Kiziotherapy

WHAT IS THIS Kiziotherapy (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Harla

Did you not read my notes when I "reverted" your edits on the Harla page? I said that I personally believe they were Semitic speakers (for various reasons) but that we don't truly know what language they spoke for sure. Anyone who claims they did is doing so via conjecture. There is no written evidence of what language they spoke in the historical record nor any accounts, from when they were alive as an "ethnic" or "tribal" entity, that concretely establish their linguistic grouping so it's unbecoming to be sure (on that page) if they spoke a Semitic or Cushitic language as it's not and sadly likely won't ever be a settled issue unless we find concrete historical evidence (I.e. inscriptions or written accounts from ~500 years ago or so).

Also, your claims about the Darod are totally dubious and not in line with what is usually common knowledge on the Darod clan's origins which is that they're the result of an Arabian man (Hashemite) marrying the daughter of the Dir clan chief. This is of course a fabled and likely fraudulent Arabian genealogical claim as scholars like I.M Lewis posit. But intriguingly; the story as to how he (the clan founder) married Dombira has roots in the "Waaqist" faith seemingly followed by many pre-Islamic Somalis & perhaps also Afars (still followed by some Oromos to this day). And finally, don't make me repeat myself as I did with Zekenyan when he kept asserting that Benadiris have something to do with "Harlas" if that's what you're trying to imply with that mention about "Mogadishu" (it has no real meaning in Somali but means "Maq'ad i-Shah"/"Seat of the Shah" in Persian/Farsi which goes with it's known ties to an early Iranian presence in the settlement). Benadiris, as I told Zekenyan, are a Benadiri Somali speaking people of diverse origins (Iranian, Arab, Somali, Southeast African Bantu) and have nothing to do with Harlas or anything like that beyond having something to do with Somalis. As for your claims about the Darod being Harla/Harari and all that stuff about Siad Barre; please keep such weird theories to yourself. I'm not interested. But if you have actual concrete sources on this; do share...

Finally, as for my latest edit... I just didn't quite "click" with how you were placing the "Harla" language ahead of Somali, Arabic & Harari. We don't know very much about this group in the actual historical literature despite all of the conjecture out there from some Ethiopian scholars. So let's stick to known groups like Hararis and Somalis for the time being. Anyway... Take care, Awale-Abdi (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

--

I really don't want to sound rude or aggressive but did you read the rest of what I wrote? I "reverted you" because:

I "reverted" your edits on the Harla page? I said that I personally believe they were Semitic speakers (for various reasons) but that we don't truly know what language they spoke for sure. Anyone who claims they did is doing so via conjecture. There is no written evidence of what language they spoke in the historical record nor any accounts, from when they were alive as an "ethnic" or "tribal" entity, that concretely establish their linguistic grouping so it's unbecoming to be sure (on that page) if they spoke a Semitic or Cushitic language as it's not and sadly likely won't ever be a settled issue unless we find concrete historical evidence (I.e. inscriptions or written accounts from ~500 years ago or so).

I wrote that above... Read what people send you carefully before replying. Also, "Harla" is not the official language of the Adal Sultanate. No sources from the actual time-period when it was around even remotely imply this. For example, The Futuh al-Habasha/Conquest of Abyssinia which was an extensive document that outlines the soldiery and conquests of Ahmed Ibn Ibrahim's army during the 16th century just mentions them off-handedly as one of the peoples participating in his army among various Somali clans like the Harti, Habar Magadle and so on. And the document itself, which the leader of the Adal commissioned, was written in Arabic not Harla or Somali or Harari. It's common knowledge (Ulrich Braukamper, I.M Lewis and Enrico Cerulli are but three of several scholars whose works you can consult to confirm this) that Arabic was seemingly the written and trade language of the Ifat & Adal entities, not Harla.

Don't base your opinions and assertions on weird conjectural work you've seen all over the internet by some scholars or non-scholars with agendas who can't backup their claims with evidence from the time-period like written documents such as the Futuh (if that's even where you're getting these ideas). Anyway, the case on what language group the Harla spoke within will truly never be closed until we have proof from 400-600 years ago that's concrete (i.e. inscriptions). We can say it is more likely that they spoke a Cushitic language or Semitic one based on non-linguistic evidence but little else. If it's concrete to you; good for you but it's far from being so in the actual evidence and scholarship. Don't edit pages to reflect what you believe. If you persist in all this; I will call in administer... Now, take care. Awale-Abdi (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I left replies for you after reverting this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harla_people&action=history , you don't seem to understand the issue here. The idea that Harlas spoke a Semitic language is a common theory (as is that they may have spoken a Cushitic language) but neither truly has concrete evidence; they're opinions of the scholars often based on conjecture or weak evidence. For example, Ulrich Braukamper was among the first if not the first to suggest the Harla spoke a Semitic language but he admits that he has no proof for this assumption (you can read his book here) which is true if you recall what I told you before:

I "reverted" your edits on the Harla page? I said that I personally believe they were Semitic speakers (for various reasons) but that we don't truly know what language they spoke for sure. Anyone who claims they did is doing so via conjecture. There is no written evidence of what language they spoke in the historical record nor any accounts, from when they were alive as an "ethnic" or "tribal" entity, that concretely establish their linguistic grouping so it's unbecoming to be sure (on that page) if they spoke a Semitic or Cushitic language as it's not and sadly likely won't ever be a settled issue unless we find concrete historical evidence (I.e. inscriptions or written accounts from ~500 years ago or so).

