Talk:Somali people/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Fyi

Hi. I believe this issue was already discussed. The page is reserved for people from the Somali ethnic group, as the hatnote clearly indicates (This article is about the Somali ethnic group. For the general population of the Federal Republic of Somalia, see Demographics of Somalia. For other uses, see Somali (disambiguation).). Ali is also a controversial and disliked figure within the Somali community. There are many other less disliked but also potentially controversial figures who were omitted for this reason; she isn't alone. Have a look at the Syrian people page and see how many such figures you can find. There are none. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think there is a well known enough Syrian to be noted, please include him/her in the page, even if it's a snake like Assad. the more diverse the representation, the better. regards Szekszter (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Assad is ethnically Syrian. The material you added on Christians in Somalia pertains to Bantus, not ethnic Somalis. Middayexpress (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Check 3RR as I am sure this user has done a 6RR by now.--Inayity (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, s/he's been blocked for pov-pushing against consensus. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. The percentage of openly non-Muslim ethnic Somalis living in the Horn of Africa is so low that it does not need to be mentioned on this wiki. Wadaad (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed User:Inayity and User:Wadaad. Another account also tried to re-add Ali just as the user Szekszter was indefinitely blocked for being a sock of user Beloki. Middayexpress (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well User:Inayity and User:Wadaad, another sock tried to add her again. I think page protection may be necessary at this point. Middayexpress (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

IP

User:Wadaad, two ips with the same geolocation have been attempting to remove material on the newly-identified Ethio-Somali component. Middayexpress (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Genetics

I've spent a lot of time researching the autosomal DNA of Cushitic and Ethio-Semitic speaking groups (Somalis included of course) across the Horn of Africa through studies from individuals like Luca Pagani of Division of Biological Anthropology at the University of Cambridge and others (et al) that is more or less talked about on this page Dienekes' anthropology blog or even this recent study that digs deeper into the older study (you can observe the credentials of the parties involved beneath the title) Or even or even this very reliable admixture run however the thing is; I'm new to wikipedia and really don't quite get how I'm supposed to properly reference every little thing I write so if someone on this site could allow me to run them through the genetics lingo whilst they reference everything on the actual page whilst posting- that'd be great. Awale-Abdi (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pagani's paper from two years back is superceded by the recent discovery by Hodgson et al. (2014) of a novel Ethio-Somali genetic component among Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn of Africa. This Ethio-Somali genetic component peaks among ethnic Somalis. The rest are blogs/unreliable sources. Middayexpress (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've read and seen the Hodgson study and I hope you realize that it's a continuation of the Pagani study that even carries on some of the Pagani study's mislabels & I was fully planning to run whomever came here through it as well. In the Pagani study it is made clear that the "Afars" tested for example are actually Xamtanga Agaws (just go read the study). Also, that study has some inaccuracies about it... For one I believe it claims the "Ethio-Somali" component is non-African and this is not true but only half-right as the study itself proves. If you'd like to discuss this further then please do Email me at Awaleking@gmail.com. I don't want to crowd up this page with too much jabber.

P.S: Observe the studies cited in the dataset section of this spreadsheet: [1] Harappa did not create those samples, he carried them on from studies like the Pagani study (something the Hodgson et al study does too o.o... And other studies from well known people in this field such as Behar and so on. So, unless you're saying you're more reliable than these geneticists then the source is quite reliable)Awale-Abdi (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That Harappa link is a blog, a self-published, lay project. I could make such a run too if I wanted to, and it would be just as or probably even more reliable. At any rate, Hodgson et al. is not a continuation of Pagani's study. As he and his colleagues clearly state, they identified a new ancestral component among the Horn's Afro-Asiatic speakers ("The non-African ancestry in the HOA, which is primarily attributed to a novel Ethio-Somali inferred ancestry component, is significantly differentiated from all neighboring non-African ancestries in North Africa, the Levant, and Arabia"). This Ethio-Somali component's genetic distance is nearest not one but two predominantly West Eurasian components (Maghrebi and Arabian, as can be seen in the divergence analysis on Table 4 [2]). So yes, Hodgson et al. are quite right that the Ethio-Somali component is essentially West Eurasian. It probably does have some African alleles in it. But then again, this is cancelled out by the West Eurasian alleles in the separate Ethiopic African component, among others (the Ari ironworkers aren't purely African, and the Ethiopic component constitutes almost their entire ancestry). Middayexpress (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I made another post earlier but it was overly long winded and I think I ought to just simply explain what I'm getting at to you in simpler more respectful terms. I am not saying that the Ethio-Somali component is strongly African influenced if you somehow think I am. It is predominantly of West Eurasian ancestry at 30-40 % from all my looking into it, the East African-like autosomal influence in it is minor (a similar influence can be found in Arabian) But anyway... What I'm getting at is actually corroborated by the Hodgson study: [3]

C 10 shows you a deeper look at the "Ethio-Somali" component and the autosomal ancestry of Horners, it shows very clearly that the "Ethio-Somali" component to some extent reads as "Arabian" & "Maghrebi" like in form given the greater Arabian and Maghrebi present in "Cushitic" speakers like Somalis & Agaws (mislabeled as Afars- please do read the Pagani study again and you will know for a fact that they are Xamtanga Agaws). Most of our ancestry looks to be "Arabian", "Maghrebi" and "Nilo-Saharan" at this level however at C 11 the "Ethiopic"/ Omotic component is noticed as distinct from what was supposedly coming up as "Nilo-Saharan"/ more broadly "East African" (the C 10 Nilo-Saharan is really what East African is to some extent in Harappa's run) and then at C 12 we are finally introduced to the fact that some of the "Arabian" & so called "Maghrebi" is in fact more ancient than some of the rest and we have the defacto "Ethio-Somali" component. Ethio-Somali is to some extent what comes up as "SW ASIAN", "Caucasian" and "Mediterranean" like in Harappa's run.

This is my main point... You are simply going to come off as very incorrect if all you do is observe "Ethio-Somali" as a real component and ignore it's clear Arabian-like affinities that the Hodgson et al study very clearly notes at lower Ks. Somalis incurred less new admixture than the other groups (in the case of both Ethiopic/ Omotic & extra South West Asian/ Arabian ancestry) and hence why it looks like they have less than others at C 12. This is also why in clusters like the one in the very study you shared and I'm going off now Somalis cluster more on the African side than the other groups: [4]

I can show you more proof if you'd prefer but if Ethio-Somali were almost entirely West Eurasian (it is predominantly West Eurasian though but not entirely) then we in this cluster that seeks to gauge where Horners stand between West Eurasians and West Africans for example (among other groups like the San and South Asians)- then we in this cluster would utterly overlap with Ethio-Semites and Central-Cushites (Xamtanga Agaws listed as Afars) since our Ethio-Somali is as prominent in us as Ethio-Somali + Arabian is in them.

Maghrebi is no different and is actually an amalgamation of even older components though if you want me to get into the specifics about it then just email me. I hope you finally get my point now especially since I used your own study to explain it.

Oh and btw the the Hodgson study in that very PDF you shared mentions the Pagani study as a reference piece:

" Pagani L, Kivisild T, Tarekegn A, Ekong R, Plaster C, et al. (2012) Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene" (search for Pagani in their reference list)

^ They used the Pagani study's data as reference material and nothing I've shared with you so far has really been wrong :/. Oh and the final piece of the puzzle to show you that the "Afars" are Xamtanga speaking Agaws (central-cushites) in the sixth page of a supplemental of the Pagani study it says very clearly that they are "Xamtan" speaking highlanders here: http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2007965088/2030752970/mmc1.pdf

Nothing I've said now is based on the work of "lay projects" of any sort but the very study you have posted as your reference material & the very study it very clearly used for its Horn African reference populations. Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hodgson et al. may have used some of the same reference samples as Pagani et al., but they did not run the same analysis. The result was that they were able to uncover a novel non-African genetic component in Afro-Asiatic speaking Horners: the Ethio-Somali. At the lower Ks, the West Eurasian ancestry in Horners could perhaps look more Arabian-like. However, eventually at K=2 or thereabouts, it will simply appear as a generic Eurasian component. This more than anything reflects the ancient temporal divergence of the Eurasian sub-components. For the rest, I actually don't entirely disagree with you; it seems there was indeed something of a misunderstanding. Just one small specification, though: the relative proportion of the predominantly West Eurasian (whether Ethio-Somali or Arabian) vs. predominantly African (whether Ethiopic or Nilo-Saharan) components in ethnic Somalis, Amhara and Tigray are roughly comparable. Please see Hodgson et al.'s Table 2 [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"However, eventually at K=2 or thereabouts, it will simply appear as a generic Eurasian component. This more than anything reflects the ancient temporal divergence of the Eurasian sub-components."

Agreed, I did of course always make sure to call it "Arabian-like" as the "Arabian"/ Southwest Asian component that exists in Arabians today whilst very very similar to the Eurasian in Ethio-Somali is ever so slightly distinct (I don't think the distinction is at all that big at all tbh but there is one) from it and this is understandable.

"Just one small specification, though: the relative proportion of the predominantly West Eurasian (whether Ethio-Somali or Arabian) vs. predominantly African (whether Ethiopic or Nilo-Saharan) components in ethnic Somalis, Amhara and Tigray are roughly comparable. "

I agree once again, even the admixture runs done by "lay" individuals as you once called does in fact show this, there is a distinction from Horner group to Horner group but they are within range and not obscenely divergent from one another at all in my opinion- very close relatives autosomally speaking. The only real differences as that table notes and I once noted is of course that Somalis were hit less by Omotic/ Ethiopic admixture & the extra once again Arabian-like ancestry (somewhat less so for Ethiopian Somalis, I suppose) and that Oromos seem to have been hit for example the most by "Ethiopic"- Tigrinyas the most by the "newer" (it's all still very ancient) Arabian and so and so, the differences between the groups autosomaly like it is with most groups is just a difference of one group having more of some form of admixture and thus incurring more admixture from so and so groups.

We're all very much comparable to my eyes. Btw, are you a Horner yourself? As you might have guessed- I'm a Somali :). And yeah- sorry about getting off on the wrong foot. It seems you and I are honestly on the same page, we just sort of argued because I was a bit bothered that you dismissed Harappa for example, lol but I don't really mind that.

On a side note: I don't think clusters should be too noted when looking for a relation between groups, clusters like the ones in the Hodgson and Pagani studies have a certain "bias" as they are not interested in looking for how close groups are but where they cluster in comparison to certain extremes and in this case the Extremes would be West Eurasians (Along with "South Asians", I suppose) & West Africans (along with the San, I suppose) and this obviously do what it did where one group floats ever so slightly on the other side because- Tigrinyas for example are slightly more West Eurasian than Somalis. But of course these clusters are very useful and even helped me make my point.Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We do generally seem to be on the same page, so-to-speak. However, Tigray/Tigrinya don't on average have either more or less West Eurasian autosomal ancestry than Somalis. After Hodgson et al. (2014), we now know that Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn actually have their own distinct, predominantly West Eurasian component, and that this component peaks amongst ethnic Somalis and accounts for most of their ancestry. A person unaware of the ancestral relationships between the various Horn populations could perhaps look at Hodgson et al.'s Table 2 and erroneously conclude from it that both Amhara and Tigray, until mixing relatively with Semitic speakers from the Gulf region, were populations composed of roughly equal parts Ethio-Somali-type West Eurasian ancestry and Ethiopic-type African ancestry. However, history does not bear this out. Archaeological, cultural, uniparental marker, anthropological and linguistic analyses all show that they too were instead predominantly of the same Ethio-Somali ancestral stock as ethnic Somalis. This is why, for example, there are Cushitic linguistic substrata in Amharic, Tigrinya, Gurage, Harari, and pretty much all of the other main Ethio-Semitic languages yet no Ari substrata in those same languages (i.e. because the apparent language transfer was from Cushitic to Semitic rather from Ari to Semitic). Middayexpress (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the language shift they made from Cushitic is very well known and clear. In fact in Stuart Munro-Hay's book itself I remember him noting that Aksum itself was a unification of two words- one of Cushitic origins and another of Semitic origins. I recall him saying that Ak was a Cushitic word that meant something like "body of water" and that Shem or Sem which was another part of the word was Semitic and meant chieftain or something or was it the other way around? I'll look at his book again and source that bit right here soon. But anyway- point is they did in fact shift from Cushitic to Semitic but to my knowledge in consulting another person who actually taught me much of what I know about Horner genetics- the "Arabian" in Ethio-Semites, Oromos and Central-Cushites is far more ancient than the advent of the Semitic languages. I'll look into this too and get back to you with more.

"we now know that Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn actually have their own distinct, predominantly West Eurasian component"

True but I wouldn't overplay how distinct it is, it is clearly very very similar to the current Arabian/ South West Asian component hence why it is always taken on as such at some lower Ks. But I agree; it is distinct, just probably not at all as distinct as lets say "Caucasian" would be from "European".

"However, Tigray/Tigrinya don't on average have either more or less West Eurasian autosomal ancestry than Somalis. After Hodgson et al. (2014), we now know that Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn actually have their own distinct, predominantly West Eurasian component, and that this component peaks amongst ethnic Somalis and accounts for most of their ancestry."

I don't know about true "averages" exactly as the Pagani samples are honestly not humongous in number (so who knows how things may spread for all Horners though I reckon Somalis would come out very similar anyway given their strong homogeneity that I'm sure you're aware of) for example but so far the Tigrinyas tested do display more West Eurasian tendencies than lets say the Agaws, Somalis & Oromos that have been tested and I've seen other studies where "layman as you call them" shared the results and Horners still come out the same. We are made up of roughly the same components though some Somalis can outright lack Ethiopic/ Omotic in my experience & this can even be observed in the Hodgson study (though I should also note that some of the groups can really hop around in this regard- one run I downloaded and tinkered with myself shows a high of 28 % Omotic/ Ethiopic for one Amhara yet the lowest is 8 % & the average was 17 % (I essentially downloaded the Pagani study samples worked on by a Somali who goes by the nickname Bandar Qasim). And here are the "true West Eurasian" (East African influence pretty much gone) averages for Horners in the pagani study he worked on:

Amhara 44% E Somali 32% Somali 32% Oromo 35% Tigrinya 46% E Jew 41% X Agaw 43% Wolayta 30%

I think Somalis displayed a high of about 37 % and a low of about 30 % and Tigrinyas displayed a high of 47 or so and a low of somewhere low in the 40 percentages. And while I can clearly tell you don't like relying on the work of "layman"; this is "layman data" taken from the Pagani study whose data in many ways our entire discussion hinges on and it all fits with the clusters of both the Hodgson study and the Pagani study:

Hodgson et al:

[6]

Pagani et al:

[7]

The slightly greater affinity they show toward the "Eurasian side" than we do confirms perhaps not these exact values but of course what they are inferring/ implying. This is the same case with Omotic/ Ethiopic ancestry as they do in fact on average have more than we do. Here you will notice greater "Omotic" ancestry: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqWOT2m6btAGdEpjTExTRG1NU1NKRnJfd3hOeWkwdkE#gid=5 and then using this image in the Hodgson study for example I can more or less try and confirm it for you as the other groups do in fact display more Omotic:

[8] (that figure 2 you referenced will show you the same results I'm generally on about here)

And in that very same run I shared using the Pagani et al study you can notice the East African affinities in "Arabian" or what is perhaps being labeled as Arabian/ Red Sea. If you want to see proof of this minor East African influence then go to K=7 based on the old Pagani Study and then go to K=5. At K=7 Somalis for example show 40-47 % "Arabian/ Red Sea" ancestry but at K=5 the amount of West Eurasian they have (30-40%) makes sense of things. Although if you're going give me a "this was made by a "layman" rebuttal" then fine, I think I've related this data or at least my assertions enough to the actual studies by very accredited experts and these "layman" works very much do use their data and cite them as reference material but I have few qualms with you doubting their 'validity' since I've essentially made my points using the studies too. They are more West Eurasian than us on average but by a small-margin and they are more Ethiopic/ Omotic admixed than we are too (sometimes by a small margin- sometimes not exactly so "small" but it doesn't constitute a great difference, I suppose) but this is again something you find in all other "groups"- Yemenis can be more broadly "African" than Qatari Arabs on average in my experience and Southern Moroccans would come out more broadly "African" than Tunisians and so on and so forth. Differences exist in all or most related groups (at least those I've looked at... Even if I looked at them menially).

Oh yeah, found that text from Munro Hay's book:

"The name of the town itself is thought to be composed of two words, ak and shum, the first of Cushitic and the second of Semitic origin, meaning water and chieftain respectively (Sergew Hable Sellassie 1972: 68; Tubiana 1958). This name `Chieftain's Water' seems to suggest that Aksum could have been the site of a spring or at least a good water supply, and perhaps it early became the seat of an important local ruler " - Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity by Stuart Munro-Hay (Page 96)

I think now all I need to do is back up what I suggested about "Arabian" preceding the rise of Semitic in the Horn and you and I should have few conflicts, I suppose.Awale-Abdi (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your point on the relatedness between the Ethio-Somali and Arabian components; Hodgson et al's divergence analysis shows this. It also shows that the Ethio-Somali component is closest to the Maghrebi component, and that all three are predominantly West Eurasian in affinities. That said, those percentages are inaccurate and Tigrinya indeed don't on average have either more or less West Eurasian autosomal ancestry than do Somalis. The Nilo-Saharan component that appears as an admixture element in pre-Hodgson et al. (2014) structure runs is, like the Ethiopic component, not purely African; it too contains West Eurasian alleles. This is partly why the Nilotic groups pull slightly closer to Somalis than they do to Habesha (because a Cushitic population(s) introduced those West Eurasian alleles into their community), just as Ari-type groups pull slightly closer to Habesha than they do to Somalis (because an Ethio-Semitic population(s) introduced those West Eurasian alleles into their community). Also, the Arabian admixture in Tigrinya was in place of Ethio-Somali ancestry, not compounded on top of it (see Hodgson et al.'s Table 2 [9]). Further, Hodgson's Ethiopic African component is not equivalent with the Omotic phylum because it doesn't define the Wolayta, for example. This supports the theory that the Wolayta are among the few modern Omotic groups that are descended from the original Omotic speakers (since they actually somewhat cluster with other Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn). The Ari (who don't) appear to have adopted the Omotic languages. Regarding the ancient Arabian admixture in certain Horn populations, I think what the person who suggested this to you meant is that the paternal haplogroup J lineages that are found today amongst some Ethio-Semitic speakers weren't actually introduced recently from the Gulf region. There was an unreleased, non-peer-reviewed university paper a few years ago that found very high frequencies of these lineages amongst certain southern Omotic-speaking groups (who have had no recent contact with Arabs); considerably higher than in all the northern Ethio-Semitic speakers. That's probably what he/she was alluding to. The person is mistaken, though, because the southern Omotic populations should by that logic have higher Arabian admixture than do Habesha groups since they have the much higher haplogroup J frequencies. Instead, they have less such autosomal admixture. This altogether suggests that most of the haplogroup J lineages found amongst Habesha at least were indeed introduced recently by Semitic speakers from the Gulf, consistent with the dating of the various Semitic sub-phyla. Prior to then, based on existing linguistic substrata, Habesha would have spoken other Afro-Asiatic languages, but of the Cushitic branch; specifically, either of the Agaw (in the case of Amharic and Tigrinya) or Sidama (Gurage and Harari) varieties. None of these languages is ancient, and they form the core of the Cushitic substrata in the Ethio-Semitic languages. The switch from one Afro-Asiatic language to another thus couldn't have happened more than a few thousand years ago. Middayexpress (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Further, Hodgson's Ethiopic African component is not equivalent with the Omotic phylum because it doesn't define the Wolayta, for example."

I wouldn't make too much of the use of the word "Omotic" in that run. It's just a name in that run used for "ease of navigation", they weren't necessarily implying that it was "Omotic speaking" in origin but just labeling it for the reader's ease. Harappa says the same thing about his labels:

Do note that the admixture components do not necessarily represent real ancestral populations. Also, the names I have chosen for the components should be thought of as mnemonics to ease discussion. I chose them based on which populations in my data these components peaked in. They do not tell anything directly about ancestral populations. The best way to look at these admixture results is by comparing individuals and populations.

And about the haplogroup J part- no that's not what the person who told me this was getting at all... Here is a quote from the person I discussed this with:

"There's no clear evidence of that, it's just my personal opinion. It's partially based on the results of the Agaws, who have similar levels of admixture as Habeshas, despite speaking Cushitic. But also just the fairly significant spread of the "recent" admixture across the highlands, which doesn't really fit with the relatively minor settlements of proto-Ethiosemites in D'mt. The early D'mt Ethiosemites encountered a population which was already agricultural, and presumably had high population densities. They spoke languages that form the main substratum in Ethiosemitic (Agaw), and "coincidentally" are very similar to modern Ethiosemitic speakers.

I'm not saying the spread of Semitic didn't have any impact on the ancestry of highlanders, just that I find it unlikely that most of the recent admixture can be attributed to the spread of Semitic. It's unlikely because of the high similarity to Agaws. We also need to consider the Omotic admixture in highlanders, which would lower the SW Asian, before the influx of more recent admixture. So, even higher levels of recent admixture are required than you might guess when simply comparing the African and Eurasian levels in Habeshas and Somalis.

I think the only way my hypothesis doesn't work is if Ethiosemites were assimilated by the Agaw, and only later did those Agaws switch to Ethiosemitic. This doesn't seem very likely to me. "

^ He was merely expressing his opinion and well... He has some reasonable reasoning behind it and I am (personally) inclined to actually agree with him but make of all of that what you will, the Semitic argument is not what I truly want to address here but your assertions that we are all equally Eurasian something the Hodgson itself very clearly dismisses.

