Talk:Walashma dynasty

Muslim dynasty

The Dynasty was multi-ethnic and Omer Walashma was an Arab who came from hijaz. Harari234 (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't and next time try to gain consensus instead of blindly reverting. AcidSnow (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Recent edits

Zekenyan please stop edit warring and come to the talk page. AcidSnow (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is your sources. Zekenyan (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

sources [[1]]. Zekenyan (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That claim is presented by a fringe author (Braukämper). Though, even this book states that they are foreigners to the land but simply spoke the language. Hence, not Arggobba. AcidSnow (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You have displayed no sources. This is not the place for original research. Its comedic that you use that same "fringe" authors source in another talk page here [2] Zekenyan (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please reread the article or at least read it since you appear to not have read it at all. AcidSnow (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC

Another source to confirm [3] Zekenyan (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also [4] Zekenyan (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That page of the Cambridge book is talking about the inhabitance of the kingdom. I am not surprised since certain areas were inhabited by the Semites. Though, the book mentions nothing of Arggobba. Why is that? The Walshma, like all other Somali dynasties, spoke Arabic; which is also a Semtic tounge. It's even explained on this article that the dynasty did not in fact speak any Ethio-Semitic language. AcidSnow (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Argobba is an Ethiopian Semitic language.. Again you have provided no sources that state that they are SOMALI. Zekenyan (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out that the founder, Sultan Omar's ancestor was Saint Yusuf. In fact, Saint Yusuf is a prominent Somali religious leader. Ironically, this too is on the article. Anyway, the Ethio-Semitic has already been disproven. AcidSnow (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

So you do not have any sources then. Zekenyan (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have plenty, though what's good will it do? You don't even bother to read the article, so why read something that complete crushes your claims? AcidSnow (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I may show it later though. See you later for now. AcidSnow (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

ok Hakuna matata Zekenyan (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Walashma themselves had Arab genealogies like many patriarchs in the Horn. They were ancestral to many populations in the region, including Somalis and the later Hararis. This is the first I'm hearing about the Argobba tie, as they weren't really associated with the Adal Sultanate. At any rate, given this, I think the lede should perhaps simply describe them as Muslim. Middayexpress (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't surprising that they claimed Hashimite linage since that what all Somali clans do. Ironically, the specific linage they claim is the same as many clans. As I pointed out earlier, Sultan Omar (the founder) is a descendent of Saint Yusuf; which clearly indicates that the dynasty was Somali. AcidSnow (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. There was apparently a dynasty in Zeila prior to the Walashma. I'm not sure who was the founding Sultan, though. Middayexpress (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if I sound aggressive or mad. Anyways, I would assume it might have been a Somali like the rest since Zeila is Somali Though, I read in one book that Umayyads had controlled parts of northern Somalia. Maybe they broke off and made their own? AcidSnow (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No prob. I think it was simply latter day Barbaroi who had adopted Islam early on. They already had kingdoms centuries prior, during the Periplus era, but their newer polities were now instead sultanates. Middayexpress (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought they were all city-states rather than just cities. The book mentions that they were each headed by a chief. Though, I guess chief can be swept for "King". Do you have a copy of Periplus or a book that give commentary on it? AcidSnow (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think they might have overlooked Somali history that was recorded by the other Arabs? Take a look at this: [5]. AcidSnow (talk)

Perhaps. Here's Schoff's 1912 translation of the Periplus [6]. Middayexpress (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Zekenyan-> there are plenty of sources on the page showing the genealogical traditions that trace them back to Somali figures such as an ancestor shared with the Darod clan which was shared by such figures as Ibn Khaldun [-]. Hell, you should know that a Harari historian claimed they were descended from a Somali saint (Yusuf bin Ahmad Al-Kawneyn) [-]. Enrico Cerulli also noted down this fabled origin from the Somali saint from a Harari record with I.M lewis taking note [-]. And as I said in an edit-> I.M Lewis does refer to them as Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis & even for example touches upon their fabled connection to Yusuf/ "Aw Barkdhadle (meaning; Blessed Father)[-] and Ethiopian historians somewhat unfamiliar with a good part of their history at best considered them Arabs such as in the case of Asma Giyorgis [-].

The more generally accepted and shared by most historical sources genealogy is the Aqeeli one via Isma'il al-Jabarti, the fabled Somali Darod clan ancestor whose only known descendant to have ever affected the Horn in anyway is Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti (Darod clan founder) whom everyone associating themselves to "Jeberti/Jabarti" including the Jeberti people tie themselves to. To claim this dynasty was anything but Somali after the plethora of sources tying them to such figures is practically dishonest. Anyway, you wanted sources so I gave you some.

You will never find a legitimate source claiming they were "Argobba", Braukämper is as Acidsnow said; a fringe figure with wildly incorrect notions about a good number of things. He once claimed the Harla people were likely Ethio-Semitic only to immediately concede that he had absolutely no evidence for this claim... Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S:

If you're searching for medieval sources using the world "Somali" you're wasting your time as the word's current use as an ethnic designation is relatively a new phenomenon (only ever really used in the Middle Ages in a hymn issued under the orders of Yeshaq I to describe the Ifat Sultan's troops). Medieval sources describe Somalis mostly either via their clan designations (these genealogies mostly tracing back to Arabians) such as with the overwhelming majority of the Adal Sultanate's forces in the Conquest of Abyssinia or as "Barbara" (or some such variant of the word) [-], a term used by the Islamic-Arab world on Somalis with a call back to the old "Barbaroi" term used by the ancient Greeks & Romans on the mostly pastoral nomadic tribes inhabiting Northeastern Sudan, the Danakil and then being the progenitors of port-towns/ city-states of sorts in northern Somalia [-].

