This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Genetic evidence contradicting Arabian origin of Darod
Stop removing facts, this is based on genetic research. If you can't handle this, that is something else but it shouldn't be removed from the page. I rather want you to come up with solid proof against my facts instead of just simple deleting it. I am Somali Darood myself and strongly belief in these facts so this has nothing to do with Afrocentric agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazi99 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Those are hardly "facts" you are posting. They are quite clearly attempts to push a POV by stringing together various sources, none of which share your opinion that "genetic evidence contradicts the Arabian origin of Darod or Isaaq" or whatever. This is known as synthesis, and is not permitted on Wikipedia for what should be obvious reasons (even if you happen to be Darod, which I sincerely doubt). All this has already been explained on both the Darod and Isaaq talk pages, with quotes taken from the very genetic study you cite which directly contradicts your claims. Middayexpress (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You are just trying to keep people from knowing the truth, wallahi you are such a sad person. Close to 88% of the Somalis have African Y-DNA, yet you still believe in such fairytales as Isaaq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazi99 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, this issue isn't about Somalis in general as you have suggested above. It is about the Darod and Isaaq clans specifically. Secondly, per the study you insist on distorting for some odd reason, 15% of Somali Y chromosomes are definitively of Eurasian origin, not "99% African":
"The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population − closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya − with predominant E3b1 cluster lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000−5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa."
The origin of haplogroup E is also disputed, with most recent studies actually ascribing it an Asian origin, not an African one. And E1b1b itself is actually quite common in the Arabian Peninsula, with it representing almost 40% of male lineages in coastal Jordan. But that is beside the point. The point is, your rant above does not change the fact that the study in question does not once mention anything about either the Darod or the Isaaq Somali clans. That is very obvious original research on your part. Here is what the study does actually state with regard to Somalis, African and Middle Eastern populations:
"East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas."
The second study you also cited to support your claims likewise mentions neither the Darod nor the Isaaq Somalis much less their relationship (or lack thereof) with Arab populations. Strangest of all, the study is titled "Y-chromosomal STR haplotypes in an Arab population from Somalia", which you have somehow interpreted to mean that the Darod & Isaaq Somalis have no relationship whatsoever with Arab populations. Going by the title alone, the authors of that study apparently don't share your opinion (at least with regard to Somalis as a whole).
Now that that's clear and you can no longer pretend to have not seen those quotes above from the study itself (since you have apparently avoided reading my earlier talk page explanations => 1, 2), kindly stop pushing POV. I reverted you because that is precisely what you are doing here just like I reverted this other editor on the Isaaq article yesterday for doing the opposite of you i.e. he added original research citing the same genetic study as you did, only he used it to claim that the Isaaq are from Iraq because haplogroup T, which is found at moderate frequencies amongst Somalis, might have originated in Mesopotamia. Bottom line, both of you are POV-pushing, and neither is acceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
E1b1b is indeed found in other Arab & North African populations, but the sub clade E1b1b1a (E-M78) is not. I suggest you to read more about genetics as you are poorly educated in this field. All the Eurasians markers found in Somalis are non-standard Arabian markers (Such as K2, R etc) only a small fraction of the Somali males carry J which is without any doubt the most common marker of Hashemites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazi99 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
That the haplogroups T and J found in Somalis in the study you insist on distorting above are "non-standard" in Arabs is clearly not shared by the authors of that study who quite clearly describe it as having been due to contact with Arab & Middle Eastern populations. E-M78 originated in North Africa, not the Horn of Africa, and so did the E-V32 sub-clade that characterizes Horn populations. All of this is beside the point, as already explained above, since no study you have cited even mentions the Darod or Isaaq once, which is precisely why your edits are completely original research. Middayexpress (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
15% Eurasian markers (mostly non-Middle Eastern markers such as K2, R and I) whilst roughly 40% to 45% of the Somali population claims descendants from Sheikh Isaaq or Darod is not convincing at all, I suggest you to study basic statistics as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazi99 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid your opinion does not matter on Wikipedia, and you are about to learn that the hard way. Only actual sources matter. And none of those sources you have cited mention the genetics of the Darod & Isaaq clans. Only you have and in a completely distorted fashion, as demonstrated above. Per WP:NOR, sources must directly support ones claims; your claims are about the Darod & Isaaq specifically, not Somalis as a whole:
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that citations must be added for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.
