Talk:Hausa people

Need for major edit on “Hausa People”

Hello everyone. I am Ppdallo and new to Wikipedia editing. I discovered that the information presented about Hausa people on this page is woefully inadequate and in many respect biased to say the least. As a result I intend to make major edits with full and verifiable references and would like any like minded Wikipedian to join me in straightening out the records and make Wikipedia a better reservoir of correct info. Any one with any suggestions and or ideas is welcome, too. Cheers Ppdallo (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Now I start pointing out the FAKE informations about Hausa people and debunking them one after another. 1. Hausa population in Nigeria = 30 million; I refer to CIA World Fact Book where Hausa people are listed as 27.4% of Nigeria’s 190.6 million which amounts to 52.2 million Hausas in Nigeria and I believe it should be accurately reflected on here. Ppdallo (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

2. This makes Hausa people the largest ethnic groups in the whole of Africa (especially when you add the millions of Hausas in Niger and the many millions others across west and east Africa.) and not just one of the largest as is erroneously recorded here on Wikipedia. Also Joshua project recorded 1.03 million Hausasa in ivory cost as against the 224,000 recorded here. Ppdallo (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

3. Now I move on to where it was recorded that Hausa people have mixed with Yoruba and Shuwa incorporating the clothing style and foods into Hausa customs. Well, I first dwel on the food aspect. I hereby categorically state that the local food of the Yoruba is over 80% derived from cassava and even the most famous Yoruba food is called Gari Garri, which is a Hausa word for “powdered grain) from pounding grains for food. Secondly, the Hausa have cultivated the sweet cassava varieties for centuries long before the Yoruba got cassava from the Portuguese in the the late eighteen century (Muoneke and Njoku) 2008. Ppdallo (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Why this picture second time?178.255.168.58 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Jiří Gregar

recent edits

Ppdallo, please discuss your proposed changes to the article here, rather than just adding them in regardless of whether others are reverting you or not.

As a starter, Wikipedia - or more specifically a Wikipedia article - cannot be used to support a claim in another article in Wikipedia. If you want to do this, you should look in the article itself and extract the source you wish to use and re-insert it into the article you are trying to improve. You can't just say "Look at the article" - you have to provide the data requested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The source https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hau doesn't support the claim that "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages". It give numbers regarding how many poeple speak it, but does not corroborate that these numbers make it number two. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hausa Language as Afroasiatic

Hello Esiymbro, Chaheel Riens. Pls join me to discuss this issue once and for all. I provided two different reliable citations which you rejected for no apparent reason and continue to engage me in an unhealthy edit war. What is your real reasons aside from my bad English grammar (as charged by Chaheel Riens) and citation as requested by Esiymbro? Ppdallo (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the first question would be why haven't you yourself addressed the questions I raised directly above this section? Your citations are not reliable, for reasons that I made perfectly clear each time. I also initiated discussion in the section above - Recent Edits and pinged you, so you'd be aware. I also informed you on your talk page what was going on - as well as reminding you about civility over one of your edit summaries.

• First "citation" wasn't actually a citation, but just a link to Afroasiatic languages - I stated in my reversion that you cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source to back up a claim.
• You reverted, and reinserted the exact same reference, but with the bizarre edit summary claim that I am " obviously are up to some mischief". If you can't use a source once, you can't use it twice.
• This time you provided an off-wiki reference, so I checked it out. The reference makes no claim anywhere that Hausa is the second most prolific language spoken, it only states the numbers - but crucially these numbers are not then compared to other languages, so there is no way to be sure where it stands in the rankings. So again, I reverted and once again that left it with a {{cn}} tag - as it should be.
• You again reverted, this time saying you'd taken it to the talk page. But you didn't. Only now have you come here and started discussion, ignoring the one I already started yesterday.

In a nutshell: Your sources are inadequate to support your claims, and the reasons for this have been given each time. All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.