Also on a random side note: the Walashma practiced agnatic seniority succession which is also practiced by some Somali royal houses to this day, i.e. the last 4 [[7]] Boqors have been brothers or nephews of the previous Boqor. This is not at all an Arab or Abyssinian (or to my knowledge; Argobba) practice. Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Awale-Abdi. AcidSnow (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No prob. :-) Awale-Abdi (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Multi-ethnic" Makes little sense

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)

To add to the above just a little bit-> these genealogies have been proven to be fake for most Somalis via genetic data. I.e. the majority of male Somalis are carriers of either E-V32 or in some more westerly regions of Greater Somalia; T-M184, these are both obviously not Arabian Y-DNA markers. (An explanation of haplogroups for more layman readers) Some Somalis and indeed various Horn populations carry J-M267/ J1 which is a marker with subclades common among Arabians however the J1 presence in the Horn does not fit with Arabians, it has more diversity in the Horn and looks more like a bottle-neck in Arabia-> and the marker is rare among Somalis. Well well over a hundred ethnic Somali males from all over Greater-Somalia tested for their Y-DNA mostly come out with E-V32, a marker shared with fellow Cushitic speakers like Oromos and T-M184 is shared with virtually all Horn populations who speak Ethiopian Semitic or Cushitic languages. In terms of autosomal DNA it's been well-established for years no that Somalis show no real Arab ancestry at all. They have a gross amount of West Asian ("Middle Eastern") ancestry but it's quite ancient as even sources shared on this site point out on the Somalis page.

Here are various peer-reviewed papers on population genetics (inarguable data) touching upon Somali-Horn Y-DNA & mtDNA data and corroborating my statements: [-] , [-] , [Shares mtDNA data for Ethiopian Jews] , [-] , [-] , [-] , [-]

Peer-reviewed paper for admixture/ Autosomal DNA (a representation of the actual ancestry in groups): [-] , [-] , [-] , [-] , [-]

I'm adding this because one member came onto my page trying to argue that Somalis definitely have Arab ancestry citing how we "joined the Arab League" which is a pointless thing to bring up as we joined it for economic and political reasons/ motivations that it has barely even satisfied over the last few decades with some Somalis even wondering why we're still a member. Whilst the cultural, historical, religious and trade connections between us and Arabians are sacrosanct and cannot be denied-> we are not at all "An Arab people", genetically, linguistically (we are native Cushitic speakers-> and Amhara people have more Semitic speaking ancestry than we ever will) and so forth; we are not "Arab" at all. These genealogies are clearly as I.M Lewis once mused- :

"According to the British anthropologist and Somali Studies veteran I.M. Lewis, while the traditions of descent from noble Arab families related to Muhammad are most probably expressions of the importance of Islam in Somali society"

- not real-> the genetic data that none of us clearly have any Arab ancestors except for recent outliers (people with Arab grandmothers or one Arab parent or great grandparent etc.) is entirely conclusive. Somalis from all over North-Central Somalia, Ethiopia and even Kenya have been tested-> none show a hint of Arabian origins or ancestry. But anyway, this is not a forum and I'm not here to share opinions-> merely pointing out that if one wants to claim these genealogies are legitimate and real Arabs mixed with native Somalis back in the Middle Ages; the genetic data disproves you.

So please refrain from even trying to argue that these genealogies are real and that any Somali or Horn population is actually descended from Hashemites. These figures were either Somalis to begin with (Barkhadle was more or less) or just never ancestral to anyone at all and were clearly just claimed as such for religious reason-> anyone with a connection to them is duly Somali (the only people who claim "descent" from them).

Arguing that a genealogy traces to Arabs for example when it does that via the ancestors of Somali clans (The Aqeeli-Jeberti genealogy is basically a Darod associated genealogy) is pointless because with this logic arguing that they were Arab leaves you with the argument that all Somalis share in such ancestry/ you're saying all Somalis (or ones of said clan) are "Arab" if you get my point. <- it's a fallacy and just leaving it at "Somali" is enough. Awale-Abdi (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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 [8] 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)

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)

Zekenyan: Abdulkader Saleh Mohammad is mistaken about the Walashma speaking Argobba. The 19th century Ethiopian historian Asma Giyorgis indicates that the Walashma instead spoke Arabic [9]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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 [10] Zekenyan (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

@70.74 thats original research. Provide sources. Zekenyan (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That statement about Argobbas practically warrants a ban... Argobbas are Southern Ethiopian Semitic speaking people (Habeshas), their closest linguistic relatives are the Amhara people who have had their autosomal DNA, Y-DNA & mtDNA sampled-> they do not come out with any "Arab" ancestry other than some very ancient ancestry likely acquired form shifting to South-Semitic very likely 3,000 years ago [-].

The likelihood that Argobbas will come out grossly distinct from Amharas especially given the physical similarities between the two groups is very low. No one in the Horn is "Arab"-> these genealogies and claimed origins tying themselves to Arabs are fake. But that's what I'm starting to realize about our posters like you Zekenyan; you seem quite unaware of the actual history of the Horn especially in a genetic sense-> if you were aware you'd never make claims like "Argobbas are Arab". Note: Ethiopian Semitic is South Semitic-> Arabic is Central Semitic and more related to Aramaic or Hebrew than to Argobba so don't even try to make linguistic arguments utilizing Argobbas speaking Semitic as a platform. The majority of the ancestry in Ethio-Semites like Tigrinyas & Amharas who've been sampled for their genetic data proves "Cushitic" with some Omotic admixture (look at the plethora of papers I shared). Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll re-iterate this one last time for people... All Somalis have Arab genealogies, one of the two genealogies the Walashma have is associated clearly with a Somali clan (the Aqeeli one-> I shared plenty of sources and I'm not going to rummage through this very page or others for the same links), this is a Somali genealogy and anyone who claims is it is claiming Somali origins-> they're genuinely claiming Arab origins because as I and Midday have pointed it out-> these Arab genealogies are mostly entirely fake & completely disproven in a genetic sense.

The other ties itself to a Somali saint who claimed a lofty and completely impossible Hashemites tied genealogy (most Somalis do-> Isaaq, Darood-> both tie themselves to Hashemites) and I don't think I need to describe how impossible him being a descendant of Ali (Prophet's cousin) is but anyway, he's a well-known figure who even paved the way for the usage of a sort Somali-Arabic script. Harari historians, oral traditions and such tie him to them as their ancestor again clearly showing a Somali origin as per the perspective of other ethnic groups no less (I've shared enough sources on this page about this origin). But this origin is legendary. He isn't their ancestor as even this page tells you... Aw Barkhadle was born around the same century as the Walashma's founder yet the Harari record genealogy shared by Enrico Cerulli and noted by I.M Lewis would have us believe Barkhadle is 'Umar's ancestor via 5 generations. And for example "The History of the Walashma" mentions him as their ancestor but it's considered a semi-legendary piece because it even claims 'Umar (founder of the dynasty) lived to be over 100 years old and reigned for 80 of those years... Barkhadle isn't their ancestor. Some of you like this one editor who followed me to my page don't even seem to know this. But so many sources tying them to a Somali figure along with the other genealogy only solidifies their origins... The origins of most of their soldiers (Somali) and such is only icing on the cake. Unless we have more rounds of "They were Argobba" nonsense, I'm done for now. Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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

What? I said clearly that I won't share my sources all over again because they're shared already all over the page (you can't read?) but you know what I'll share them again:

Here are various peer-reviewed papers on population genetics (inarguable data) touching upon Somali-Horn Y-DNA & mtDNA data and corroborating my statements: [-] , [-] , [Shares mtDNA data for Ethiopian Jews] , [-] , [-] , [-] , [-]

Peer-reviewed paper for admixture/ Autosomal DNA (a representation of the actual ancestry in groups): [-] , [-] , [-] , [-] , [-]

Here are many historical sources I've shared on their genealogies:

[-] , [-] , [I.M Lewis noting down their genealogy as it was in Harar via Cerulli] , [-]

You and I have been at this for a while and you've read my posts, I imagine. Did you really think I lacked sources for the things I was saying? Really? All the sources I've shared... Habeshas are not Arab-> the genetic data on this is conclusive, if you think otherwise... I dunno what to say really. Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

I did... Do you know who the saint I keep talking about is? Can you even read, man? Or did you even check my sources. The "Somalized Arab" & "Arabized Somali" sentence is not even mine but I.M Lewis' : [-] (I already shared this... God's sake...)

Aw Barkhadle who is noted as their ancestor in all these sources is basically a Somali saint/ historical figure as even wiki notes: [-] , [-] , [I.M Lewis noting down their genealogy as it was in Harar via Cerulli] , [-]

One of those links also shows you the Aqeeli-Jaberti origin which is basically a Darod clan genealogy [a book that goes into these proselytizing saints adopted as Somali clan founders in genealogies & mentions Isma'il Jaberti]... Are you just not reading the sources I've shared? Or...? The fact that these "Arab genealogies" tie them to Somali figures (like Barkhadle) is concrete. (you have your sources) Not even arguable. Now, sources tying them to Argobba genealogies and historical figures and a book perhaps using the terms "Argobbized Arabs or Arabized Argobbas" or the word Argobba itself to describe them? Not fringe stuff like Braukamper either who didn't even say Argobba but "Ethio-Semitic". Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Listen, when a genealogy says clearly that the ancestor of a clan is a Somali or a Somali saint or a Somali clan ancestor then it's pretty conclusive (nothing Synth about this). All those sources pretty much say they were Somali by giving them Somali genealogies (or a genealogy if you want me to use only one source and avoid synth), unless you lack simple comprehension skills and I'm not even trying to be offensive here.

And finally; not one source EVER claims they were Argobba, not one. And you haven't shared any other than Braukamper who admits he has no proof for most of his musings and never even says they were Argobba but more broadly Southern Ethiopian Semitic IIRC. You have no evidence whatsoever. I think everyone here from Midday to me to even Harari23 who says they're Arabs finds your Argobba argument completely nonsensical. I'm not going to even entertain this.

Also there is a source that says they were Somalis (you really don't read my sources do you? I read yours...): [-] <- Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis, there (he's counting the Ifat-Adal rulers in that consensus). God's sake... There, that's ONE source. Awale-Abdi (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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

^ He says rulers of Zeila and such (at a time when they ruled)-> he's saying all the medieval dynasties of that time (of the areas he described) like the Muzaffar of Mogadishu (who were legitimately Arab + Somali/ joint rulers) & the Adal, even wiki cites him in the Adal & Ifat pages as referring to dynasties like the Walashma which he is. Keep reading too, he touches upon the Adal and such and even mentions the genealogical connections between them and the saint.

