Talk:Battle of Wayna Daga

message: The Imam was a Somali, that is a fact. And we know that the Ottomans helped the army of Adal in their war with the Ethiopians. Many sources identified him as a Somali. The army of Adal was mainly composed of Somalis.
"Once Ahmad Gran had gained control of the Muslim Somali state of Adal (Add), where he installed his brother as a puppet king, he determined on a jihad (Islamic holy war) against Christian Ethiopia. He created an army out of the masses of heterogeneous and nomadic Somalis who had joined him, motivated by religion and the prospects of wealth. He also made skillful use of firearms, introduced by the Turks, and employed a small body of Turkish troops." -The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Volume 1.
"Although his first foray against Ethiopia in 1526 proved unsuccessful, Ahmad strengthened his position in Adal, integrating many Somali tribes into the kingdom and recruiting large numbers of Somali troops for the army."-Colonies and Conquest: Asia 1494-1698.
And there are many more sources. Yes they were Muslims but we name them by their ethnic background, for instance look at the Crusades in the Levant. The Crusades was a religious war, obviously, we name the Christians;Franks, Frissians, Germans and the Britons and the Muslims soldiers are the Turks, Egyptians, Kurds and Sudanese. Runehelmet (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but the ethnicity of the Imam is not an undisputed fact; the authorities have tiptoed around the fact that none of the original sources say what his ethnic background truly was. Moreover, many different ethnic groups had united behind him under the banner of Islam -- not on behalf of ethnic or nationalist ideology. And not only the primary sources, but all of the secondary authorities acknowledge that. The Futuh al-habaša (available in a serviceable English translation by Paul Lester Stenhouse) notes numerous different ethnic groups followed his banner -- which included Muslim Ethiopian highlanders after his conquest of the province of Amhara; his Somali followers were just one group, & are not mentioned after the important battle of Shimbra Kure. Miguel de Castanhoso's eye-witness account of the battle of Wayna Dega mentions a number of renegade Ethiopians on the Imam's side, Arab mercenaries -- but no Somali.  Authors such as Richard Pankhurst & Paul B. Henze refer to his followers simply as "Moslems" -- not by ethnic identifiers. Those are known experts in this field, not tertiary sources like anonymous articles from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I'm sorry, but to call all of his followers "Somali" is an insult to the Afar, Harari, Argobba & other Muslim peoples whose ancestors followed the Imam's banner.Lastly, it is this kind of ethnocentric crap which drove me to stop contributing to Wikipedia on Ethiopian topics in a meaningful way. Everyone in Ethiopia thinks their group is getting shortchanged in coverage or POV, & uses it as justification to shortchange every other group. Trying to give adequate attention to every ethnic, cultural, and religious group is a difficult & painstaking task since the materials that meet Wikipedia standards are difficult to identify & obtain. The need to deal with chauvinist editors only discourages me -- & others -- from rising to the challenge of trying to do a proper job. Win this battle, & you get to deal with problems like improving the article on Mohammed Abdullah Hassan -- who is indisputably a Somali, & originally a foe of Ethiopia for good reasons -- from its "start" quality to a more appropriate one by yourself. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: First of all your way of discussing is not appropriate in Wikipedia manners. The ethnicity of the Imam is an undisputed fact. Yes, many have united with him, but did you actually read the quotes I provided? So you want to say that the people of Ethiopia fought in a national fury against Adal? You can single my sources out as 'not reliable and a anonymous' but you can't insult me as excluding the other ethnic groups. You may call it 'crap' but I see it as a fact, written in history. And by the way, the demonym 'Ethiopian' does not exist, they were(and are) a mixture of numerous ethnic groups. The army of Adal mainly composed  of Somalis, the number of other ethnic groups are not significant enough. Just because the Imam deployed some Mamluks and Arab mercenaries does not break the fact that nearly all of the Soldiers were Somali. And I don't see any problems with the Mohammed Hassan article. And to let you know: Mohammed Hassan was more against the Europeans, rather then the 'Ethiopians'. Instead of insulting your co-editors and behaving like a young kid, try to help and find a solution to improve the contents of Wikipedia. Runehelmet (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: Castanhoso is an eyewitness, his account therefore is a primary source. Please see for WP:PSTS for the limits of primary sources. We cannot base controversial facts on one primary source. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I understand you correctly that your source is this book:  ? If so, that's not an analysis of Castanhoso's account, but an edition. Meaning, it is still a primary source. BTW: It is not good style to revert once discussion has begun. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castanhoso 

message: I don't think that the picture is poor quality. We have a lot of pictures (e.g. old photographs) which are a lot poorer. Could you please tell me why it is controversial ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion