overdue, dedicated WP:RACES policy. The new policy will gather in one place all of the various existing policy clauses on "race", as well as several new clauses. I'll link you first to the draft sub-page so that you may edit it yourself as needed before I formally submit it for evaluation. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please have a look at the page itself [11]? There's an anonymous ip that's attempting to capitalize on the bad close, even now that the RfC is officially under review. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man, I have been really busy theses past few days. As for the ip, it is possible its the same guy from before. For your policy, there is not much I can add since I don't much on policy making, but judging how the discussion has gone so far it looks like its going in the right direction. Finally, as for the discussion on the list I have supported an "overturn". If you need anything dont hesitate to ask. AcidSnow (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. The move review ended; the closing admin indicated that there was "no consensus", meaning that there is no consensus on the original discussion itself ("No consensus. Both sides have made valid points about both the closure and the arguments in the original discussion itself"). Per WP:MR, this verdict can mean either essentially the same thing as "endorse close" or instead "relist". In this case, it clearly means "relist" since the admin explicitly recommended that we start a centralised discussion covering all such articles in order to sensibly conclude this issue ("I would suggest a centralised discussion that covers all those articles would be the best route of coming to a sensible conclusion on this issue"). However, I believe adoption of the WP:RACE guideline should first be prioritized, as that will greatly facilitate that centralised discussion. Your input there would be appreciated. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the anonymous ip has again reverted on the page despite the no-consensus close. He has also in the process violated 3RR. Could you please have a look? Best, Middayexpress (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow,
I saw your remark "wtf, most of these are not cities" on the revision history page of that article. I agree! Many are villages or not even populated places at all. I started a cleanup, maybe you could help. In fact, a large number of Somalia geography stubs contain serious errors and should be revised. I try to do so from time to time, but it's an uphill battle. Cheers, Loranchet (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow. I would fix the map, but I unfortunately don't at the moment have the right graphics software. The "Berbers" therein are the non-Semitic speaking Afro-Asiatic groups inhabiting Northeast Africa. Some were thus also found in Egypt/Sudan i.e. the Beja. At any rate, File:Somalia map states regions districts.png also needs fixing after the recent military offensives. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of suggestions for fixing the map. One is to bring it into an AutoCad 360 desktop for collaboration. You can screen capture one or more Google Map images with the information from the Periplus such as place names, degrees, distances to the next place. To cover the Red Sea and Somalia you might end up sandboxing 30 places as 5 or 10 maps depending on how zoomed in you wanted to get. Then when you have them all clipped and cropped to suit you would import them into an Autocad drawing on an underlay layer or layers, probably one for each screen capture and draw over them. You have to do that because Wikipedia doesn't consider screen captures your work. Eventually you end up with an outline of the Red Sea and Gulf with the place names the degrees and distances captioned with the relevant lines from the Periplus. Then you can copy clip or crop from that whatever close ups you need and put them into a series of linked articles on each place using quotes from teh Periplus that locate it, put in various references to the place from other historic sources and invite whomever you want to collaboratively edit the map in the AutoCad 360 desktop.142.0.102.234 (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, kenya wasn't called kenya in the 15th c. but the article mentions events there at this time. So why remove the history prior to the 15th c? There is obviously a lot of effort going into this whitewashing of Kenyan history. Sad but inevitable that Wikipedia is used in this way.86.168.238.55 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Middayexpress has agreed to me rolling back his edits, but there is still a section where you were the last editor. How do you feel about me removing it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Somali classified on Wikipedia as part of the Macro-Somali languages? Only one source that is listed says it is will other more will know sources put it in another branch from Rendille, Aweer, and Baiso. So why is it listed as that on the classification section. But the dialects of Somali go: Cushitic-> East-> Somali-> Dialect. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidSnow (talk • contribs) 04:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow. That's a good question. The parameters here seem to be between "Omo-Tana", and "Macro-Somali" as a subgrouping of that. In truth, "Omo-Tana" itself is likely not a valid linguistic grouping since it is tied to the southern-origin theory for Proto-Cushitic. This hypothesis was popularized by the anthropologist Herbert Lewis and historian E.R. Turton during the late 1960s i.e. by non-linguists. It stipulates that Proto-Cushitic differentiated in the vicinity of the Omo Valley and Lake Tana ("Omo-Tana"), prior to the entry of Bantu and Nilo-Saharan speakers into the region. The various major Cushitic proto-languages would then later have expanded from there, with the East, Central and North Cushitic languages moving northward into the Horn, and the South Cushitic languages moving further south into the Great Lakes. Since around the late 1990s, this southern-origin hypothesis has fallen into disfavour, as it contradicts and/or overlooks most other lines of evidence. Among the latter are the fact that most Cushitic sub-branches are today concentrated in the Horn (East, Central and North Cushitic), not south of it (only South Cushitic is); the Cushitic language that has retained the most archaic features is Beja/North Cushitic, which is spoken much farther north in the Sudan-Egypt border area; the earliest pastoral rock art in eastern Africa is not found in the southern Ethiopia/northern Kenya area, but instead in the northern Somalia/Djibouti/Eritrea area (e.g. at Laas Gaal and Dhambalin, which contain the earliest examples of domesticated sheep, camels and even horses; camels and horses are in fact still mainly restricted to the Horn and points further north); oral traditions on the oldest population movements of Cushitic speakers mainly assert northward-to-southward migrations; the Modern South Arabian languages have a Cushitic substratum, which suggests that Cushitic speakers once inhabited the area alongside Semitic speakers. The linguist Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi discusses some of the other reasons why the traditional northern point of origin of Cushitic is most probable (c.f. [12]). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response! Would the classifactions on wiki be changed or left alone? Also would the dialects of Somali which are Jiido, Dabarre, Garre and Tunni be considered their own language? I hard that in some cases they are but other times not. If it is then would its speakers be in their own Ethnic group?
Along with Maay, those tongues are actually all separate Cushitic languages. They have a different sentence structure and phonology from Somali. They also present similarities with Oromo that are not found in mainstream Somali. Chief among these is their lack of pharyngeal sounds, features which by contrast typify Somali. Abdullahi touches on this. This is why those languages are noted as separate Afro-Asiatic languages on their respective pages. The original speakers of those languages have largely been assimilated into the Rahanweyn (Digil and Mirifle) clan confederation, which is why those tongues are often referred to as Digil and Mirifle languages. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Garre, Jiddu, Maay, and Tunni are listed as languages/dialects under the category of "Somali". Are the speakers of these languages /dialects not ethnic Somalis? This kind of takes a big blow to how people say Somalis are untied linguistically etc. As god the Rendille people they are sometimes classifed as "Somaloid people" which makes no sense since their language is not closely related to Somali and are not even genticly related to Somalis. What do you make of this? Also what are the most related ethnic group to the Somalis, Midday? AcidSnow (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Daallo Airlines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
established in 1991 by Mohamed Ibrahim Yassin and Mohammed Ibrahim Yassin Olad in Djibouti,<ref>[http://www.daallo.com/timeline.aspx DAALLO Airline - Timeline</ref><ref>[http://www.daallo.com/
Hi AcidSnow. Thanks for this. Per the agreement here, can you help me standardize this template for Somaliland, Jubaland, and Somalia's other constituent federal states as well? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox was patterned after those on the Indian federal states (e.g. Kerala), which use the generic Template:Infobox state. A dedicated template for the Somali federal states as on the German federal states could indeed also work, though. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They look good so far; all that's left is Jubaland. This is somewhat offttopic but do you think federalism is working in Somalia? AcidSnow (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would really like to hear your opinion on it though. If you don't want to I understand, but could you state that though? AcidSnow (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sorta just did, no? Anyway, it seems a user prefers the country template for Somaliland, though it of course is legally an autonomous region of Somalia. It would appear that he wasn't aware of the agreement to standardize the state template aross all of the constituent federal states, so I linked him to it. If he still objects, we'll have to re-standardize the country template for Puntland so that all of the federal states use the same template again. We'll then have to code a standalone federal state template as on the German federal state temp. Middayexpress (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what these charts are saying? I tried to interpret it one my own but I was unable to do to the many charts shown. Is in one chart it states that the Amhara, Tigray, and even the Oromo have far more Semitic admixture then the Somalis and that Somalis also have more Nilo admixture then the rest? In another it zstates that somalis still have more Nilo admixture despite living farther away from them then the rest. Then there's one I see as more realistic with all ethnic groups having closely the same amount of admixture; though it still has outrages amounts of Nilo in all groups. Also why does it have Ethiopian Somalis as a diffrent group and what on earth is Ethiopic?!?! AcidSnow (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the researchers identified a new non-African autosomal DNA component. This non-African component is most common today among Afroasiatic-speaking populations in the Horn, especially ethnic Somalis. It represents the majority of ancestry in both the region's main Cushitic and Semitic speaking groups (Somali, Amhara, Oromo, Tigray, etc.). There's also some moderate secondary Sub-Saharan admixture. See Table 2 [14]; also have a look at Afroasiatic Urheimat. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the new one the "Etho-Somali" or the "Ethiopic"? Which map is most actuate for genetic make up? Also forgive me for my grammar I was in a rush. AcidSnow (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the abstract indicates, the Ethio-Somali component is a non-African component. This is based on actual divergence analysis, which indicates that the component is most closely related/least divergent from the Maghrebi non-African component (Table 4 [15]). It is estimated to have diverged from all other non-African ancestries at least 23,000 years ago. On this basis, the researchers suggest that the original Ethio-Somali carrying population(s) probably arrived in the pre-agricultural period from the Near East, having crossed over into the Nile Valley via the Sinai peninsula. The population then likely split into two branches, with one group heading westward toward the Maghreb and the other moving south into the Horn, introducing the Afroasiatic languages to both areas. The Ethio-Somali population would thereafter have encountered a local population carrying the Ethiopic African component. This Ethiopic population is today best represented by the Ari ironworkers, as can be seen on Table 2. By contrast, ethnic Somalis have the highest frequencies of the Ethio-Somali non-African component. Amhara, Tigray and other Habesha groups have around the same overall makeup as Somalis; however, they differ by having a bit less of the Ethio-Somali non-African component and in its place more of the Arabian non-African component. The presence of a Nilo-Saharan secondary African admixture element in turn serves as further confirmation that the Ethio-Somali non-African population indeed likely migrated down from in or near the Sinai. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that the Omotic are the Ethiopic since they have the highest percentage. This would also make since the Oromo had absorbed Omotic groups as well as other ethnic groups surrounding them which would explain their high percentage and why Somalis have the least. So map chart C-12 on page 4 is the most accurate representation of the region? If no, could you explain charts C-10-12? If yes, would this mean that Somalis are more Niloitic than Semitic? Thanks for clarifying so far.
Sorry, I just relooked at Table 2, does it not show Arabian and Eurasian admixture because its less than 5%? That's weird because other studies have stated that Somalis are 5% Arabian and 10% Eurasian. The percentage only add up to 86%, if we add the other study we get 101%. What do you think? AcidSnow (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, what it suggests is that a) Somalis, Amhara, Oromo, Tigray, etc. are descended from an Afro-Asiatic-speaking population that carried the Ethio-Somali non-African component, b) ethnic Somalis have the highest frequencies today of that component (probably due to isolation and endogamy), while Habesha have a bit less of it and instead more of the Arabian non-African component due to later periods of contact with Sabaeans/Himyarites, c) the Ethiopic and Nilo-Saharan secondary African admixture elements are basically clues as to where the Ethio-Somali non-African population migrated from and toward. Evidently, that dispersal area was in or near the Sinai like Hodgson et al. suggest. This supports their assertion that the Ethio-Somali non-African component was introduced from the Near East specifically via the Sinai rather than via the Bab el Mandeb. This is also supported by the widespread presence of the E1b1b haplogroup's V32 sub-clade in the Horn, a lineage that is believed to have originated in the southern Egypt area or thereabouts. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Send a message to this organization so they can put your last message at the beginning of the pdf! That was much easier to understand then the pdf itself. What do you think of the other group I mentioned about how Somalis have 5% Arabian and 10%? Are they wrong according to this one? AcidSnow (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea, actually. lol But seriously, these are just estimates. Some Somalis probably have more Arabian admixture, others less. The main thing to take away from all this is that most of the non-African affinities in Somalis, Amhara, Oromo, Tigray, etc. do not come from recent admixture with Arabs, Persians, Italians or other West Asian or European groups that Horn populations have had contact with over the years. They instead mainly come from their own Afroasiatic-speaking ancestors i.e. the Ethio-Somali population. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously it would not since it took thousands of years for these ethnicity to form and we are discussing ancestry from thousands of years, but people on the internet are to stupid to realize it. AcidSnow (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hagmann appears to believe that the Rer Bare (not to be confused with Reer Bari) are Bantu because of Braukämper's assertion that they are "Adonē". However, this pejorative was also reserved for Ari-type or Nilotic populations. Based on the preponderance of the latter populations in southern and western Ethiopia and the traditional absence of Bantus outside of southern Somalia, Mcclure and Bender's assertions seem most likely. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no edit war! I waited for anyone to show opposition, no one did! It's a fact that the Canaanites themselves aren't a distinct group, it's like saying Germanic peoples are a distinct group or that Slavic peoples are a distinct group, WRONG! They're a larger group made up of smaller groups who share a common ancestry. What do you mean wait for consensus? No one is showing opposition. I'll wait for 24 hours for anyone to show opposition, if no one will, will that count as a consensus? Guy355 (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was reading your discussion earlier with a another user and I saw him upject to it and revert you. I then saw how you changed it back so I stept in to slow things down so you guys could continue talking. If I am wrong you may go ahead and revert me. But seeing the disscusion again it seems that you still have not recived consensus from the other editors. AcidSnow (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what do you think if the Somali Sign Language? I am quiet shocked to belive that's its Kenyan. If anything I would have assumed it would have been independent, decedent from Italian (like all other African countries that have been colonized), or at least Arabic but Kenyan now that's shocking! AcidSnow (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, SSL isn't Italian or Kenyan. It was created by a deaf Somali gentleman, who grew up in Kenya and was educated in the Kenyan Sign Language. That's where the KSL influences come from. The system itself, however, is actually centered on Somali nationalism. Because SSL's creator shared the same language and culture with other deaf pupils in Somalia, the system is consequently also culturally appropriate. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These classifications are getting more outrageous every time I see them. Why on earth would someone classify Aweer as Somali if their using old source that have been disputed by current ones? There are many sources that state that it's far closer to Rendille then to Somali. These are also classified in a different sub group as well. Do you actually believe in this? AcidSnow (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's linguistically possible since the original Aweer speakers were related. However, the current speakers are not. They adopted the language from those original speakers; they likely spoke Khoisan languages prior to that. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? I think....what? Nevermind, I noticed that someone was changing all the classifications and I noticed that you might be supporting them so I wanted to see what you thought. AcidSnow (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Garre isn't Somali, though it's related to the language. Depending on region, the Garre themselves speak Garre, Standard Somali and/or Oromo. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I see. Do the "Garre" have a completely different ancestors and culture as well? Or is it just their ancestory? What about other Rahnweyns? Are they not "Somali", Middayexpress? Then what clans are ethnically Somali? What about those tiny clans such as the Yiber? I would really like it if you could answer all if these. AcidSnow (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rendille–Boni languages belonging to the Cushitic family. The languages are spoken in Kenya.[1] The sub-group, however, has been rejected by some in favor of grouping Aweer as a member of the Macro-Somali languages. It reported poses similarities to the Garre variation.[2]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Basbousa may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Revani (in Turkish) |accessdate=2014-07-18}}</ref>) and [[Greek language|Greek]] ραβανί and ρεβανί).
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ifat Sultanate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Yes, but that was just a sub group of the Italian Somalis. It was not the units that the British and French Somalis were organized in. AcidSnow (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you get rid of the LGBT rights in Somaliland page? Somaliland is a whole different country, according to them and to one or two other countries that recognize it. Beside, they have a whole different set of rules. Somalia gives up to three years in prison, Somaliland they will KILL people who are gay. Please reopen that page so I can add that info. Thanks.
Hi AcidSnow. Per the recommendation at DR, I have opened a new discussion here on the Hargeisa plane monument. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it often reported that Mogadishu was founded in 900? That makes very little sense especially since some also say it was founded by Arabs. The city is much older than that. During the the Abbasid Capalhite, they did have nominal control such as tax/zakat, but in the years 804-805 Mogadishu and other cites stoped and revolted. So how could this city have been founded after 900 let alone by Arabs? Even Arab sources say that in 685 that an army was sent to Mogadishu. As we can see the city is much older than that. AcidSnow (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars sometimes suggest this because they believe that the Mogadishu settlement was first established around the time of the founding of the Sultanate of Mogadishu by the Fakr ad-Din dynasty. These scholars are often not aware of the preceding, Periplus-era Sarapion city-state, over which the Sultanate of Mogadishu was later built. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would even appear that even before the Sultanate that the city was a clan federation (similar to that of Switzerland). AcidSnow (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is this central region? Are they combing the Galmudug region and the Himan and Heeb region to form one state? Could you also please explain Puntlands reason to oppose this? I have not looked up any news regarding Somalia these past few weeks do the increasing crisis. I just did and sadly they have reported that another lawmaker was killed. AcidSnow (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Middayexpress. Since your most likely going to move this discussion to my talk page I have decided to beat you to it by starting it here instead. Anyways, I would like to disscuse Maay and it's relationship with Standard Somali and Benadir. I know several individuals that can understand Maay very well. In fact, when I ask to rate their understanding it's usually ranges from 60~80% understanding. They state that they have difficultly with their pronunciation of words and sentence structure. As of now I would I consider it to be a dialect of Somali rather than a completely diffrent language. Several linguistics also agree with this and individuals as well. For example, this individual list Maay as a dialect of Somali but also as "Partially unintelligible" with Somali. At first it would make sense classifying it as such he gives Uzbek and Turkish as his examples when they full under two different branch of the Turkic language. What do you think he meant? Do you consider Maay a dialect? AcidSnow (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
since 99% of all tourists go to western parts of somaliland. somalia and somaliland tourism pages should not be mixed. somalia has no tourists to talk about. our somaliland government do not even allow tourists to go beyond berbera unless they hire SPU (special protection unit) soldier.
Theyuusuf143 (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ヰキプロジェクト琉球
はいさい, AcidSnow! I've noticed that you've contributed to the subject of Ryukyu. I invite you to join WikiProject Ryūkyū, AKA the Ryukyu task force, a collaborative effort to expand and deepen coverage of subjects pertaining to Ryukyuan geography, history, and culture. Here are a few links to pages to start you off:
It was not misuse, I was logged out. You seem to be mainly an expert on Somalia, so why are you calling another expert on Somalia? This has to do with Rastafari (not -ism) community in Ethiopia, and Ethiopia's undisputed and well known significance to the Rastafari movement being mentionable. Nothing to do with Somalia. Binghi Dad (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know but it is only the two of you enforcing your bias against mentioning Rastafari in a heavy-handed manner. A wider consensus about the significance of Rastafari should be sought at the relevant Wikiprojects, not "case closed" by only you two. Binghi Dad (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying no need for a wider consensus process, the two of you have just decided? Really? Saying you seriously can't find any source for Rastafari in Ethiopia and have to be spoonfed one is kind of dickish. Binghi Dad (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no more relevant and neutral page than the Ethiopia talk page itself. That said, your assertion that Rastafarians are a "significant" presence in Ethiopia is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you are opposed even to getting any consensus from there or letting them know, because you feel your opposition to including mention of Rastafari should settle the matter permanently? I'm not trying to accuse anyone, but that seems to be your stance, and you do seem vehemently opposed to the mention of Rastafari. Binghi Dad (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the lengths he went to ensuring these factual sentences were removed because he finds it unnotable, when all the wikipedias have included it as significant information - even the Amharic one. Binghi Dad (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, no lengths necessary. That Rastafarianism material was and is undue, original research, regardless of whether or not some user added that o/r to the Amharic wiki project (frequented, as it so happens, by the late User:Til Eulenspiegel). Now for the last time, I suggest you direct any further responses to the article's talk page; that's where the discussion began and can be seen by the general public. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your apparent, and extreme, bias against religious dissenters in Africa and elsewhere, I suggest you avoid deleting informational sources to create biased edits. It is indisputably established that the execution of religious dissenters is an integral component of the definition of sharia law in many places that apply it and use the term as a euphemism in Africa, and any mention of sharia law in the context of a political government, therefore suggests a high probability of execution of apostates and religious dissenters. To exclude this from the article would be equivalent to excluding WWII from the articles concerning the Hiroshima bombings. This is not original research, but merely the establishment of expository facts. Restore my sources. Astrohoundy (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I literally have no idea what your talking about since I have yet to do any of that. Anyways, your edits on Wikipedia regarding Islam are 100% original research which is not accepted here. Therefore, I strongly advise you to stop that or risk being topic banned. AcidSnow (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been socking, you just have something out against me trying to bully me. That's why you reported me for making you feel like you "lost" which is your insecurity not mine. I'm doing nothing wrong, leave me alone.