As already shown in my earlier posts above, the sources themselves clearly acknowledge a certain genetic relatedness between Arab & Somali populations (but again, no specific mention of either the Darod or Isaaq clans). This seems to worry and/or frighten you for some odd reason. Whatever the case, this is a pretty obvious case of synthesis. Middayexpress (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment from 3rd party
Middayexpress, to be honest, I've had trouble reading the study, I can't seem to get my head around it. (I'm quick that way.) It actually seemed circular to me, even to contradict itself. Obviously I need to read it more closely. Meanwhile I've already warned User:Mazi99 about 3RR. Technically he or she may already be in violation but I think a warning should come first. Note, however, that the reverts are to your own edits/reverts. -- Gyrofrog (talk)22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Zahra Bani.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hargeisa Canadian Medical Center
Although you have made some good improvements to the article, please refrain from changing the location of Hargeisa Canadian Medical from Somaliland to Somalia. It is located in Somaliland, which has an article in Wikipedia. HCMC (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)HCMC
Hargeisa Canadian Medical Center is my business. If you don't stop editing this article I will take legal action against you. I have not authorized you to write anything about my private business. I will also be getting in contact with Wikipedia to let them know.
Actually, I have not written anything about your "private business" nor am I even sure what that is to begin with. All I know is that you have been pushing some POV under several different accounts and IPs for a while now. You also cannot prevent much less legally threaten other editors from editing articles, even if you personally started those article (i.e. they are "your business") or if these other editors edit contrary to your wishes (see WP:LEGAL, WP:OWN and especially WP:CONFLICT). Also, you should know that not signing your posts is not enough to conceal your identity since that information is stored in the page's history whether you like it or not. Middayexpress (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Legal Threats of any kind are not tolerated here on Wikipedia. No one needs your permission, or permission from anyone else for that matter, to edit this encyclopedia. For more information, see WP:LEGAL. You are welcome to edit this encyclopedia, but do not make any legal threats of any kind again or you may be blocked from editing. If you have a dispute with the community or its members, use dispute resolution. If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
That's quite right, Outback. Legal threats of any kind are not tolerated on Wikipedia. It is good of you to point that out to that belligerent account above. However, you too would do well to remember that advocacy of any sort is not allowed either. Middayexpress (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The category you created, Category:Present disestablishments, was deleted per this CFD discussion. In trying to remove the category from the article, I discovered it had been generated by Template:Infobox former countries. The year_end field in that template is supposed to be for the specific year that the country was disestablished, not to indicate whether it still is; filling it in with "present" is what generated this category. Please check to make sure that the year I added was correct (I'm not familiar with the subject). Cheers, postdlf (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused by your claim here that the Sultanate was never disestablished. The entire intro section discusses it only in the past tense, and seems to state that it ended when the British protectorate was established. Nor does it seem to have any role in the government of present-day Somalia. The article also uses Template:Infobox former country and is categorized in Category:Former countries in Africa. Even if it could be characterized as a government in exile (it seems from the article that there are living individuals who claim title?), as a country it was disestablished when another government was formed in its territory. Or maybe you're thinking of it primarily as a royal family/lineage, and in that sense it still exists, but Template:Infobox former country is concerned only with sovereign states, and "present" is not an acceptable field entry for the year of disestablishment in that infobox. postdlf (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why that category is there, but it shouldn't be there since the Warsangali Sultanate was a sultanate, not country. It is also not in exile or disestablished. It's still extant, with an official website. However, it's a shadow of its former self, and is now more ceremonial than anything. I'll prepare an appropriate replacement template shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is the prominent feminist activist, writer, and politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, so unnaccteble to you in the "Famous Mogadishans" section? What is your objection?
Why is the prominent feminist activist, writer, and politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, so unnaccteble to you in the "Famous Mogadishans" section? What is your objection?
She was born in Mogadishu and she is famous, so she perfectly fits into this criteria.
So why do you constantly erase her, from the Mogadishu article. Neither the Mogadishu article nor Wikipedia is your personal webpage.
Any correct contribution is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.199.43 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
That section of the Mogadishu article pertains to notable Mogadishans, not people that were perhaps born in Mogadishu. Hirsi Ali (if she was indeed born in Mogadishu) spent the better part of her years in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, and especially the Netherlands. She is also a Dutch citizen, not a Somali citizen. So your insistence on including her in the notable Mogadishans section of the Mogadishu article among actual Mogadishans & Somali citizens is actually more of a testament to your own POV than anything. Next time you have the gall to talk tough on another's talk page when you're confident they're away, at least have the basic courage to sign in to your real account. Middayexpress (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
At this point there seems to be little else that I can do other than warn. Because it basically comes down to a content dispute, and it's an article I've edited quite a bit, I would be using admin powers to win an argument. somethinglame from CBW 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