First I want you to see the equivalent of Bandar Qasim's run on this mapping out of all the components from the Hodgson study:

http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/previews.figshare.com/1533296/preview_1533296.jpg

Observe K2 where everyone's components are melted down to an extremely low res of either "Niger-Congo" or "European"- in this you can clear as day see the slightly greater value of European in Amharas & Tigrinyas for example and this is quite representative of the West Eurasian admixture or "true" Eurasian admixture in all Horners. They in every run I have seen from those in the Pagani study to the ones you dismiss as "layman" display more West Eurasian admixture- the exact values being unimportant and honestly minor but the clime upward for them over us however minor is always present. Also, your reasoning that since Ethio-Somali (a component I believe I have given you proof already is minorly "African"/ "East African" influenced) is so predominant in Somalis that it makes up for the "Arabian" in highlanders is flawed. The Hodgson study itself shows you clearly the Ethio-Somali study has an African influence or more African influenced than even Maghrebi with the fst distances for each of the components from "Niger-Congo". Observe the values for Arabian, Maghrebi & Ethio-Somali:

Arabian: 0.160

Maghrebi: 0.133

Ethio-Somali: 0.106

Why are you so hellbent on claiming we are "equally" West Eurasian? As the Hodgson study even shows at K2 this is a minor but real as real gets difference. It's not like I'm claiming they're closer to Eurasians than they are to us, the closest relatives or really the only real of all "Horners" are other "Horners", I am not undermining this but don't underplay the clear distinctions here and there. Somalis & Oromos are on average as even this study shows slightly less West Eurasian than Amharas and Tigrinyas (Ethio-Semitic Highlanders). Where I can see you go wrong is that you keep assuming the Ethio-Somali component is a fully Eurasian component, it is not- we have been through the argumentation and reasoning that clearly establishes that while the influence is minor & that it is still predominantly West Eurasian- it is still East African influenced and this is in the end why they clearly show more West Eurasian in the Hodgson study, the globe13 run, in the Bandar run and the Harappa run (call some of those layman but I'd be interested to see you dismiss the data of the study that you've been thumping since the beginning of this discussion). Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep alluding to these bloggers (Harappa is run by one Desi guy [10]), internet personalities, etc., as though they have any sort of authority. I already told you that they aren't reliable sources, nor are they devoid of personal biases. Any reasonably educated person can run the same analyses that they do with the right software, and likely produce a different result at that. You're also now contradicting yourself. You stated above that "Ethio-Somali is to some extent what comes up as "SW ASIAN", "Caucasian" and "Mediterranean" like in Harappa's run", that "the "Arabian"/ Southwest Asian component that exists in Arabians today whilst very very similar to the Eurasian in Ethio-Somali is ever so slightly distinct", and insisted with regard to the Ethio-Somali component that you "wouldn't overplay how distinct it is, it is clearly very very similar to the current Arabian/ South West Asian component". Yet now you are insisting that "the Ethio-Somali study has an African influence or more African influenced than even Maghrebi" -- a direct contradiction of your earlier assertion that you are "not saying that the Ethio-Somali component is strongly African influenced if you somehow think I am[...] It is predominantly of West Eurasian ancestry at 30-40 % from all my looking into it, the East African-like autosomal influence in it is minor (a similar influence can be found in Arabian)". I have no interest in sorting out your own personal beliefs for you, nor in any event are talk pages meant for that per WP:TALK.

I'll finish by pointing out that it's actually Hodgson et al. (2014) who indicate that:

a) "the non-African ancestry in the HOA[...] is primarily attributed to a novel Ethio-Somali inferred ancestry component";

b) "this Ethio-Somali IAC is found at its highest frequencies in Cushitic speaking Somali populations and at high frequencies in neighboring Cushitic and Semitic speaking Afar, Amhara, Oromo, and Tygray populations" [11];

c) "the non-African origin Ethio-Somali ancestry in the HOA is most likely pre-agricultural";

d) "the most recent divergence date estimates for the Ethio-Somali ancestral population are with the Maghrebi and Arabian ancestral :populations at 23 and 25 ka";

e) "overall, the pairwise Fst estimates for the IACs suggest that either the ancestral Ethio-Somali population had begun to differentiate from other non-African populations by at least 23 ka or that the ancestral Ethio-Somali population has never been completely isolated from other non-African populations";

f) "a population with substantial Ethio-Somali ancestry could be the proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers[...] a later migration of a subset of this population back to the Levant before 6 ka would account for a Levantine origin of the Semitic languages";

g) "later migration from Arabia into the HOA beginning around 3 ka would explain the origin of the Ethiosemitic languages at this time". Middayexpress (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not contradict myself. I never stated that Ethio-Somali was strongly African influenced nor have I at all changed my stance on how it relates to Arabian (in all honesty I see the component simply as much more ancient variation of "Arabian" and should not to some extent even be seen as very distinct from it). I was merely saying that it clearly has an East African influence whilst it is still predominantly West Eurasian in its affinities at "30-40%" which would mean if Ethio-Somali is 50% or more of a Somali then 40% or 30% or so of this Somali is West Eurasian and 10 % is East African (very rough estimates I am simply throwing around to ease this conversation so don't make too much of them or even fixate on them- please). Also, I don't understand why you insist on even paying a attention to these "educated layman" as you call them when I am VERY CLEARLY using the Hodgson study itself to make my points clear to you. Did I not use the K2 run on the Hodgson study to show you what I was talking about?

I even said this

"(call some of those layman but I'd be interested to see you dismiss the data of the study that you've been thumping since the beginning of this discussion)"

^ I was essentially stating (and I believe I've said as much more than once throughout this conversation) that you have every right to just ignore Bandar, Harappa and so and so if you wish but when I'm showing you my points using the Hodgson et al study- my points are no longer being aided by "layman". Do you understand? I added those sources just to ease the convo and perhaps give you numbers to look at but just as I did with one of my earlier posts I gave you ample enough proof using the Hodgson study, no? I find it odd that you're hopping at the "layman" sources and what they infer and ignoring this section of my passage:

"The Hodgson study itself shows you clearly the Ethio-Somali study has an African influence or more African influenced than even Maghrebi with the fst distances for each of the components from "Niger-Congo". Observe the values for Arabian, Maghrebi & Ethio-Somali:

Arabian: 0.160

Maghrebi: 0.133

Ethio-Somali: 0.106 "

or when I said this:

"Observe K2 where everyone's components are melted down to an extremely low res of either "Niger-Congo" or "European"- in this you can clear as day see the slightly greater value of European in Amharas & Tigrinyas for example and this is quite representative of the West Eurasian admixture or "true" Eurasian admixture in all Horners."

I used the Hodgson itself to show you the minor African influence in Ethio-Somali (but is greater than the minor influences in Maghrebi & Arabian- have a problem with that? Not my problem). I never stated Ethio-Somali was very different from Arabian, just perhaps as the fst distances show- more African influenced than it is but the two components are very similar which is probably why they come up as roughly the same in all lower Ks whether it's for the Hodgson study or from these "layman". And when I said it was more African influenced than the other components- I did not mean its influence was strong therefore I never contradicted myself, I merely showed you that they all harbor minor influences and it has the greatest of the minor influences.

^ If that data bothers you then please go call Hodgson and his colleagues and talk it out with them. But what I did earlier was show you clear as day using the HODGSON STUDY itself that Ethio-Somali is more "African" influenced than the other components (whilst still being minor- again I never said it wasn't a minor influence). Do you deny this? Stop fixating on the non-Hodgson study sources I shared that I once even told you were entitled to ignore and progress this discussion by just acknowledging that it is slightly more African influenced than Arabian for example and as I showed you this is why Ethio-Semites probably are every so slightly more West Eurasian than we are as they have Ethio-Somali (minor influence) + Arabian (a more minor influence) & we predominantly just have Ethio-Somali (minor influence). You get my point?

"I have no interest in sorting out your own personal beliefs for you, nor in any event are talk pages meant for that per"

These are not personal beliefs but things I noticed whilst even looking at the Hodgson study itself and the Pagani study before it. What I am trying to do is clear up some clear misunderstandings you have about the Ethio-Somali component which is that it is not "African" influenced and that it is an entirely Eurasian component (something even Arabian is not as I showed you earlier, no?). This is the only real qualm I have with you here and I have it because it will lead you to spread false info on this site and aiding to prevent that is important to this talk page.

^ I got a bit angry there and perhaps a bit rude but you completely misunderstood my points and annoyingly ignored the Hodgson study evidence I showed you and fixated on the other sources almost like you're the one who can't get his personal beliefs out of the way. I'm willing to be convinced, I have no agenda or interest in making my people's (all Horners & not just Somalis) look a certain way based on my "beliefs"- I just looked at the Hodgson study and other sources as well and noticed this clear African influence on the component and then I showed it to you. Why are you now dodging that part of the discussion. Just address it and we can be done with this. And of course I was trying to show you that highlanders are slightly more West Eurasian than us as even the Hodgson study shows with everything to its lower Ks to its clusters. It's slight but it is present and I shared those "layman sources" because I wanted to show you that even layman were picking up on what the Hodgson study was with its lower Ks and fst distances from Niger-Congo.

" Yet now you are insisting that "the Ethio-Somali study has an African influence or more African influenced than even Maghrebi"

Do you have any idea how minor the African influence in Maghrebi is o.o? Observe the African influence that comes up as "Niger-Congo" in Tunisians at Hodgson's K2... And again claiming it so "more" African influenced than the other components does not downplay how minor the influence. I never said there was a strong African influence... I just implied clearly that there was more of an African influence present in it than the other components.

I know you might be getting a bit tired of this discussion (as am I) but don't get unnecessarily cheeky or rude and I know I just did but you provoked it. Keep this civil and quiet and we can both move on with our time real soon if you just get what I'm getting at which is that it was always minorly African influenced.

Where did I say it is "strongly East African" influenced? Or did you flip out and assume I did based on those fst distances (that I did not make but Hodson and his colleagues did)? My point is- we are not as West Eurasian as Tigrinyas for example because they have Ethio-Somali (a pred Eurasian component with a minor african influence) + Arabian (a pred eurasian component with a as the fst distances show for example- an even more minor african influence) and all we as Somalis have is- mostly just Ethio-Somali. Do you get my point? They are slightly more Eurasian as even the Hodgson study shows at the lower Ks (I don't know how many times I need to say this). If you simply acknowledge that- acknowledge that they are ever so slightly west eurasian as the study shows and stop misquoting me and thinking I claimed Ethio-Somali is strongly African influenced because I showed you some factual fst distances and lower Ks in the very study you love to hold as the highest authority here- when I never made such claims and merely implied that- it's minorly african influenced, slightly more than Arabian (based on the fst distances) and them having Arabian on top of it along with the lower Ks and clusters shows you that they are more West Eurasian than we are (albeit to a very minor extent- I believe I emphasized that all the differences between Horners genetically are minor & that we are all close relatives, no?). < Just calm down now (something I couldn't do with this post) and acknowledge this extra minor african influence and their minor extra west eurasian influence that I believe I have given you ample proof of and we can end this discussion.