From wiki alone:

"According to I.M. Lewis, the polity was governed by local dynasties consisting of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis, who also ruled over the similarly-established Sultanate of Mogadishu in the Benadir region to the south. Adal's history from this founding period forth would be characterized by a succession of battles with neighbouring Abyssinia." <- has been on wiki for years (long before even I began editing here)

Source: [-](he clearly refers to the Adal here which was ruled by the Walashma)

For the record I'm open to a discussion here but if you keep saying they're "Argobba"... It's just difficult to take seriously. There's no proof (synth or otherwise) except for one author (Braukamper) who admits he has no proof (and he never points toward Argobba but if I recall correctly speaks of Ethio-Semites in general) for many of his musings like the Harla being Ethio-Semitic (who knows what they were) & another who also claims the Hadiya Sultanate was Ethio-Semitic (he never says Argobba but just broadly Ethio-Semitic), they're both fringe and I'm not disregarding them because they're your sources and I disagree with you but because they both disprove themselves. If you really want a consensus here stop making statements like "Argobbas are Arab"-> they're a Southern Ethiopian Semitic people who don't even speak Arabic as their mother tongue.Awale-Abdi (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll say this one last time... Your source: [-] is based on the work of Braukamper who has no concrete proof for any claims he makes and he is indeed a fringe author. List them as 'Arab' or simply 'Muslim' if you want but if you go around sharing a source we've all pointed out to you (including a veteran editor here like Middayexpress) to be fringe-> you will be reported. I've given you sources for them being Somali or Somalized Arabs & Arabized Somalis and some members even have okay arguments that they were just Middle Eastern Arabs-> if you have qualms with all that; it's your problem. Don't vandalize this page. Awale-Abdi (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the page to just say "Muslim Dynasty" (something Harari234 suggested). The page itself contains ample sources from years ago pointing out the Somali origins of the dynasty (f.e. via their genealogies) or their Somalized-Arab or Arabized-Somali origin. A lot of warring has been sparked by just adding simple text like "Somali Muslim dynasty" or "Arab Muslim dynasty" or "Somalized Arab or Arabized Somali dynasty" (even if all three have ample proof and sources as I've shared) so really-> before this page goes wild over more warring lets just leave it at "Muslim Dynasty" and move on with our lives... This means no more further vandalizing from you, Zekenyan. There used to be a member like you who argued that they were Ethiopian Semitic (for which there is no actual proof) and edit warred for his position; he got banned. Don't follow in his footsteps. Awale-Abdi (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Zekenyan: Per both Al-Maqrizi and the Walashma's own chronicle, the Walashma had a Quraysh lineage (like many Somali, Harari, Afar, etc. Muslim clans). Maqrizi also indicates that the forefathers of 'Umar Walashma first settled in the Zeila-controlled Jabarta region and from there later moved into the hinterland to occupy Ifat as well [11]: "Both Maqrizi and the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty give a Quraysh or Hashimite origin for 'Umar Walasma. According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of 'Umar Walasma first settled in Jabara (or Jabarta) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat also. But Maqrizi gives us no information on the rulers before 'Umar Walasma; nor does the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty, despite the long genealogy it gives for 'Umar, who in fact assumes the characteristics of a legendary figure." Middayexpress (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have two sources its not just Braukamper one [12]. Your both repeating the samething using Saint to tie Somali and other ethnic groups. The academics did not come to that conclusion. Zekenyan (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They did. Please read instead of making things up. Abdi is simplifying it for you. AcidSnow (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ʿUmar DunyaHuz "Walashma" was an ethnic Somali

There is a bold statement in the article that ʿUmar DunyaHuz "Walashma" was an ethnic Somali. This statement is not sourced. When I take a look in sources I'm not seeing the evidence that he was a Somali. Indeed, some sources put him as coming from a Quraysh or Hashemite background. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. I'm probably missing something obvious, but that statement either needs a reliable source or should be removed from the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire establishment section is original research. I dont think any editors would oppose the removal. Zekenyan (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it is original research, but there are no sources for it, and the sources I have read disagree with it. Indeed, the sourced information in the next section disagrees with it, so it is possible that it is original research. Under our core policy of verifiability, I have removed the material per WP:UNSOURCED. The material should not now be replaced unless or until properly sourced. I currently have this article watchlisted, so I will be able to respond to queries. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Ingoman can provide clarification here, as he originally noted the lineage. He has some knowledge on the early lineage systems in the area. Middayexpress (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole "he was an ethnic Somali" point is pretty simple really and I don't quite grasp why people need it repeated again and again. It's simple... He and his line have two genealogies. The first one traces back to a sort of old Somali patriarchal figure named Yusuf bin Ahmad Al-Kawneyn. It's shared in "The History of the Walashma" [-] and is where their Hasani nisba/ lineage (Hassan as in the son of Ali who was the cousin of the Prophet-> so a Hashemite lineage indeed) comes from, Harari historians also share it [-] & it's known in oral traditions [-]. But it's basically a semi-legendary genealogy despite Enrico Cerulli also taking note of it in Harar where there was a record of it and this was noted by I.M Lewis [-].