64.121.83.151 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? You even admired to being him. I am not bullying nor is anyone else. "Insecurity", is this coming from the guy with the baseless acuuasations? As anyone can see you are simply being disruptive. AcidSnow (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, what was the point of mentioning his clan. It really serves no propose to him. He is even tying to distance himself from clanism. Your working against him at this point. AcidSnow (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that could also be said for Ms. Hirsi Magan. Yet you didn't do the same for her. Fix that, then I'll know you're sincere about this. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, dude I did not see that let alone do I know who that is. I was on Mr. Farahs page and noticed that his clan was not mentioned. But I know from his promince that someone was going to claim him. So I removed it. AcidSnow (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You warned editors on the ISIS Talk page that Krish8 was a sock puppet and thank you for that. I see today most of those articles he listed in "#Change of sentence" have been included in a new entry in the ISIS article by a "Krishna39", who apparently joined Wikipedia earlier this month (see his Talk page) and this is his first contribution to any Wikipedia article. Do you think this is just an innocent coincidence? I ask since you seem to know something about Krish8's past activities! --P123ct1 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure it's him. His edits fit his ussual activities: Hindu history and Islamic related articles (specifically those regarding terrorism). He also uses the same edit summaries such as: "fix", "grammar correction", and "another ref". Anyways, if it isn't him we would have saw an unblock request on his account. But seeing how it is most likely is him I doubt we will. AcidSnow (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized that your talking about another user. It is most likely Khabboos as well. Seeing how he appears again the day after his ban. It also fits his ussual edit summaries as well. P123ct1 do you mind reverting the edits of the sock since that's the usual procedure? I am unable to do it for some reason. AcidSnow (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have let the admin on the ISIS page, Dougweller, know about this, and won't revert if you don't mind, as I don't want to lose my 1RR allowance! (The ISIS page has a 1RR restriction at the moment). --P123ct1 (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, regarding the comment on your supposed "misconduct", I would reply to this but I am not really sure how this work. I would state that my past year here I yet to see any misconduct from you. However, there has been numerous for that other user. But my response would just end up being a summary of yours an 26oos anyways. All I can really do to support you is endorse your reply I think? AcidSnow (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You'd post in the area under Dougweller, where the code instructs to endorse your own post (the top half is meant to remain unsigned). Note that the nature of the process is non-binding anyway; it's informal and cannot impose/enforce involuntary sanctions. It's meant to help reach voluntary agreements. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! I will assist you all I can. I am shocked seeing all that hate against you despite what you have done for this project. If you need anything just message me! AcidSnow (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to keep an eye on possible new socks for Krish8. StanTheMan87 is a new name that has been appearing recently on the ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages, and although his account only started on 6 August this year, I see from his user contributions that he has been extremely active in both areas you mentioned, terrorism in the Middle East and India/Pakistan. I am sure I remember seeing StanTheMan being raised somewhere as a sock of an account-holder whose name I cannot now remember but it began with "P". All this only struck me now as I had to leave him a note on his TP about an edit he had made. Is this innocent? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Could please contact me via this email: Awaleking@gmail.com
I've noticed that you know a good deal about the Horn's history and I'm starting to look into it all now and well... It would be nice to correspond with you and ask you for your sources and so on so I can learn more myself, I've learned a good deal already but I'd like to learn anything that you may know that I don't. Please do consider corresponding with me and just send me a simple email saying "Hi" or whatever. Thank you... Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... What do you know about the ancient structures in Somalia? The ruins of the old cities. I've seen images of some pre-Islamic sites and I've done some reading on them but I remember seeing on wiki here that they used "dry stone" for their building materials and that the middle ages saw a change in that Somalis began using other building materials. Is this true? And aren't structures like Mohammed Abdullah Hassan's forts dry stone in nature? Also if the did use dry stone and if there was such a change could please share some sources with me. I'm not at all doubting what I read on here, I'm just sort of compiling a bit of the region's history and need some sources otherwise my work will not be credible. Awale-Abdi (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jeberti people may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
'' ([[Tigrigna]]) also spelled as '''Jabarti''', '''Jaberti''', '''Jebarti''' and '''Djeberti''') are a [[Muslim]]<ref name="Trimingham">{{cite book| last = Trimingham| first = J| title = Islam in
Hi AcidSnow. Regarding this, you need to provide actual evidence such as difs. Also, it may actually be Theyuusuf143. You dealt with the accounts on the tourism page, so you're in a better position to determine if this is indeed the situation. Regards Middayexpress (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Gothic Serpent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rebel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I don't really see how heiring a Turkish group would help Somalis. Maybe they should make it so that 80% of the workers are Somalis? There should also be roles as to how long a Forgien worker can stay in Somalia. I don't think it's right for Kenyans to flood the capital and take away jobs from the Somalis. AcidSnow (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Kenyans are mainly manual labourers on short-term work permits (see here). At the recommendation of a liaison committee, the government is also presently renegotiating a number of its contracts to ensure more equitable terms, including with the Turkish Favori firm. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense since many nations have similar job protection quotas in place. The directive appears to apply to the Kenyan manual labourers, though. Al-Bayrak's contract is earmarked for around 20 years and it was just approved. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the Turkish people since they have contributed to Somali history for centuries. More importantly the vast majority of the income of the port will go to port as well. Which is completely diffrent from what was originally reported, which was that they "pocket" 45% of the income. It appears that they are only here to assist the Somalis. Though I can't say the same about the Kenyans. Their "presence" should be prevented so that they don't have any form of influence in Somalia, be it politically (annexation of Somali waters) or economically (like how the Chinese account for 20% of Malaysia but control 80% of the economy). The Somalis from Kenya and the other where they inhabited can freely work in Somalia. AcidSnow (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just manual Kenyan labourers on short-term work permits, not entrepreneurs. lol But yeah, I understand your point. The Turks, on the other hand, are here for the long haul. Al-Bayrak is contracted to modernize the seaport, and it has already completed the first part of the two-phase renovation. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the permits are for a few weeks/months; and yeah, it's unskilled labour for the most part. For their part, the Turkish firms are not only rehabilitating and constructing new infrastructure, they are also implementing train-the-trainer type programs for longterm development. That was why they built the cement yard in Mogadishu i.e. so that new buildings could be constructed more rapidly with materials made in the city itself. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I also read that they are also re doing historical buildings but I can't fine the article again. foreigner these. AcidSnow (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the editors made up this fake article about Bisexuality in the Middle East with no sources and without a neutral point of view. They have refused to add sources and will not delete it. In the first moderation of the conflict a bunch of others voted to keep it, despite that it's based on the one guy's opinion and that the ideas are overgeneralized. I put in a request to review it for deletion re-consideration. Please give assistance at [1] and [2]. Thanks.64.121.83.151 (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bladesmulti, please don't make PERSONALATTACKS against me; especially on my own talk page. I have never attempted to "whitewash" that page let alone anything else on Wikipedia. More importantly, you previously misssourced the book by stating that it can be found on pages 31-32. However, they were not (page 67). The other paragraph was not even sourced to begin with. This is entirely on your part and your fault that it was removed since your the one required to provide a citation and not another user. You did not even bother to fix the page numbers but still had plenty of time to make false accusations against me. AcidSnow (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just jumped a bit because you had written "don't falsify source", but you are correct that it was my fault. I would thank you for pointing wrong page number. Yes you are a nice editor. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"establishment of federal regional states in Somalia was a wrong decision that will create violence between the different clans, he added that federalism is meant for people with different races, ideologies and different interests"..... The Somalis, however, "“ Somalis people share religion, language and have one interest” [19]. Is it possible for it to be removed and returned to the pervious 18. Even better, why not he orginal 8 regions (few regions are domanited by one clan). Could this change if Abdikasim is reelected? AcidSnow (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoning the federal system for the previous unitary system will require national level dialogue, as it is a constitutional matter. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Anyways, we should make an infobox for Somalu clans since they are not ethnic if groups. Instead it should state "clan affiliation" and related to other Somali people. AcidSnow (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It says "ethnic groups" and the only ethnic group all Somali clans fall under is Somali. It's not like the Dir or Rahanweyn are their own ethnic groups. AcidSnow (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Somali federalism process should not mirror tribalism", stated President Hassan. This sadly does not seem to be the case. My reaction to hearing about the division of the Mudug region of Somalia. Bring Puntland back into the picture is a step in the right direction though. What do you think? Should I message you on my talk page instead of here from now on? You seem to like to move this stuf to my page which I don't mind. AcidSnow (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mudug was already partioned by agreement. The northern part was and is under Puntland's jurisdiction, while the south was and is under Galmudug's jurisdiction. All the Garowe bilateral agreement does is reaffirm this in light of the central state deal. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the constitution stipulates that the Federal Parliament is tasked with selecting the ultimate number and boundaries of the autonomous regional states. The signatories were also some of the very people who wrote the constitution. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Midday, but I am still lost. Does this mean that these regions (Lower/Upper Jubba, Shabelle, Hiran, etc) are gone and have become united regions? Or are they still there but have formed another administration bettween them and the Federal Goverment? AcidSnow (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lower Shabelle is already part of the South West State and the Jubbas are part of Jubaland. However, Hiran and Middle Shabelle may form a regional state. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this already, but are these regions still separate? Like will they have their own parliaments like they use too? Or is it one big assembly? AcidSnow (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Somali languages needs a clean up as it holds a "Macro-Somali veiw". It does not even mention how that's not the case. The Herbert Lewis/E.R. Turton "Omo-Tana" hypothesis is actually pretty dubious; it's contradicted by archaeology, genetics and historical tradition alike [21]. Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi discusses this in his work [22]. Though I don't agree with parts of his work, for example when it regards the diffrence bettween a language" and a "dialect". He oddly also considers Brawa, Merca, and even Mogadishu to be former "Swahili cities". He even believes that Mogadishu was a "tributary" of the Zanzibaris despite it never being so and under Geledi control. He also leaves out of they had to ask the Geledi when they wanted to visit the city. The most shocking is how he considers the Rahanweyn not to be Somali.[23] This is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing. AcidSnow (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abdullahi's Macro-Somali analysis is not directly related to his assumptions as to who controlled Mogadishu at the time; he discusses the dubious Omo-Tana theory elsewhere in his book. That said, Abdullahi's assertions on Mogadishu and the south in general are based on his assumption that the Azanians, who are described as having inhabited the southern coast in the Periplus, were a non-Afro-Asiatic population, unlike the "Berbers" of the north. However, the description in the Periplus itself of the Azanians as well as skeletal remains believed to belong to them suggest that they indeed were early Afro-Asiatic arrivals. They were likely gradually absorbed by the area's aboriginal Khoisan-like people i.e. the ancestors of the Eyle, as at Buur Heybe (see here [24]). With regard to the Rahanweyn, Abdullahi thinks that they were originally non-Somali speakers. This is based on his linguistic analysis of Jiddo, Tunni, etc., which suggests that these varieties aren't Somali dialects but instead closely related yet separate Cushitic languages. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it has nothing to do with Mogadiahu and other cities. Lol I was takin about other parts of his work. Though, as for the Azina, they are listed in Wiki has being from Kenya. In regards to the Rahanweyn, I read in one book that they were the first group of Somalis to have come down from the northern coast. This would explain why their variations of Somali is more distant from the rest of which migrated a bit after them. AcidSnow (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Regarding the Azanians, they inhabited a coastal stretch from southern Somalia down to ancient Rhapta. They were likely early Afro-Asiatic arrivals in the region (please see The Inhabitants of Azania here). Best, Middayexpress (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha someone added an Afrocentric view to the Azania article. 19:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi AcidSnow. Would you mind sharing your insight here on the Queen of Sheba? Could you also confirm there whether or not this link appears as malware on your computer? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind taking a look at this? It would be very helpful since I have never been here before. I am quite busy; which can be seen in my get few edits these past days, but I will try to be on tomorrow. Thanks. AcidSnow (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned. Anyways, there's no reason to have even brought the discussion there to begin with since it could have been easily resolved at the talk page. This is the same thing the admin stated. I don't see any point to responding to his personal attack and nonsense either since the real dispute has been solved. What do you think Middayexpress? Other than that thanks for the help! AcidSnow (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some sources that state that the city was "aligned" with the Caliphates. But in 805, Mogadishu and other Somalis stoped doing so and decalred a republic.[25] Shortly after a clan federation was formed in the city. It eventually lead to one clan being elected and this forming the Dynasty.[26] So basically, Sacropion -> Caliphate -Republic -> and then Sultanate. Though Sadly I can't find much the detaily explains this. What do you think about this Middayexpress? AcidSnow (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that during the year 694,[27] Islam had reached Mogadishu where the city was sending money to the Caliphates.[28] I am not sure if they intended to solely asked for tribute because the city had then became Muslim or if they intended to occupy the whole area. Anyways, after doing a bit more research, I have managed to found many more sources. However, many of these incorrectly state that Somalia is part of Zanji or that it is another Swahili city. It's also seems like Mogadishu's rebellion and the arrival of the Abbasid army in 805 (the begging of 9th century) explains the claim has to how Mogadishu was "founded" by non-Somali Arabs in the 9th century Middayexpress. AcidSnow (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe I already explained elsewhere, the Azanians alongside some Khoisan hunter-gatherers (the Eyle forebears) were the inhabitants of the southern coast during that period. The former were early Afro-Asiatic arrivals to the region, while the latter were the aboriginal peoples of the area [here]. On the other hand, Swahili culture is at its origin a Bantu culture, with some secondary Yemeni/Omani and Persian influences. So you are correct when you note that it definitely wasn't a Swahili area. The Swahili association only began in earnest later, during the early modern period via the Omani Sultanate of Zanzibar, and it was largely nominal even then. That said, the link is quite interesting. It indicates that the first Kharijite followers arrived in Mogadishu in 694, but doesn't appear to suggest that they were proselytizers. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (which dates from the start of the Common Era i.e. before the birth of Islam) indicates that there were already relations between the Horn and Near East/Gulf region, so this isn't a given. Additionally, Ibn Batutta indicated that the Sultan of Mogadishu at the time of his arrival in the 1300s was originally from the northern Barbara region. This in turn is consistent with I.M. Lewis' assertion, based on Al-Maqrizi, that the first Muslim polities in Benadir were established by rulers from the north. There's also architectural evidence supporting this (e.g. the buildings in Goan Bogame, which are identical in design to the later ones in Mogadishu's old districts). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol dude I am not talking about the Azania, the Swahili, and let alone the Khoisans. Anyways, is this "bad" information or "useful" information that can be added to the article? Sometimes I can never understand what mean. Us that the same for me? If Sultanate was established by Somalis then who are these "Emozeidi Arabs" Middayexpress? AcidSnow (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did mention the Swahili. Anyway, the Emozeidi Arabs are presumably the Fakr ad-Din dynasty. Even their lineage, however, is uncertain. For instance, the Sultan of Mogadishu in the 1300s had a Mahdali lineage, yet Batutta indicated that he was originally from the northern Barbara region and spoke both the local Somali dialect and Arabic fluently. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you said they didn't come as proselytizers? Anyways, regardless of what the objective was, 'the real question is did Syrians come to Mogaidiahu in 694 or some time around? If yes, we can see "the earliest known mention of Muslim in Mogaidishu is", then build off of that to lead to the sultanate. If not, then we can throw this link out. AcidSnow (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Somalia (1991–2006), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rebel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Well seeing how you moved my latest question here I have gone a asked my question here instead lol. Anyways, I thought Matt Bryden was removed as member of UN’s Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG) but he leaked some documents in July of 2014. Could you explain this to me Midday? AcidSnow (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow. Could you explain please how the Kharijites are related to the Sultanate's Fakr ad-Din dynasty? The latter ruling house was established in the 1200s, while the Kharijite date is ca. the late 600s. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't you what you mean. Are you talking about how Mogadishu was Muslim in the 600's? Anyways, I plan to make changes to Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi, such as updating his Rise to power and possibly a separate article discussing the Civil War/Criss in Adal. What do you think? AcidSnow (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is already touched on the Futuh al-Habash page. Regarding the Kharijites and 694 date, they are in your link. The Kharijites don't seem to have been proselytizers, though; they were also apparently few in number. I'm a bit uncertain as to what exactly is the claimed connection if any with the Sultanate of Mogadishu since the Fakr ad-Din dynasty established the kingdom much later, circa the late 1200s. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol my bad, my links do mention them (never saw because of my phone). But yes, now seeing it on my Desktop it does say that they were not here to convert but rather trade. They did in the end bring Islam to the city. As you can see, they don't appear to have any connection with the first dynasty. Though, they did cause the Somalis to align with the Caliphate. Does this answer your question? AcidSnow (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow. The government just published a new control map; it's dated October 14. The militants only control eight major towns now (two other minor ones have since been liberated), and the remaining areas are about to fall [29]. Could you please adjust our political wikimap accordingly? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, thanks. Could you also perhaps adjust the legend boxes on the map so that they simply read "Federal Government of Somalia", "Al-Shabaab", "Somaliland", "Somali majority territories [in small letters]", and "Other countries"? The "Unaligned or Neutral" box is fine [30]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be wrong. The traditional Somali area of inhabitation to the west and south of Somalia proper is the Somali Region and Northern Eastern Province. Please fix that as well, if possible. Thanks for the parliament link; I'll adjust the federal legislators shortly. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its done,. I was not sure as what to do with Dire Dawa since its 42% according to Wikipedia. As such, I left it out of the map.