On a side note:

Your original logic as I understood it was "Ethio-Somali" is Eurasian and it makes up most or half of Somalis... Hence Somalis are as Eurasian as Tigrinya for example who have Ethio-Somali (minor african influence) & Arabian (more of a minor influence) to somewhat equal it so Horners are equally Eurasian. My point was to challenge that by telling you that Ethio-Somali is clearly not an entirely west eurasian component as you want to believe, the Hodgson study shows you a minor "African" influence (less minor than the influence in Arabian though it is still minor- I never claimed the influence was strong but I did say it was "stronger" than the influence in Arabian- which it is as you can see for yourself ...) therefore your logic earlier that somehow makes us equally West Eurasian is flawed. < I've already addressed this but if it's one thing I can't stand is having someone not get what I'm getting at & having to repeat myself so please do get my point so we can be done with this. All my point is is that- we are slightly less Eurasian than ethio-Semites and Ethio-Somali is while minor in its influence more African influenced than Maghrebi or Arabian (a component I have never denied it is very close to, as you quoted- I even tried to remind you not to overplay how distinct the two components are). There... Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You indeed contradicted yourself and repeatedly, as shown with quotes. Since your post is basically just a slight variation of your other ones, I shall in turn repost what Hodgson et al. (2014) actually indicate, and then archive this pointless, off-topic discussion per WP:TALK:

a) "the non-African ancestry in the HOA[...] is primarily attributed to a novel Ethio-Somali inferred ancestry component";

b) "this Ethio-Somali IAC is found at its highest frequencies in Cushitic speaking Somali populations and at high frequencies in neighboring Cushitic and Semitic speaking Afar, Amhara, Oromo, and Tygray populations" [12];

c) "the non-African origin Ethio-Somali ancestry in the HOA is most likely pre-agricultural";

d) "the most recent divergence date estimates for the Ethio-Somali ancestral population are with the Maghrebi and Arabian ancestral :populations at 23 and 25 ka";

e) "overall, the pairwise Fst estimates for the IACs suggest that either the ancestral Ethio-Somali population had begun to differentiate from other non-African populations by at least 23 ka or that the ancestral Ethio-Somali population has never been completely isolated from other non-African populations";

f) "a population with substantial Ethio-Somali ancestry could be the proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers[...] a later migration of a subset of this population back to the Levant before 6 ka would account for a Levantine origin of the Semitic languages";

g) "later migration from Arabia into the HOA beginning around 3 ka would explain the origin of the Ethiosemitic languages at this time". Middayexpress (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Arabic

It seems to me, there's a couple stubborn individuals. As we know, Arabic is an official language in Somalia and Djibouti, many Somalis are fluent in Arabic yet it keeps being deleted from the "languages" section of the infobox. For the reasons, I'm hearing excuses about English, Italian and French. Yet, funny because those languages aren't even part of Somali culture, not as Arabic is and the far-reaching influence the Arabic media has. Now for whatever reason, I don't know why there are even Arabic translations if Arabic supposedly isn't spoken by Somalis. This is just sad an pathetic. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Arabic is widely spoken by Somalis and is an official language in both Somalia and Djibouti. It's just not the mother tongue of ethnic Somalis; Somali, another language from the Afro-Asiatic family, is instead. The Arabic script is there because as Wadaad's writing, it was traditionally used to write both Somali and Arabic. Middayexpress (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not natively spoken by Somalis. It is merely used in some formal or religious occasions and not in day-to-day life.Wadaad (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No one said it was a mother tongue. It is also not merely a liturgical language, as shown above. Middayexpress (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Can you please stop Wadaad. AcidSnow (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you just accept science? AcidSnow http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 Wadaad (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Although the Rendille have managed to retain some of their original Y-DNA lineages, their autosomal DNA is largely not the same as Somalis. This is because many Rendille intermarried with the neighboring Nilotic Samburu. Tishkoff et al. make this clear in their older paper. Middayexpress (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Middayexpress There are groups featured on the 'related' list that have received admixture exogenous to ethnic Somalis as well (Benadiri, Habeshas etc.). So, I don't see the big deal of listing the Rendille who are undeniably related to Somalis, even more so than Amharas (just compare the V12+T1 frequency of Rendilles and Amharas). As for the Samburu issue, it's mainly restricted to the Ariaal sub-clan of Rendilles. Other clans of Rendilles have not mixed much with the Samburu. Moreover, the Samburu are not even real Nilotes themselves. They are a Nilo-Hamitic ethnic group, so whatever Nilotic admixture they have given the Rendille it is already diluted from the get go. Lastly, listing the Rendille is of interest to those who are interested in the ancient history of Somalis.Wadaad (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Had this been the 1500s-1600s, I would agree with you. But the parameter is meant for present relations, and the Rendille of yesteryear aren't exactly the Rendille of today. The Ariaal seem have grown in size through intermarriage with the Samburu Nilotes. There's also a theory that the Rendille aren't really an ethnic group, but are instead a confederation of peoples originally united by a few influential, Somaloid-speaking migrants. Middayexpress (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The most recent common ancestors of Somalis and the Rendille is significantly more recent than the vague more distant relation between Somalis and highland Ethiosemitic groups. I am not denying that Somalis are related to Ethiosemites, but it is plainly obvious from haplogroups and linguistics that the relation is more distant. I suggest you guys to be tolerant and just leave the Rendille on here as even the Benadiri and Tigre are tolerated.Wadaad (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth would the Benadiri be removed if they descended from ethnic Somalis and mix with other Somalis hence making them the closet group? As for the Semites in the Horn of Africa, they all descend from former Cushitic speaker; which you appear not to have know. AcidSnow (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of that fact. Don't take me for a novice when it comes to East African history. Ethiosemites descent from Agew speakers (Central Cushitic) not from Lowland East Cushitic peoples which Somalis and Rendilles belong to. The relationship between Rendilles and Somalis is significantly more recent than that between Somalis and Agews/Ethiosemites. Anyhow this discussion regarding Ethiosemites is pointless as I already accept that Somalis are related to them.Wadaad (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

More like the "Horn of Africa". I never said you were a novice. I pointed out in your replies you were using linguistics for genetic relations even though it means almost nothing. Anyways, it does not matter if one accepts a fact since it's a fact. Hence ones opinion meaning nothing. AcidSnow (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Rendille have a similar frequency of mtDNA L to M/N (I is a derivative of N) as Somalis (about 55-65% in both groups). See Somali mtDNA (SOURCE) and Rendille mtDNA. Notice the elevated levels of N1a, which only the Somali and Rendille share in the Horn of Africa. Among other Cushitic groups, N1a is a lot lower. As for Somalis being too different from Rendilles because of 'Nilo-Saharan' admixture, this is false as Nilo-Saharan admixture is very common in almost all Horn African ethnic groups see Hodgson et al. 2014.Wadaad (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. While the Rendille have managed to retain some of their original uniparental markers, their autosomal DNA is another matter. Due to considerable intermarriage with the adjacent Samburu Nilotes, the Rendille's autosomal DNA is today very different from that of Somalis and other northern Cushitic and Ethiosemitic Horn groups. See Hodgson et al. (2014) [13] and especially their Supplementary Text S1 [14]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The 'light blue' cluster in Hodgson et al. (2014) is a Nilo-Saharan cluster. It is present in virtually all Horn African groups. The Afro-Asiatic migrants from the North apparantly mixed a lot with Nilo-Saharans, creating modern-day Horn Africans. So, Nilo-Saharan admixture is baked into all Horn African groups.Wadaad (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly. The Nilo-Saharan component in the Horn is a secondary admixture element found at low frequencies in all of the region's Afro-Asiatic populations. While this is the principal Sub-Saharan admixture element in Somalis (not exceeding on average ~20% per Hodgson et al.), the main SSA admixture element in the Ethiosemitic speakers is the Ari component, which is found at similar proportions. In all of the region's northern Afro-Asiatic speaking populations, especially Somalis, it's their own Ethio-Somali component that instead constitutes the majority of their ancestry. This foundational ancestry has West Eurasian affinities and is associated with the Afro-Asiatic family's origin. I refer you again to Hodgson et al. (2014) [15] and especially their Supplementary Text S1 [16]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The point was that Nilo-Saharan admixture is common throughout the Horn. I am not saying it is their major component or whatnot. It has been present in Cushites for a long time. So, only a minor 5% to 10% or thereabouts that the Rendille probably have more than the Somali is not a major factor in genetic differentiation. Look at the Maasai in Hodgson et al. (2014), they have loads of the Ethio-Somali component. Remember the Maasai are significantly Bantu mixed compared to the Samburu. The Samburu would have a lot less Bantu admixture and would score more Ethio-Somali. From this you can see that the Rendille won't logically be very different from Somalis autosomally. Of course I have to wait until a study compares them one to one, but it is blatantly obvious already what the results will be.Wadaad (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The Maasai do not have much Ethio-Somali admixture. Per Hodgson et al., that component is largely exclusive to the Horn's Afro-Asiatic populations. The Maasai are instead predominantly Nilo-Saharan like the Samburu Nilotes. Also, the Rendille have more than just a bit of Nilo-Saharan admixture; especially their Ariaal subgroup. They are basically a disappearing population. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Middayexpress, The Maasai have the highest amount of the Ethio-Somali component outside the Horn region in Hodgson's study. I would not say that isn't 'much'. PS. I stand by that the ethnic Rendille are not very different from Somalis autosomally. Pretty soon it will be confirmed once Somalis and Rendille are sampled in the same study.Wadaad (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can believe whatever you want. The fact remains that the Masaai, like the Ari, do not have much Ethio-Somali admixture; they are instead predominantly Nilo-Saharan like the Samburu Nilotes. Per Hodgson, the Ethio-Somali component has West Eurasian affinities and is largely restricted to the Horn's Afro-Asiatic populations. The Rendille probably have the component due to their Cushitic origins. However, given their intermarriage with the Samburu Nilotes, it is definitely present among them at lower frequencies than among the northern Cushitic and Ethiosemitic populations in the Horn. Middayexpress (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Somalis have about 60% of the Ethio-Somali cluster, while the Maasai have about 21% that is a substantial amount. In total this would make them over a third Somali-like in origin. The Rendille would score a lot more than the Maasai and would probably have more of the Ethio-Somali cluster than the Amhara.Wadaad (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Somalis have an estimated 57% of the Ethio-Somali cluster (Hodgson et al.'s Table 2). The rest of their West Eurasian ancestry is from other components, mainly the Arabian one. For their part, the Maasai do not have much Ethio-Somali admixture (btw, even assuming that ~20% admixture figure were correct, it is a not a third). They instead largely have their own Nilo-Saharan component, consistent with their language family. Given the Rendille's intermarriage with the Samburu Nilotes, they almost certainly have less of the Ethio-Somali component and more of the Nilo-Saharan one. Whatever the Ethio-Somali component's frequencies among them, though, their overall West Eurasian ancestry will be less than Somalis, Amhara and other northern Afro-Asiatic groups in the Horn (who do not have any comparable relationship with a Nilotic population). I refer you again to Hodgson et. al (2014) [17] and its Supplementary Text S1 [18]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

With a 'a third Somali-like' I meant that it would require about a third Somali-like ancestry for pure Nilotes to have 21% Ethio-Somali. Since Somalis do not only have the Ethio-Somali cluster. The Dinka or South Sudanese sampled by Hodgson et al. 2014 have no Ethio-Somali ancestry. Neither do the Gumuz of Western Ethiopia.Wadaad (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Understood; but whatever was meant, the Maasai don't have a third Somali-like ancestry. They don't have the same paternal markers as ethnic Somalis. This in turn means that whatever Afro-Asiatic males introduced those low frequencies of Ethio-Somali admixture to the Maasai, they were not Somali. Those men instead probably belonged to an old South Cushitic population since the Maasai individuals who today carry haplogroup E1b1b have its M293 subclade. This subclade is associated with the original South Cushitic speakers, the southward spread of pastoralism, and the C-14010 lactase persistence allele [19]]. Somalis generally don't carry that LP variant. The most common lactase persistence alleles found amongst both Somalis and Bejas are instead C-13907 and G-13915, which are believed to have originated in Northeast Africa and the Middle East, respectively. On the other hand, the C-14010 allele is generally the only LP variant that the Maasai and other Nilotes in the Great Lakes have. The Dinka and other less mixed Nilotes in the Nile Valley for the most part do not carry any lactase persistent allele. For their part, the Rendille mainly carry the C-14010 variant like the Iraqw, a remnant South Cushitic speaking group in the Great Lakes [20]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Language