The other genealogy goes straight to Isma'il Al-Jaberti-> patriarch/ ancestor to the Darod clan, this is their Aqeeli nisba (tracing back to Aqeeel Ibn Abi Talib), it's the most shared genealogy and was even shared by Ibn Khaldun , it's also the more legitimate one according to most historians who've studied them. It's because of these clearly Somali-Arab (all Somalis in truth claim Arabian ancestors/ patriarchs such as with the Isaaq & Darod: both these tribes also claim Qurayshitic origins btw) that I.M Lewis for example dubs them "Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis". [-] That's really it, there's nothing "original research" about this and I've shared sources for these genealogies and the fact for example that the first one traces back to the Saint. Also, it doesn't really say anywhere on this page that he was "an ethnic Somali" and we even re-iterated this page's opening text to simply & neutrally say "Muslim Dynasty" so I don't see the point in even arguing over this anymore. The Somali nature of their genealogies is simply noted on the page in the "genealogical traditions" section, I believe and the fact that they were dubbed "Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis" in another section and sources are shared for this. There's really no need to discuss this. As for Zekenyan-> keep in mind that he keeps posting a fringe source claiming 'Umar Walashma and his kin were of the Argobba people which is (with all due respect) preposterous.

As for that genealogy that was always on this page-> I really don't know much about it... I could never find a reliable source for it either so if you want it gone; sure thing. Anyway so long as this page is left as it is now and Zekenyan doesn't keep vandalizing it with his Argobba claims-> I have no protests at all. I was asked here but Acidsnow btw... Take care everyone, Awale-Abdi (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The statement that was removed was unsourced and said "The Walashma dynasty was founded by Sulṭān ʿUmar DunyaHuz "Walashma", who was an ethnic Somali" (my bolding). People will query material in Wikipedia that looks dubious and is unsourced. So the key to anyone trying to avoid having to repeat themself is to use reliable sources, cite those sources in the article, and stick to what the sources say. As per our discussion on my talkpage, the claims of Somali ancestry can be used in the article by citing to the sources you mention, and by sticking to what is said therein: that the source used for the claims is regarded as problematic. Sometimes with ancient topics we can't know for sure all the facts, so we have to include speculation - but when we do include speculation, we present is as speculation rather than fact. We do consider including all claims, including minor, dubious or fringe claims, as long as such claims are supported by reliable sources, and lesser claims are given lesser weight in the article than mainstream claims, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering I have discussed the issue with Walashma descendants (a branch of the family migrated to Lower Jubba about 300 years ago) if they didn't identify as Somali 500 years ago, they do today. Ingoman (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Zekenyan

Zekenyan you have been proven wrong multiple times, so please stop your disruption. AcidSnow (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Im not disrupting wikipedia it is you. No source says Walashma are Somali but the contrary. Zekenyan (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol, nice try but they do. AcidSnow (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you trolling? You know well awale abdi added the word [18] Zekenyan (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Ethnicity

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus on the question. AlbinoFerret 23:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the ethnic background of the dynasty say "Argobba"?

Argobba

• Support - Per reliable sources [19] [20] Zekenyan (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has long ended Zekenyan so I am not sure why you keep trying to override the long established consensus. Plus, the claim that they were ethnic Agrobba has already been proven fringe. I have also gone and changed the misleading header you provided. AcidSnow (talk)
  • Comment. AcidSnow, would you provide reliable sources to prove that Zekenyan's proposal is a fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• The reference says that Walasma spoke Argobba, language is different than ethnicity, but we can say they spoke Argobba. AcidSnow, if you believe something else, you must provide a reference. Spumuq (talq) 10:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

These sources may make it more clear. [21] [22] & [23] (Page 14 footnotes) Zekenyan (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What the hell, Argobba? The Sultanate of Shawa was Argobba and the rulers even had Argobba names, but the Sultanate of Shawa was conquered by Ifat in the 13th century. I have no doubt Argobba played an important role in Ifat after that, but the Walashma were not Argobba. Walashma rulers had Somali names, came from areas currently inhabited by Somalis and invaded the Argobba inhabited regions from the east. But hey, since this is Wikipedia let's put some BS on there because some out of context articles seem to imply it, great, fantastic. Good job guys.

Zekenyan is vandalizing this page

Okay, a long while back several editors of this page came to a simple consensus as to what this page should contain and shared sources for most of their claims. We also all pointed out that Zekenyan's claims that the ethnicity of this family was "Argobba" was unfounded. Why? Simply because we all explained several times to Zekenyan; the sources he uses are fringe. They do not use actual historical evidence or genealogies or anything written from the time or even accounts from modern descendants of this family (if they exist) but are based on pure conjecture from one author by the name of Ulrich Braukamper; if you read his original work (which is what all of Zekenyan's "credible sources" source as their point of reference) you will find that he shares no actual evidence for his claims nor do any others.

The genealogies of this family are "Arabian" and tied to those of clans like the Somali Darod clan's Jaberti-Aqeeli supposed origins. Most historians or acadamics concerned with this subject you will find other than those few following Braukamper's fringe lead (or who also base their idea on conjecture) will establish them as either Arabs, Somalis or some sort of "Somali-Arab" group. They are not Argobbas who are a Southern Ethiopian Semitic speaking group native to the Horn of Africa who've merely been Islamized, there's no evidence whatsoever that they were Argobbas. We all came to a consensus to remain somewhat neutral with this page and mention both their claimed Arab and Somali origins and then moved on after warning Zekenyan to cease and desist his edit warring and the moment we all move on and don't bother editing this page for months he comes over and vandalizes it with his own view of how things should be. If you'd like sources for the claims I've made about the genealogies and such then please do go through this talk page as I've shared them numerous times in the past.