As an aside - I had a look at Afroasiatic languages, and the source there for rankings is the same as the one you used here, ie inadequate, so I've tagged it there as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo, I notice that you've requested page protection - that was a pretty pointless endeavour as all editors concerned are auto-confirmed so can still make changes. However, the reason you requested it is "Edit war by other editors" - that's somewhat contentious given that you're the one who started it, and made no less than 4 reversions to the segment in question - one over the 3RR bright line - I think you should apologise for what is a deceptive comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Chaheel Riens. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Pls read on below as i try to respond to issues you raised here:

• I actually did not receive the notice of your "ping" up until now. I noticed it("recent edits" is not a clear heading. It might as well be referring to another editors edits) only after i had opened this section.You also did not inform me on my talk page about what was going on here. you only issued me with stern directives and accused my edit summaries as "personal attack". In another of your edits on my talk page you issued me with high level warning, which i reverted.
• Esiymbro was the first to revert my edit with edit summary "Article's about the people not the language" which i reverted with edit summary "Article is about the people as well as their language, Hausa Language is Afroasiatic". You then came along and reverted my edit with the bizarre edit summary "Grammatically incorrect statement - "second largest language", which i reverted with some corrections on the grammar(by the way I learned English second hand). Esiymbro again reverted with summary edit "Citation needed". I cited Wikipedia page and you reverted with edit summary "Wikipedia cannot be a reference unto itself". I provided yet another citation outside Wikipedia and you still reverted my edit. That was when it dawned on me that you were not sincere with your edits of Hausa people page. This is because i corrected the grammar and you were still looking for other excuses to keep reverting my edits. I reverted with edit summary " obviously are up to some mischief" and you exploded with all sorts of warnings including high level ones, one of which i reverted. Anyways lets discuss the real issue at hand,
• Do you honestly believe that Wikipedia will grow if editors like you will dictate the exact wordings for citations/sources from other editors such as what you request from me here in bracket ( "All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.")?
• I thought all you needed to do after i corrected the grammar, which was what you should have done in the first place and not just removed my edit, was to tag it with your "better citation needed" as you did on Hausa Language in the demographics section of Afroasiatic languages article(mind you all the other languages in that section use citations from the same source as Hausa Language and i expected you to equally tag them the same way as well). As an aside, are you sure you have fully examined that citation in the demographics section of the Afroasiatic page, as you claimed? It is not fully open to public and you needed to register to read the full article, which the person that originally cited it might have done?
• In conclusion, I intend to still revert your edit while expecting you to tag it the same way you did in the demographics section of Afroasiatic languages article (Pls don't forget to tag all the other languages in that section the same way as well). I should think that's fair?

Ppdallo (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear me. I'll ignore the additional personal attack, as it's somewhat mild, and I suspect you're just frustrated so ranting to let off steam. The "real issue at hand" is that your edits don't meet the minimum requirements to stay in an article. I appreciate that English is not your first language, but that doesn't exclude your edits from the same level of scrutiny as anybody elses. If you choose to ignore suggestions and warning each time you transgress, this will just continue until you're blocked.

Re: Afroasiatic languages - please check again, I have tagged the entire Demographics section, using the {{sources|section|date=April 2021}} template. And no, I haven't registered to fully check the source, but that's somewhat irrelevant - as I pointed out in my edit summary - different dates are used to ascertain the numbers, so it's not apples for apples in a comparison. Also, having a source that can only be verified by registration is not forbidden, but alternatives are preferred - hence the better sources needed tag.

No, your suggestion is not fair. It's one thing to already have poor sources in an article and to subsequently request clarification or better ones, but a completely different issue to introduce poor sources and hope for them to stay. WP:OTHER exists to counter any argument of "It's OK in article 'A' so should be in article 'B' as well."

You've apparently been here a while, so should be familiar with Wiki policies - including noticing that you had been pinged in the recent edits section when it was created by the little orange icon lighting up in the top banner - but just to be sure, please read up on the following which may help you: WP:RELIABLE, WP:NPA, WP:NOTIFY and WP:EW. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I had been pinged on recent articles over what? Stop the empty threats! Why didn't you tag all the other languages in the demographics section along with Hausa Language at the same time? Why was it only after I exposed how mischievous and selective your edit was? I can see what you are up to now. It is clear who is frustrated here you or me? Haha. Stop your empty threats of blocking me just because you consider yourself an experienced editor or something.I don't care who or what you think you are on Wikipedia. People like you are a big minus to reputable platforms like Wikipedia and should be exposed. I now await response from Esiymbro for final consensus. Ppdallo (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You're kind of correct in my frustration - I'll add that you should look up WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR as well. All your points have been addressed - before you brought them up in fact, and you're either choosing to ignore them or are unable to recognise them. Also, please indent your replies correctly, as per Help:Talk_pages#Indentation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Why then did you have to single out Hausa Language for yet another tag? Ppdallo (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the Hausa language entry was the one that prompted the action, and was the source (no pun intended) of the investigation that all other references are inadequate as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