I see from CIA Arabic is an official language. It was reverted with a comment about "Native" Language. The talk box is not about Native Languages, it is for official or notable languages. (so let us be clear about that). In this article there is a clear reference to Arabic being spoken, the info box should reflect the languages spoken with notes if it is a tiny minority. Reverting without discussion is not how we make articles better.--Inayity (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Arabic is indeed an official language in both Somalia and Djibouti, where ethnic Somalis constitute a large percentage of the population. Middayexpress (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So why is User:Wadaad and User:Bladesmulti deleting it?--Inayity (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't think it's a big deal. Somali, which like Arabic is an Afro-Asiatic language, is after all the mother tongue of ethnic Somalis. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Inayity, I'd say more Somalis are fluent in English than Arabic, especially in Somaliland and Puntland. Should we add English as well? You get the point. Stick to native languages only on ethnicity pages.Wadaad (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Look at road signs, commercials signs etc in Hargeisa for instance. There are more English signs than Arabic ones. Clearly wouldn't be the case if Arabic was more dominant. Wadaad (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Arabic is on most government literature and buildings, is a language taught in many elementary schools, is a liturgical language, and is an additional broadcasting language. It is also an official language in both Somalia and Djibouti. As such, it can't be compared to English, which is only a working language in varying degrees. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wadaad we are on Wikipedia and only need RS and Wikipedia rules. The info box recognizes Official language, according to the CIA fact book Arabic is an official language. Per Wiki info box it is NOT limited to what you just stated, that is your opinion not Wikipedia policy. I dont care either way, i rather not see Arabic up there, but I am also upkeeping Wiki standards.--Inayity (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The template documentation is confusing on this. Its languages parameter indicates that it is reserved for "languages spoken by group". However, it also has native name and native_name_lang parameters meant for the "local language". Weird, but yeah, no big deal. Middayexpress (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am out here, if you want to include arabic with the reference, you can. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Middayexpress, English is an official language in Somaliland and Northern Kenya where many Somalis live. As for Ethiopian Somalis, census data from Ethiopia shows that Arabic is not recognized.Wadaad (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Somaliland is a region of Somalia, and English is only a working language for Somalis in NEP. Likewise, no Somalis have traditions of descent from English forebears, unlike Sheekh Darod, Sheekh Isaaq, Sheikh Ar-Rida, etc. Middayexpress (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Isaaq and Darod only carry local T1 and E1b1b lineages that aren't associated with the Arabian peninsula. It's a complete myth that the bulk of them descent from Arabian sheiks. These fables of Hashimite descent are common in the Islamic world and should be taken with a grain of salt.Wadaad (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hodgson et al. has established that the West Eurasian ancestry in Somalis is ancient and not due to recent admixture from the Arabian peninsula. That ancestry is instead associated with the first Somali language speakers and the spread of the Afro-Asiatic family itself. Middayexpress (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

T is carried by all Somali clans and not just the Darod and the Isaaq. AcidSnow (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@AcidSnow, I did not say that. What I said was that the Isaaq and Darood who have tested themselves on various genetic testing services only score T1 and E1b1b, nothing else from my knowledge. Pagani et al. who tested mainly Ogadenis also found that the vast majority of them only belong to T1 and E1b1b. Other common Horn African lineages like A3 and J1 were very low to nonexistant. This is in line with what I have observed. Wadaad (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I read it as if you meant that only they carried it. 20:54, 28 September 2014 AcidSnow (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Haplogroup A3 is not associated with Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn; only haplogroups E1b1b, T and J are, with J having likely been introduced recently from the Arabian peninsula. When present, haplogroup A is instead indicative of Nilotic and/or Ari admixture. Middayexpress (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Haplogroup A3 is more frequent than T in non-Somali Ethiopians: source 1 & source 2. PS. Omotics have lower levels of A3 than Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic mainstream Ethiopians. The main Omotic haplogroup is E-M329 not A3 which is more Sudanese shifted and present in non-Somali Cushites because of early NS admixture in proto-Cushites who lived in Northern Sudan. Wadaad (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. From that, it appears that the Ari don't carry haplogroup A3, but instead an E1b1a sub-clade. A3's presence amongst certain non-Somali Ethiopians is thus likely indicative of Nilotic influence alone. Assuming that the Omotic languages are indeed a divergent branch of Afro-Asiatic, this in turn suggests that most modern Omotic speakers likely adopted the Omotic languages at some time in their past since their mtDNA and autosomal DNA are also very different from those of mainstream Afro-Asiatic Ethiopians [21]. The Woleyta are unusual in that they are much closer both uniparentally and autosomally to mainstream Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic Ethiopians than are other Omotic speakers. Altogether, this suggests that either: a) the Woleyta are directly descended from the original Omotic speakers, having settled amongst and absorbed an autochthonous E1b1a-carrying population in Ethiopia who gradually adopted their Omotic language; or b) the first Woleyta settlers adopted a non-Afro-Asiatic, Omotic language from the aboriginal E1b1a-carrying population that they settled amongst and absorbed. Both would explain the divergent nature of the modern Omotic languages since a substratum influence would have been retained from the original language(s) of the E1b1a autochthones. It's the direction of language switching that is uncertain. At any rate, you'll probably be interested in the archaeological finds of Daniel Stiles; it substantiates some of what you suggested about the first Afro-Asiatic settlers in the broader region, as well as early documents and tradition [22] [23]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Haji Bashir Ismail Yusuf

5.107.229.108, I have reverted your addition of the description of Haji Bashir Ismail Yusuf as "speaker of the Somalia Act of Union", because that description doesn't make sense in English. What does it mean to say that someone is the "speaker" of an act of parliament? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox parameters

On the coding, please see Infobox parameter. Soupforone (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Somalis. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.knbs.or.ke/docs/PresentationbyMinisterforPlanningrevised.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. This has been set up to determine the appropriateness of sections such as the "genetics" section in this article. I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of Somalis in Sweden

The number of Somalis in Sweden is based on Statistics Sweden's figure for persons in Sweden born in Somalia. This does not account for 1) non-Somalis from Somalia (according to WP, 85% of the population are Somali) and 2) children of Somali immigrants that identify as Somali. How can this be noted? ✎ HannesP · talk 12:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a Global Migrant Origin Database figure for residents of Somali ancestry. Middayexpress (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that figure is outdated; since 2007 the number of Somalia-born residents in Sweden has almost tripled. ✎ HannesP · talk 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It is somewhat dated, but this page isn't on Somalia-born residents; it's on ethnic Somalis. At any rate, I've replaced it with a more recent OSS figure. Middayexpress (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few of the figures in the infobox refer to the Somali-born population of the countries listed, not the number of ethnic Somalis in those countries. Could some sort of system be devised to indicate which figures refer to which? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. The page is on ethnic Somalis, but the official population figures are mainly per country of origin. Middayexpress (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the ones that are based on country of origin rather than ethnicity could have an asterisk next to them, with a note at the end of the infobox explaining this? It's just that at the moment, there's no explanation of what the figures represent, or that they represent different things. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That wouldn't work, as most are based on country of origin. That's unfortunately the middle ground here. Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, you could say that the figures are for country of birth, and then asterisk the ones that aren't. One way or another, there should be an explanation of what the figures actually represent. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Properly labeled links are sufficient for that. Middayexpress (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just revisiting this issue and note that the names of the reference don't identify what the figures refer to in most cases. Middayexpress appears to have retired from editing, but I don't want to use that situation to force through my own preference (not that I have a strong one anyway), so I'm opening an RfC on this. The question is, how should we differentiate between figures based on country of birth and figures based on ethnicity in the infobox of this article? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wadaad and Soupforone, I notice that you've recently edited these figures. Do you have any views on this issue? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I was just updating data on Somalis in other European countries. Didn't touch the Swedish data.Wadaad (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't specific to the Swedish data, Wadaad. The question is whether and how we should explain that the figures for different countries are based on different definitions. Some are figures for ethnic Somalis and some for people born in Somalia. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. They are rough estimates. Many ethnic Somalis are counted under the statistics of Ethiopia and Kenya or are lost in data collection as soon as they hit the 3rd generation and hence these figures may even underestimate the Somali population in various Western countries.Wadaad (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

IP vandalism

An IP has spammed falsities. Haak et al. did not genotype this population [24]. Likewise, Trombetta et al. (2015) [25] did not test any specific clans for this or any other ethnic group, much less associate it with "Samaale" or the Land of Punt - see Supplementary Table 7 [26]. Soupforone (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone has deleted sourced information repeatedly. Soupforone reports falsities. Haak et al. 2015 are using Somali samples for autosomal analysis. Plaster et al. 2011, not Trombetta as wrongly reported initially, did test Somalis from Dire Dawa belonging to Dir clan. Other studies on Djibouti also found the same pattern. Land of Punt is inhabited by Dir clan members. Dir clan is the most accepted descendants of Samaale according to all known sources on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.14.247.234 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finally deciding to respond. However, you messed up the comment chronology in your remark above, which I have now fixed [27]. With that said, Haak et al. (2015) [28] don't even allude to Somalis, let alone associate the presence of haplogroup T with "Eurasian physical traits" (Oh? Aeta "Eurasians" too?). They also don't suggest that Somalis inherited "dark skin... from their E1b ancestors". This is soapboxing. Lastly, it's good that you admit that you made a mistake and that it is actually Plaster et al. (2011) which found the 82.4% (not "more than 70%") of haplogroup T among Somalis inhabiting Dire Dawa, and not Trombetta et al. (2015) as you initially claimed. Nevertheless, as can clearly be seen here, Plaster et al. indicate nothing vis-a-vis any specific clans, much less link the high presence of haplogroup T in that area with "Samaale" or the ancient Land of Punt. They only assert that their Dire Dawa sample is ethnically Somali ("both the Afar province and the Chartered City of Dire Dawa (CC2) are ethnically uniform, with all samples belonging to the Afar (AF) and Somali (SM) ethnic groups respectively"). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this too was an "error". Regardless, I've fixed it as well. Soupforone (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There are several claims that you had never edited. We can start to clean all of this one to one. You said that "don't even allude to Somalis" this is because you have not read the peper. Somalis are used for autosomal analysis in this study. Dire Dawa as Djibouti are mostly inhabited by the Dir clan, this is a fact according to all sources. Dirs are the most accepted descendants of Samaale, this is another fact supported by all sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.14.247.234 (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As demonstrated and can be seen here [29], Plaster et al. (2011) only indicate that their Chartered City of Dire Dawa sample is ethnically Somali. They don't indicate that it belongs to any specific clan, though it may indeed mostly consist of Dir individuals given where it was culled. However, as the distribution map shows [30], this clan also inhabits northwestern Somalia and northern Ethiopia, where T lineages appear to be at a lower frequency. So it cannot be said for certain that the northern Dir or the Dir as a whole are associated with haplogroup T. Also, Haak et al. (2015) didn't analyse Somalis - please see here [31]. With that said, just because Trombetta et al. (2015) detected only 25% of E1b1b-M215 lineages in their Djibouti sample doesn't necessarily mean that the rest were haplogroup T bearers. They are instead more likely to be carriers of haplogroups that are related to but more upstream than E1b1b since Trombetta et al. observed 50% of non-E1b1b clades in their Ethiopia sample, whereas most of Plaster et al.'s Somali Region sample consisted of E*(xE1b1a) carriers. E*(xE1b1a) here means all E clades excluding E1b1a. Thus, it pertains to E1b1b, but not exclusively. Trombetta et al.'s Table 7 indicates the E1b1b-M215 sublineages only [32]. Soupforone (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Somalis. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/people-australia-2013-statistics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Somalis ethnically are not Arabs

Somalis are ethnically not Arabs. Somalia Business Law Handbook: Strategic Information and Laws. International Business Publications, USA. Aug 1, 2013. p. 48. ISBN 1-4387-7104-5.