I think serious action needs to be taken against Zekenyan who defied consensus between various editors and did something as petty as waiting for us all to move on to suddenly vandalize this page to its current state (though I've reverted what I can). I am always willing to work with other editors within reason but Zekenyan has demonstrated time and time again that all he is interested in is editing warring (something he's been temporarily banned for) and pushing his own fringe agenda.

And one note to Zekenyan himself: Do not follow me to my talk page... With all due respect; you have a habit of somewhat harassing other editors on their talk page. If you wish to discuss this subject take it up here, please. Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research. All you have done is removed my well sourced contributions and restored unsourced material. You are welcome to post any theories on your personal blog but wikipedia is based on academic sources. Zekenyan (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Okay... I'm going to explain why Zekenyan's sources are "fringe" or at least otherwise unreliable by placing at least three of his sources I’ve seen him share under some scrutiny:

1- [-]

This source has numerous problems. In that many of its authors (including one who is often cited by sources claiming that the Walashama were Argobbas) contradict the statement emboldened below and demonstrate what the prevailing view of this dynasty’s origins tends to be:

"The descendants of its Walasma Dynasty established a new state in Adal. Their capital was Dakar located Southeast of Harar near Fuganbiro. The nomadic of Afar and Somali dominated the state. However, the leaderships were controlled by Semitic Argoba and Harari ethnic groups."

Ulrich Braukamper who is cited by this source for example merely entertains the idea that the Walashma/Ifat were possibly Argobbas here in a book of his but then shortly after does not hold to this view and uses the usual view that’s been shared on Wikipedia about their Qurayshi & Hashemite genealogical origins suggesting that they were Arabians. He does not then tie this dynasty to the Argobba at all but even cites sources that I have often mentioned such as Ibn Khaldun who touch upon their Aqeeli genealogy. I was wrong about Braukamper because upon further research; it seems he didn't believe this dynasty was Argobba.

A source Braukamper often cites on the history of the Walashma (Enrico Cerulli) that this document of Zekenyan’s cites as well also contradicts the statement that this group was Argobba. Enrico Cerulli’s views on them if I recall were not honestly removed from that of Braukamper and he even acquired a historical genealogy (it’s the one mentioned here and shared here by another author who cites Cerulli as his source) that tied them to this Somali saintly figure as their ancestor, a figure who has nothing to do with Argobbas and ultimately claims an Arabian genealogy.

And then there’s finally I.M Lewis, and his views on the Walashma were what the following text often shared on wikipedia alluded to:

"According to I.M. Lewis, the polity was governed by local dynasties consisting of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis, who also ruled over the similarly-established Sultanate of Mogadishu in the Benadir region to the south. Adal's history from this founding period forth would be characterized by a succession of battles with neighbouring Abyssinia."- source for what's in this text

Which is that this dynasty based on their genealogical ties to Somali-Arab genealogies like that of the Darod’s Aqeeli based one were either Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis of some sort or just plain Arabs. But before Zekenyan begins to accuse me of "original research"; I'm merely sharing why this author would tie them to Somalis, I do not care if this dynasty was Arab, English, Japanese or Somali but am I merely sharing what authors like Lewis believed them to mostly be.

This document Zekeneyan’s shared is not a reliable source to be citing on wikipedia… The document as a whole is not bad at all but that one statement it makes which is relevant to this page is directly contradicted by the authors of over 3 works that it utilizes as historical sources who all hold the more accepted view that this group was somehow Arab and in the case of Lewis and seemingly Cerulli associate them more with Somalis than with Argobbas. The only author I recall in its sources who ever claimed that they were Argobbas was perhaps Professor Tadesse Tamrat who was seemingly basing this on Braukamper’s musings so that’s not reliable.

2- [-]

This is an outdated book but that’s hardly the problem… The problem is simple, really… This source is merely using Zekenyan’s third source as a source (that I will be placing under scrutiny below) for the claim it is making which in turn cites the likes of Braukamper, Tamrat and Lewis numerous times (two of whom contradict what it claims about the Walashma’s origins). Merely observe the sources shared at the bottom right.

You can’t share a source that’s just using another source you’re sharing as a source, that’s nonsensical.

3- [-]

This source doesn’t share reliable sources for how they were Argobba and actually often cites the likes of Lewis and Braukamper among others like Cerulli (for historical references) who directly contradict what it says which would be fine if it came out and shared new and relevant evidence (a medeival historical text claiming they were Argobbas? A genealogy tieing them to Argobbas?) proving they were Argobbas but it does no such thing (read it) and merely makes a claim from what can be surmised…

None of these are reliable sources and the likes of them are pretty much all Zekenyan seems to have when he claims this dynasty was Argobba. Something most authors who’ve ever touched on them from Richard Pankhurst to I.M Lewis to Enrico Cerulli and even Braukamper; would directly oppose. And again, those are all authors his own conjectural sources cite numerous times when harking back to Horn African history.

I will say what I’ve said numerous times in the past… There is no evidence that this group was Argobba. Their genealogies (both the one tying them to the Somali saintly figure and the one tying them to Aqeel ibn Abi Talib) are not tied to Argobbas, no historical record of their time ever claims they were Argobbas or makes the claim that they spoke Argobba. All claims as to what language they spoke as this source will show for example; point to them having spoken Arabic with no other language unfortunately being explicitly mentioned.