An additional new area in Hiran, the Yooman locality, was just captured [31]. Other local areas are expected to be liberated as well, so the map will probably soon have to be adjusted accordingly. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please adjust the other areas on the map that have since been seized? They include Kudha Island, which IJA forces just captured [32]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a horse in the race, but I also don't care much for being called a sock, especially when my only involvement in the issue was to revert and block two actual sockpuppets. Please do be more careful about how you level accusations. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary made it appear so (since you reverted my edit). The socks I blocked were thesetwo, whose work you restored (and actually, if you look a bit deeper, Veritnight was simply reverting those socks, whose edits were originally inserted here, albeit in different form). Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds interesting. I thought you had graphics software, though? If so, try the tracing feature on it. By the way, I think you may be right about the Sultanate of Mogadishu being perhaps older than we realize. There are apparently old Himyarite inscriptions in Xamar; the toponym may actually derive from that [33]. The Periplus also notes a loose suzerainty there under the Himyarite and Sabaean King Charibael. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Somalia in a development group (the IGAD) with Kenya, Uganda, and South Sudan? Many of these types of international organizations are usually with countries that are culturally, ethnic, linguistic, or geographic related. However, Somalia posses none of those with Kenya, Uganda, and South Sudan? Due to this group there has been a massive error for the definition of the "Horn of Africa"; which even the African Union has made by including those random countries in it. If there's going to a change, then I would propose a much more political and economic group like an "Horn of Africa Union" or something similar. Sudan May join if it desires to due to its relations with the Horn of Africa. AcidSnow (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IGAD is basically a trading bloc focused on development. As such, it is similar to the larger COMESA (which by the way Somalia isn't a member of). The body was at its foundation known as the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD), so its mandate was clear. For administrative purposes, the organization's service area is sometimes described as being coextensive with the Horn. This is mainly due to the fact that IGAD is headquartered in Djibouti city, its current leader is Somali, and its overall policies closely follow those of the Ethiopian government. Horn populations also maintain a number of businesses abroad in the African Great Lakes region, and one way of ensuring that these commercial interests are protected is through development organizations like this one. Regarding a confederation of the actual Horn of Africa nations (Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia), one has already been proposed and the US State Department is behind it [34][35]. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. What do you think of the recent events in Somali politics, Midday? Honestly, I can't find anything wrong that the Prine did, however, I can't say the same for the President. Oddly enough, the term "no confidence" which is what they are calling the motion seems to suggest that there is clear corruption, seeing how the term means "not fully believing that anything went wrong" in this case. AcidSnow (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's over the cabinet reshuffle. Basically, the Prime Minister demoted some of the President's associates in the PDP party to less prominent ministerial positions. This was the same thing that the rift with the previous Premier was over, only he tried to sack the officials rather than reassign them to less important offices. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, even then he still has the power to do so as this is his cabinet and not the Preseidents. I have read many Somalia based articles that support the Prime Minister of which I to agree with. How about you or do not like talking about this stuff? Anyways, I have been working on Al-Ghazi these past few days and my own personal matters which is why I have done little. Do you mind giving me sources that disscuse his childhood? I have found a little but the are stil very interesting stuff. AcidSnow (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has the Italian language lost it's use in Somalia? Many Somali leaders have historically spoke Italian as one of their languages, such as the majority of Somali President, Prime Ministers, and Parliment Members. However, seeing how Hassan Sheikh Mohamud does speak Italian, let alone Arabic, it seems that English has become the preferred 3rd language amongst Somalis. There does not even seem to be Italian-based schools in major cities such as Bosaso, only "English, Arabic, and the Somali local language". There does seem to be, however, an attempt to revive the language in Somalia, such as the reoping of Italian only schools and most notably, the reintroduceing it in the Somali National University (though, it quite shocking how the school does not even have any of its course in Somali but only English). It is also used by the Somalis training in Italy as well. It also seems that the United Nations would prefer to hire someone that spoke Italian rather than English. What do you think of the role the Italian language plays in Somalia? Personally I think it should be required with Arabic in a fashion like this, Arabic: Elementary -> Middle Schhol and Italian: Highschool -> University. But the Somali language is used throught the education system. English can be asked later on if someone desires it. That being said, is school compulsory in Somalia? If not, a law should be approved asap regarding this! AcidSnow (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Italian is mainly spoken today by older professionals, particularly those educated in the south. Those who matriculated in the north or abroad are less likely to speak it. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it is a working language. Italian is still a working language to some extent, but obviously not on the same level as before. Perhaps it will be again someday, who knows? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow. A user tried to add the Faytinga file, although I explained to him that as a Nilotic Kunama individual, she is not representative of Eritrea's Afro-Asiatic majority. I also linked him to where this was explained to Vetrisimino0 [37]. I also suggested the Tigrinya singer Helen Meles as a more appropriate alternative. Can you please keep an eye on this? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Even if he does not recognize the pervious consensus, then he should at least recognize the current one. Since Vetrisimino0 is a confirmed sock his opinion means nothing now. So it's currently 2:1 at the moment. AcidSnow (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no been accused of being a racist. I understand not informing someone that they are edit waring since you can't disputed that they haven't, especially if they have, but not informing you about this is just plain shocking. How does one go from "one individual is unrepresentative of the country" to "I don't like her because I am a racist"?!? It seems very odd if you ask me. They also appears to accuse you of violating NPOV because they think your Tigrinya or any other "allied" group. Ironically, this completely contradicts you refusal to even mention the slightest thing regarding your ethnicity/race and how you have requested that I do the same. They also appear to plan to take it a notice board. AcidSnow (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but not really all that surprising. If you look at the page, the user is similarly aggressive throughout. I think there may also be a bit of a knowledge gap. The user appears to take umbrage at my assertion that Kunama traditions aren't representative of the nation's Afro-Asiatic majority. However, this is a given, since the NiloticKunama are not an Afro-Asiatic population to begin with; they are instead a Nilo-Saharan population. Ironically, one of the links just produced also indicates pretty much everything I did. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user tried to re-add the Faytinga file atop that of Meles despite a) the consensus for only one file and of Helen Meles at that, b) MOS' clause against file clutter, c) his own claim that he was indifferent to which of the two artists was on the page, and d) Huon's indication that ethnicity did not matter in the section but rather only representation of what's typical Eritrean music (he wrote that he was adding a "Kunama" individual, not Faytinga). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, on this article Arab slave trade I am having a problem with an ip editor. It is small but you know how these things go, when someone starts calling you names you bunker down and start shelling. The issue is Arab, or Muslim conquest, which is better. Your feedback would be appreciated. both positions can be argued for an the term is used interchangeable. I do however feed the ip is not actually worried about that and is inserting Islam for Islamophobic reasons not scholarship reasons. --Inayity (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously be "Arab slave trade" since both Arab Christian and Arab Jews were involved in this and not just the Muslims, Inayity. Even then this "Islamic conquest" wasn't entirely Muslim. This can be seen from how Spanish Jews allied themselves with the Muslims. AcidSnow (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you come across any ref that show the role of non-Muslims in the Arab conquest let me know. I tried looking but in my short search could not find anything. I know Jews were in the society in Spain, but ref to actual side-by-side in the Arab conquest.--Inayity (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have edited a line which stated East Africa, and changed it to Horn of Africa. You failed to provide a reason, and the edit you made is also wrong.
Please explain yourself.
You have edited a line that originally referred to Majerteen inhabitants. This was edited, without proper reason, to the term Bedouin.
You have reverted it, twice, to Bedouin, even when told by the original poster that the term Bedouin is misinformative. Rather, the correct term is nomad, and even more so, pastoralist. The town in question was never a nomadic stronghold in any case, being inhabited by part-time pastoralists, part-time fishermen/coastal dwellers. The term Bedouin is used perhaps once in the original work from 1872. That does not mean it is correct, or should be automatically included. Moreover, it was never included in the original post, for reasons explained. Bedouins are Arab nomads. If you are still confused, see the Bedouin article on Wiki.
It is inappropriate to bait blocked editors, as you did out here. I understand this might be an extremely isolated incident, that's why I'm not posting this comment on the edit warring noticeboard. I am sure you'll take this suggestion in good form. Thanks. WifioneMessage04:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern but it means "thank you my love" in Italian. I choose to respond softly instead of giving an angry response in an attempt to reason with him. Since he states that I lack education I choose to respond in Italian. Was it still wrong? Thank you in advance. AcidSnow (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was inappropriate and sounded sarcastic. I understand you did not mean it to be sarcastic, but that's how it sounds. So do take care. Thanks. WifioneMessage05:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had no intention of baiting him or for it to be inappropriate. I do see, however, how it can be taken as being sarcastic; which once again was not my goal. Realizing this I can see how it can come as being inappropriate. I apologize for this Wifione. AcidSnow (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Semitic people may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Caucasians]]) than to the Semitic-speakers of the Arabian peninsula, [[Ethiopian Semites]] ([[Amharic and Tigrean speakers), and the Arabic speakers of North Africa.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 =
Hey there, AcidSnow! A long time indeed. I'm not sure what that Sabra discussion is about; it's hard to follow. Can you please briefly summarize it here? From the looks of it, it appears to have been already resolved. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily Midday. The discussion has now become about his decision to make insults and other baseless accusations against me simply because he is showing me "how Wikipedia works". AcidSnow (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of Zanzibars claim to Somalia? I have found some new info on their claim that I think you would be interested in hearing. But I will show you after so I don't confuse you. If not, then showing you now is fine. AcidSnow (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Omani Sultanate of Zanzibar's claim to certain southern areas in Somalia during the 19th century was largely nominal. The Benadir region in the late 1800s, just prior to the establishment of Italian Somaliland, was ostensibly under the joint control of the Geledi Sultanate and the Zanzibar Sultan. However, on the ground, it was actually primarily controlled by the Geledi Sultans. The Omani Sultan thus first had to obtain permission from the Geledis before building the Fort of Garesa. The Sultanate of Hobyo and Majeerteen Sultanate controlled the areas to the northeast of that, and the Warsangali Sultanate controlled the areas to the northwest. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I believe other than that the only "influence" Zanzibar had was a seaside house and nothing more
However, after doing some digging I found some interesting stuff. It's hard for me to begin with this so I will list events that supposedly happened that lead up to this supposed "attack" on Mogadishu that I recently heard about:
In 1804: Somalis near Kismayo capture two British sailors and planned to enslave them. However, they are used as ransom and later released.[40] A group of shipwrecked Arabs are also sold I to slavery. They are released later on.
In 1823: In retaliation, Arabs supposedly kidnapped two Somali leaders from Mogadishu and hold them for ransom. Through British pressure they were released.[41]
In 1828: Zanzibar/Oman supposedly attacks Mogadishu. After this the event get ridiculous! Most of the books I found only mention Mogadishu being "attacked" and Somalis still refusing to listen. Said Samatar states otherwise and claims that "The city was bombarded into submission, a few heads of its ruling families were executed, and a few more were exiled to Zanzibar".
Sir Reginald Coupland goes on to claim that "The town had been bombarded, and, on its evacuation by its inhabitants, occupied and sacked by a landing-party. On the departure of the fleet, a letter of apology and submission had been sent to Muscat".[42]
The claim of the letter is contradicted by the events after:
In 1840: Zanizabar supposedly sends a "governor" to Mogadishu and other cities in southern Somalia.
In 1841: This "governor" is massacred along with other Zanzabairs by Somalis and the money is taken.[43]
In 1842: The ruling Imam died and the Geledi sent a 8,000 man army to stop the dispute.[44]
In 1843: The Zanzibaris send in another "governor", this time a Somali. However, he abandoned his post.
So I am not sure as to what happened at all during this period of history Midday.
I did, however, find one boom that claims that Mogadishu and other cities payed taxs: "In the 1860s, the situation was little changed. Brava supplied the Sultan with only 200 thalers annually, Mogadishu with 500-2,000 depending on the trade. Merca, on the other hand, reportedly yielded 3-5,000 thalers yearly to Majid's customs collector".[45] This is claimed by Lee V. Cassanelli. AcidSnow (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Samatar and Copeland are entirely mistaken here. It appears that both the Geledis and the Omani Zanzibaris ostensibly held sway over the local Mogadishu administration. Cassanelli's description of the exacted tribute thus seems accurate. However, the difference was that the Geledis' hegemony was more than nominal. Besides Benadir, they also controlled the entire riverine region, where their headquarters was located. The Zanzibaris' power was limited to sending envoys to collect tribute, though they had no significant presence on the ground. However, as you point out, even the demanded tribute was often ignored, culminating in the massacre of that one governor and his men. By the late 1860s, when Imam Azzan bin Qais of Oman sought to build the Fort of Garessa in the city, he was thus obligated to first ask permission from Sultan Ahmed Yusuf of Geledi. [46]. It is thus clear which of the two sultanates held the real power prior to the establishment of Italian Somaliland [47]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having a representative and calling them called a "governor" while getting killed means anything. In fact, when the Sultan asked to make a fort in 1876 they killed another representing LOL.[48] It also turns out that the Sultan never leased Mogadishu but rather his fort to Italy.[49] Anyways, What groups exactly formed the army of the Sultan of Zanzibar? It seems to be all Arab. Do you also know if the Sultans were Arabs or Swahilis? AcidSnow (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite interesting stuff there. With regard to the Sultans, they were originally Omani. As they intermarried over the years with local Bantu women on the Swahili Coast, a new, amalgamated Chotara identity emerged. However, as their culture was and is traditionally patrilineal, they were for all intents and purposes Omani. I'm not sure, but perhaps their forces were similarly composed. The various Zanzibari Sultans can be found on Sultans of Zanzibar. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well to understand the later we need to understand the before. Such s how Mogadishu was possibly allied with the Caliphate in the 800's. This will help use understand how a Somali became Sultan of Maldives. AcidSnow (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That can work. Were the 800s when the Kharijite proselytizers arrived? Another thing is that the urban area was built over the ancient Sarapion city-state; so that's perhaps the best place to start. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It's going to be hard to find things that clearly discussing the 000's let alone the time after up until the 600's. I will see what I can dig up. If you already know anything, then feel free to drop it down. Anywise, why are people taking stuff from Wikipedia? Honestly, if I knew people would start taking stuff and publishing them I would have shown up in 2001 lol. AcidSnow (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been drawn from the Mogadishu currency since the Sultans' names are minted on various such coins. I'm not sure if the minting began with Fakr ad-Din, though. He established the Sultanate of Mogadishu's founding dynasty, but possibly wasn't the first to mint the coins. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but how exactly do I look for this stuff? Most books regarding only give out partial areas to read or none at all. Anyways, should the map for Somaliland be changed? It treats it as a different country. I think it should say "Somaliland within Somalia" similar to that in Piedmont in Italy. The same should be done with Puntland as well. Also, if you know about any maps on Wikiiedpia that show Somaliland as separate from Somalia, then leave them here so I can fix the error. AcidSnow (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I was wondering why some people think that Mogadishu and other cities were supposedly founded by Persians and Arabs. Then it hit me, shouldn't all of Somalia or at least Mogadishu be Shia? None of Somalia is Shia. But Just to make sure I did a bit of research and found this: "Mogadishu and Barawa Because they were allegedly held by Muslims of a diffrent sect". Not only does that mean Mogadishu and the rest were not Shia, in fact the cities were already established! But the more I dig into this subject, the more elaborate this "Shirazi migration" becomes. Though, it losses all creditably since this book claims that they originated in Somalia lol. The same can be said about the Shungaway which even Wikipedia believes is real. AcidSnow (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shungwaya was possibly in the Port Dunford (Bur Gao) area. However, archaeological excavations there suggest that Port Dunford was actually a majority Cushitic settlement (likely Azanian), though there may have been some ancestral Bajuni residents present as well. The artefacts and structures found in Port Dunford as well as its location correspond with the ancient emporium of Nikon, which is described in the 1st century CE Periplus as an Azanian commercial port. There was an early Persian influence in Benadir (placename, architecture, a few engravings), but not much really beyond that. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but Shungwaya has nothing to do with the Bajuni since they don't claim that. It's actually a Bantu "myth". Port Dunford as well had no Bantu since the Greeks stated that the eastern coast was "Aziana". AcidSnow (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Shungwaya" is a modern Bantu term for presumably Port Dunford. Assuming it was even the same area, Port Dunford/Bur Gao had a different, Afro-Asiatic name at the time, as it was likely the Periplus' Azanian emporium of Nikon. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I just found 6 more possible Sultans Middayexpress, see here; [50]. They ruled before and after Sultans that were already mentioned. I am going to find more sources on this since its odd that the museum doesn't have these six and why it doesn't list the first Abu Bakr, see bellow:
Founder of the Mogadishu Sultanate's first ruling house, the Fakr ad-Din dynasty.
Museum
2
Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad
1322-1323
Museum/Seaby
3
al-Taufiq ibn Sa'ad
14th century
Seaby
4
al-Rahman ibn al-Musa'id
14th century
Museum/Seaby
5
Yusuf ibn Sa'id
14th century
Museum/Seaby
6
al-Malik Faq
post 1388
Seaby
7
Sultan Muhammad
post 1388
Museum/Seaby
8
Sultan Ahmad ibn Ali
post 1388
Seaby
9
Sultan Sulaiman
post 1388
Seaby
10
Sultan Rasul ibn 'Ali
15th/16th century
Museum/Seaby
11
Sultan Yusuf ibn Abi Bakr
15th/16th century
Museum/Seaby
12
Sultan Malik ibn Sa'id
unknown dates, style of 8th/14th century
Museum/Seaby
12
Sultan 'Umar
15th/16th century
Museum/Seaby
13
Sultan Zubayr ibn 'Umar
15th/16th century
Museum/Seaby
14
Sultan al-Sultania al Mujahidia
unknown dates
Seaby
17
Sultan 'Umar
unknown dates
Seaby
As you may have noticed, I have updated the list to include all the Sultans. I have also made another section on the list informing you which Sultan is mentioned where. As I is stated earlier, 7 individuals aren't mentioned (6 in the Museum and one in Seaby) but two stand out the most to me. That is Sultan Umar and Abu Bakr ibn Fakhr ad Din. Sultan Umar is listed in the Museum as ruling before Sultan Zubayr but after Sultan Malik. However, Seaby list Sultan Umar three successions later on after Sultan al-Sultania al Mujahidia. Seaby doesn't even list Abu Bakr ibn Fakhr ad Din at all. Though, ad Din could just be an accident but I am not sure on Sultan Umar. Seaby also states that all these listed ruled before 1547. AcidSnow (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2015
It looks fairly satisfactory, imho. To round it out, it should probably note the archaeological and osteological finds pertaining to the makers of the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic culture and their apparent descendants, the ancient Azanians. Daniel Stiles, who helped establish the Department of Archaeology at the University of Nairobi, excavated the associated burials. He indicates: "although the terminology and some details have changed, Seligman, Huntingford and Murdock each held the kernel of truth in their theories[...] the Azanians of the 1st to 4th century A.D. were no doubt Cushitic speakers, and their descendants and related immigrants from the north brought with them their traditions and funerary customs, some of which were passed on to the peoples living in Kenya at the time[...] and they were abnormally tall!" [51][52]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a template for Somali clans? The current templete lists them as ethnicities and that they are ethnically different from one another. AcidSnow (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean there. You ask whether there should be a template, yet refer to a template. Do you perhaps mean the infobox? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have found some maps on Wikipedia that state that Somaliland is oddly not part of Somalia. I have made attempts to fix them but I am unable to do so due to .SVG type of the images or something like that. AcidSnow (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow. So I managed to fix a couple of the maps. However, several of them appear to have some sort of Shapefiles(?) coding lock, and these maps all use the same template. No worries, though; I think this may be fixable as well. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm currently uploading modified versions of my maps. I removed Somaliland and Kosovo, and detached Western Sahara from Morroco. I'll treat the second later on, this week. --Flappiefh (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth do people foolishly claim that Mogadishu, Hamar, and Shingani are Swahili or Bantu words? Even the Cambridge believes this, see here. That makes zero sense when the Bantu never lived in the Horn of Africa until the 1800's! Mogadishu, Brava, Kismayo and the rest have always been Somali and never in the hands of the Bantu or Swahili. More importantly, Hamar, from what remember is the Somali word for some plant that with the letter "T". I will inform you when I find the book or another one again. AcidSnow (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Shangani" is actually of Persian (Farsi) origin; it is derived from one of the quarters of the town of Nishapur in Persia [53]. The reason why these and some other toponyms have meanings in Swahili is probably because Swahili has many Farsi, Cushitic and Arabic loanwords. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it earlier but I am not sure as to what to make of it. As of now I think it should certainly be mentioned that the only problem Somalis have in the UK education system is that they don't come from an English nation and not use to its structure. Pakistanis, Indians, Nigerians and the rest of them already know English when they arrive. On the other hand, Somalis speak Arabic. However, anything from the early 2000's should not be mentioned as it's highly miss leading since Somalis had only recently arrived. AcidSnow (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we can't mention data from the early 2000s, if it's noted how and why things might have changed since then? As far as I'm aware, the article doesn't have to just be a snapshot of the current situation of Somalis in the UK, but can also include historical material. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was phrased in the present tense and presented a misleading encapsulation of the current scholastic situation. How some pupils may or may not have performed a decade ago has no bearing on and should not be used against those of today, who are necessarily not the same students. Middayexpress (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The material I added from the early 2000s was as follows: "Some sources also find levels of completed education within the Somali community to be low. For instance, the Institute for Public Policy Research has published analysis of Labour Force Survey data for the period 2000-04, and found that, of Somali-born immigrants who had arrived since 1990 (who made up 761 of 812 Somali-born people in the sample), 50.1 per cent had no qualification and 2.8 per cent had higher qualifications". That's not in the present tense (apart from the first sentence, which I agree could be better worded). Cordless Larry (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence, which the rest of the paragraph is intended to buttress, is in the present tense. Hence, it is misleading, as it actually pertains to the purported situation over a decade ago. Please leave a response if any on the page. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind explaining your side? The discussion seems to have shifted from "Why some Somalis face problems" to "what is the better source" or something. If you statements are as true as all your other ones I will most certainly support you. It seems that you object to interpretation of sources, which many of the ones that have been provided are. The Economist article is most certainly one. You instead seem to prefer official ones. Is this it? AcidSnow (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of issues. First, certain sources, in use or proposed, are indeed problematic. These include that Economist piece, which doesn't explain from which government body it obtained its unusually low nationwide GCSE figure for Somali students from. Judging by the number itself, it was probably taken from a non-governmental 2013 paper by the IPPR. However, that 2013 IPPR paper doesn't claim that Somali students had the lowest educational attainment like that Economist editorial does. The two lowest attaining student populations' GCSE scores in the IPPR paper are, in fact, over 20 percentage points lower than that of the Somali pupils. Similarly, the 2013 IPPR's unofficial GCSE figure for Somali students is itself around 14 percentage points lower than the official nationwide GCSE for Somali pupils for the same period per the Lambeth local authority (!). Second, there appears to be an attempt today on the talk page to classify Somali students as "Black African" pupils based on that same Lambeth local authority paper. However, the Lambeth paper does not use a racial scheme, but rather a linguistic one [55]. The Lambeth local authority actually published a 2008 paper exclusively on Somali student attainment, where it differentiates its Somali students from its "Black African" pupils [56]. Many other local authorities do the same (e.g. Camden Education Commission[57]), while others use something called extended ethnicity codes. A third problem is the insistence on using outdated data. For example, it's actually asserted in the wikitext based on the 2001 census that only around ~89% of Somalis in the UK are Muslim. Salaam indicates that this was because Somalis were at the time undercounted in various local authorities, but that this underestimate was later fixed for the 2011 census [58]. At any rate, please weigh in on the article's talk page. The page could certainly use some actual Somali input, so I'll see to that shortly. I'll also later on today write to Feyisa Demie, who is probably the authority on Somali student attainment in the UK, and link him to the page. He wrote both Lambeth government papers, so his insight is invaluable. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 2001 census probably did undercount Somalis, but that's not the same thing as saying that it got the proportion of Somalis who stated they were Muslims wrong. This has all been explained by several editors on the article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This all quite interesting Midday. Feel free to copy and past my reply wherever it's need.
You're right, there are many problems with the current page and possible future edits that will create even more issue then solve. First off all, Somalis are not classified as "Black Africans". Few Somalis would even classify themselves as such. Last time I checked Somalis are regarded as "British Arabs" instead of the former. Not only is this legally viewed as such it's also how the majority identifies themselves as. But this all besides the point as the document does not even class Somalis as such and list them as an entirety different group: "Main Ethnic Groups: White British, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean, Black African, Somali......". As you already stated in the discussion, IPPR's paper is also highly problematic. It does not simply underscore Somalis by a point or two but rather a whopping 14%! Nor is it even an official document anyways. The official GCSE should most certainly be used instead as it's not only an official document but gives a far more accurate result. More importantly, how is the Economist even a possible "useful" sources when it has received immense amount of criticism? It's doesn't even identify it's own source, but as you stated now it's possibly the IPPR which itself is already problematic. Anyways, the 89.3% of Somalis in the UK being Muslim is quite low. As it's well know that "with few exceptions, Somalis are Muslims of the Sunni tradition". But as Salaam pointed out, there was undercounting amongst the Somalis. Not only did undercounting happen but this occurred over 14 years ago! A Census done now would most certainly have a different figure for the Somalis. So simply having the 2001 Census is highly misleading in all aspects ways.
And yes, please do inform Mr. Demie about this discussion as his input his highly valued. Anyways, if you believe I have missed anything that's please do inform me. AcidSnow (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few points. The article doesn't say that the 2001 census figures are still valid. It's just saying that was the situation in 2001. As for Somalis not being classified as Black Africans, that's exactly how a couple of thousand Somali pupils are classified in the National Pupil Database, as analysed by Demie. I'm sure he can explain that if you're going to contact him. See also here. In fact, when completing a form such as the census, you can tick any ethnicity box you like. A Somali could tick the White British box if they wanted. According to this local government source, "it is likely that most Somali residents ticked either the Black African box or the Black Other box". As for the Economist source, I don't think anyone is suggesting we use that for GSCE results any more. The Demie source appears a much better one, and that's what I'm advocating using. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Local authorities actually analyse populations in various ways; there's no single classification that applies to all of them. Those extended ethnicity codes are in fact used by a minority of them. It has likewise already been established that Demie distinguishes his Somali students from his "Black African" pupils in his actual papers on the Somali student population [59]. Somalis could indeed tick any census box they want, including Arab [60] ("although there are census categories for people identifying themselves as 'Bangladeshi' and 'Pakistani', there is no separate category of 'Somali'[...] people identifying themselves as Somali would therefore be included in other census categories such as 'Arab' or 'African'" [61]). Hence, no point in trying to racially classify them here on Wikipedia, which in any event WP:CATEGRS discourages ("ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not"). It's also contrary to how Somalis as a population have traditionally regarded themselves; indeed, there are specific traditional terms for Black Africans in contradistinction to ethnic Somalis in the Hamito-Semitic Somali language [62]. More importantly, it is contrary to their very genetic ancestry [63]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't really matter if we think Somalis are Black Africans or not, because Demie has provided us with data on Somali-speaking pupils, which we can use in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is some sort of parallel universe! I'm not trying to categorise the article under some sort of Black African category, so I don't know what WP:CATEGRS has to do with it. All I'm try to do is get the Somali pupils' GSCE result statistics from the Demie source added to the article! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I am just trying to clear things up for you as to what the majority of Somalis identify as. Anyways, this is were it all originated from:
That policy you're quoting is about use of Wikipedia's category system. I'm not suggesting putting the article in a category. The word "categorised" as I used it was referring to where the Somali pupils are listed in the National Pupil Database, as reported by Demie. I can't do much about that - it's up to whoever put the Somali speakers in that category when the National Pupil Database was constructed. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if it helps I could remove the bit about "This compares to 58 per cent of all Black African pupils" from my suggested addition to the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just the etended ethnicity codes, which a minority of local authorities use. Many others classify there Somali students differently (e.g. Camden Education Commission[64]). At any rate, WP:CATEGRS is a general editing guideline. There's also the related Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and its self-identification clause for an ethnic group ("How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided."). Glad to hear, though, that you're not trying to forcibly categorize this population. There are other problems with that paragraph, but this is a start. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Black African" is non-extended, whereas the extended ones include a Somali ethnicity category. Language is different though. That's recorded everywhere. It will be interesting to see what proportion of Somalis decided to tick the new "Arab" ethnicity box in the 2011 census, but I haven't seen that data published yet. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not as a matter of course, but at some point a researcher might request the data. I think that was the case for the proportion of Somali-born population recorded as Muslim in 2001 - I can't find that data published on the ONS website, but it's in a research report so the authors must have put in a custom request. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The National Association of British Arabs indicates that it is uncertain how many of the individual identities responded in the general Arab box, but provides a breakdown of the Arab groups taken from the ethnic write-in responses [65]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I found that after my last post. It's their choice to classify Somalis as an "Arab category" in that table though. On the census form, respondents could write in "Somali" under any of the categories and the 45,475 figure is the number of people who wrote in "Somali" under all of them combined. In fact, the "Arab" tick box is a sub-category of the "Other" group, so no one could actually write Somali in under that (though I presume that if they wrote in "Somali" under "Other" rather than "Black", the intention was probably to signal that they considered themselves Arab). The data source is here, if it is of any use for articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is also an interesting discussion: "Looking at the Census data it seems that our [Bristol's] Somali population is included in both the Black African category and the Black Other category" and "We know that the majority of people from Somalia (and elsewhere in Africa) will have ticked the Black African box, rather than provide a text response". I'm not sure why it's not the case that more Somalis didn't categorise themselves as Arab in the census, given what you say above. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, "in the absence of Somali category, one would assume that most Somalis would tick the nearest category which they think they fit, which is Black/African". That source offers some possible reasons why Somalis are ticking that box. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could've sworn you claimed above that you weren't interested in trying to racially classify this population. At any rate, speculations aside, here is how most Somalis actually responded: "Of the most frequent descriptions, ‘Somalian’ was the top, followed by ‘South African’[...] Few people chose to write-in ‘Black’[...] Of the most frequent descriptions [under ‘Other ethnic group: Other’ written responses], ‘Somalian’ was top, followed by ‘Kurdish’ ‘Australian’ and equally tied ‘North American’ and ‘South American’" [66]. And why the Arab entry was later in part established to begin with: "Somalis[...] may not consider themselves to be Black African[...] in order to identify Arab-African groups, such as those from Somalia, it will be necessary to revise the 2001 census ethnicity question that was used in HSE 1999 as this does not identify people who consider themselves to be Arab ethnicity" [67]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in doing so. I was just interested to learn about how Somalis tend to categorise themselves, given the choice, in light of yours and AcidSnow's comments above. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my classification - it is the group Somali speakers are classified under in the Demie article. Like I said about, I can't change how they are categorized in sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware Larry. Mr. Demie does, however, make the distinction between the two groups clear later on. Nonetheless, I mentioned this for Midday and not you. You had already offered to drop even mentioning it. I had assumed this was clear. AcidSnow (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry - I got confused. So are you happy to support the addition of the percentage of Somali speakers gaining five or more good GCSEs to the article if I drop the bit about Black Africans? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a start, but it's not enough. The other bit by Rutter on the ethnicity codes is also unnecessary, as these are used by a minority of schools. Many others classify there Somali students differently (e.g. Camden Education Commission[68]). Additionally, the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit gives a completely different official explanation for why there's a dearth of nationwide stats on the Somali student population's attainment and size. The official Lambeth explanation should therefore instead by indicated. Middayexpress (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point with the ethnicity codes is precisely that they're only used by a minority of schools, which is one reason there isn't nationwide data. Do you want to suggest some text based on the Lambeth source to use instead? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I recommend the following text based on the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit's official explanation: "According to the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit, no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the size and educational attainment of Somali pupils in the United Kingdom. Data on the students has often been aggregated under a broad continental 'African' variable, which obscures the students' unique charateristics and requirements. This in turn inhibits targeted policy making and practice developments at the national and local level. To redress this, various London Local Authorities, where most Somali pupils matriculate, have started gathering and monitoring data on the Somali student community" [69]. Middayexpress (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. My only concern is that it's a bit long (some editors were saying my suggested text had too much explanation of data collection before it got to the statistics, and yours has about the same). One way to shorten it a little would be to delete "According to the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit". It's a basic fact, so we don't need to mention the source by name in the text (although we would of course still cite the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit source with a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit" is necessary so that it's understood that this is per the government. "Matriculate" can be switched with "attend schools". Middayexpress (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this group is a Chrstian terrosit group it has many animist amongst its ranks. However, a single purpose account has been constantly removing the word "Christains" from the article. I would revert him but I have already made three in the past 27 hours and don't want to get accused of gnawing the system. AcidSnow (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have been trying to figure out how many Bantus that live in Dadaab and other refuge camps in the Somali region of Kenya. For starters, it seems like that they took 10,000s or Bantus yo Kakuma in northwest Kenya. This seems to have been to protect them from discrimination as we as violence in Dabaab. However, according to one UNHRC article Dadaab is 6% Bantu?[70] In fact, it also stated that Kakuma is not only 20% Bantu but is also has 20% of its population also coming from the Hawiye clan and less than a quater Darood?[71] How is this going to protect them? It seems highly counterproductive. Or do they want the Bantus and Nilotic to have greater numbers for a changes? They have also foolishly sent the Benadiri, Bajuni, Barawanis, and Ashraaf clans there as well.[72] Though some groups like the Bajuni have returned to Kismayo and other areas. Do you know if the Bantus plan to ever return to Somalia? AcidSnow (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dadaab is in the NFD; it is a town with a UNHCR center within it. The area was traditionally mainly inhabited by Ogaden, with some Hawiye subclans [73]. This is what is meant. It is conflating the traditional residents with displaced persons from the south, who are largely Rahanweyn and Bantu per HRW [74]. There's a somewhat similar situation in Kakuma; however, the people there are predominantly from South Sudan [75]. In Kismayo, the IDPs are almost all Bantu [76]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um Ok. It's odd that Kismayo's IDPs are Bantu let lone 20% of the city. Somalis also account for 1/7 in Aden in Yemen. As for the city, it seems quite different. It appears that during the 1800's Aden already had a significant Somali population.[77]AcidSnow (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, some Bantu elders claim that they are the majority in most provinces in the south, and that they were the original inhabitants there as well as in the entire Great Lakes region. This is of course an exaggeration; the Eyle and other related hunter-gatherer populations were the actual autochthones. However, Bantus do certainly have a large presence there now, and in neighbouring territories too. At the turn of the 20th century, the migrants in Aden were primarily ethnic Somalis; Harti, Isaaq and Dir merchants, teachers, sailors and clerics from the north. Men like Faisal Hawar and Ismail Ali Ismail are descended from such adventurers. Ethnic Somalis in general would also regularly make the Hajj pilgrimage. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite Interesting Midday! That's quite a foolish claim to begin with. I even read one book that states that the Bantu had some kind of kingdom in the valleys. Do the Bantu plan to return to Somalia? What about those that never left? Shall they return to Tanzania, Mozambique, etc? AcidSnow (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, do you of any development maps of Mogadishu? Like what they plan to build in the city. I found one Bosasso. I would prefer that they stop doing anything in Old Mogadishu. From what I have seen in Google Maps they have constructed a road that goes around Old Mogadishu. Hopefully they stop that and restore the broken areas. It would also be good of they constructed similar buildings around Old Mogadishu instead of apartments and high rise buildings. They can do that stuff stuff far from Old Mogadishu. Have Somalis ever heard of city planning? On Google Maps you can see well developed grid of houses but if you go two feet there are like 7 freaking houses on top of each other lol!
Well, genetics has pretty much dispelled the notion of an ancient aboriginal Bantu population north of the Great Lakes. It has, however, confirmed the antiquity and distinctness of the Omotic groups in the Horn. At any rate, it would indeed be best if the remaining ancient structures in Old Mogadishu were take care of. The Italians razed parts of Hamar Jajab when they were building the airport there, and they weren't the first. That's actually how it got its name ("Smashed Up Hamar"). A good part of the old city is also buried under sands dunes, like in Essina. Perhaps this is an archaeological blessing, as in Egypt and Sudan. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Are you sure you mean the airport? Hamar Jajab is not near the airport. Even then couldn't they have built around it? Why is the Old Poert soooo small. It looks like chicken legs compared to thd New Port lol. Anyways, old Mogadishu does not even touch sand other than Lido so what so you mean? AcidSnow (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hamar was much larger in size when Ibn Batutta visited it in the 14th century; the older part of the city was still at the time intact. There's now an eponymous district named after that old area. See Jama for more on the ancient, buried Hamar Jajab [78]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So Old Mogadishu (the area) was much bigger when Ibn Batutta came? What cause if to get smaller? Was Hamar Jabab part of Old Mogadishu? Thanks for the link! I hope they eventually uncover what under the sand. AcidSnow (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was part of the old city. The practice of building over older edifices (like with the airport), as well as various skirmishes there over the centuries in part leveled its infrastructure. Advancing sand dunes, though, buried most of Hamar Jajab. This is perhaps a good thing; this way, like the pyramids in Egypt and Nubia, the structures aren't subject to the ravages of time. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the works on Somali aristocratic and court titles mentioned that the Majeerteen sultanate originated in the 1300s. I think it was actually a different kingdom, which I've dubbed here the Bari sultanate. There are various structures there dating from the period, which indeed suggest that there was some sort of other kingdom in Bari between the Berber and Majeerteen Sultanate epochs. I don't think that polity was Majeerteen per se since the later Futuh al-Habash describes the Harti as still being a single clan and positions them to the west of Bari, in the vicinity of Maydh. The Hawiye had by that time already migrated southward since Al-Idrisi wrote in the 11th century that they occuppied the Hafun peninsula, while Yaqut places them in the Merca area by the 13th century. The Bari kingdom may thus perhaps have been one of the last remaining, general Somali Berber city-states. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "This has already been explained" Where was that explained? On the article talk page it has only "discussion" with people with the idea to make all Christians in the region only Assyrians (or at least to make Assyrian a pan-ethnicity) and people who see no problem to have that specific article Arameans in Israel. (I and most of the Maronites that I know accept the reality that we Maronites have primarily Phoenician descent mixed with Aramean and Ghassanid Arab blood lineage.) Thanks in advance. MaronitePride (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand at all. Try reading all the statements made there again. While you're at it stop accusing me of vandalism and POV editing. It's simply annoying and insulting. Anyways, there is no major genetic difference between Christian and Muslim Lebanese people. No group is more "Phoenician" than another. AcidSnow (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't seem to understand at all. Try reading all the statements made there again." I've read it before and a second time as you suggested but the issues seems to be still too far from "explained" and no consensus at all. (one point supports Assyrian pan-ethnicity for all Christian in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, etc. and unilaterally suggesting disamb., the other suggests to wait for 1 year to restate the content).
"Anyways, there is no major genetic difference between Christian and Muslim Lebanese people. No group is more "Phoenician" than another." Exactly! That's what I am thinking. (we Maronites have primarily Phoenician descent, as most of the Lebanese people, mixed with Aramean and Ghassanid Arab blood lineage and No Assyrian blood, even though Assyrianists never stop this propaganda.)
Just read this generic evidence that No group is more "Phoenician" than another: In a 2013 interview the lead investigator, Pierre Zalloua, pointed out that genetic variation preceded religious variation and divisions:"Lebanon already had well-differentiated communities with their own genetic peculiarities, but not significant differences, and religions came as layers of paint on top. There is no distinct pattern that shows that one community carries significantly more Phoenician than another."[1]
Far more than one person has supported the change to a disambiguation page. To claim otherwise is preposterous. As for not doing so, only one user agrees other than you. The other users vote is worthless since their just another sock of a banned user. AcidSnow (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Far more than one person has supported the change to a disambiguation page. To claim otherwise is preposterous." OK, let's count the people in the talk page ;)
1. Shmayo (supports disamb.) 2. GreyShark (oppose and wants to wait) 3. Ashurbanippal (user banned) 4. TmG12 (sock puppet of Ashurbanippal)
"Far more than one person has supported the change" Do we have to count user Shmayo (supports disamb.) twice ? It seems your claim is preposterous. Please explain where did you see Far more than one person has supported the change. I see the result of 1:1 (Shmayo : GreyShark)
MaronitePride, I don't understand why you and GreyShark09 keep reverting without discussion. I still can't see why the article should be on English Wikipedia. And i did not understand your edit comment "Let's keep Arameans in Israel here. Only for now is disambig. soon will be return to normal article.". AcidSnow, can this be brought up on ANI? Shmayo (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. How common is the ethnonym "Arameans"? Or is it a WP:NEOLOGISM? More importantly, do most Maronites and Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldeans in Israel identify as "Aramean"? Or does a substantial proportion instead regard the ethnonym as pejorative or otherwise unrepresentative? If the latter, the disamb page should be avoided altogether per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) ("How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided."). The important thing here is to respect each group's traditional self-designation and not try to impose anything on them. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A girl of that age (prepubescent) wearing hijab is not normal nor representative of Somali girls of that age nor of Muslim girls of that age in general.
A girl of that age (prepubescent) wearing hijab is not normal nor representative of Somali girls of that age nor of Muslim girls of that age in general. A pubescent Somali girl or woman wearing a hijab is representative of Somali females in general, and that is why must be put instead. The Holy Quran requires that only girls who reach puberty wear the hijab. The prophet Muhammad PBUH said "After a young woman reaches the age of puberty, nothing should be seen of her except her face and hands". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.10.224 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Kaddre Script was the most accurate script for the Somali language. It also am seems that the the Latin script was being developed in the 1890's by the Italians but they opted to use Latin pronunciation for some reason o.0? Source[79]. AcidSnow (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of the +18 writing scripts that were developed at the time to transcribe Somali, the Kaddare script was the most phonetically accurate. Its inventor originally used the Osmanya script, but later established his own orthography. With regard to Reverend Larajasse's orthography, there were actually a couple of earlier attempts to use the Latin script to transcribe Somali. Among these orthographies was Frederick Mercer Hunter's grammar treatise from 1880 [80]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am currently on the German Wikikpefia and they are saying some messed up things about the Rahanweyn clan. Such as calling them "fake Somalis". I have changed the text and stated that's far from reality as they are just ethnic Somalis like the other clans. However, I was reverted. I plan now to clearly explain how that completely wrong. But first, what exactly does "Sab" mean? Isn't that the "father" of the Rahanweyne clan? They list it as "outcast" on the German page. Please help me as this highly insulting to all Somalis! AcidSnow (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but not really surprising tbh. As already pointed out, there's a Tutsi-Hima guy there (Rwanda and Burundi were part of German East Africa) who believes that he is related to the Afro-Asiatic groups in the Horn rather than to other Bantu populations in the Great Lakes region. So one will come aross weird, fabricated things to that effect. At any rate, can you please specify the actual passage at hand? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For insulting the Rahanweyne, they say this: "Als eigentliche Somali gelten allgemein die Samaal, wohingegen die Rahanweyn bisweilen als „unechte Somali“ betrachtet werden" which translates to "As actual Somali are generally the Samaal, whereas the Rahanweyn are sometimes considered "fake Somali"". For Sab, they claim this: "Sab bezeichnet eine Kaste von Ausgestoßenen in der somalischen Gesellschaft" which translates into "Sab denotes a caste of outcasts in Somali society". I think I might be dealing with this exact guy Midday. What is his user name? AcidSnow (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see; What is the user's handle? The truth is actually more complicated than that. The Rahanweyn are a confederation of clans of differing origins ("Rahanweyn" is a Somali malapropism of "Reewing" in the Maay language; it roughly means "large crowd"). A portion of the clan consists of the first Rahanweyn, who originally spoke separate languages from Somali, albeit closely related Cushitic languages like Maay, Jiddo, etc.; another portion originally belonged to other major Somali clans (Ogaden, Hawiye, etc.), and they were gradually assimilated into the confederation after they first settled in Rahanweyn territory; a final portion of clan membears are indeed non-Somali, assimilated Bantu/Nilotic peoples. So it depends on which tier within the confederation one is referring to. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also they claim minority clans such as Yibir and Midgam are not Somali o.0. Though I am not surprised since the whole Sab page is unsourced. What does Sab mean exactly? AcidSnow (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Somali clan including any of the Rahanweyn sub-clans are descendants of the Bantu, let alone the Nilotics. The Rahanweyn had already been formed into eight and nine clans before the 1800's. Since the Bantus slaves arrived after the 1800's it's clear that none of the Digil and Milif clans have any thing to do with the Bantu, let alone the Nilotics (LOL Somalis don't even live near them so how is that possible anyways?) It seems that you are confusing "protection" that some Bantua are given with being part of the clan. It's already well known that Somalis refuses to interact with them and doing so leads to exile the few times it occurs.[82] Even this map makes it clear, see here. It shows that even though some Bantu are given "protection" they will always be Bantu. But as you states yourself, the Rahanweyne themselves are ethnic Somalis.
It's also most certainly true that some Rahanweyne individuals are previously identified with the Hawiye, Dir, and Darood. This occurs in all Somali clans, be it Isaaq, Dir, Darrod, etc. This is not odd since this whole clan BS is freaking fake. Clan is not "descent" it's "protection". Once you leave you sub-clan who will protect you? What about your whole clan? Nobody. Then what shall you do? Seek protection. For example, the Sheekalh clan state that they aren't Hawiye while others say they are. It's because now they don't need protection from the largely Hawiye clan which they identify when conflict arises. They are actually descendants from the Somalis whom use to live in Harar.[83]
But back to the real question, what on earth does "Sab" mean? Is it "patriarch" or "outcaste"? I need to poop on this guy with facts. AcidSnow (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I have put you into a corner that you couldn't escape! You have been avoid one of my oldest question, "do you foolishly belive that the Rahanwybe aren't Somalis"? Good too see that you don't foolishly believe in this highly insulting claim! AcidSnow (talk)
Pretty cool, right? lol That's the Ajuran period. I think the Geledi Sultanate may have used either Ajuran Sultanate coins, or late period Sultanate of Mogadishu mints. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is cool! Do you know where some are located? Anyways, it seems that the Geledi used the same flag as the Ajuran.[84] Also, do you know why Majeerteen Sultanates used red flags like the Zanzibaris? AcidSnow (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. The Majeerteen Sultanate and Sultanate of Hobyo flags weren't actually red. Here's the Sultanate of Hobyo's one in the background; it has at least one stripe [85]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologize Midday, I shall add them tomorrow. I was wondering if you have any maps of Somalia similar to this map of the UK or anything similar really. I plan to make a map for this Sultanate that includes all other Somali states as well. AcidSnow (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AcidSnow As per Wiki History Log alot of Somalia history is or has being Omitted, Vandalized or used for personal instead of Real facts of history ? are you following ! Whats wrong with real truth History with Source abundant like Water ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoontro (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second section should be removed, as it's not on Ethiopids but rather a few Bantu/Nilotic populations whose respective ruling classes are believed to have been influenced by Ethiopids. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey AcidSnow. Do you have any idea what this was all about? The vandalism seemed to target editors with an interest in Somalis and Somalia, including the two of us. It was a new account so I wonder if some sockpuppetry was going on? They've been blocked now anyway, but I was just curious if you knew anything about where it all stemmed from. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought someone was being nice at first :/. I don't know who it was but we were defiantly targeted. I saw his activities yesterday and he immediately jumps to us. AcidSnow (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Isaaq really think they can just force the Darood and Dir clans to join them? What exactly is "Somaliland" anyways? It quite clear that none of the Dir and Darod clans want to joint them. So when the nothern regions are "captured", give up separatism, or whatever happens, will the regions still stay as "Somaliland" or will they return to pre 1991? AcidSnow (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The separatist movement isn't neatly aligned by clan. Although most supporters are indeed Isaaq, there are also a number of Isaaq who are unionist like the former Foreign Minister. Somaliland need never be captured, as it is already legally an autonomous region, like Puntland, Jubaland and Central State. The Hargeisa administration will instead probably be won over through diplomacy. Specifically, via the assignment of key positions in the next federal government. To this end, the new federal Deputy Prime Minister is himself a unionist Isaaq. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol I am well aware not all Isaaqs support separatism. I meant that pretty much every single person that supports separatism is from the Isaaq clan. I don't think the Isaaq clan should be given any form of autonomousy or anything greater than that of another clan. Especially after the crimes the separatist adminstration have committed, such as persecuting/killing those who don't support their goals. Nor should any clan be given any of the former to begin with. At the end of the talks, will any key agreement give the Isaaq greater autonomousy? AcidSnow (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that will happen because the secessionists claim several areas that aren't their traditional constituency. What is already happening is that many former separatists are instead joining the federal government, and often in senior offices. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. But it states "preparations with the government of Somalia have not been finalised". On the other, hand "South Sudan’s bid to join the community suffered a setback following the break out of a civil war ". It seems that no official government delegation even asked to join. Lol, Pres. Hassan didn't even go since he had more important things to do. Such as meet the Djibouti President. Though, I don't think they should use the Kenyan and Ethiopian flags, but rather the Somali regional flags. AcidSnow (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was actually one particular official who applied during the transitional period, not parliament. There's no regional flag for the NFD, so the Kenyan flag is used there. The NFD is one of the five points in the Somali flag itself. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The plebiscite wasn't held in most of SSC, but instead mainly in separatist strongholds in the Togdheer and Woqooyi Galbeed provinces. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see but I doubt the results were legit since 2/3 of 3 million is not 1 million which of the start indicts fraud. More importantly, they only checked less than 10% of polling stations. 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Shall I redirect the State of Somaliland to British Somaliland? I am unable to find any book before the 1990's that mention the "State of Somaliland". I found a few that mention it in 1900's but that's it. So it seems like nothing changed at all and that this whole "indepence" thing is just a made up thing. Have you found anything on this Middayexpress? AcidSnow (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm not sure whether it was an actual polity let alone a state. You should first, though, paste this on the talk page. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, also why does "Somaliland" take me to the separatist region? "Somaliland" as well as "Somali Country" refers to all the areas inhabited by ethnic Somalis. AcidSnow (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military history of Somalia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tale. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
To AcidSnow: Do you know why Somalia is messed up? Its because of people like you. You have a very sharp tongue I advise you to watch what you say on here. You may have grown up in a very harsh environment but it shouldn't be an excuse for you to act the way you do. Dont be reckless! Respect others regardless of their clan ethnicity or race. KaiseDis (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! How are you? Anyways, I would like to know why you keep editing maps with edit summaries such as "added South Sudan" but also slip in "Somaliland"? The former is a nation while the other is an autonomous region of Somalia. I tried to correct this but Wikipedia won't let me upload .SVG files. Do you mind fixing this? AcidSnow (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm fine thank you. :) Can you show me some examples please? I don't get it: what's the problem? All I know is that I had edited several former Sudan maps to add the 2011 border, thus the edit summary "Added South Sudan". --Flappiefh (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now! Thank you. I didn't know those maps were showing an 'unofficial' country. The Shapefiles used come from Natural Earth. I'm afraid I'm unable to edit the Shapefiles. But I suppose one can easily edit those orthographic views to merge Somaliland with the rest of the Somalia territory. I don't have time to do so, as I've been away from Wikipedia for more than 8 month now. You can ask a Graphic lab to edit them. --Flappiefh (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm about to look for better data than Natural Point's, to be able to redo all of those orthographic maps. I'll keep in touch. --Flappiefh (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to edit the Natural Earth Shapefile in order to merge Somaliland and Somalia territory. I'm ready to replace all the faulty maps, but I'd like to be sure there won't be any other border errors. Can you please check the rest of the countries showing on these orthographic maps, please? What about Morroco for instance? --Flappiefh (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is the Tree planting doing in Somalia? Did they reach 25,000 yet? It seems that simply planting tress helps make it rain more.[93] "in areas in Europe where there have previously been no trees can reduce the effect of climate change by cooling temperate regions", forget about 25,000 they need to plant a couple million trees in Mogadishu asap 0_0. AcidSnow (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Midday. They need to stop cutting down trees in Somalia as it's already a serous. As of 2013, only 65,934 sq. km of Somalia is covered in forest, or 10.3% of the whole country.[94] This is a significant drop from when they 82,820 sq. km in 1990, or 12.9% of the whole country.[95] So basically it went from the size of Austria to that of Georgia in the span of 23 years! They need to act fast and plant more trees to cover the loss. Do you know why they cut down trees? Is it for power? That's just stupid. AcidSnow (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benadiri people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somali. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Big Smoke Burger for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Smoke Burger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamb. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Go ahead with the ban proposal... If he's really trying to claim they're Argobba (not one text on this, that I have ever seen. Nor any evidence) and act like the very clearly known fact that the Adal and Ifat's soldiers were largely Somali (acting like the Futuh is nothing...) and then uses imbeciles like Braukamper to make his points while ignoring the clear evidence in those genealogies-> then yeah, he should be banned. He's just here to spread an agenda and war it out. Awale-Abdi (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I See, thank you. There's also another user by the name Harari234 whom poses the same problem but isn't as harsh about it. AcidSnow (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary, AcidSnow; I think you should withdraw that post. The editor clearly doesn't know anything about the Adal Sultanate and the Futuh, or he wouldn't be making these farcical claims. He seems more intent on riling you up than anything. It may be just for kicks. As he has already been blocked over the Adalite stuff, all you have to do is maintain communication with the blocking admin; point out any subsequent disruption, and he or she will take it from there. I'll keep an eye on the page as well. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the post for you; it's unnecessary escalation in this instance. Besides communicating with the blocking admin, please see WP:DFTT on how best to handle such situations. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What should I do about this:[97], the person that vandalized mine, yours, and others talk page, that single purpose account, the threats that were made against Larry, etc? AcidSnow (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, I did not notice that. I think I will just change the title to make it clear as to whom I am talking about. This way everyone can see why I and other desire him gone. AcidSnow (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have broken numerous policies, so hence they were removed. Despite it already being clearly explained to you, you still don't recognize the problem. AcidSnow (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Islam and antisemitism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Also, please refrain from making false statements in the edit summary to disguise disruptive editing. What you removed was properly sourced, not OR. Bkalafut (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The user whose content you appear to have taken issue with remedied the deficiency mentioned in the talk page. Please read the talk page and contribute constructively. You are blanking 17 kilobytes of content, most of which is appropriately sourced, NPOV, non-original-research. Bkalafut (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a bad idea, actually. Although the city has already been largely rebuilt, whether it should remain the national capital or instead be a capital of a Benadir based Federal Member State is still undecided. This new constructed capital would solve this impasse; it would serve as a national administrative center. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's terrible. They should leave Mogadishu as the capial of Somalia. Mogadishu is a symbolic peice of Somali history, culture, politics, etc. To remove it from such is like taking Rome out of Italy, what's left? The city is already clan diverse and as more people become urban it will continue to be so. Moving the capital will create a ton more problem. Such as, where in Somalia well it be? This will only fuel clan tensions and nothing more. Do you see and understand why I object? I would sincerily would like your full input on this so we can continue the discussion. Also, Egypt can't keep a secret at all. I saw the constructions for the new capital months ago lol. AcidSnow (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think this might be fake or a missatrubtaion. I don't see anyone else claiming tha there's a new or possibly a new capital. It's been almost a week since the meeting (it was Saturday right?) so it should all be over the news. But it's not. AcidSnow (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey AcidSnow. I just noticed you actually violated WP:3RR yourself. This normally results in a block by default. Given your extensive attempts to discuss the issue, request administrator intervention, and the fact that you're an established editor in good standing with a clean block log and no apparent overarching behavioral issues with edit warring, I'll give you a break this time, but I'm obliged to remind you to keep an eye out for this in the future. Doesn't even matter if you're "in the right", you cannot breach 3RR. Please be more mindful of this, we don't normally let people off with a warning. Swarm...—X—04:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yah (not trying to sound mad, trying to correct you In a rude way or anything). Originally I restored "Somali" but instead I just reverted myself along with his fringe source. AcidSnow (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of giving it to forgein in waters, why don't they just nationalize it? They can get assistance from countries that already have theirs nationalized like Saudi Arabia. AcidSnow (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the Petroleum Ministry is working towards. As of 2014, it aims to begin offshore oil production in six years and onshore oil production in nine years [98]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pausanias wrote that the Macrobians inhabited landlocked Meroe and adjacent areas [99]. This may be uncertain, though, because he was writing after Herodotus, and Herodotus appears to have provided an erroneous description of Macrobia's location. Herodotus apparently believed that the Nile flowed from the west, which may have led to the geographical confusion [100]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^ Please go to that admin's talk page and add whatever grievances you may have with Zekenyan (at the bottom) and explain how he's been hounding you and warring on the Walashma page, you're honestly more familiar with him. Take care, Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have many projects that are currently in the works but I would like to get the original ones done first. Do you mind meeting me at Mogadishu article? If you're busy I understand. AcidSnow (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arawelo isn't real though... It's insane how many people have been fooled into thinking she was an actual historical figure. I've looked this up a bit and there's no record of the woman anywhere... The only proof that she existed are oral folk tales, lol. Awale-Abdi (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I found this World Statesmen.org article on "Somali Traditional States" which provides names and sometimes dates for various early modern and colonial sultanates. I noticed that it got a few dates wrong for Sultans that I am aware of, eg. it states that the Geledi Sultan Osman Ahmed abdicated in 3 Sep 1908. Although he didn't I nonetheless took the time to cross referencing the names and dates. I can say as of now that the names may be real but I can't say the same about the dates. This book seems to confirm two Sultans of the Majeerteen named "Othman" (probably a different spelling of Osman) and "Yusuf" both which indirectly preceded Osman Mahamud. This World Statesmen.org article states that "Othman II" ruled from 1815-1842 and that "Yusuf IV" briefly ruled from 1842-1844. Are you wondering why Yusuf ruled for so shortly? Are you Midday? As I stated earlier this books author tries to explain what happened by stating that his "eldest son Yusuf, who after a turbulent reign of two years, was treacherously slain by an individual of the Ali Seliman branch of the Mijjertheyn, inhabiting Bunder Khor". I should warn you though that this man speaks negativity on Somalis or maybe he just went on a rant or something. But I must say it does gives us great information if its actual info. It even drew a chart for us explaining the relationship of each family on Page 335. So do to this we can confirm the line of section that is provided on World Statesmen.org: Othman/Osman II -> Yusuf IV -> Mahmud V (this may be the child of Yusuf?). The book does, however, mention three more individuals before Othman/Osman II which aren't mentioned in World Statesmen.org. Their names are in line of succession: Yusuf -> Mohamed -> Othman/Osman -> Yusuf. Do you notice anything about these names Midday? Do you Midday? There are two more Yusufs, one more Othman/Osman and Mohamed! This backs up the numbers of World Statesmen.org and why it claims that the that the sultanate was founded in c.1600. So this book and website accounts for 3 out of the 4 Yusufs, all 3 Othmans/Osmans, and 3 out of the 4 Mohameds. All though these are the same three names, this other book states this: The Mijjertain Sultans use only four names, viz., Osman, Mohammed, Yusuf, or Ali. So this all checks out and backs the possibility that sultanate was established c. 1600. So do you know what all this means when you put it to gather? Nothing since I can't find any other book to confirm this at this moment..................... By the way, Robert L. Hess states that Yusuf Ali Kenadid"finally died on September 281911" and a bunch of other stuff that I think is highly mouth watering info that I am sadly unable to add since I cant find another book to confirm this at this moment.... AcidSnow (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating stuff! Note the early 1600 date it has for the establishment of the Majeerteen Sultanate. This is indeed likely more accurate than the mid-1800s one, which actually post-dates Sultan Mahmud IV's reign. The older foundation date makes more sense, as there was probably a Sultan Mahmud I, Sultan `Uthman I and Sultan Yusuf I at some point as well. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It just boggels my mind how little some people think of human lives. Amongst the many things that people in Kenya are suggesting including shut down camps. Not only is that crazy it appears that not everyone there is from Somalia nor are they ethnic Somalis. They have people Burundi, the Congo, Uganda, etc as well. Do you know why the brought Nilotics from South Sudan? But back to the subject matter, this is simply crazy. Not send these people away. If you don't want Somalis to go to Kenya, then simply return the land back. It's not like Somalis want to go deep into Kenya. I apologize once again if I am bugging you. AcidSnow (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, that sounds highly offensive. What I am trying to say is that non-Somalis should not be forced into, let alone ethnic Somalis. AcidSnow (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AcidSnow & Middayexpress Was a Ajuran Ruler and was Defeated and Killed By Biimaal .
For both of you , Many of the information are correct but sadly a lot contradict the reality on Ground and history books, Let me know if i can be of any Advise or assistance.
PS , Motto : Corrupted History Will Build a Corrupted Future
Hi AcidSnow. The founder of the Sultanate of Geledi, Omar Dine, was apparently a brother of Fakr ad-Din. This means that the Sultanate of Geledi's founding dynasty and the Sultanate of Mogadishu's first dynasty belonged to the same ruling family. The Geledi Sultanate was thus perhaps established as early as the 13th century, like the Sultanate of Mogadishu, rather than in the 17th century. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, AcidSnow. I don't know why, but this edit of yours seems to have removed all of the letter Ts from a section! I would revert it, but since you're an experienced editor and it included a comment that you made at the end, I'll leave it to you to sort out. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did they give full/limited citizenship to Somalis like they did in Libya? I believe we discussed something similar before. Looking back now I understand your "frustration" you had with me then. AcidSnow (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Since it was voluntary sign up and sometimes rewards if one was in the military, it's possible that few Somalis took the option anyways, as did few Libyans and Algerians. I found something's about "missinoni" (yes it's a word, but I can't remember the actual spelling so no sources yet for the word) that the father must recognize the child to obtain citizenship. But as you said, this and other laws probably didn't exist. Plus I found several sources that actually state that their was little to no persecution against ethnic Somalis (sadly I can't say the same for the Bantu). AcidSnow (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I recently received a message from you saying you did not like one of my edits. Could you please explain a) who you are and b) why you have a problem with my edits and reported me for it.