You wouldn't be arguing with me on this if you actually understood this and the actual history of this region. Anyway, if you persist in this; I'm very serious about reporting this to Wiki Admins as you'll come off quite clearly as pushing an agenda/your own view rather than maintaining the neutrality we're supposed to maintain on Wikipedia. Awale-Abdi (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Okay... There's no real evidence in the actual sources that Mahfuz was a Harla. You don't understand what I'm telling you, man. I'm not talking about books written by modern authors who are going off of their opinions and conjecture when I say "sources" or "evidence". I'm telling you that in the real historical sources from 500 years ago (I.e. the Futuh al-Habasha) there is little illumination on the Harla's origins. They're just mentioned as a group fighting in the armies of the Adal (not even as it's leaders or a politically important group). Do you understand? Most of what you see written about the Harlas by a few authors can be contradicted by others and is based on their own conjectural ideas and sometimes quaky oral traditions. Furthermore, the Adal Sultanate was founded by the Walashma dynasty who, by their genealogies, were supposedly Arabs not Harla or anything else. Granted, I don't believe they were Arabs but that's the best the evidence so far gives us (though there is some data to contradict that they were Arabs). At any rate, Mahfuz and Ahmed ibn Ibrahim were outsiders who forcefully took control towards the end of Adal's existence; they were illegitimate rulers / de facto rulers as you said yourself. Also, none of what you say about Zeila can be backed up by actual written records from the past, archaeology or even linguistics. Share sources though; I'll show you what's wrong with them...

Anyway, the fact that Mogadishu was originally founded by foreigners like Iranians and/or Arabs who may have assimilated local Cushitic speakers in Southern Somalia as they did so is relatively common knowledge whilst having some evidence behind it and none of this is about what I want; it's about putting facts on Wikipedia not what people want. Anyway, just leave those pages neutral like they are now and stop spreading your own viewpoints. Awale-Abdi (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I added an explanation/re-iteration for what I've been saying in the Harla page's talk page. Now, any Admins I may get involved or any outsiders in general will understand why I've been "reverting" your work and I hope you do too. There's no hostility here btw. I don't know you and have nothing against you, I merely have gripes with your edits and have explained what's wrong with them. Take care, Awale-Abdi (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I'm aware of the rule... It's why I've refrained from editing a particular post of yours more than 3 times and said I would go to the Admins if you persisted in editing in this baseless stuff you keep posting because you'd force me to do so as I wouldn't be able to revert anymore. But by all means; discuss things with me in the talk page. Awale-Abdi (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to revert more then 3 times to get blocked if your editing behavior shows your edit warring. Kiziotherapy (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed and I'm not editing anything you've posted so far... Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Harlans

I'm not censoring material. I'm removing what clearly looks like a bunch of baseless nonsense. I'm serious... You have no evidence for most of your claims except sources that make claims based on nothing and that are contradicted by everything that's been studied about these figures since the 19th century. You think you've found some magical new information on Sheikh Darod that I.M Lewis, Enrico Cerulli, Lee V. Casanelli, Hassan Mukhtar, Mohammed Diriye Abdullahi and several "Somali studies" scholars couldn't find in all their lives? He was supposedly an Arabian and that is all we know. Your sources, if they claim otherwise, are fringe sources claiming things based on nothing, frankly. Also, you keep accusing me of having a "bias" but you're the one who constantly talks like this:

I knew arawelo was harla queen that is why I looked for a source even though mythology has exaggerated her existence.

"I knew", "I believe". I don't speak like that; I just tell you what we know via the historical record, established oral traditions, archaeology and linguistics. And finally.. You want sources on Sheikh Darod? They're all over his page so knock yourself out. You don't seem to read the pages you edit:

Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti, also known as Darod, Dawud or Da'ud, is the man traditionally held to be the common ancestor of the Somali Darod clan. According to early Islamic books and local tradition, Abdirahman is believed to have descended from Aqeel ibn Abi Talib, a member of the Banu Hashim and the cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[1][2]

What's written above is common wisdom and here's just one source on it. Nothing about Harlas in the source I shared... And the sources about Arawelo are in her page, I'm not going to go fetch them for you. I showed you that they were folktale articles... There's no proof that she was real. Imagine someone taking a folktale and then saying "It's definitely real and she was also part of this ethnic group." (without any real evidence in historical sources, archaeology, linguistics or what have you), that's what you and whatever dubious fringe source you're using are doing right now. But honestly, the Sheikh Darod claim is more ridiculous. Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Arawelo is like Wiilwaal, he too was some sort of amazing "savant" who is a folkloric figure (like Hercules). There's no proof either one of them ever existed. They're simply stories people tell to their children. Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How you interpret that source is up to you. I personally don't believe he was an Arab btw and I'm a "Sharif" too but his story is totally different from our stories as "Sharifs" (simply having claimed Arabian genealogies) and you display your ignorance of it and the sources on it by saying "that's a bad example". He didn't just have an Arabian genealogy. His whole story is that he came to Somalia from the Arabian Peninsula:

"According to such early Islamic books and Somali tradition, Muhammad ibn Aqil's descendant Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti (Darod) fled his homeland in the Arabian Peninsula after an argument with his uncle.[1] During the 10th or 11th century CE,[4] he is believed to have then settled in northern Somalia just across the Red Sea. He subsequently married Dobira, the daughter of Dagale (Dikalla), the Dir clan chief, which is said to have given rise to the Darod clan family.[5]"

You maybe a Sharif and I am too but neither of us has a story about us that says we came from the Arabian Peninsula within our life-time and married a Somali Dir clan woman and that's always been his story. Nevertheless, if you're interested... His story has roots in Waaqism which is a Sky-God faith some Somalis seemingly followed before Islam (some Oromos still follow it). His story, in more detail, goes that he was on top of a tree (sycamore, if I recall correctly) and he said he wouldn't come down until the young daughter of the local chief was wedded to him and this turned out to be Dobira, the Dir clan chief's daughter. This story occurs again and again among Cushitic speakers in the Horn who seemingly had Waaqist traditions prior to Islam as noted by a Somali archaeologist in a recent paper at Springer. Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous. I keep telling you time and time again that I don't care about my own view. If I did; the Harla page would say "Semitic" and Sheikh Darod would not be depicted as an Arab migrant of the Banu Hashim tribe. My opinions don't matter; it's what the long established scholarship has found via the evidence available. What you did just there by assuming he could have been from Somalia and then went to Arabia and came back (via your Kuwait analogy) is you being opinionated about the sources and formulating your own ideas (I have my own as well). The sources say that he was from the Arabian Peninsula (a Hashemite) and came to Somalia and then married a local woman. Anything beyond this is you or me making our own assumptions. I'm not making an argument btw; I'm telling you what we've known about his origins for centuries, and the Harla idea is never brought up in most sources and is a fringe theory added more recently by whatever dubious source you've managed to find. Awale-Abdi (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Then mention from now on that your new views are just that... You're again being disingenuous. Usually when a new and clearly fringe theory pops up with little evidence; you can add it but shouldn't present it as a fact which is what you've done with some of your edits. I.e. "Harla (official)"; you make it sound like this is well-established, not contradicted and the popular view when it isn't and has no backing in any of the evidence. Even with Sheikh Darod you wrote "He is linked to the Harla tribe" not "It is suggested by a new source that he is linked to the Harla tribe" <- that's the actual truth there. If you worded a lot of your stuff more like this; I wouldn't take issue but you're misleading readers by sharing fringe claims that don't fit with the common narrative as though they're well-established. And what're you on about with this:

I believe you registered before me but didn't care to remove al jabarti from the harla page but now all up in arms. Its called censoring views you don't like.

? I've been on Wikipedia for a two years or so now and only noticed the Jabarti mention in the Harla page recently because of all the crap you've been stirring up. If I'd noticed it before (if it indeed was there before); I would have removed it then too. I don't care about these views; it's about these claims being baseless. I'm only messaging you now because I'm trying to come to some common ground with you. All of this constant accusing me is not helping. Awale-Abdi (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then take the Arawelo is a "Harla" part and add it into the "History" section (or a new "origins" section) and mention that your source claims she was a Harla but that most sources on the folktale don't. And do roughly the same for the Jabarti page (Add it into the "lineage" or "biography" sections somewhere and just mention that one source claims he maybe tied with the Harla). But I'm afraid the "Harla (official)" claim can't go up there because again; that claim is simply the most baseless one of all. Do you even have a source for it? I have no issue with having "Harla" among the list of languages because that's seemingly true given the history but the nothing in the overwhelming evidence (especially the evidence) or scholarship establishes the "official language" claim (as in the written and court language of the state). And when I say "take" the Harla claims for both Sheikh Darod and Arawelo; I mean they can't be presented as they are now (like established facts) at the beginning of the page. Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, just been a bit pre-occupied these last two days. I'll somewhat be so today and tomorrow too (Eid festivities with some family and friends). I'll try to log-in from time-to-time. Awale-Abdi (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make the edits you requested I do instead around tomorrow. Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I did the edits. Remember to check the "history" section for the edits before thinking I reverted/deleted your edits or something because I didn't; just did what we agreed upon. Awale-Abdi (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Hargeisa page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)