1. The Hausa are the largest ethnic group in sub saharan Africa and the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages. This does not make sense. Either the Hausa is a people, or it is a language. Plus, the article is Hausa people. The statement about the language does not belong here, certainly not right at the beginning of the article.
2. I do not see any citation for the religion makeup. The numbers seem to have been changed several times recently. They need a source, or they should be removed. Esiymbro (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your response but please note:

• The grammar has been corrected to now read "are the largest ethnic group in sub saharan Africa with the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages."
• The article is about Hausa people and their culture, an essential part of which is their language.

Ppdallo (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo, but it's not adequately sourced. That's the crux of the issue. The source you're trying to use is out of date, requires registration, and is comparing other years in a list in a different article. Until you recognise that and find a source that specifically states the ranking of the language, you're going to have to accept that it may be challenged - as it has. Also, despite your opinion - you have two editors challenging the actual validity of inclusion regardless of whether you source it or not. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, You are an inconsistent individual and therefore not in any position to dictate to other editors your own definition of what a source/citation should be. Quit writing to me.Ppdallo (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been highly consistent. I've consistently maintained that your edits are inadequately sourced, and as such need work before they can be included. You can ask me to stay off your talk page - which as a courtesy I'll do - but you can't tell me to stay off an article page that is under discussion. My own definition is based on that of WP:RELIABLE - what is yours? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This particular sentence you are so fixated on cites the same source as the entire demographics section of the Afroasiatic Language article on account of which no editor has yet removed, not even you. I am done discussing with you on this issue. Just waiting a few more days before I revert it.Ppdallo (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't "wait[ing] a few more days before [you] revert it" - that will almost certainly be classified as edit warring, and probably won't end well. This is clearly contentious as two editors have reverted you, and no matter what your opinion is there is obviously dissension regarding it and you have no consensus for inclusion.

I haven't removed the Afroasiatics demographics section because I templated it to give other editors a chance to look and fix the problem first. It's considered good etiquette to wait around a month before removing templated data - which I'm prepared to do - but it's a completely different matter to try and use challenged sources in a new scenario as you're attempting here. Ethnologue requires registration before any meaningful data can be seen. It cannot be verified.

On the other hand - this edit is perfect. It's exactly what is expected and required. the percentage of religion was challenged, and you have come back with a source that unequivocally states that Islam has the greatest percentile of 99.85%. All you have to do is find a source that's as clear and simple for the language as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens Just to let you know, I have reverted it. I think any attempt from you to revert it again will almost certainly be classified as vandalism, and probably won't end well.Ppdallo (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What in Hell are you up to? Are you intentionally trying to provoke some kind of reaction? Your behaviour is just unfathomable. You've actually provided a perfect source to back up your claim, and yet you're still trying to insert the inadequate reference. Just stop, please, for the sake of the soul of Wikipedia, just stop. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If you think there is a vandalism issue, please bring it up over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You have asked me not to discuss on your talk page, so I won't, but please reconsider your actions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As it happens I was about to self-revert, but you beat me to it. I feel there's no other option but to discuss at a more formal level. Note that you've asked me not to use your talk page, but I am required by policy to inform you of AN/I discussion, so I will be posting there shortly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No Yoruba Relation

Hi Ppdallo, on the city of Ilorin, it is inconceivable that one would try to relate two ethnicities based on cohabitation during a part of a century. White and Black South Africans are not ethnically related, so are White and Black Americans. Furthermore, West Africa is patrilineal and there is no confusion of fusion where a third ethnicity has not resulted from anecdotal instances of intermarriage. Yorubas and Igbos have intermarried more and their intermarriage has not been relegated to a city or municipality. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Exaggerated population by the CIA Factbook

