Talk:Walashma dynasty

message: :The Dynasty was multi-ethnic and Omer Walashma was an Arab who came from hijaz. Harari234 (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He wasn't and next time try to gain consensus instead of blindly reverting. AcidSnow (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Am not losing consensus, but let's leave it as a Muslim dynasty. Just to get rid of the conflict were having. Harari234 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: It was much more than that. AcidSnow (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Just leave as a Muslim Dynasty.  Harari234 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I honestly just did that, Harari234 and I think it's an adequate neutral end to all this. But Umar Walashma himself didn't come from the Hejaz, his ancestor Isma'il Al-Jaberti came from the 7ejaz (well, his son Abidrahman did) these Arab proslytizers never actually founded Somali clans but were claimed as Somali ancestors nonetheless, his genealogy (Aqeeli- the valid one) is basically a Darod clan genealogy. Midday shared a source (Fage) that explains how these proselytizers were both foreign but ancestral to Somali clans 
(fabled claims) in taking native wives:
"There is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and al-Dimashqi, another thirteenth-century Arab writer, gives the town its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali. By the fourteenth century the significance of this Somali port for the Ethiopian interior had increased so much that all the Muslim communities established along the trade routes into central and southeastern Ethiopia were commonly known in Egypt and Syria by the collective term of 'the country of Zeila'. Zeila was certainly the point of departure for the numerous Muslim communities and political units in the Ethiopian region, most of which, just like the Somali clan families of Darod and Ishaq, had persistent traditions of Arab origin."
The other genealogy which is a semi-legendary origin shared by Harari historians [-] [-] [-] & in oral traditions [-] goes to a similar proselytizer who was pretty much a well-known saint, one of his achievements being creating the proto-form for a sort of Somali-Arabic script. He impossibly claimed Hashemite (Ali, Prophet's cousin) based origins. These people are 'Arab' but also ancestral to Somali clans (claimed to be-> disproved by genetic data) and anyone claiming descent from them is essentially a Somali. But for neutrality's sake I think we both agree it should be left as "Muslim Dynasty". Everything I mentioned is responsible for why I.M Lewis and other historians viewed them as either Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis. [-] . These aren't "Arab genealogies"-> they're Somali ones which in turn like all Somali genealogies claim Arab origins. But I sincerely hope this is the end of all discussions here.  Awale-Abdi (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: 70.74.238.17/Harari234 please come to the talk page once again instead of edit waring. AcidSnow (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim dynasty

message: This wasn't a dynasty like the Muzaffar in Mogadishu who for example were "Jointly Arab & Somali rulers" with the ruler being a "Barbara" (Somali) for example in 14th Century CE when Ibn Battuta [-] visited but definitely having some Arab ruling predecessors to my knowledge. They weren't also a family made up of several groups. F.e. one leader was not Somali and then one a generation later was "Arab" & another was "Harari" & another was so and so. It's an inaccurate title but I truly appreciate the compromise from the editor who made it instead of "all out warring". 
But I'll state this very simply... There are but two genealogies for this group and various historical opinions on them from Ethiopian & Somali studies based historians. They are seen often as either Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis [-] [-] citing the Arab influence in their genealogies (claiming Arabian ancestors as many Somalis do) but then the Somali influence here is clear whereby for example individuals they claimed were for all extents and purposes beyond their grandiose and impossible (claiming descent from Ali, the Prophet's cousin for example) were "Somali", Aw Barkhadle for example was a speaker of Somali, devising a sort of writing form for it  Arabic where people could easily learn to read Arabic, this evolved into a sort of Somalo-Arabic script. But he is a legendary ancestor and couldn't have been their ancestor despite oral traditions [-] & Harari records affirming that he is [-]. The more accepted origin is the one tying them to the Darod clan and to Aqeel Ibn Abi Talib, this is the most repeated origin and is even shared by Ibn Khaldun. To consider this dynasty "Arab" is to consider all Somalis or all Darods "Arab" like them as all Somalis share in this form of genealogy and one of the genealogies is even directly shared with a Somali clan (the more accepted one, might I add). 
If you're using their genealogies as proof of their "Arab-ness" then imho you must do go onto the Somali people page and add the text 'An Arab people' and also add "Multi-ethnic" to every single ruling dynasty in Somalia as there's no genealogical tradition difference (in that they all claim Arab ancestors) between all of them and this dynasty (even the ones with yet living Somali descendants to this day) which clearly ties itself to Somali figures who in turn claim Arab origins and married native women whether ancestral or saintly. Their genealogy is "Arab" but only via Somalis and all Somalis have such genealogies. Otherwise I appreciate the compromise from the editor who made such an edit and invite him or her to a discussion here. If you want to add the title "A Muslim dynasty of either Arabized Somalis or Somalized Arab origins"-> I'm seriously willing for such a compromise if it will end constant warring over this (people claiming they're Argobba one day and then Arabs, it is getting tedious). I already made such an edit for neutrality's sake while we have a discussion here. Regards, Awale-Abdi (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt "run away" from discussion. It seems your using WP:SYNTH in your arguments. The IP user is wrong to say multi ethinic. So lets get this straight. My source say Argobba  yours says somalized arab or arabisized somali. Your source seems weaker. It generalizes the ethnic background by estimating that It was Arabs or Somalis. FYI Arogbba means Arabs have entered, its a reference to them immigrating to the horn many years ago. Zekenyan (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