Interesting; it appears to be a copy of his previous rant, with some minor modifications. As you know, that whole affair turned out to be just as much about him as about me. I'm not sure why he believes that getting rid of me will solve his problems. In actuality, that will only be the start of them because loads of Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and others will subsequently join the website and see the sytemic bias that goes on here. For the moment, just you, me, 26oo, Inayity, and a few other regulars on the Africa WikiProject are aware of it. But with me elsewhere, doing other things and no longer bound by Wikipedia's rules, that will surely be the catalyst that open's Pandora's Box. The funny part is, I'd actually been meaning to move on to new things at the end of the summer, once I was confident that there were other good faith editors in place to inherit the mantle. Seven years is a long time to be editing, particularly when the generation of editors I started out with had ages ago moved on to greener pastures. The South Asian WikiProjects recently had a drive to bring in new members, and this apparently really helped grow their membership. I was thinking about asking some of those project members to help me with something similar for the Horn African WikiProjects, in conjunction with the Somali and Amharic wikis. Should I be prematurely gone in the intervening period, this of course won't even be necessary; the Horn editors will flock by themselves in droves, albeit with a very different mindset. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, are leaving Wiki or are you expanding into different Wiki Projects? Your departure will truly be Pandora's box. On the other hand, that drive idea would be very useful. AcidSnow (talk)
Yes, I'm afraid so. There are some important real life matters I've gotta take care of. Unencumbered by wiki gruntwork, I think my time online will also be much more productive and effective. It's been quite a ride (especially in the early, naive days, when Wikipedia was a very different place), but there are roughly 16 million Somalis, 94 million Ethiopians and 6 million Eritreans that can take up the mantle when I decide to bow out. I'll let them know I've left when I do, so no worries. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see now. I appreciate your assistance and guidance these past few years Midday. Best of luck! 22:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments Midddayexpress. If you are indeed considering leaving Wikipedia, I would thank you for your many constructive edits. However, for you or anyone else (Horn editors or suchlike), given the quantity of detrimental edits, I would be quite willing to use AN/I, an RfC, or Arbcom to address the matter. WP:NPOV is one of the foundation stones of this encyclopedia; it is not something to be ignored or twisted over and over again to promote particular points of view. Regards Buckshot06(talk)02:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't have made a difference either way. It really was time for me to move on to bigger things and hand over the mantle to a new generation of Horn editors. Notice, though, how this fellow is already threatening action against them too. lol As if that will in any way dissuade new Horn Wikipedians from joining the website, as is their prerogative. Actually, I'm thinking about submitting a memoir of my Wikipedia experience to some of the major Somali, Ethiopian and Eritrean media outlets. It'll be under a pen-name, but I'll mention my handle Middayexpress and it will contain some relevant wikilinks and comments. The readership might be surprised, disappointed or even angered to learn what goes on on the website, but it is what it is. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, but is this goodbye? If so, then It was nice working with you. If you need anything, then feel free to email me. I opened my email for you and sent something a while back but never got any reply. AcidSnow (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I believe I found what appears to be an "accurate" list of Imams of Mogadishu containing 11 Imams up till 1899. Though I am confused as to when the Ajuran ended. If the Abgaal captured the city from the Muzzfar in the mid 18th, then did the Ajuran also survive this long as well? AcidSnow (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it seems that there was another one whom was the last Sultan of Mogadishu/Ajuran. Anyways. It seems that he "employed" Abgals for something and in the end they overthrew him. The Abgals then elected Imam Omar. But there's something odd about his name, if you look at the link in the normal way you get "Omar Gelulé". However, this name doesn't show up on Google Books, but rather "Omar Gelide". Is there a family relation between the Abgaal and the Geledi o.0? Probably not, since at the bottom it clarifies that it's Omar Hilaulé. Anyways, I found another list by a French individual (Charles) that "visited" Mogadishu but it doesn't match the genealogy used by Robecchi-briquettes. He instead states that Omars father was "Djelule" and gives a different line of succession. This individuals also claims things about Mogadishu which aren't true. AcidSnow (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out: [104]. Supposedly they both came from the same family. If this is true, then I ask why were most Somali ruling families all from the same family? Also, what exactly am I post to respond to on the Civil War? AcidSnow (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Hi AcidSnow. You're basically now the new Midday, so responsibility for the proper functioning of the general Horn WikiProjects rests on your shoulders. There will be many new Horn editors joining soon, so please be sure to welcome them and show them the ropes. It's been nice working with you bro; we'll keep in touch. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sure will Midday. It was a pleasure working with you as well. There are many more things I would like to state but sadly the English language is unable to express my feelings. Nonetheless, stay golden! Ciao! AcidSnow (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somalia Standard Time until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These guys warring with you on the Walashma page don't really know much about Horn history...
Harari234 in particular just couldn't grasp that the Walashma's "Arab" genealogy (the Aqeeli-Jaberti one which is their most accepted genealogy) is basically your standard Somali-Arab genealogy shared by various other Somali dynasties:
"Abdullahi Bin Koge bin Warmaeke Bin Mahamed Bin Mahamud Bin Salah Bin Hantale Bin Amlale Bin Abdi Bin Mahamad Bin Abdirahman Bin Isma'il Bin Ibrahim Bin Abdirahman Bin Muhammed Bin Abdi Samad Bin Hanbal Bin Mahdi Bin Ahmed Bin Abdalle Bin Muhammed Bin Aqeel Bin Abi-Talib Bin Abdul-Mutalib Bin Hashim Bin Qusaya"
^ That's the Warsangali's genealogy (I suppose Harari234 believes them & millions of Somalis to be Arabians just like the Walashma based on this genealogy) and here's the Walashma's:
"Umar Bin DunyoHuz Bin Ahmed Bin Muhammad bin Hamid Bin Yusuf bin Barkanti Bin -missing names- Bin Isma'il Bin Ibrahim Bin Abdirahman Bin Muhammed Bin Abdi Samad Bin Hanbal Bin Mahdi Bin Ahmed Bin Abdalle Bin Muhammed Bin Aqeel Bin Abi-Talib Bin Abdul-Mutalib Bin Hashim Bin Qusaya"
More or less the same genealogy as the Walashma claim descent from the same lineage the Somali Darod clan does-> they claim to be descendants of Aqeel ibn Abi-Talib via his descendant Ismail Al-Jaberti whose son Abdirahman came to the Horn and supposedly founded the Darod line.
Practically every person in Northeast Africa with a "Jaberti" genealogy (or just a connection of sorts to "Jaberti"; not necessarily a genealogy) more or less claims a connection to the Darod clan founder whether they're just standard Tigrinya Muslims (Jaberti people) or Horn African/ Somali Muslims as far away as Egypt but Harari234 probably didn't know anything about this...
Btw, I hilariously discovered through some simple research on my own (granted, I can't share this on Wikipedia) that these Arab genealogies (the Darod one, the Isaaq one and even the Yusuf bin Ahmad one are blatantly fake: [-]). Good luck explaining this to Harari234 if he ever comes back though... :/ Awale-Abdi (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcidSnow -- can you tell me any of the backstory on the person following you around reverting your edits? (IPv6 2001:590:xxxx) Is it someone who used to edit with a username -- or someone who is just harassing you? Turns out that yes it is possible to stop this, to answer a question you posed on a couple of other admin talk pages recently -- but that's 4 billion addresses. I'm hoping he will explain on my talk page (he just left me a note). Antandrus (talk)03:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologize, BBB23 wasn't active at the moment. Anyways, most of the people that I have encountered on Wikipedia usually have typical IPS, ie. 92.XXX.XXX etc. I think it possibly someone just harassing me or because they dislike my work in general. AcidSnow (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should provide brief relief. I checked the last 5000 anonymous edits, and there were no others from 2001:590: so the chance of collateral damage from a short rangeblock is remote. If you need help from another admin (I'm not always around), and they're not familiar with IPv6 rangeblocking, refer them to the link. I wish the person would just explain, but alas not everyone is reasonable. Antandrus (talk)03:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Antandrus: This range contrib list suggest that 70-100% of the contributions from the 2001:590:* (a /32 range) that you blocked are vandalism. (Hit the 'toggle all' button on that page to expand everything). So a block of more than 3 hours might be safe to do. Maybe several days. You probably won't hit any editors who ever post on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- yes -- there was exactly one good editor within the last 24 hours in that long list, and that was a person making very tiny edits. If this person comes back I'll rangeblock. I just blocked 95.141.31.6, the last IP used by this person (a dialup in Milan). Antandrus (talk)13:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are now two more groups that are harassing me that have now made 19 reverts as isn't me (all in different pages). Their ranges are 98.124.175 and 216.177.129. Thank you guys for your time! AcidSnow (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of 216.177.129.21. Thanks Ed. AcidSnow, ping me if there are others. I'll block the nLayer IPv6 range again if necessary. To the person doing these mindless reverts: if you have a legitimate content grievance, take it to the article talk pages; the way you are going about this guarantees failure of whatever you are trying to do, since all we see is harassment of a good content editor. Antandrus (talk)04:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many are bad edits, and with these, reverting them improves the articles, why does AcidSnow remove any content that references the Somaliland Times? [107]Spumuq (talq) 16:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but there not. It's a partisan site. BTW, don't follow me around on articles you have no business in to only speak negatively against me. AcidSnow (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that the MoI was tied to the conflict directly but was a casualty of the insecurity he himself was going to address according to the first reference. 26oo (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, given that you seem to be one of the few active users on the project, have you noticed any systemic bias on the project regarding article content. I feel there is a need on the part of some users to remove content regardless of its source because according to them it seems positive related to Somalia? I'm asking because you were more active the better part of this year so I am wondering essentially. I also noticed the run-ins I have are the same people that tried to get an ANI on me which failed. Much appreciated. 26oo (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed this query while almost losing my temper with AcidSnow. (AcidSnow, we need a stub start on Vice President of Somalia, and that seemed a logical place. There's no publishing deadline, so give me time to arrange the refs.) Now, 26oo, while trying to remain civil and to assume good faith, I need to tell you personally that you, especially, systematically select biased sources to come up with your articles. The reason why me and others have had so much back-and-forth with you is that the sources you used do not appear to most people to be reliable. They are biased because they are mostly produced by people with something to hide regarding the subject of the article. Puntland is not independent enough of the PMPF, in such a troubled region, to be accepted without question as a source on the PMPF. Same goes for the Central Bank of Somalia on the economy. There's no way that any reliable international source would say that Somalia has a 'healthy' economy. It's suffered over twenty-five years of civil war and Al-Shabaab still controls much of the countryside. So the things you write don't appear to be fact. When compared with the definition of reliable sources, they appear systemically unreliable. I hope this helps explain why many times people have queried what you write. Regards Buckshot06(talk)20:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are your assertions however the 'many' you speak of are few in reality and have an evident bias not just in introducing material but selectively sources they agree with. It's an absolute joke to disregard Somali sources who are the authority on the subject because you don't like them and does not happen on any other Wikiproject. Al-Shabaab and any other sidestep issues have nothing to do with the content nor will I indulge in such talk. Your attack on AcidSnow right now is evident of the bias. You introduce material without references and threaten him when he challenged it, in accordance with the rules. I have enough edits now to make this conclusion. The so-called many are indeed the same people you messaged to open a ANI on me (which failed of course). Instead of taking the issue to a Reliable source noticeboard, you have chosen to either threaten or coerce users on the Wikiproject which is why you failed to gain traction. In regards to the economy, that can be discussed on the Talk page. Thanks for the input. 26oo (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not get into a debate here 26oo. However, to more clearly understand my intent, you would be better to ignore this just passed unfortunate misunderstanding with Acidsnow. To stick strictly to the point, in all those other Wikiprojects - or many of those other Wikiprojects you mention - the home sources, say the British sources on WP:Great Britain, match quite closely with WP:THIRDPARTY sources from other countries, commenting on the situation in Britain. Because the British official sources match other reliable sources, there is enough reasonable evidence to believe that they are correct. When there is a very wide difference between any country's official sources, and other, independent, WP:THIRDPARTY sources, Wikipedia's guidelines (YESPOV, for example) require us to go with those WP:THIRDPARTY sources. Regards Buckshot06(talk)21:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you haven't read the economy talk page nor the sources involved. They are similar, one mentions healthy in the context of informal economy during the civil war as Somalia is still undergoing one. Nor is the source widely different from anything else. The difference is that there are no current statistics in Somalia and the first census is to be completed this year. There is nothing disparaging about the text and if you can't dismiss a reference because you don't like it. It really is baffling that you can't understand this however based on previous interactions on the PMPF page, I do not expect much. Thanks for the reply. 26oo (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There would have been a basis for that argument if the word 'informal' had been inserted. The reputed CBS source did not say 'informal', and nobody inserted the word 'informal' in the Economy article. Thus that argument does not meet our WP:RS test. Buckshot06(talk)22:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CBS says the following "Despite the absence of an effective national government, Somalia managed to maintain a healthy informal economy." The CIA goes as follows; "Despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia maintains an informal economy largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications." You haven't even been part of the discussion on the talk page yet you purport to know what the text says. This is what I mean by evident bias. In any case, I've proven my point. Thanks for the response. 26oo (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My golly. Wow. My opinion of you has just gone up about 30%. After all the changes of the past 48 hours, the page does say informal. My apologies - I withdraw, retract, and apologise regarding one of the two articles, the Economy of Somalia article. Buckshot06(talk)22:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can an apology constitute embarassement? I was wrong, and I admitted it, regarding this one specific article (not, I should carefully say, in regard to the general POV actions of 26oo). Humility extends ones' lives. As requested, I'll stop posting here from now on. However, I am obliged by the rules of AN/I to inform those who are the subjects of complaint, so I may have to make a short post on this page at some future point. Farewell anyway. Buckshot06(talk)00:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're will aware of what the true embarrassment was. Anyways, I didn't say you're ban from my page. If you need anything, then feel free to ask. However, I don't want you here at the moment after what you have just done here. As for you apologize, saying this doesn't help: "inform those who are the subjects of complaint".
Honestly no, Acidsnow, we're reaching across too vast a cultural gap to understand. I don't know what you mean about my being embarrassed. If you wish me to understand, you'll have to explain it very simply. I also don't understand what's bad that I did that you wish to not have me here for the moment anymore. I started by trying to explain something, after all. Buckshot06(talk)07:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you cite some specific examples of POV editing, 26oo, I'm inclined to suggest that this is mostly just work to correct Middayexpress's POV editing that sought to present Somalia in the best possible, uncritical light across Wikipedia, for which they have now been topic banned. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's an example in this very topic but given that Buckshot06 admitted a mistake, I see no further reason to keep this going. Good day. 26oo (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convenient to see you in this topic but this isn't the first mistake. Again, there's no need to stir tension where none exists at the moment, the topic died before you brought it up again. 26oo (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there's systemic bias across a range of articles about Somalia, as you suggest, that would be an ongoing issue, not one that quickly dies. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, I said it's an example. That said, if there are any content dispute, take it up on the talk pages, not a user page like this. I asked AcidSnow a question given that they have been the most active content creators on the WikiProject. 26oo (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove valid content again that represents the best data we have for Vice President of Somalia, in a sort of a logical place, that can develop into a stub article with time and trouble, you risk me bringing down a lot of trouble on you. I will source it - GIVE ME A COUPLE OF DAYS OR MOVE IT, DON'T REMOVE IT!!!! Buckshot06(talk)20:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well don't remove useful content when we don't have anything about the subject on which it was added. I will refrain from replying to the rest of your comment. Buckshot06(talk)20:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must be joking? What will you report against me say? "User AcidSnow removed content that had nothing to do with the article and wasn't sourced"? Good luck. AcidSnow (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Vice President of Somalia article was redirected because of its redundant nature. IF the user feels compelled to make a new article then so be it, but you are well within reason to remove content that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject nor is referenced. Also, if you are threatened you are well within your right to report them. 26oo (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Vice President of Somalia entry is not redundant. I was trying to start adding data which may in time form a full-fledged article. It is a completely valid subject for an article, as the references at Mohamed Ali Samatar will show. It meets the WP:GNG. You will note that I have, five minutes ago, before noticing your comment, re-re-directed it to the only place in WP where there is a concise lump of information about Somali Vice Presidents. Buckshot06(talk)21:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06, the article in its then state was redundant, there is no denying that. However if you want to add text to it by redirecting it back to its original title, then so be it. But you are in the List of Presidents of Somalia page, not the Vice President. Put it in its appropriate article or none at all. 26oo (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no point creating a three-sentence article when the research has hardly started. I started with two Vice Presidents, and while adding the source for a second, found a third. When it's two-plus paragraphs a separate page might be warranted, but there is no policy-based reason for WP:SPLITing an article when the redirect is in place and it's under 36kB (WP:SIZERULE). Buckshot06(talk)22:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Somaliland map". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 July 2015.
The request for formal mediation concerning Somaliland map, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Nah, if you bothered to look you would have noticed that I have been being harassed for over a month as have other users. AcidSnow (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dandaawi (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is just another user harassing me. There's also this one for another user: 26o1. I suggest you block both, the other one has already started causing trouble. AcidSnow (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to get brief about all the harassment from IPs I and another user has experienced these past few weeks? This will help clear up anything you have on these two accounts. AcidSnow (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were harassed in March by IP 121.220.98.113, from Melbourne. I just blocked 137.147.177.16, same geolocation, similar edits. Drmies (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Richard0048 (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Greetings! There seem to be marked differences in hair form between the northern and southern groups. This is largely due to the riverine groups in the south mating with the local, pre-Hamitic population. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Straight and wavy hair is found amongst all Somalis regardless of their clan. It's also referred to as jileec, not haji. A "Haggi/Haji" is a person that completed Hajj.[108] Also, the distinction between "noble" and "Sab" is in reference to occupation, nomadic vs sedentary (i.e. farmers, blacksmiths, etc). It has nothing to do with "mixed origins". AcidSnow (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Heggi" (Haji), also known as the "Hashiya", is a colloquialism for the northern clans. This was because their genealogical traditions nominally asserted descent from the Banu Hashim tribe (though as you know they are actually of Hamitic origin). Also, while wavy hair can indeed be found in all clans, it is not uniformly allocated. This is the characteristic hair form of the northern Heggi specifically, not really that of the southern riverine Sab groups. Puccioni quantified this in his general physical analysis [109], and Luling further explained it in her anthropological treatise on the Sab [110]. Thus, the traditional divide between the northern Heggi and southern Sab is not just cultural (nomadic pastoralism vs. sedentary agropastoralism). It is, at a more fundamental level, due to differing ancestral origins. This is why the Sab: (1) still speak other, non-Somali Cushitic languages, (2) are genetically admixed with adjacent Bantu populations (Triska found that almost a third of sedentary agropastoralists in the southern Bay area (i.e., the Sab) had significant Bantu ancestry [111]), and (3) are anthropometrically closer to the Omotic groups than they are to the northern Somalis [112]. The tradition that the Sab have mixed heritage, therefore, appears to be based in reality. All this considered, I think we should either clarify the actual clan allocation of wavy hair vs. afro-textured hair per Puccioni and Luling, or remove the passage altogether since the latter hair form is not characteristic of the population as a whole [113]. Which do you think is best? Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologize, I didn't understand what you were referring to initially. The "Heggi/Haji/Hashiya" seems to be an obsolete classification as very few modern sources use the term. As you have pointed out, the bases of this classification is that the clans include claim decent from the Banu Hashin clan. According to Somali genealogy, both groups (the Sab and Samale) claim descent from Aqil ibn Abi Talib (who is from the Banu Hashim clan of the Quraishi).[114]. Sab and Samaale are also siblings since they are both the sons of their father "Hiil".[115] Clans that descend from Samaale also includes the Darood and the Hawiye; clans that not only inhabit northern and central Somalia but also the southern regions of Greater Somalia (see here: [116]). However, only the former is included in this "Heggi/Haji/Hashiya" classification instead of both.[117] Those that use this term (almost entirely the British) also classify the Dir clans, such as the Issa, as sub-clans of the Isaaq (see here: [118]) even though it's not the proper classification (see here: [119]). Not only does this "Heggi/Haji/Hashyia" classification seem to be highly inaccurate, the same can be said about the respective sub-clan classifications! This would make sense since it's used by very few after the 1960s, according to Google Books.[120] Though, a reasoning such as this would probably violate WP:GNUM.
Anyways, thats an interesting piece from the Oxford Journal. The journal indicates that it tested "161 individuals from 13 Sahelian populations"; which does include Somalis but doesn't provide us with the exact number of individuals. Though judging by this graph (see here: [121]) the number of individuals is minuscule. It does, however, state that those tested did originated from southern Somalia. Even with these individual results it doesn't represent the majority of the population. This is something that this study recognizes as well: ...some Somali, who instead show substantial fractions of Western/Central ancestry (27%), possibly received from the Bantu expansions in the region of the African Great Lakes".[122] This is because intermarriage between these two groups (the Bantu and the Somali) is rare and doing so would result in exile.[123] Bantus also didn't inhabit southern Somalia until the 1800's when they were brought in as slaves.[124] As such, it would contradict what is already known and supported by Somali culture and history.[125]
The claim that certain clans are noble due to their ancestry is unfound and isn't supported by Somali culture and history.[126] It is only the ethnic minorities (i.e the Arabs, the Bantu, etc.) of Somalia that have distinct non-Somali physical features.[127] The classification "noble" is actually in reference to their nomadic lifestyle in contrast to the sedentary Sab.[128] The nomads also dislike those whose occupation is farming as well as those with other sedentary lifestyles (i.e. the Yiber, Midgan, etc.).[129]
As you have already pointed out, these admixtures/characteristics don't represent majority. As such, they should be removed entirely. I would also like to take the time to thank you for your good work on the various Somali related article that I have seen you edit. AcidSnow (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Soupforone :),
Acid snow is aware of my knowledge of population genetics and brought this discussion to my attention. Please forgive the spliced up manner in which I'll be replying to your post, doing so helps me make more succinct replies.
"Heggi" (Haji), also known as the "Hashiya", is a colloquialism for the northern clans. This was because their genealogical traditions nominally asserted descent from the Banu Hashim tribe (though as you know they are actually of Hamitic origin).
I'd never heard of these "Heggi" or "Hashiya" terms until now but Acidnsosnow discusses these terms better than I can. There are varying interpretations of the clan genealogies. Some assert that the Hawiye, Isaaq and Dir are all one macro-clan descended from "Irir Samaale" while the Darod are supposedly paternally Arabian outliers while one source even points out that, during the 1800s, the Hawiye supposedly saw all the other Somali clans as "Hashiya" and themselves as equivalent to the whole nation, and then there are the interpretations Acidsnow mentioned. These are fables though and you're right about the Hashemite origins not being true. However, these populations are not "Hamitic", that is a completely obsolete racialist and linguistic term that tried to unify Egyptians, Berber speaking Northwest Africans and Northeast Africans of Cushitic speaking origins into some sort of Linguisto-Racial category. The truth, as we've learned it via population genetics, is much more complex (Somalis, Habeshas, Oromos et al. basically being part West Eurasian and part pre-historic East African, for example) and the linguistic term "Hamitic" has been completely dropped at this point as "Egyptian-Berber-Cushitic", to the exclusion of Semitic and Chadic, is simply not a valid linguistic node.
Also, while wavy hair can indeed be found in all clans, it is not uniformly allocated. This is the characteristic hair form of the northern Heggi specifically, not really that of the southern riverine Sab groups. Puccioni quantified this in his general physical analysis [130], and Luling further explained it in her anthropological treatise on the Sab [131]. Thus, the traditional divide between the northern Heggi and southern Sab is not just cultural (nomadic pastoralism vs. sedentary agropastoralism). It is, at a more fundamental level, due to differing ancestral origins. This is why the Sab: (1) still speak other, non-Somali Cushitic languages, (2) are genetically admixed with adjacent Bantu populations (Triska found that almost a third of sedentary agropastoralists in the southern Bay area (i.e., the Sab) had significant Bantu ancestry [132]), and (3) are anthropometrically closer to the Omotic groups than they are to the northern Somalis [133].
These somewhat old physical anthropology studies aside, the genetic study you shared doesn't support the anthropometric assertions. They basically sampled 11 Somalis in a Yemeni refugee camp and shared their original location as Southern Somalia (based on the latitudes and longitudes as well as a map) and labeled these people as "Sedentary" in nature which does perhaps imply that they're "Sabs" but non-Sab Somalis from this area are sometimes sedentary farmers as well, that should be noted. Now, the thing is, only 3 out of the 11 samples seem to show West-Central African/Bantu-speaker-related admixture:
You can see that it's only 3 samples somewhat via the ADMIXTURE graph but more clearly via the PCA where only 3 Somali samples cluster as relative intermediates between the "East Africa and Chad" and "West Africa" clusters. The rest cluster more or less as Somalis from the North and even Kenya tend to cluster in various studies (Pagani et al. 2012, Lazaridis et al. 2013-2014, Hodgson et al. 2014) and look to show zero West-Central African/Bantu-speaker-related admixture in the ADMIXTURE graph (in fact, the Oromo samples show a bit of such admixture when the Somali samples, other than those 3 or so samples, show none). So this is very poor proof of Sab-Somalis (if they really are Sabs) being notably "Bantu" admixed.
Instead, all that seems apparent is that there are 3 complete outliers who probably have significant & recent outside admixture from Somali Bantus in Yemen or from Somalia. If such admixture was widespread among the Sab; it's very strange that roughly 8 out of 11 samples look to totally lack such admixture and then 3 have a whole lot. Your point would seem better served if the entire sample-set was ~30% West-Central African-related or had varying degrees of such ancestry from 5-30% or so, but what we get instead is the majority seeming to lack such admixture and then 3 sudden outliers carrying a lot of such ancestry. Much more indicative of recent out-mixing.
This type of out-mixing is also rare. It's always been known that Rahanweyn clan members have "Bantu" folk present among them, or that they offer their patronage/protection to them due to the historical importance of clan relations in Somali society, but they don't tend to mix with them often at all as this results in the person being immediately ostracized (their children will not be married by other members of their community, for example), so people avoid out-mixing in such a way as a result.
(1) still speak other, non-Somali Cushitic languages
This is frankly about the only substantive difference noticeable between the two macro-groups for now, this and culture (something Acidsnow noted). Granted, not all of the subclans and members of the four main clans (Dir, Darod, Issaq and Hawiye) are semi-nomadic pastoralists. Gadabuursi Dirs around Awdal have seemingly been Agro-pasotralists for a long-time whilst clans noted during the early 20th century and 19th century such as certain Darod sub-clans in areas such as Hararghe were agro-pastoralists during the 1800s and likely periods before. Even non-Rahanweyn clan Somalis do sometimes farm in the riverine south. The Rahanweyn, particularly those who speak their own Lowland East Cushitic languages like Maay, which is extremely closely related to Somali, also seem to predate Somali clans like the Hawiye and Ajuran in Southern Somalia, these more "proper" Somali clans seemingly migrated from the North perhaps ~1,000 years ago or so and brought "Coastal/Benadiri Somali" and its variants to the region. Awale-Abdi (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, AcidSnow. Your work is much appreciated too. The above is most interesting; I would just like to make a few minor clarifications. Puccioni's physical analysis was actually his second. His first analysis was published a few years earlier in 1911, but it drew criticism from the anthropologist Radlauer for being unrepresentative (Radlauer had just published his own physical analysis on the northern clans, so he was something of an authority). As a result, Puccioni made certain to parse the data on a clan basis in his later, more comprehensive analysis, which had been commissioned by the colonial authorities. The "Heggi" in his work are actually the Darod and Dir clans of northern Italian Somaliland, the "Haouia" are the Hawiye of the south-central area, and the "Sab" are the Rahanweyn of the riverine area. Puccioni found three distinct physical types: an original Hamitic northern type (Heggi/Haji), a Negroid-influenced riverine type (Sab/Rahanweyn), and an intermediate southern type (Haouia/Hawiye). The northern type was generally tall, lithe, fine-featured, lighter-skinned and wavy-haired. The riverine type was much shorter, stockier, less fine-featured, darker-skinned, and often had afro-textured hair due to admixture with freed slaves. The southern type was intermediate between the two in all measurements, with some individuals closer to the northern type and others nearer to the riverine type [134]. Since his Haouia sample was rather small (consisting of 8 individuals), Puccioni cautioned that it was not necessarily representative; so you may actually be right that there are no considerable differences between the Haouia/Hawiye and the northern clans. However, the dimorphism between the northern and riverine groups has been observed in virtually every other intra-group phenotypic analysis. The Triska genetic study is interesting because it is the first to find any significant Bantu admixture in the Horn, and exactly where one would expect it given tradition, the Zanzibar slave trade route and anthropology (i.e., in the southern riverine area). You're probably right that this Bantu element is recent because if it had been ancient, it would certainly have been found among the Rendille and similar groups that immediately preceded the Sab in that general area - yet it isn't. Therefore, it indeed appears to have been due to matings during the 18th-20th century slave trade.
One last misconception that I'd like to quickly clear up is the true identity of the so-called "Arabs" in Somalia. The Benadiri are actually of Hamitic origin, like other ethnic Somalis. They are descendants of the early Cushitic settlers in southern Somalia, who were known in the classical period as the Azanians. The Periplus describes the ethnogenesis of the coastal Azanians, indicating that they sometimes intermarried with Arabian merchants from Muza/Mocha-- "there lies the very last market-town of the continent of Azania, which is called Rhapta... Along this coast live men of... very great in stature, and under separate chiefs for each place... The Mapharitic chief governs it under some ancient right that subjects it to the sovereignty of the state that is become first in Arabia... And the people of Muza now hold it under his authority, and send thither many large ships; using Arab captains and agents, who are familiar with the natives and intermarry with them, and who know the whole coast and understand the language"[135]). Accordingly, the Y-DNA of the Benadiri mainly consists of the E1b1b paternal haplogroup like most other Somalis, with some secondary J and T clades due to these intermarriages [136]. This basically tells us that Puccioni was spot on about the physiognomy of the first Cushitic speakers in the Horn since the Benadiri are markedly Hamitic. They don't look Afro-Arab like the Zanzibari natives, which they logically should have had their Azanian ancestors been a Bantu/Nilotic people. Likewise, when I. M. Lewis asserts that some northern clans also have some Arabian blood, what he means is that there are many persons identical to the Benadiri in the north (i.e., the "cad" Somalis) [137]. But we know from uniparental marker studies that here too, the inhabitants are actually of Hamitic origin. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Heggi" in his work are actually the Darod and Dir clans of northern Italian Somaliland, the "Haouia" are the Hawiye of the south-central area, and the "Sab" are the Rahanweyn of the riverine area. Puccioni found three distinct physical types: an original Hamitic northern type (Heggi/Haji), a Negroid-influenced riverine type (Sab/Rahanweyn), and an intermediate southern type (Haouia/Hawiye). The northern type was generally tall, lithe, fine-featured, lighter-skinned and wavy-haired. The riverine type was much shorter, stockier, less fine-featured, darker-skinned, and often had afro-textured hair due to admixture with freed slaves. The southern type was intermediate between the two in all measurements, with some individuals closer to the northern type and others nearer to the riverine type [138].
I don't mean to get anecdotal in order to refute any of this but I've never noticed such a difference between Hawiyes and other Somalis. And it sounds like they're generalizing. Northern Somalis (Dir and Darod, if we're to stick to just these two clans) are not remotely more light-skinned, lithe or what have you when compared to Hawiyes in South-Central Somalia. Most honest Somalis will tell you that they can't even tell the difference between the three clans unless someone is recently admixed (Bantu or Arab ancestor etc.). Also, various Hawiye clan members have seemingly been genotyped commercially for their autosomal DNA and they don't look any different from any Darod, Isaaq or Dir. Comprehensive Y-DNA & mtDNA studies on diasporan Somalis (genotyping hundreds of Somalis regardless of their clan affiliations) also find general homogeneity. All we've learned so far from sequencing the genomes of various Somalis is that this seems to be a rather genetically homogeneous ethnic group, not one with the kind of variation these outdated phenotype based studies from a century ago seem to assert. But it's good to know the anthropologist in question even made these assertions based on an unrepresentative sample size (8 people).
The Triska genetic study is interesting because it is the first to find any significant Bantu admixture in the Horn, and exactly where one would expect it given tradition, the Zanzibar slave trade route and anthropology (i.e., in the southern riverine area). You're probably right that this Bantu element is recent because if it had been ancient, it would certainly have been found among the Rendille and similar groups that immediately preceded the Sab in that general area - yet it isn't. Therefore, it indeed appears to have been due to matings during the 18th-20th century slave trade.
That study isn't interesting though (Well, it is interesting, but for different reasons) because, as Acidsnow and I pointed out, 3 people out of 11 being ~30% or so West-Central African/Bantu-speaker-related admixed whilst 8 seem to totally lack such admixture speaks against your point. It makes it look like these 3 people are just outliers with recent admixture (like a grandmother/partially admixed parent). The study doesn't say anything on this subject but they're likely even related given their extremely uniform admixture levels.
Therefore, it indeed appears to have been due to matings during the 18th-20th century slave trade.
Not at all, it simply looks like 3 people have what could be a Somali Bantu grandparent. In fact, despite the study saying some of the samples are about ~30% West-Central African admixed, the ADMIXTURE chart makes the gene-flow look much more substantive than that:
They look borderline 50-50 in that ADMIXTURE chart. These could seriously just be three people out of eleven who have a mostly Somali Bantu parent. Basically, if they're not exactly 50% then the parent themselves could be partially Somali-admixed. People tend to rule out the possibility of Somali Bantus having at least some Somali ancestry themselves which is possible. It's a big stretch to claim this could date to the 18th or 19th centuries (1700s and 1800s).
But this is all irrelevant because this study basically doesn't support your prior claims or the claims of the old academics you're sourcing. The majority of the Southern Somali samples cluster solidly in the "East Africa and Chad" cluster and show no pull toward the "West Africa" cluster and also don't even show noise levels of West Central-African/Bantu-speaker-related admixture in the ADMIXTURE chart. They just look like your typical pre-historic West-Eurasian + pre-historic East African mixture like Somalis in other studies and from commercial sources (I.e. 23andme.com). The only thing that seems a bit interesting about the samples with no West-Central-African/Bantu-speaker-related admixture is that some of them have a bit of a pull toward the West-Central Oromos in the PCA which might imply some Ari-like admixture/admixture from Borana Oromo-like people, something we've seen in the past. Otherwise, they seem really normal.
A Negroid-influenced riverine type (Sab/Rahanweyn)
One thing to keep in mind is that the Rahanweyn are not a normal clan. They are not to be confused with the Darod, Isaaq, Hawiye and Dir in terms of how their clan structure works. They are not entirely a kinship group which always asserts that they share a patrilineal origin. Instead, they have seemingly always been seen as a conglomeration of various peoples from Southern Somalia, with some of their members even supposedly being assimilates from the other four clans. The Rahanweyn clan's name is said to mean "Big-crowd" or "People who came together" for this very reason.
Somalized or Maayized former Bantu-speakers (some such as the Mushunguli preserved their languages until very recently) would basically be pseudo-assimilates within what is basically a confederacy between several linguistically diverse (Maay, Tunni, Jiddu, Garre etc.) Cushitic speaking populations, despite not being blood-related to them. I say pseudo-assimilates because this was more like a "patronage" type arrangement. The former Bantu-speaking folks in question, pejoratively called "Jareer" and "Adoon" by Somalis and other non-former-Bantu-speaker Rahanweyns, would essentially be protected by clans like the Geledi but would be labeled with words like "Sheegad" ("claimers" would be a rough translation) to point out that they are only members of the clan by name because of the historical importance of clan affiliations in Somali society (particularly in the hinterland) but they aren't, despite the Rahanweyn clan technically being a confederacy more than a kinship group, seen as members by blood or as equal to non "Jareer" clan members. Having children with them is then abhorred and does result in being ostracized, like unmixed people not being willing to marry one's mixed children.
So, finding "Negroid" or "Negroid-influenced" Rahanweyns is not anything shocking. They were, in a way, historically a part of the clan and would, at times, be found living among non "Bantu" Cushitic speakers. But these people are in the minority and are not to be taken as examples of the majority of Rahanweyn clan members who do not seem physically distinct from Somalis of the 4 main clans or other Horn Africans (Oromos et al.) in general. The only non-Somali influence I have always suspected in non-Somali Bantu Rahanweyns is something perhaps Oromo-related which the linguistic data somewhat implies could be present. Even one of your links led to a dendrogram which pointed to an affinity between Oromos and the "Sab".
One last misconception that I'd like to quickly clear up is the true identity of the so-called "Arabs" in Somalia. The Benadiri are actually of Hamitic origin, like other ethnic Somalis.
Again, I don't mean to be rude but this "Hamitic" stuff is obsolete pseudoscience, I'm only saying it again because it needs to be said. As a linguistic term it has no utility anymore (something I pointed out earlier) and as a genetic term it also has zero value as Somalis, Berber speakers and Egyptians are not relatively "pure" descendants of a pre-historic "Hamitic race". They definitely seem to share pre-historic ancestries probably tied to Afro-Asiatic speaker migrations but not at all in the rigid racialist manner the "Hamitic" model implies.
They are descendants of the early Cushitic settlers in southern Somalia, who were known in the classical period as the Azanians.
Anyway, what you've said about Benadiris is simply incorrect and not in line with the traditional view which is that they are an ancestrally diverse community (not that they are "Arabs") of Iranian, Arab, Somali and "Bantu" origins. We have a handful of genotyped Benadiri genomes. You're right that they're not exactly "Arabs" and they are, in fact, of partial Somali or Somali-related origins but they're clearly not "native Hamites" or what have you. The so far genotyped Benadiris (a little upwards of 4-5 samples) seem like a strange mixture between Horn African/Somali-related elements, South Asian elements, West Asian elements and Southeast African Bantu elements. See here. Though, these samples have been commercially genotyped (AncestryDNa and 23andme) and while the genotyping chips these companies use are perfectly fine (some of these companies are even involved with peer-reviewed studies like 23andme and this ground-breaking Harvard Med study); I can understand if you're going to adopt a skeptical view because this data doesn't come from a peer-reviewed journal article.
Nevertheless, Benadiris physically do tend to look like what these mixture proportions imply and it's been known for a long time that they're a mixture between Iranians, Arabs, Somalis and Southeast African Bantu people. Granted, a lot of them (not all) have, since the Civil War, been frantically claiming to be "pure" Arabs or "pure" Iranians or something to that effect, essentially going through identity crises.
Accordingly, the Y-DNA of the Benadiri mainly consists of the E1b1b paternal haplogroup like most other Somalis, with some secondary J and T clades due to these intermarriages [136].
I've seen this study before and it's highly suspect, quite frankly. The Y-DNA frequencies are far too similar to that of ethnic Somalis (20% or so Y-DNA T-M184 and mainly E-M35), it's entirely possible that there was some odd mislabel and these are really just ethnic Somalis. Various Arab countries do consider Somalis "Arabs" (given the league membership). I'm checked into the "Arab" population during a census in the Gulf nation I reside in, for example. No idea if Yemen is remotely similar but it is frankly strange that it says "Arabs from Somalia". Would be a really odd screw-up if these are just normal ethnic Somalis.
Nevertheless, this study's data is contradicted by a mtDNA study from 2013 (see here and here). In this mtDNA study, they mixed a lot of ethnic Somalis in with what seem to have been Somali Bantus and Benadiris and there were very clearly mtDNA N/West Eurasian haplogroups unheard for Somalis (T2, J etc.) which correlates will with how the few Benadiri samples whose autosomal DNA I've seen have diverse Y-DNA markers like L1, J1, R1a and E-V32 with L1 & R1a generally being unheard for ethnic Somalis. Benadiris are not totally foreign to Somalia, that seems clear for the time being but they're definitely of substantial non-Horn African origins as well. Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above tome seems a tad off-topic and fervent. Anyway, I'll try and make this final reply brief and to the point. Whether or not the Sab are a descent group, they are in general linguistically, culturally, physically and genetically different from the northern Somalis. The non-anecdotal data is quite clear on this. Pretty much every phenotypic analysis on the Sab has found that they are markedly different from the northerners, in everything from their cephalic index to their nasal index to their stature. You are of course free to argue that these standard anthropometric indicators are "outdated" or whatever, but they have their value nonetheless. And these metrics show that the Sab are closer to Cushitic-influenced Nilotic and Bantu populations than they ought to be. The one-third of Sab individuals in the Triska analysis who appear to be partially Bantu probably do have such recent admixture, as I wrote. However, what you seem to overlook is the remaining so-called "pure" Sab, who appear little different from the Cushitic-admixed Samburu Nilotes (unlike the average northern Somali). This again suggests a deeper layer of foreign influence in that population. Also, I'm sorry if "Hamitic" grates, but it is a term of convenience that connects the native Afro-Asiatic speakers in Northeast Africa; these ancestral ties themselves are also real [139].
I'll finish by pointing out that every published mtDNA study on Somalis has been conducted on a national basis, and thus has included Sab individuals. The only study that hasn't and doesn't is Non (2010), which retyped Watson and Richards' Somali sample from Kenya (Richards indicates that their initial analysis was methodologically flawed, as it was conducted before haplogroup N had been identified [140]). Unsurprisingly, Non's ethnic Somali sample had markedly higher West Eurasian mtDNA than in the national samples that included the Sab individuals. 60% of individuals carried such clades, which included "weird" lineages like haplogroup H (the Benadiri are not alone in this regard) [141]. This only further underscores the atypical nature of the Sab community. As regards the Benadiri Y-DNA, if one inputs the STR values into one of the haplogroup predictors, they show a predominance of E1b1b lineages like other Somalis, but also a moderate frequency of J clades above the Somali norm [142]. Therefore, this does indeed appear to be an actual Benadiri paternal DNA profile. Although South Asian and other elements can be found in general Somali samples [143], it's actually the claims of the commercial genetic testing companies that are most doubtful. They freely admit as much too. On these tests, certain Nilotic populations like the Nuer appear to be almost purely "African" (and are thus sometimes used as proxy samples), yet in uniparental marker analyses, anywhere from 0%-40% of Nuer individuals actually carry Eurasian maternal lineages. Clearly, the situation is a lot more complicated and interesting than a simplistic West Eurasian-and-native-East African scenario. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This will probably be my last reply since nothing "new" has been presented. Anyways, regardless of Puccinnis findings a few things are clear: (1) the "Heggi/Haji/Hashiya" classification is obsolete, (2) "Hamitic" (as an ethnic classification) is obsolete pseudoscience (this is something that Awake-Abdi has already pointed out), and (3) Somalis don't mix with the Bantu; which is something that has historically been well known.[144] Sadly, Bantus still face discrimination in Somalia to even this modern day. Though, the discrimination outside Somalia (not including adjacent regions) seems to have decreased (see here: [145]).
Both the British and Italian Colonial authorities only categorized the Bantus differently from the Somalis, not Somalis from each other:[146]
"While upholding the perception of Somalis as distinct from and superior to the European construct of "black Africans", both British and Italian colonial administrators placed the Jubba valley population in the latter category. Colonial discourse described the Jubba valley as occupied by a distinct group of inferior races, collectively identified as the WaGosha by the British and the WaGoscia by the Italians. Colonial authorities administratively distinguished the Gosha as an inferior social category, delineating a separate Gosha political district called Goshaland, and proposing a "native reserve" for the Gosha."