According to CIA FactBook there are 10 million people in Somalia but there are only 30,000 Arabs in the country. "People and Society Somalia -". CIA Factbook.

Libanguled (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Somalis are instead of Hamitic ancestral origin. That they aren't ethnically Arab is not particularly meaningful, though, since the Arab world is chiefly comprised of Arabized populations. Most Maghrebis and Egyptians are of related Hamitic stock, and many Near Easterners are descended from various local Semitic speaking populations rather than from the peninsular Arabs. All speak languages from the Afro-Asiatic (Hamitic-Semitic) family. Soupforone (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Somalis are not Arabs. The Read Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. 1982. p. 88. ISBN 9789024725014.

Who Intervenes?: Ethnic Conflict and Interstate Crisis. Ohio State University Press. 2006. p. 76. ISBN 9780814210130. Libanguled (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Many Somalis have Afro-textured hair while Arabs don't

Almost half of Somalis have Afro-textured hair like the somali singer knaan and you will never see an Arab person with Afro-textured hair. The fact that many Somalis have Afro-textured hair like the rest of black Africans proves that Somalis are not Arabs because there are no Arab person with Afro-textured hair. 174.24.209.207 (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. If there are reliable sources that make this argument, fine, but otherwise it just appears to be your opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Somalis are not Arabs. The Read Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. 1982. p. 88. ISBN 9789024725014.

Who Intervenes?: Ethnic Conflict and Interstate Crisis. Ohio State University Press. 2006. p. 76. ISBN 9780814210130.

Libanguled (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ip, trolling aside, you are actually not entirely wrong. According to phenotypic analysis by the anthropologist Nella Puccioni, ethnic Somalis come in three distinct physical types: an original Hamitic northern type (Heggi/Haji), a Negroid-influenced riverine type (Sab/Rahanweyn), and an intermediate southern type (Haouia/Hawiye). The northern type is tall, lithe, fine-featured, lighter-skinned and wavy-haired. The riverine type is much shorter, stockier, less fine-featured, darker-skinned, and often has afro-textured hair due to admixture with freed slaves. The southern type is intermediate between the two in all measurements [33]. Also see I. M. Lewis for a summary of these phenotypical differences [34]. Soupforone (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, Bantus never lived in the Horn of Africa prior to the 1800's. There's also few cases of inter marriage between these two groups as doing so would result in exile [35]. So to claim a whole clan as such is highly absurd. More importantly, Somalis poses a common origin which is not only supported by genetics but also Somali culture and history[36]. The features pointed out by Soupforone aren't prominent nor exclusive to one clan since they can be found in all of them. This shouldn't come as surprise since Somalis are often reported for looking similar to one another[37]. But this necssarily true as we have already shown. As for the Afro itself, you can find it all across Egypt by people who aren't Nubian but rather individuals whom also possess the Arab belief. Not only this, but many Somalis have wavy and straight hair. So does that make them Japanese? Maybe. AcidSnow (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's true. Actually, notwithstanding any extraneous influence, afro-textured hair is rare among Somalis and related populations. What is instead generally found are wavy, straight and other varieties, all of which are microscopically distinct from actual ulotrichous hair [38]. Soupforone (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Somalis look-alike regardless of their clan. It is impossible to know what clan a person is by the way they look. For example the former governor of northern region of Bari who is Majerten of Darod clan has Negroid-features [39] [40] . When the civil war happened many Somalis survived by identifying with other neutral clans, this would have impossible if it was possible to tell a persons clan by the way they look. Also sometimes members of minority clans identify with majority clans. "Most of the minority groups have assimilated into other Somalia clans with whom they live. For example, the Galgala have assimilated into the Abgal in Jowhar and Mogadishu. However, they identify themselves as Nuh Mohamud, a sub clan of the Majerten clan. Some Gaboye, Tumal and Yibir assimilated into the Isak in Somaliland, while others yet have assimilated into the Darod in Puntland and central regions. There are also other Gaboye, Tumal and Yibir who assimilated with Hawadle, Murasade and Marehan clans in Galgadud region. With the exception of the Bantu, Rerhamar, Bravanese, Bajuni and Eyle who have distinct "non-Somali" physical appearance, all other minorities have physical appearances similar to that of the dominant clans, as well as having ethnic and cultural similarities. What distinguish the assimilated minorities are their distinct economic livelihoods." http://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/study-minorities-somalia Libanguled (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's impossible to guess a persons clan passed off their appearance. This is one of the few things that we seem to agree on. AcidSnow (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

AcidSnow, that phenotypical analysis was from the turn of the 20th century, when there was less assimilation and clan lineages were more stringent. The anthropologist L. Royblicka-Bernat also observed something similar [41]. Anyway, your point is well taken. Soupforone (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Clans

AcidSnow, I think perhaps we should note the main anthropological differences between the northern clans and the southern Sab (nasal index, cephalic index, pigmentation, hair form, somatotype, prognathism, stature, etc.). Because like in the Indian peninsula, there are considerable dichotomies between the northern and southern areas as far as differing admixtures and ancestries [42]. Soupforone (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mota Cave

The genetic study on the Mota Cave specimen and the estimate based on it are faulty. The scientists published an erratum indicating as much [43]. It has also since then been discovered that Levantine rather than European farmers are actually a better fit for the Neolithic settlers from West Eurasia in the Horn [44]. Soupforone (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

According to a DNA study Somalis and Ethiopians can trace more than 30% of their DNA to Eurasian immigrants that came to horn of Africa about 3,000 years ago. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ancient-ethiopian-dna-eurasia-20151008-story.html. Somalis have admixture.Guled2016 (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as explained, that study was based on a bioinformatics error; the scientists indicated as much. The estimate is also inaccurate because it is now understood that the West Eurasian Neolithic settlers in the Horn were more akin to Levantine populations than to Sardinians as had previously been assumed [45]: "Migrations from the Near East also occurred towards the southwest into East African populations which experienced West Eurasian admixture ~1,000 BCE. Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically. However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe" Soupforone (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Figure

The 10,000 figure attributed to Tripodi appears to be incorrect, as he does not indicate this [46]. Soupforone (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

source checks, WP:BRD and WP:TAD

(@Soupforone message copied from my talk page for context ...)

Greetings! I have restored the original headers on Somalis, as the page was honed through a laborious consensus process between myself and AcidSnow and Awale-Abdi. Per WP:BRD, please therefore do not append or remove any potentially contentious material without discussion and consensus. Also note that WP:TAD does not circumvent the consensus process, and applies to stub pages specifically. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: You have a weird understanding of WP:BRD. Unsourced OR is not allowed in any article, and your past consensus with someone on unsourced content is irrelevant and a puzzling misinterpretation of wikipedia community accepted content guidelines. I encourage you to not edit war with me, but collaborate with me and add sources to support paragraphs that have no source. The Lewis source is misrepresented in this article, please check pages 51 and 52 again. Let us discuss this here, instead of my talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was obviously not over original research. These discussions also mainly took place on AcidSnow and Awale-Abdi's respective talk pages, as well as with AbwaanRooble. I'm telling you this because you told me elsewhere that there was some existing consensus to exclude Jews from the religion parameter on non-Jewish ethnicity page infoboxes. Also, please note that the compensatory diyya-paying system is already discussed under the xeer customary law, and the Arab lineage traditions are likewise already noted under clan (all clans have Arab lineage traditions btw). Anyway, please heretofore discuss for consensus. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone:: What nonsense!! Can you edit-diff your allegation, "you told me elsewhere" about Jews and non-Jewish page infoboxes? I think you have me confused with some another editor? Also, neither you nor I own any wikipedia page. I see you have had issues at ANI, including with @AcidSnow you mention above. You need consensus from others, as much as I do. Quit this BRD lecturing, and let us collaborate to improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AcidSnow is actually not addressing me there, but rather the posting user (who has since been indefinitely blocked btw). Anyway, what you indicated was that Judaism was o/r [47]. However, Minahan does actually indicate that some Shilha Berbers are Jewish adherents [48], so I assumed that you meant instead Jewish ethnicity. Soupforone (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, while the consensus process is indeed bidirectional, please note that the WP:BURDEN to obtain consensus is actually on the editor who wants to make changes. That's why I asked you to present any potential wordings first here on the talk page for discussion and consensus. Soupforone (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: The Minahan source was not there in that article, but Jews/Christians claim was in that article, before I ever edited that article. So that Jews/Christian claim was indeed unsourced. Again just like WP:BRD, you misunderstand WP:Burden. The WP:Burden just requires one to provide a reliable source to help verify the content added. I have. You seem confused again, just like others have noted your edit and response to be confused. Please note anybody can edit wikipedia. There is no concept of you approving changes to this or another wiki article before someone can add reliably sourced content, or before someone can tag unsourced content. Neither you nor I own this article or any other. You are inappropriately deleting sources and summary while wrongly alleging redundancy, removing tags without adding requested sources, etc. Why not practice what you preach? Why shouldn't you stop editing this article till you get consensus on this talk page? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That's the wrong dif. Minahan was indeed already in the article [49]. Anyway, normal, polite dialogue on the talk page after an initial bold edit has been challenged is actually per the brd and consensus policies. Such discussion is bidirectional, so I would gladly do the same if asked. Soupforone (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: Please read my comment again about tagged unsourced content and summary sourced to WP:RS. Please don't revert to unsourced version, don't delete reliable sources if I or someone has restored it, or remove cn' tags without providing appropriate RS. Indeed, let us keep the discussion etc bidirectional. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not that simple. A source doesn't automatically become reliable. It has to meet certain criteria first, particularly context-wise per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Soupforone (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: Quit your lecturing. Of course context matters, but vague confused arguments you lecture with, without specifics, read like WP:TE. Instead of lectures, you would be more constructive if you identify a source you have issue with. Sources I have added to this article are by well cited professors / scholars / publications, whose research has focussed on Africa Studies / East African history / Africa-related Anthropology / Horn of Africa region/ etc. They are published by sources such as Oxford University Press etc that are known for quality peer review. Perhaps you shouldn't be editing this and Africa-related articles if don't recognize the contextual relevance of the WP:RS that others or I have added. In future, be constructive by identifying specific reference you have issue with and explaining on the talk page why you have issue with it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dialogue is not lecturing, but rather what WP:TALK recommends. Anyway, the work, author and publisher indeed all matter in determining source reliability. However, how exactly the source is being used on wiki also matters. For instance, it was indicated that according to Besteman, these Somali agriculturalists have physical features and occupations different from others in their communities. However, Besteman, like Luling, in fact indicates that these agriculturalists are ethnically non-Somali and that their physical features and occupations distinguished them from Somalis [50]. I fixed it, but this is the sort of thing I mean by context matters. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Kinship

@Soupforone: why remove kinship sub-section and the scholarly sources? Your edit summary alleges it is redundant, but how is it redundant? The old article never mentioned it. Kinship is a notable feature of Somali people, kinship is discussed in encyclopedic articles on Somalis published by Oxford University Press etc, there are numerous WP:RS on it. Lewis wrote a whole book on Somali kinship. Once again I am puzzled in another wiki article by your behavior of deleting sourced content. Please do not delete it. I think we should expand the kinship subsection. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that kinship is important. However, this particular issue has been a bone of contention, particular the notion of which clans may have Arabian influence. AcidSnow and Awale-Abdi think it is uniform across clans, whereas your edit suggested it was concentrated among the coastal groups. Discussion and consensus is therefore necessary. Also, the passage indicated that the main kinship unit is the clan, which is already discussed under the clan area. It also notes that diyya is paid out, which is contextualized under the law area. Soupforone (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: Do you have WP:RS for what you are alleging? If yes, please provide. Your personal opinions / prejudices / wisdom are irrelevant in our efforts to improve this article, as you know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Lewis' agnatic descent chart [51]. Soupforone (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: The descent chart neither verify the alleged "bone of contention", nor does this article either way. If you feel the article states something inconsistent with Lewis' chart, where/which sentence? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The chart shows that all ethnic Somali clans have Arabian descent traditions. Soupforone (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, all Somali clans (/their genealogies) claim Arabian origins, one way or the other. --Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Image demonstrating "castes"

A 1914 image of a Somali Midgan, one of the social strata among Somalis.