text: It is indeed quite common for folks unfamiliar with Horn populations to attribute their non-African affinities to Arabian ancestry. This confusion stems at least in part from the Horn groups themselves, and specifically their traditions of descent. Like the other League of Arab States members, Somalia is in the Arab League for more than just political and economic reasons. It has been part and parcel of the Arab world for centuries. Traditionally, Hararis and many other Afro-Asiatic populations in the Horn are similarly socioculturally oriented. The Arab world itself for the most part isn't really "Arab"; most populations in it don't actually descend from the original Arabic language speakers. It instead consists of various Afro-Asiatic populations with varying degrees of Arabian cultural and linguistic affiliations. That said, genetics, linguistics and some cultural aspects suggest that most of the non-African affinities in the Horn today originate instead with the first Afro-Asiatic speaking settlers in the region. In other words, that's the ancestry, language and culture of the first Somali, Afar, Harari, Beja, Amhara etc. themselves. Hodgson et al. (2014) articulate this quite well in their study, wherein they identify a new non-African inferred ancestral component, which they dub the "Ethio-Somali". They estimate that ethnic Somalis, Afar, Tigre, Amhara, etc. trace the majority of their ancestry to this "Ethio-Somali" genetic component, and suggest that it is the legacy of the first Afro-Asiatic speaking settlers in the Horn. For reasons I shall try and elaborate on at another time, this is almost certainly true. Recent archaeological excavations in northern Somali territory have yielded old artefacts, including human figurines complete with countenances. These artefacts, and especially their likenesses, all but confirm the existence of an ancient Afro-Asiatic civilization in the area; one that was closely related to the Afro-Asiatic civilization in Predynastic and Dynastic Egypt and distinct from those of Bantu/Nilotic populations. Middayexpress (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The Argobbas are Arabs they are descendants of the Hijra to Abyssinia. The Arabisized Somali source does not even mention Walashma whereas my source mentions Walashma by name. As the user Awale has confirmed there is no source that will mention Somalis. Its quite clear my source stands as the most reliable. I dont think hypothesis and other Wp:synthis arguments is proper for this establishment. Do you have counter sources or not? here is a source that has an indepth history on argobba and mentions walasma. "'The Emperors recognized the prominent Walasma family known for their good deeds, as the overlords of Yifat and gave them authority to administrate"'on page 175  Zekenyan (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Argobbas are ordinary Ethiosemitic speaking populations. They just happen to primarily adhere to Sunni Islam instead of Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity. There are also no historical scholars who indicate that the Walashma spoke Argobba. Middayexpress (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: i guess you dont have any sources except WP:SYNTH arguments. Zekenyan (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I meant bring forth sources that say walashma family were Somali without WP:SYNTH. Im not here to talk about genetics and DNA. I am trying to explain to you that academics view Walashma as Argobba. Zekenyan (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: You simply cant "tie saints" and come to a conclusion. Did you read the synth policy? The lewis source is not mentioning Walashma directly. I dont see the problem in adding it in the body paragraph or in the Adal articles but this article is exclusively about Walashma. We must go by what the sources say. Your asking for my sources to be disregarded but you cant find a single source that says Walasma were a somali family. Instead your coming with your own conclusion that they must of been because Somalis have Arab ties. Original research cant be used on wikipedia. Zekenyan (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I read the source it doesnt mention Walashma. Zekenyan (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: That was Baboon43. He actually turned out be an alright, good faith editor, just with an initial difference in opinion. He was blocked for something else related to the Al-Ahbash organization. After actually reading the historical documents on Ifat, Adal and the Walashma, Baboon43 also eventually realized that the modern writers are all over the place with regard to these polities, and that their assertions are often essentially speculative (the Argobba claims are an excellent example of this); so it's ultimately best to rely instead wherever possible on the actual medieval or early modern literature (i.e. Al-Maqrizi, Al-Umari and Asma Giyorgis, etc). Middayexpress (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: They did. Please read instead of making things up. Abdi is simplifying it for you. AcidSnow (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Multi-ethnic" Makes little sense 