All Zekenyan has are some sources making claims they don’t back up with compelling evidence whilst citing various authors who contradict what they’re claiming about the origins of the Walashma which is relevant because they hark back to these very authors for much of their inferences about historical facts.

Something is not a fact because it’s written in a book… It needs to be backed up by many of that book’s sources and/or that book needs to share evidence if it is contradicting so many of its sources on historical matters. Zekenyan’s sources don’t share reliable evidence and are riddled with the works of authors who contradict their claims. Nothing reliable here and indeed; a fringe view.

I would also like to apologize for saying Zekenyan vandalized this page. He technically didn’t and seemingly got consent from admins he convinced with his sources. It’s just that I am rather used to edit warring and underhanded behavior from him (no offense intended here btw) and to my chagrin; immediately assumed he was suddenly altering this page to be the way he wanted it to while other members were busy and not paying much attention to it. I apologize for the accusation because as it stands; he broke no rules, in truth... But many seem to have been curious as to why myself and others shrug off Zekenyan’s sources and there’s honestly a bit more but here’s a dose of why. Awale-Abdi (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

At any rate, my view on this page is pretty simple; revert it back to how it was before Zekenyan's editing where both the possibility of Somali ancestry believed to be plausible by authors like Lewis & Cassanelli is cited and where of course the popular Arab genealogy based view is very often gone into. In this state the page ultimately seemed rather neutral and on the first paragraph didn't even directly assign an "ethnicity" to this group but merely referred to them as a "Muslim noble family". That would be best in my humble opinion. Awale-Abdi (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe there's a certain conflict of interest here. Seeing that you continue to disregard sources for OR and wp:synth. Why do you feel you are more qualified then these academics? They dont declare the dynasty a certain ethnic group without facts. They are not bloggers. Your analogy that they are tied to some saints therefore, they were somali means nothing unless the source EXPLICITLY states the walasma dynasty were somali. Here is another source that claims Argobba were taken to Shoa by Umar Walasma [24]. Do you agree if the heading says Arab instead? Zekenyan (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop harking back to your sources, I've shown everyone above why they're invalid. One of them is just a document where the origins of the Walashma of the Walashma are off-handedly remarked on and contradicted by most of its sources, the other is an out-dated book that references an author who again contradicts the claim it makes. If you have a source sharing actual hard evidence that they were Argobbas where things such as a genealogy tying them to the Argobba or where an actual historical document is cited where they were mentioned to have spoken Argobba then I'll agree with you here but you don't. You have nothing but invalid sources and this isn't my opinion but proven above.

"They were somali means nothing unless the source EXPLICITLY states the walasma dynasty were somali"

Did you read what I wrote? One there is at least one source (a book written by an author whom your own sources use as a reference) that does explicitly claim the leaders of the Ifat/Adal (the Walashma) were either Arabized Somalis or Somalized Arabs. If you have a hard time accepting this source, that's not problem. Your own sources believed Lewis was clearly a credible source, hence why they use him as a point of reference numerous times. But again, I don't care if this dynasty was Arab or Somali or even English or Japanese as I stated; this page should only be filled with valid sources that back up their claims with evidence and in that regard I'm entirely fine with mostly sharing nothing more than the Walashma's Arabian genealogical traditions and then off-handedly mentioning (via reliable sources) that some of their genealogies are tied to figures like that Somali saint.

I don't care if this dynasty was Arabian or Somali nor do I want to edit this to state explicitly that they were Somali but merely share sources that do tie them to Somalis or claim they were Somalis like Lewis' works do, whilst maintaining the most accepted narrative that they had ultimately Arab genealogical traditions. My point here is simply that your claims that they were Argobba are fringe and unreliable and using shaky sources (For God's sake; one of your sources literally uses the other as a source) as you do is not going to back that claim up.

I explained to everyone above why the claims you're sharing are "fringe" or otherwise unreliable. The authors they tend to cite would directly oppose what they're claiming... The idea that they were Argobbas is not at all one that's fully accepted by academics concerned with this subject and the earliest academics who pioneered and practically started the concepts of Ethiopian & Somali studies did not believe them to be Argobbas nor do most still concerned with the subject like Lee V. Casanelli or Raphael Chijioke Njoku ever in their works refer to this dynasty as being Argobba or the Sultanate of Ifat being ruled by Argobbas. You trying to rename this page's first paragraph to read as "Argobba Muslim dynasty" is therefore disingenuous as this is not a fully accepted view among academics; evident by the fact that even your own sources cite numerous academics who contradict the claims they're making (Lewis, Cerulli, Braukamper, Pankhurst; none of them claimed this dynasty was Argobba). I'm not going to argue with you about your sources anymore; if you're still defending them after reading all I shared about them above then you're demonstrating a clear bias here.

Keep this page the way it is now and just don't touch it would be my final suggestion for everyone concerned with this subject. I'm absolutely fine with it as it is now. However if Zekenyan wants we can create an "ethnicity" section and mention that some authors claim that they were Argobbas there. I'm willing to go for this compromise but splattering this page with information that acts as though them being Argobbas is some well-accepted fact after everything I've shared about all the authors who would oppose this view (including ones Zekenyan's own sources use as a point of reference) would merely be disingenuous. Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Do you agree if the heading says Arab instead?"