All Somali clans, including the Rahanweyn and minority clans, poses the same ethnicity, culture, and common origin. This is not only supported by cultural and historical evidence (see here: [147][148]) but also modern science (see here: [149]). It is only the non-Somalis, such as the Arabs and Bantu, that have non-Somali features and orgins:[150]
"With the exception of the Bantu, Rerhamar, Bravanese, Bajuni and Eyle who have distinct "non-Somali" physical appearance, all other minorities have physical appearances similar to that of the dominant clans, as well as having ethnic and cultural similarities.".
Both Awale-Abdi and I have also already shown that Triskas research results are not conclusive on the ancestors of the Sab clans. At best, it supports that three of the individuals tested significant Bantu ancestry while the others don't.[151]. Not only this, but this study doesn't even indicate which clan(s) that these individuals hail from, but rather that they are simply from a Yemeni refugee camp (see here: [152]). AcidSnow (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could rebut the above (including the Hamitic origins of Somalis per the Somalia government [153]). But I won't, as it has little to do with the differences in hair form. Please see below for that. Soupforone (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have dispute it if you don't want to. Nobody is forcing you to. Also, I am not sure how my statements have "little to do with the differences in hair form". If they are, then my I ask why you mentioned those points (what I was responding to) to further support your statements (see here: [154])? Oddly enough, you seem to have an issue with tangents/off topic things (see here: [155]). AcidSnow (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soupforone, it doesn't matter at all if the old Somali Republic believed Somalis to be "Hamites". Plenty of people used this term and accepted it's validity in the past. It is, however, an obsolete term from both a genetic and linguistic perspective now (something I showed you more than once here, in the second section/discussion) yet you keep clinging to it no matter how much other people show you this. Also, you often go off-topic but then suddenly begin chastising people for responding to your own off-topic comments. i.e. I wasn't the one to first bring up the "Afro-Asiatic/Hamitic" issue in that section I linked to. You did so by mentioning that there were other Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples (when I substituted "Hamitic" with "Cushitic"). I then acknowledged that there were other Afro-Asiatic speakers and even replaced "Cushitic" with "Afro-Asiatic" whilst explaining why this was preferable to "Hamitic"; you then began mentioning that I shouldn't go off-topic despite everything off-topic I was posting being in response to something off-topic that you posted (that section was not supposed to be about there being other Afro-Asiatic speakers or anything like that). Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awale-Abdi, actually, there is no satisfactory ancestral designation for Somalis and related peoples. "Hamitic" is one such descriptor [156], but I see you prefer other designations on your blog. Anyway, since discussion of the Sab's phenotype and the genotype that produced it is supposedly off-topic here, and since acknowledgement of the Somali-Sab cleavage is apparently frowned upon among some of the citizenry [157], I'll focus on the actual hair form below. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really trying to prove your point by linking to Somalis that use the term "Hamitic" lol? More importantly, nobody but you claimed that the phenotype and the genotype of the Sab clans was supposedly off-topic here. Anyways, the claim that the Sab have prominent Bantu is inaccurate and has thoroughly been discussed on this page. In addition, Lewis also supports the claim that some Bantus are indigenous to Somalia which is factually inaccurate. So it not that surprising that he too would inaccurately believe in the latter given the former. Though it should be assumed that an ethnic group would forge there differences for the sake of nationalism. Nonetheless, per this edit it seem that this discussion has come to a close. It has now shifted to to whether or not it was even relevant. AcidSnow (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So please do try to chime in. I don't want to have to get an Admin involved so perhaps a non-Administrative third party chiming in will help out for now. Awale-Abdi (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been observing this discussion for the past day, so I do understand what is going on. However, I have other things to respond to first. So do give me some time to respond. AcidSnow (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! Can you explain why Laitin indicates that the Sab nobles have different hair form from the lower castes? Shouldn't they have the same morphology? [158] Given this, what is your suggested phrasing? Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Latin is talking about the free Bantu (aka the "Xabash") not any Somali group. I thought it was pretty clear:[159]
"In the south, among the Sab clans. there is a noble-xabash distinction which is also a caste relationship. Although the xabash are part and parcel of the Sab clan structure, they are clearly distinguishable from the nobles by their dark skin, flat noses. and "hard" hair". Please don't jump to conclusions. AcidSnow (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume that you are correct and that by xabash, Sab Laitin means Bantus specifically (though he doesn't specify this). The wording of the phrase would still be inaccurate since Mouton indicates essentially the same thing, albeit the distinction is now between the jileec (Somali) and jareer (Bantu) [160][161]. Therefore, something like the following would be more accurate-- "Within Somali society, there exists a jileec and jareer caste dichotomy. The jileec are of ethnic Somali origin and are distinguished by straight-hair and a gracile build, whereas the jareer are believed to originate from the Great Lakes region and are distinguished by afro-textured hair and broad features." Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Luling indicates that there is a "broad nose, big mouth, hard hair/thin nose, narrow mouth, soft hair" divide between the habash (low-castes) and bilis (nobles), respectively. She also asserts that some of the xabash (habash) are actually of Eyle and other non-Bantu origins [165]. However, since these apparently form a small fraction of the xabash, the "originate from the Great Lakes region" above works fine. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Luling also states that from the start of the Somali coast to just north of Mogadishu was controlled by the Bantu.[166]
Well, you indicated that it was largely tangential, which I suppose it was since it wasn't really on hair form. Anyway, yes, Luling does touch on the pre-Cushitic indigenous population that Ahad indicates there are early records of, mainly in the southern riverine area [167]. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't since your clearly referring to this: "I am not sure how my statements have "little to do with the differences in hair form". If they are, then my I ask why you mentioned those points (what I was responding to) to further support your statements (see here: [168])? Oddly enough, you seem to have an issue with tangents/off topic things (see here: [169])". Kindly stop with this behavior.
Are you going back on what you previously supported? Ahan states that some Rahanweyns are decedents from Bantus pre-19th century Bantus which contradicts your statments.[170] Plus, Ahan supports a bunch of other hogwash so its not surprising that he to would support the this. Though, I am not really sure why you cited him to further support Luling. Anyways, this discussion has come to a close per this edit. AcidSnow (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote above that "the distinction between "noble" and "Sab" is in reference to occupation, nomadic vs sedentary (i.e. farmers, blacksmiths, etc). It has nothing to do with "mixed origins"". That is what I was referring to there. Also, please note that removing my own comments is my prerogative per wiki policy.
Anyway, I don't think you thoroughly read through the Ahad link. He notes that there is a non-Cushitic indigenous element within Sab society, and highlights numerous historical records establishing this. Thanks though for the fix on Afro. However, you appear to have made a typographical error, as it accidentally omitted the jileec vs. jareer distinction we discussed and the wording you recommended above. This is not a problem though, as I've fixed it. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did take the time to read Ahan statements but it's all besides the point (see above if you don't recall why). Anyways, the removal of the "jareer" vs "jileec" wasn't a mistake since it was off topic. "Guud weyne" is a hairstyle (see here: [171]), not Afro-textured hair. It's relevancy is something that I brought up twice, see here and here. As such, "jareer" vs "jileec" should be mention on that article instead of the former. Feel free to reply here or at the articles talk page that you started.
I wrote that the marked differences in hair form between the northern and southern groups were largely due to the riverine groups in the south mating with the local pre-Cushitic population, to which you replied that the distinction between "noble" and "Sab" was actually an allusion to nomadic vs sedentary occupation and had nothing to do with "mixed origins". The rest of my posts were intended to show that these differences were indeed ascribable to absorption of a pre-Cushitic population (which Ahad touches on). Hence, why I removed my own, apparently tangential comments as per WP:UP#GOALS. But if you feel that they are not tangential, that's fine by me.
Anyway, the assertion on the Garre and Gaalje'el hairstyle actually appears to be from I. M. Lewis. He writes that the traditional coiffure of young herders from these southern clans is "distinctive" i.e., uncommon and particular to them [172][173]. The barbaar here is also a young farming group; that is, native to the agricultural areas in the south [174]. Further, that work describes "hard hair" as atypical among the nobles [175]. Point taken, though, about the hairstyle vs. hair texture. Since the Garre and Gaalje'el hairstyle is generally uncommon among the pastoral nomads whereas it is comon among the young agriculturalists, I think therefore it should be phrased as: "In Somalia, young sedentary farmers would grow their hair long and carefully comb it into rather large bushes, which they would then hold in place with ghee [176]. This elaborate hairstyle was quite distinct from that of the pastoral nomads, who would instead grow long and fluff out their fine, straight hair and place a chewing stick and comb in the center. [177]" Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, I have been busy these past few months.
Now, even with my adjacent statements that is not what I indicated, nor do I believe that your reasoning for removing a third of the discussion is supported by WP:UP#GOALS. I kept your statements due to that fact that not all of it was off-topic. Now, if you understand that this is a misunderstanding we should be able to move one.
Lewis is inaccurate in his description that the hairstyle is exclusive to Garre and Gaal'jeel clans due to the fact that it's also a custom among all semi-nomadic clans (see here: [178]). Plus, the Gaal'jeel are a semi-nomadic Hawiye clan themselves (see here: [179]) while the Garre are simply a pastoral Rahanweyn clan (see here: [180]) or stand-alone clan depending on classification. As such, these Afro-styled hairstyles are clearly found in both semi-nomadic and sedentary clans. In addition, there is no "genotype/phenotype" divide amongst nomadic and sedentary clans as I and Awale-Abdi previously indicated.
Also, in regards to the "hard hair" that your book is referring to being possessed by the "commoners" in contrast to the "Bilis", it's not referring to some Somalis but rather a curse that the "Boon" have been bestowed upon.[181] If your unaware, "Boon" is another term used to refer to the Bantu.[182] In addition, "Bilis" actually refers to all ethnic Somalis.[183]
Anyways, the Afro article should read something on the lines of this: "In Somalia, young men of the nomadic and sedentary communities would grow their hair long and carefully comb it into rather large bushes, which they would then hold in place with ghee [184]. This elaborate hairstyle was quite distinct from another hairstyle found amongst other Somalis whom instead grow their hair long and fluff out their fine, straight hair and place a chewing stick and comb in the center''.[185] Au Revoir. AcidSnow (talk)
Soupforone, are you referring to the map you presented earlier and that the Somalis outnumber the Bantu as shown in the map? If so, then that okay. But I added it because it's another term. AcidSnow (talk)
Greetings! A user has been appending genealogies on Darod and Isaaq from one Mohamed Eno, a Bantu-centered advocate of the "Afropolitanism" [187]. Eno claims the opposite of what you and Awale-Abdi indicated above. That is, he insists that Bantus are the autochthones of Somalia rather than later arrivals and writes from that "Afropolitan" perspective, contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE. Some WP:REDFLAG genealogies from Richard Burton were also appended, although John Walter Gregory indicates that they are caricatured and based on atypical Somalis [188]. Further, the user removed apparently legitimate genealogies collected by the British Somaliland government, which record the tradition that a Ram Nag was the patriarch of the Dir clan. Could you please provide clarification on this here? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Smoke Burger (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Eritrea's geographical naming". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 September 2016.
The request for formal mediation concerning Eritrea's geographical naming, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
One thing i find interesting is that richard and a bunch of the confirmed socks started editing around september, october or november, regardless of the year, it is still significant, you may want to add an important side note on that if you feel that this information is valuable. Iazyges (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! A user has appended some clan stratification stuff, similar to that which you removed earlier but far less accurate [189]. It indicates among other things that the Sab/Rahanweyn constitute the lower servile strata. When you read this, please fix this. Kind regards-- Soupforone (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AcidSnow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Kzl55 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some research on Horn of Africa articles on Wikipedia, and it seems a notoriously combative and biased former contributor called Middayexpress was run off Wikipedia - only to resurface as AcidSnow and, possibly, a user called Soprofone (sp).
These sorts of "contributors" make Wikipedia less reliable than it really should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.198.191 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AcidSnow, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leo Africanus uses ethnoracial and complexion nomenclature in a mutually exclusive manner. He indicates that the Adel sultanate stretched from the Bab el-Mandeb strait in the northwest to Cape Guardafui in the northeast ("Adel is a very large kingdome, and extendeth from the mouth of the Arabian gulfe to the cape of Guardafu called of olde by Ptolemey Aromata promontorium"), and that the Adea kingdom, of which the Mogadishu sultanate (Magadazo) was its hub, flanked it to the south. According to him, the native inhabitants of these sultanates -- who, in this 16th century, consisted of various Somali groups per the coeval Futuh Al-Habasa -- were for the most part of an olive complexion, with some darker complexioned ("the people of Adel are of the colour of an olive"; "the inhabitants [of the Magadozo sultanate] were of an olive-colour, and some of them blacke, like unto the nations adjoining"). He indicates that the southern interior, which bounded the Adel and Mogadishu sultanates, was mainly inhabited by dark pagan Cafri negro populations, as was the Zanzibar sultanate to their south ("the inland-partes thereof are peopled with a blacke nation which are Idolators"'; "in all which space the cities standing upon the sea-coast[...] were strongly walled toward the lande, for fear of the Cafri, or lawlesse wilde Negros, who were deadly enemies to the Arabians, and utterly misliked their so neere neighbourhood"; "the inhabitants [of Zanguebar] are for the most part black, with curled haire, being Idolators, and much addicted to sorcery and witchcraft"). Leo Africanus describes the denizens of the Adel and Mogadishu sultanates instead as being originally descended from Arabians ("the inhabitants [of the Adea sultanate] being Moores by religion, and paying tribute to the emperour of Abassia, are originally descended of the Arabians") [190]. He believes this because of their distinct morphology, bedouin-like culture and early usage of the Arabic language. For these reasons, he also describes many of the populations of North Africa as Arabians; so this descent tradition should not be interpreted literally. Cheers--Soupforone (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand now. Do you know why their are conflicting statements regarding skin tone? Ibn Battuta states that the people of Zeila and Mogadishu are "black Berber". Do you think this might be due to individual interpretation, Soupforone? AcidSnow (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are clearly modern misinterpretations of what Battuta indicates. What he actually writes in the literal translation from the original Arabic is that the inhabitants are a "people of the Soudan". By this, Battuta means the actual Sudan region. He has an entire chapter on this region, wherein he explains that it was inhabited by peoples of various complexions and extractions, including "Berbers". He describes the rulers of the Sultanates of Agadez and Mogadishu both as "Berber". Since the Sultan of Agadez was an ethnic Tuareg, what Battuta therefore appears to be indicating is that the denizens of these realms were of related ancestral origin (which, interestingly, has been confirmed by modern genetics). Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of any pre-Islamic graves in northern Somalia? Have they been linked to Somalis? If not, then what communities? Thank you for your time. AcidSnow (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man! It's been a minute. No, I'm not that familiar. Generally, though, graves in the area are associated with the ancient Harla. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am not particulary active on Wikipedia at this moment. If you every need input on a subject, then feel free to ask. Anyways, there seems to be several overlaps with Somalis and the "Harla", so it isn't particularly surprising that many historians believe that those communities aren't separate ethnic groups.
In addition, are the terms "Negro", "olive", and "black people" that are used by Leo Africanus mutually exclusive? His statements regarding the inhabitants of northern and eastern Somalia would indicate that he is referring to Somalis, except the olive skin part. AcidSnow (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Cafri that Leo Africanus alludes to are probably Nilotes since he describes them as pagans of very high stature and pitch dark complexion. He also indicates that the Cafri are believed to be descended from Jews [191]. This is quite interesting since many Beta Israel do happen to carry the Nilo-Saharan-associated paternal haplogroup A, whereas other Beta Israel instead share markers with other Jews and Afroasiatic speakers (haplogroups E1b1b, J). The Cafri heartland was apparently in Cafraria, an ancient territory located near the capes of southeastern Africa [192]. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes more sense now. Thank you, Soupforone. If you get a chance please see my first reply. This and other aspects of what is already known about Somali history don't support a south to north hypothesis seen in the Omo–Tana grouping. I've seen more recent genetic studies on Somalis that link their migration through the Red Sea coast. It also seems odd to link Somalis closer to groups such as the El Molo, than to the Afars (further in the Omo-Tana grouping) or even to the Oromo (closer, but diffrent sub category). Thoughts? My apologize if I've already asked you this already. AcidSnow (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, genetics do not suggest a northward movement from southern Ethiopia, especially within the speculated epoch (~2,000 years ago). Any such migration would had to have taken place several millenia before that since the Afroasiatic speakers in that vicinity generally do not share the same E1b1b paternal subclade as those to the north in the Horn. They instead bear the V12/E3b1a1 subhaplogroup [193], whereas the V32 subclade is dominant toward the north, including among Beja inhabiting the Nile Valley. Since the basal V12* is most common in Upper Egypt, ancient southward demic diffusion appears more likely. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is all quite interesting. I've seen the original document of that image and its pretty odd. How do the Garre factor into all of this given that they have the highest percentage of V12 at 74%? Are the Garre in Somalia the same as the Garreh in Kenya? They claim to descend from Samaale like other Somalis. From what I've seen so far, only the Garre seem to present high levels of V12 among Somalis. They also possess slightly different mtdna percentages compared to Somalis in general.
The Garreh(e) also apparently claim Oromo ancestry. However, their V12 paternal subclade and language suggest that they are descended from a distinct Afroasiatic-speaking population. Also, their maternal haplogroup profile is rather different from that of Oromos, Afars, Somalis etc.. It only appears to be similar in the Hirbo analysis because the latter borrowed its mtDNA frequencies from Watson and Richards et al., who overestimated their macrohaplogroup L frequencies according to Richards [194]. Luckily, though, Non resampled the Watson and Richards series, and has presented the correct haplogroup frequencies (~60% M and N sublineages on average [195]). Watson and Richards also messed up the Tuareg's mtDNA frequencies, making it appear as if Tuareg individuals are largely haplogroup L3 carriers, when in fact we now know that H1 is the primary Tuareg maternal clade. Anyway, the presence of the paternal haplogroup J among the Boni is quite interesting, isn't it? What do you make of the ~52% of J among the Omotic-speaking Shekecho who inhabit southern Ethiopia? That is almost twice the usual J frequencies found among neighboring Ethiopian Semitic-speaking populations. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am more familiar with Y-DNA Haplogroups. The Mtdna haplogroups in the image add up to more than 100%. Is this image for the Garre or Somalis in general?
I am aware that the Garre have assimilated Oromos into their clan. But, given their Y-DNA I am not sure what to make of it. It would seem that they they are closer to the Gabra and other neighboring groups, than to other Somalis. Oddly enough, they have a much higher percentage of V12 compared to the rest. What do you mean by a "distinct Afro-Asiatic" people? Nonetheless, they seem to be the main outliers amongst Somalis.
That mtDNA is for the main northern Afroasiatic-speaking populations in the Horn. I linked you to it because you suggested that the southern Garreh(e) have only slightly different mtDNA percentages. The table's frequencies are divided into Eurasia-centered M and N sublineages, and Africa-centered macrohaplogroup L derivatives (the latter of which are labeled L(xM,N)). These total 100, with M1 and M1a1 counted as subclades of M. The Garreh(e) indeed have the typical E1b1b-V12 paternal subclade of the Gabbra and other southern East Cushitic speakers. However, V12 is generally not found among the more northerly Afroasiatic-speaking populations, whether Cushitic or Semitic speakers. The E1b1b subclades that the northerners instead primarily carry are V32 (among Tigre, Oromos, Somalis, Beja, Amhara, Tigrinya), V6 (among Afars), and V22 (among Saho). Also, please note that the Garreh(e) possess the generic E1b1b-V12 subclade. The basal/ancestral V12* subclade is primarily restricted to Upper Egypt, where it is believed to have originated and spread from. I'm not sure about the paternal haplogroup J, though. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AcidSnow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
For grace under fire during multiple SPI cases in which you have been named or been suspected of being a sockmaster or suckpuppet, you are hereby awarded this Purple Heart. I doubt its much consolation, but I've seen that in each case in which your name has appeared at SPI you've always kept a level head and never let anyone get the best of you, and in each case to date the check user tools have always supported your claim that you are independent. I find that admirable, and I hope its something you never lose. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AcidSnow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, AcidSnow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Benadir SC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk17:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!18:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!18:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove sourced content that is the subject of a RfC. The article's talk page is there for you if you want to join the discussions and cast your !vote. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajuran Sultanate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Smoke Burger (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello, I noticed your recent changes on the page Johnny Somali, I want to let you know that unless you have sources to back up your claim, please do not change anything, thank you. RowanJ LP (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