I think it would not be great to remove the Joshua's Project projections from Wikipedia as I feel that there are really not a lot of reliable sources that care to give even the slightest of information on African ethnic groups, so why not preserve the few that do? As for me, I would be contributing very little to ethnic groups moving forward because I don't really take the CIA's projections on Nigeria's ethnic groups seriously. Firstly, there has only been one census in Nigeria over the past 25 years, and the last one, which was in 2006 only gave a breakdown of males and females, so I don't understand where the CIA got it's projections from. Secondly, as a Nigerian, saying the Hausa alone make up 30% of the Nigerian population while the other two major ethnic groups (the Igbo and the Yoruba) only share 15% each is pure ignorance and it shows the CIA knows absolutely nothing about Nigeria. The Yoruba and the Igbo are just as large as the Hausa if not larger. The Hausa are indigenous to North Western Nigeria, along with over 80 other ethnic groups, and they also have a significant population in the North East, along with another 50-100 ethnic groups, there are also little or no indigenous Hausa population in the North Central part of the country so except the CIA is counting these 150+ northern minority groups as Hausa then there is absolutely no way the Hausa are as large as the Yoruba and Igbo people combined. Incase you don't know, the Yoruba and Igbo people boasts of completely homogeneous populations in the Western and Eastern part of the country respectively, bear in mind that these sections of the country are the most densely populated compared to the mostly sparsely population North. Don't forget that the Yoruba are also one of the largest ethnic groups in North Central Nigeria just like the Igbo are also one of the largest in Southern Nigeria. So that being said, we actually don't know the exact percentages of Nigeria's largest ethnic groups, but the Hausa population is definitely overly exaggerated, if you live outside Nigeria, you can also do a consensus of Nigerians if you know any and I promise you that none of them would be Hausa. Da5ft9 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes we know tribe big, tribe very big. You don’t have another source Yoruba are 40-50 million Igbo about 40 million Hausa are around 65-69 million. Link another source. WikiFan45TY (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore looking at a population density map, the Hausa width in territory spans much of the South. 67-69 million is a good estimate for them in Nigeria. WikiFan45TY (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

30% of 230 million.

= "69252822.9” not 56 million you can’t link a source and then give different information from what is linked it’s inconsistent and unreliable. WikiFan45TY (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The user who was adding this, User:Da5ft9, has since been blocked. They were unilaterally reducing population estimates on this and other articles because they consider the numbers for some regions in the CIA World Factbook to be "a bit exaggerated". Perhaps so, but as you say updating the number without changing the source makes no sense, and we obviously can't accept a user's preferred personal estimate without some kind of source for the number that they've come up with. --Belbury (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Demographics

The CIA Factbook, Census and several other sources have them at about 30% of Nigeria, so around 67-69 million. [1]https://www.census.gov/popclock/world/ni WikiFan45TY (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hausa population in Sudan

The reason why i have reverted the edits for the population of Hausa in Sudan is because it is not accurate. First off the source of the 3 million population of Hausa in Sudan states that most Hausa in Sudan speak Hausa and not Arabic, given if this statement were to be true than this would contradict with Ethnologue's estimation of 80,000 native speakers in Sudan. Second off the population of Hausa in Sudan in the 1900s was definitely not 500,000 given that only 118,000 of them were reported in Sudan at the time of the 1956 census. The claim of 10 million Hausa in Sudan is also questionable because the source doesn't cite where they got that number from. Most blog sources who list population estimates will cite where they got their estimates from. I have no problem using the CIA estimate for Hausa in Sudan but there is no percentage provided by the CIA for the population of Hausa in Sudan. Given that there were 118,000 registered Hausa in the 1956 census and that Ethnologue reports 80,000 native speakers of the Hausa language in Sudan in 2017 the claim of 3 million is undoubtedly questionable. Here is the reference of the 1956 census if you want to see for yourself. https://www.voaafrica.com/a/hausa-rise-up-in-sudan/6663433.html https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01544597/document Cookiemonster1618 https://www.voaafrica.com/a/hausa-rise-up-in-sudan/6663433.html

Hausa population

Both the CIA world factbook and Census has Hausa at 30% of 230,000,000 million which equals around 69,200,000. And multiple estimates have them reaching around 3,000,000 in Sudan. [2]https://www.voaafrica.com/a/hausa-rise-up-in-sudan/6663433.html

[3]https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nigeria/[4]https://www.census.gov/popclock/world/ni WikiFan45TY (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The link you provided for the population of hausa in Sudan is dead and doesn't work and there are no accurate estimates that place the real population of Hausa in Sudan. Given that Ethnologue reports about 80,000 native Hausa speakers in Sudan it wouldn't make sense for there to be 3 million Hausa in Sudan especially considering how the other source mentioned that they speak their own language rather than Arabic as a mother tongue. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)