Truthfully, I would prefer this, yes... If you want though as I said we can create an ethnicity section and share authors like Lewis who ties them to Somalis and then your sources (despite the problems with them that I've noted) that claim they were Argobbas then merely just share that no true ethnic origins for this dynasty are known beyond what their genealogies imply. I prefer the page as it is now but if it would appease you then we can try out this ultimately very "neutral" stance? Honestly, I have nothing against you as a person of course and am growing quite tired of us going back and forth in a hostile (but veiled-ly hostile) manner here. So if we can come to neutral ground like that where both of us can just move on and not bother with this page anymore; all the better. Or I can simply go to the genealogical traditions section right now and add your claims on the side that they were Argobbas and then we leave the rest as is? Please do consider this simple compromise so we can both move on with our lives... Awale-Abdi (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Unsourced Material

User:WilinWil discuss your edits here. You are currently editing against consensus Zekenyan (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hilarious, you are reverting edits from a Walashma Ingoman (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@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)

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)

They are what the source says. Zekenyan (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

SHOWA SULTANATES

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)</ref> ABREHIT BY MERIRAS

March 2022

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)

Connection to Yusuf Al Kawneyn (Aw Barkhadle)

The Walashma themselves assert that they trace their lineage from the 10th century Somali Sheikh Aw Barkhadle. They state this in the Walashma Chronicle. If that is the case should that not be the primary source for their genealogical origin? TriSolar (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the sources cited, al-Kawneyn was an Arab (from Iraq I believe). Enrico uses this to justify them being of Arab lineage, but he also points out that many of the Sultans of Ifat/Adal had Ethiopian-Semitic names. Which he believes to be of Argobba origin. If you can find any scholars stating that al-Kawneyn was a Somali, and hence the Walashma were of Somali origin you can definitely add that in محرر البوق (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, sure I could provide some references to him being a native of Somalia and of him being Somali.

https://books.google.com/books?id=zTMOAQAAMAAJ&q=Yusuf+el+-+Kawneyn+somali

https://arcadia.sba.uniroma3.it/bitstream/2307/1026/5/34_M.%20A.%20RIRASH%20-%20Effects%20of%20sixteenth%20century%20upheavals%20on%20the%20history%20of%20the%20horn.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=uqw0DwAAQBAJ&q=Somalia+in+Transition+Since+2006+Somali+Sheikh+Yusuf+al-kowneyn+barkadle&pg=PT42

https://books.google.com/books?id=5PEOHJOA8AQC&q=aw+barkhadle+somali

Somalia; Wasaaradda Warfaafinta iyo Hanuuninta Dadweynaha (1972). The Writing of the Somali Language: A Great Landmark in Our Revolutionary History. Ministry of Information and National Guidance. p. 10. Aw Barkhadle, he was a native, who lived in about 1,000 years ago and is buried now in a ruined town named after him, Aw Barkhadle, which is a few miles away from Hargeisa.

Legendary Arab genealogy in the Horn of Africa is super common and the Walashma actually tie their lineage back to the same man that all Somali Clans claim descent from, Aqil ibn Abi Talib.

regardless it seems Aw Barhadle was most likely a native. His other common name Abu barakat al Barbari also reinforces his native status. TriSolar (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is another source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=J6nODwAAQBAJ&dq=aw+barkhadle+myth+of+origin+which+links+the+somali+with+the+prophet+Mohamed%27s+clan&pg=PA16 TriSolar (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

His background is disputed we shouldnt include that in this article if you want to state his possible Somali background then do it on his page. The references you assembled says nothing about Walasma, his ties to this dynasty is abit unclear anyway. Why make an article about Walasma a discussion about their ancestors ethnic origin? Magherbin (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m not trying to make it about him. I’m just saying aren’t the Harar chronicles (the oldest written history of the walashma and dating from when they ruled) the best source on their ancestry.

Also I never said the references here mentioned Walashma. Also his ties are very clear to the Walashma as they themselves state their descent from Yusuf Barkhadle in the chronicles from Harar.

here’s some sources which use the Harar chronicles as a direct source:

Cerulli, Enrico (1926). Le popolazioni della Somalia nella tradizione storica locale. L'Accademia. Cerulli suggests that the Saint "Aw Barkhdale" (Yusuf Al Kownayn) can be associated with "Yusuf Barkatla", ancestor of Umar' Walashma, founder of the Ifat dynasty

https://books.google.com/books?id=J1Ipt5A9mLMC&q=aw+barkhadle+founder+of+walashma&pg=PA242

Nehemia Levtzion; Randall Pouwels (Mar 31, 2000). The History of Islam in Africa. Ohio University Press. p. 242. Aw Barkhadle, is the founder and ancestor of the Walashma dynasty”

Bader, Christian (2000). Les Yibro: Mages somali. Les juifs oubliés de la corne de l'Afrique? (in French). Harmattan. ISBN 9782738488152. Translated from French to English: The Aw Barkhadle figure, it should be noted, is among the ancestors of the rulers of the Walashma dynasty, who reigned over the Muslim state of Ifat.”

The article can stay as is, which is why I’m using the talk page to discuss this. TriSolar (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The source needs to say that both al-Kawneyn and the Walashma were of Somali origin otherwise that would be WP:SYNTH محرر البوق (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

his background been shown many times, you just hold onto Enrico one hypothesis and truth, his later work disproves it Aurelius5150 (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Check Linked pages

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)