message: Zekenyan you have been proven wrong multiple times, so please stop your disruption. AcidSnow (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not disrupting wikipedia it is you. No source says Walashma are Somali but the contrary. Zekenyan (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, nice try but they do. AcidSnow (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you trolling? You know well awale abdi added the word  Zekenyan (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zekenyan 

message: Should the ethnic background of the dynasty say "Argobba"?
=== Argobba ===
* Support - Per reliable sources   Zekenyan (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  These sources may make it more clear.    &  (Page 14 footnotes) Zekenyan (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Ethnicity 

message: * Support - Per reliable sources   Zekenyan (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  These sources may make it more clear.    &  (Page 14 footnotes) Zekenyan (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argobba 

message: User:WilinWil discuss your edits here. You are currently editing against consensus Zekenyan (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilarious, you are reverting edits from a Walashma Ingoman (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ingoman Walasma was of amhara-arab background. To say his children are now Somali means nothing his descendants can be Chinese. Zekenyan (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Walashma dynasty was not of "amhara-arab background" which is something that was previously mentioned by other users. AcidSnow (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They are what the source says. Zekenyan (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the kind of guy who dominates wiki articles these days, zealous morons with way too much free time.  Adios wikipediaIngoman (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Unsourced Material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Walashma dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423062326/http://www.mbali.info/doc328.htm to http://www.mbali.info/doc328.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I STATRED TO SUSPECT THE LOW REGARED THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO WORJI PEOPLE. MY SUSPECTE ON THE ISSUES DEVELOPED AFTER SOME CONCIDERATIONS TWO OPINION ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF WORJI . ONE FROM OUR PISET MERI RAS ,THOUGH ,PUT THE NATIVITIES OF WORJI BEFORE 371 B,C ..BUT THIS NARATION WITH OUT GOING FARHER TWISTED 360M DEGREE AND BEGAN TO NARRATE AS WORJI APPEARED IN THE LAND DURING 700 A.D. THE SCONDE NARRATION LINKED WITH MIGRATION OF WORJI FROM MEDINA DURING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CLIPHTES . IF THIS IS SO I BELIVE THIS PEOPLE ARE THE ONE WHO SERVE AS SULTANATS OF YEFATE ,SHOWA AND IFATES . WHY ? THIS IS BECAUSE THIS PEOPLE WAS LEAD BY ABDUREHAMN . ABDUREHEMAN IS THE ONE THE GOVERN SPAIN . IF ABDUREHAMAN AND THE PEOPLE THAT MIGRATE WITH HIM TO SPAIN WAS ABLE TO ESTABLIS MUSLIM GOVERNMENT WHY NOT HIS RELATIVES THAT CAME TO ETHIOPIA .OTHER SUCH AS HADIA ,AREGBO ARE FILLOWERS OF THEM NOT WORJI 196.188.127.240 (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  SHOWA  SULTANATES  

message: Hello @Biishaar,
I reverted your recent edit since it was disruptive and unconstructive. Somaliland is a de facto state and given that the Adal sultanate did not control parts of Somalia proper it would be misleading to label it as simply "Somalia", not to mention that going against WP:NPOV.
Many thanks, Gebagebo (talk)  00:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2022 

message: I will gradually improve the descriptions of the reigns of the Sultans in the rulers list, please check the Sultan's pages I linked in the list for citations and dont delete my content Yubudirsi (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check Linked pages