I disagree with the use of these three images to demonstrate some sort of "caste" stratification within the Somali community. It somewhat implies that the three "castes" dress distinctly when that's simply not the case. Here is a man of the Geledi of the 1800s and here are men far to the North of him (of the Isaaq clan) from around the same period, here is a Hawiye woman from Mogadishu during the Early Modern Era + Darod women from the Northeast (compare their attire to the "Sab" woman posted) and, finally, the artisinal caste (like the Midgan) were not the only ones to use that, as far as I remember, butter based concoction on their hair. In fact, what he has going with his hair is common all across the Horn among Cushitic speakers and can even be found today among Afar nomadic pastoralists today (see here). The imaging could basically give one the impression that there's a difference in attire between these groupings when there seriously isn't. So yeah, I basically believe it should be removed or things should be reverted to how they used to be for years, prior to recent edits, where no such image was visible. Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I see Sarah removed the image... Thank you! But I think a single small image ought to be added as that section looks a bit less aesthetically pleasing without one. It's fine if people disagree, of course. I'll leave it that way for now. --Awale-Abdi (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Awale-Abdi: Getting consensus for one of three may be challenging. I favor Midgan image, since we already have a picture of a Sultan elsewhere in this article. FWIW, this article has too many images, making it difficult to read. I suggest cleanup of images from other sections as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that image might imply that the Midgan somehow look distinct in their attire and hair style or some such which would be inaccurate so I wouldn't add it. But you're right, to be honest. This section could do with less pictures so, for now, I won't make any attempts to add one to that section. But if someone finds a good one that makes sense with the section; have at it as long as other editors don't contest it unanimously or by majority. --Awale-Abdi (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Midgans, Tumaal, Yibir, etc. number only a few thousand individuals, so they are hardly representative of most ethnic Somalis (who instead mostly belong to the noble caste, followed by the Sab). Luling actually hints that they may have originally been of hunter-gatherer stock, but came to resemble their noble Somali neighbors through intermarriage. Soupforone (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Content on Somali-Bantus is redundant

This article is about ethnic Somalis and while largely former Bantu speaking people in Somalia are, without a doubt, Somali nationals (citizens of Somalia) with a history (however long or short) in the Somali Peninsula; they are not ethnic Somalis. Crowding up the social stratification section with information on them is pointless as a result. A short sentence on where they fit in Somali social stratification may suffice but what I see is over the top since Somali-Bantus, as they were dubbed by UNESCO (from what I recall), posses their own Wikipedia page. I'll be removing the large amount of information regarding them for the time being in favor of a short sentence. Regards, --Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Awale-Abdi: It is not pointless. Your own personal wisdom/prejudices/opinions/OR should not drive this article, rather the content should be based on wikipedia's content policies. Wikipedia is not many things (WP:WWIN), but as an online encyclopedia, it is a comprehensive reference that contains a summary of accepted knowledge regarding different aspects of a subject from reliable sources (see this wikipedia Arb committee ruling). Please do not remove content sourced from scholarly WP:RS or the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

My own personal wisdom/prejudices/opinions? I have no prejudices toward former Bantu speakers in Somalia, if that's what you're implying. But you're correct, this page should not be based on what anyone feels based on their own wisdom/prejudices/opinions/OR but should be based on what fits within the subject matter of the page and I'm simply stating that a gigantic paragraph about non-ethnic-Somalis does not fit in a page and section about ethnic Somalis, especially since said non-ethnic-Somalis have their own Wikipedia page. A simple sentence mentioning where they fit within Somali social stratification (the actual subject matter) suffices but explaining their history, as that paragraph I deleted does, unnecessarily crowds up the page/article with essentially off-topic content, sourced or not. Where is the flaw in this? Also, you seem somewhat combative... I have no interest in charged confrontations. Discuss things calmly and rationally please. Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Awale-Abdi: Have you really read the scholarly sources cited in that section? You allege, it is "a gigantic paragraph about non-ethnic-Somalis". But that is not what the mainstream WP:RS are stating. We need to stick to scholarly publications, not your or my personal declarations. Several editors have checked that section, the sources and worked on that summary. The numerous cited sources clearly state this is about Somali people. If you identify additional scholarship that states something more, we can add that in. Quit this "you are combative" lectures. Just focus on what the sources are stating and what our wiki content policies are. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Lets dissect the paragraph:

"According to Virginia Luling and Catherine Besteman, these Bantu slaves were part of a broader social category known as Habash (a pejorative), which included other Negroid groups and agriculturalists such as the Shiidle of the Middle Shebelle valley and the Eyle of Bur Heybe."

Clearly seems to be about so-called "Negroid" formerly Bantu-speaking groups in Somalia, not about ethnic Somalis. Also doesn't wade in on social stratification.

"Besteman states that the origins of these other non-Somali agriculturalists inhabiting the Shabeelle River valley is obscure. They were already settled in the area and tilling the land prior to the importation of slaves in the 19th century. She therefore posits that they may be remnants of earlier Bantu-speaking farmers, who had preceded the first Cushitic Somali arrivals in the southern river valleys and were later absorbed within the communities that settled beside them."

Clearly about the history of former Bantu-speaking people in Somalia (how they may have come to be where they are, and so on) and not really about social stratification.

Alternatively, Besteman indicates that the farmers may be descendants of emancipated slaves that were acquired by Somali patrons in centuries past. Irrespective of their provenience, these agriculturalists' physical features and occupations differentiated them from Somalis and unfavorably positioned them within the local social hierarchy.

This is the only section of the paragraph that remotely makes sense with the subject matter in that a part of it explains why they are positioned unfavorably in Somali social hierarchy.

"Genetic analysis has found no significant Bantu influence among ethnic Somalis. This indicates that the ancient Bantu migration from West-Central Africa likely did not reach the Horn due to the Afro-Asiatic language barrier, so the Bantu presence in the region is instead most probably of recent date."

Another section that is rather redundant. The genetic analyses information would be better served here whilst the information throughout the paragraph about the "Bantu's" recent arrival or not would be better served in their own page.

Also, you keep bringing up all of this being sourced as though that somehow makes its placement in this article/page valid. It doesn't. I can post well-sourced off-topic information on any article; it doesn't make its placement there justified. This is all that would make sense within the social stratification section when mentioning Somali-Bantus:

"Outside of the Somali caste system were slaves of Bantu speaking origins who with posessed distinct phenotypic traits from ethnic Somalis (known as jareer or adoon). Their often former slave status and distinct physical traits were why they were pushed to a lower status within Somali social hierarchy."

The rest of the information you shared, sourced or not sourced, is not on-subject and does indeed crowd up the article unnecessarily. All that needs to be said, for the subject matter, is that they are pushed to a lower status within Somali social hierarchy because of their often, but not always, former status as slaves as well as some of their current occupations alongside their distinct physical traits. The rest of what you shared is not bad or even incorrect information (I do not even disagree with any of it, as far as I can see); it just goes off-topic and crowds up the page/article. I hope my dissection above helped you see that. --Awale-Abdi (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Awale-Abdi: Thank you for explaining. Now we are getting closer to consensus. Yes there was, as you state above "This is the only section of the paragraph that remotely makes sense with the subject matter in that a part of it explains why they are positioned unfavorably in Somali social hierarchy" part, which I thought you were removing inappropriately previously. I am also not convinced that the genetic analysis part belongs in the section, and am okay if you delete it. I left in an extra sentence or two, to help explain the context. Please feel free to reword it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Great to see we could come to some sort of an consensus! You're welcome for the explanation. And no, I wouldn't remove something I thought made sense with the general article and seemed accurate. I may reword things (in order to make things more short and to the point) further later today but things look fine for now. Thank you for your cooperation. --Awale-Abdi (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Awale-Abdi, both the wearing of turbans and ghee application were indeed common among all castes, particularly in urban areas [52] [53]. The Sultans and their courtiers often wore such headgear. Some even wore the keffiyeh, but this was less common [54]. Many nomads applied ghee in their hair; others kept a loose, natural style [55]. The woman was wearing the gareys/guntiino, a traditional knotted dress that was also worn across castes [56]. Note that the custom of wearing hair long and loose is ancient among Cushitic speakers. A twelfth dynasty ancient Egyptian tomb mural depicts a wavy-haired early Beja figure [57]. This unadorned, ancestral style is still common among many modern Beja [58], Somali [59], Afar [60] and other Cushitic speakers in the northern Horn. Soupforone (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Lewis discusses ghee and turban, along with milk, sheep and goat slaughter, while discussing Qaadiriya, Ahmadiya and Somali. He writes, on page 222 and abouts, "The Ahmadiya favor the wearing of the turban tied such a way that an end hangs out, as they say, in imitation of the Prophet". I don't think all this belongs in that section either. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and also turban wearing during traditional royal ceremonies [61]. Soupforone (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: You reinserted "and Negroid physiognomy", which @Awale-Abdi and I removed. Which page do you see support for "Negroid physiognomy" in the cited sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's in Luling, on the indicated pages 43-46 [62]. This is why it's always best to avoid WP:CITEKILL, and why Template:Page needed exists. Soupforone (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I know very little of this topic, but I'd be wary of relying on an unpublished PhD thesis from 1971 as the sole source for anything like this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As it so happens, Lewis indicates as much too [63]. Established dissertations by recognized scholars in the field, such as Luling, are also fine per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Soupforone (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: Well, Cordless Larry is right for two reasons, one being "sole" source and second being the fact that page 44 actually states something very different from what you have inserted. Let me quote, on fair use basis, footnote 2 where the "negroid" word appears. It states,

(2) Among the northern Somali this word [Habash] means 'Abyssinian'. As a slave dealer's term (from the same Arabic derivation) it used to mean a slave from Abyssinia, generally a Galla, specifically not negroid.

The source underlines "not" in that footnote. That reads something very different from you are stating. Now, lets look at Lewis, which is a far better source, and meets @CL's suggestion. I see, you have linked page 23, but all its states is that medieval Somalis drove the Galla people southwards, who in turn displaced Bantu and negroid inhabitants. It does not state or support what you have added, "Outside of the Somali caste system were slaves of Bantu origin and Negroid physiognomy (known as jareer or adoon)". That quote above, nor Lewis text, supports what you added. What is it on pages 43-46 of Luling or page 23 of Lewis that you believe supports the part you keep inserting? The sources you have so far provided do not support what @Awale-Abdi is rightfully concerned about, does "Negorid physiognomy" part belong in this para, in this section? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, Luling is hypothesizing above that the appellation Habash was originally associated with peoples of non-Negroid stock since the word was apparently derived etymologically from Abyssinian. The actual assertion that outside of the Somali caste system were slaves of Bantu origin and Negroid physiognomy begins instead on page 43 [64]-- "Throughout much of southern Somalia, two ethnic types are apparent in the population, physically more or less clearly distinguishable... One physical type is like that of the northern Somali and the other Cushitic speaking peoples... The other type is definitely negroid... The first category is the socially superior one. They call themselves Bilis, a complimentary term which I translate as 'Noble'... People of the inferior category are designated by various names (all more or less derogatory in tone) in different parts of southern Somalia. In the Afgoi area the word generally used is Habash)". It continues on page 45-- The category 'Habash' is further subdivided. Inasmuch as it refers to physical type, it covers two different kinds of status and origin. On the one hand there are the slaves. In the last century slavery was an important institution among the Geledi as among the other agricultural Somali; there were slaves in large numbers, mainly imported from Zanzibar and the E. African coast... Though the word Habash can apply to these too, they were generally referred to as ooji, distinguishing them from the Habash proper, who though of inferior status are free citizens. There is a term, jerir, which covers both categories; it refers specifically to their curly hair. And it ends on page 46-- "In practice, however, the distinction becomes blurred as time passes. In fact the Nobles commonly assert that all the Habash are ultimately the descendants of slaves, and that this is how they came to be in the community. It may be that in some communities this is so; in such a case the words 'slave' (ooji or adoon) and would be synonymous... There exist, however, entire clans all of whose members are Habash. Such are the Shiidle of the middle Shebelle, or the Eyle of Bur Heybe. As Cerulli long ago pointed out (II. pp.115-121) these must be, partly at least, the descendants of the early, Bantu-speaking population of the area. It seems most probable that the Habash element in other clans is also derived at least partly from this source." As for Lewis, I just mentioned him here in passing because he alludes to the same Bantu population; but instead of Habash, he calls it Zengi [65]. Soupforone (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: I reviewed it one more time per WP:AGF. Page 43 and abouts is not discussing "outside of the Somali caste system were slaves of Bantu origin and Negroid physiognomy". This feels like WP:OR-SYNTHESIS. @Cordless Larry: Would you please check page 43 and abouts, provide a third opinion? This is important not only for WP:V reasons, but also for NPOV because slaves were not limited to how Soupforone has worded it and keeps re-reverting it to. Per reliable scholarly sources, there was social stratification even in the slave strata. See, for example, this note Galla slaves (Galla is the old name for Oromo people, and they are one of the largest ethnic groups in the Horn/East Africa region). On Somali trade in Galla slaves, see page 154 (quote "This Somali trade in Galla slaves joined up with the larger slave from Ethiopia which had its outlet at the Gulf of Tajurra."), page 59 (quote: "Children born of Galla girls among Somalis are virtually slaves and therefore exploitable"), etc. We have already cited Catherine Besteman in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Since I've already expressed an opinion, my view shouldn't be treated as an outside third opinion, but for what it's worth I would reiterate my point about not relying on an unpublished source from 1971. However eminent Luling is, how do we know that her account is still regarded as correct without more recent sources being cited? Incidentally, I can't imagine that contemporary scholarship would use language such as "definitively negroid, distinguished by broad noses, full lips, and hair which is short and kinky". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Indeed, I agree we must check whether the scholarship has been and continues to be widely regarded as correct, mainstream or a prominent notable theory. Luling as a sole source for this is inappropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, Virginia Luling was an established figure in local scholarship. Her dissertation was actually published in 2001 as a book [66]. As an anthropologist, she was also qualified in phenotypical analysis. Bestemen (who cites Luling's dissertation) is less so, yet she makes the same observation [67]. Soupforone (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, Galla slaves were distinct from Bantu slaves, so the foregoing is not particularly relevant. Per Besteman, their status and duties were different; they were basically like captured family members [68]. As for the Bantu/Negroid physiognomy, this is clearly indicated above in Luling's text. The Bantu scholar Mohamed Enow himself indicates the same thing [69]. Anyway, I actually agree with Awale-Abdi that stuff on Bantus and other non-Somalis is irrelevant. Soupforone (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: your response to @CL and I is strange and battleground-like. Catherine Besteman is a professor of Anthropology, her publications peer reviewed and well cited. I am glad you agree with @Awale-Abdi, as the last para with genetics etc was largely your addition. On Besteman, you are misunderstanding or misreading the source. Besteman is describing many types of slaves in the Somali society, including "herder slaves" type who they used as "legitimate (in Somali eyes) sexual partners" – who lived and worked with the owner-masters. East African slaves were treated differently (see the para that overlaps page 83 and 84. She also states that slaves in Somali clans were slaves of Oromo and East African origins. So, the slave strata of Somali society was not merely Bantu peoples. They included others such as Oromo/Galla. We need to wordsmith a sentence or two of this aspect of Somali society history in, and I will do so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, what I obviously meant was that Besteman has less experience in the local anthropological field than the late septuagenarian Luling, not that she isn't an anthropologist (she admits to her inexperience [70]). Also, I did not assert that the slave strata in Somali society exclusively consisted of Bantu peoples, but rather that it overwhelmingly did. This is why Besteman indicates that jareer heritage was equated with slave ancestry, whereas the Oromo/Galla descendants were not individually considered jareer unless they actually intermarried with the jareer slave descendants [71]. Anyway, perhaps indeed a sentence or two could explain this difference; I think Awale-Abdi should word it, though, given his caveat above on other ethnics. Soupforone (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As Soupforone has already mentioned, very few Oromos were actually captured in comparison to the Bantu. There isn't any Oromo presence in Somalia (ignoring recent immigrants and those that came as refugees) as well. On the other hand, many Bantu still speak their own language (in addition to into Somali) and live in their own communities. I have other things to mention, but they will come in do time. AcidSnow (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is on Somali people, over time and over different regions. I have several sources in front of me, and will like to finish reading the context therein before I add a sentence or two to clarify this. We must stick to summarizing the WP:RS on Somali people, rather than personal opinions about Somalia. @Soupforone: you may be misreading the "inexperience" part of Besteman in the preface section of her book. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Was the "personal opinions about Somalia" directed at me? AcidSnow (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Marriage

Hello, newbie here. Under marriage it says The endogamous tradition within the Somali clans intensified after their contact with the Arab society with increasing preference for cousin marriages. - This is not sourced and phrased in a way vague. By cousin is this the western interpretation of cousin i.e marriage between first cousins or is it the Somali interpretation of cousin(2nd/3rd/6th?). Also that sentence infers that cousin marriages (assuming first cousin) is preferred or becoming the preferred form marriage in Somali society as a whole. I only have anecdotal/personal proof as a someone who is Somali and has therefore had extensive interaction of Somali society (both in Northern Somalia and in the European diaspora) but first cousin marriage is uncommon and not the preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Jama (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I. M. Lewis is alluding to first cousin marriage in the capital area specifically [72]. I've corrected this. Soupforone (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it is first cousin marriages per Lewis source. But the discussion on the cited pages is broader, and includes but does not limit to an example of Mogadishu. @N Jama: Welcome to wikipedia. Please see WP:V and other content guidelines of wikipedia. Wikipedia articles, including this one, do not blog personal opinions/ experiences/ wisdoms/ prejudices, rather they summarize what reliable sources state. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but Lewis indicates that exogamous marriage became exceptional in areas like the capital that had clan heterogeneity. Soupforone (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Somali ethnic flag

I have reverted the addition of the flag of Somalia to the infobox, whereby it was claimed that the flag also serves as a Somali ethnic flag. Having previously added a note stating that a source would be needed for this claim, I'm not satisfied that the source provided proves that the flag is considered an ethnic flag. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, just had a look through the cited book and no where does it state the Somalia flag to be representative of ethnic Somalis. Kzl55 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Somalis. 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/20161007172120/http://somalia.unfpa.org/sites/arabstates/files/pub-pdf/Population-Estimation-Survey-of-Somalia-PESS-2013-2014.pdf to http://somalia.unfpa.org/sites/arabstates/files/pub-pdf/Population-Estimation-Survey-of-Somalia-PESS-2013-2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161007172120/http://somalia.unfpa.org/sites/arabstates/files/pub-pdf/Population-Estimation-Survey-of-Somalia-PESS-2013-2014.pdf to http://somalia.unfpa.org/sites/arabstates/files/pub-pdf/Population-Estimation-Survey-of-Somalia-PESS-2013-2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116055005/http://www.buluugleey.com/warkiidanbe/Governance.htm to http://www.buluugleey.com/warkiidanbe/Governance.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214023655/http://www.mepc.org/workshops/popstat.asp to http://www.mepc.org/workshops/popstat.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915100458/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/flags/flagtemplate_so.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/flags/flagtemplate_so.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118151830/http://www.hdcentre.org/files/Somalia%20report.pdf to http://www.hdcentre.org/files/Somalia%20report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110506172142/http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Feb_11/5Feb15.html to http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Feb_11/5Feb15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303212239/http://konig.la.utk.edu/AJPA_Suppl_40_web.htm to http://konig.la.utk.edu/AJPA_Suppl_40_web.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Requesting admins to add Template:Pp-dispute icon to fully protected page.

As the article is fully protected, I would like to request admins to add Template:Pp-dispute icon to the article in duration of the full protection as edit war has been occurred --Stylez995 (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Notable disapora

Mo farah is arguably the most notable and famous Somali alive and the most notable Diasporan , so i don't understand why his picture was removed and replaced with an individual is who hardly known outside of certain regions of Somalia Faisal Hawar. Rageh Omar is also more well known and notable than Amina Mohamed, that's my reasoning. Troyoleg.GeelJire (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Also , Farmaajo is not a diasporan anymore , he is literally the president of Somalia and resides there, where as Rageh Omaar is a legitimate diasporan who is also notable. Honestly do you think The mataano sisters are more notable than Rageh Omaar a world renowned jouranlist who is the son of a well known Somali millionaire , or do yopu think Amina Mohamed is more notable than Mo farah? , it makes no sense that these less known individuals should replace famous disporans GeelJire (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Linkjan2014 Weigh in your unbiased opinion pertaining to Mo farah and Omar Raageh taking precedence over Faisal Hawar , Amina Mohamed and even Farmaajo (who isn't a diasporan) as "Notable diasporans" . Which group of people do you think are more notable and deserve to have their pictures in the "notable diasporan" section. your take on this is much welcomed.GeelJire (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There is already a Mo depiction under sports; no legitimate reason for two such depictions. Omaar is alright I guess, though. Amina is a Somali leader in Kenya, Mataano is US-based, and Hawar is Emirates-based. The point is to show established diasporans at each continent. Troyoleg (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@GeelJire: please note that Troyoleg has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Middayexpress and as such has now been blocked --Kzl55 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)