Talk:Battle of Shimbra Kure

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

change " ZemenfesKidus (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  melecie  t - 05:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Amount of soldiers which someone put exaggerated i redid and i got evidence here.

https://books.google.be/books/about/The_Conquest_of_Abyssinia.html?id=YgIwAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

Futuh al habasha page 74.

"The number of the king's cavalry that took part in the engagement of Semberă Kore was sixteen thousand knights, each of whom had a mount from the Arabian sea-coast. The foot-soldiers, more than two-hundred- thousand of them, these carried shields and bows, that is to say, they were archers with poisoned arrows; and they carried glistening spears. And as for the Abyssinian cavalry, their forces were so vast as to be innumerable and uncountable. They blended one with the other like a well-compacted construction with no spaces left between its various parts."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywholearnhistory (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC) 

Magherbin biasedly deleting content

@Magherbin has constantly deleted my additions without giving any reasoning. He continues to use abuse his power to stifle any association of Somalis and Adal Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are you misinterpreting the primary sources and removing secondary sources? Reply here from now on, not on your talk page. To address your argument on the talk page, are you going to contest what Mohammed Hassen clearly states about the Malassay? [1] refer to p.185 [2]. Make a draft on the talk page, stop editing the article and gain consensus here first. To answer your question you dont neccesarily need secondary sources but if you cant interpret it properly then yes you need it. We also are not going to quote the primary sources in large content to the point where they're just reading Futuh al Habasha on here. It seems to me that if you cant find secondary sources for your claim, you're attempting to be the historian by quoting primary sources which is unacceptable. Somalis played a minimal role in Adal they werent the main components of the state and werent even majority in the early battles as explained by Mohammed Hassen see p.179 "at least during the early days of the jihad. All the four Wazirs5 appointed by Imam Ahmad were members of the landed Adare (Harari) and Harla hereditary6 nobility. Of the fifty or so Amirs appointed by Imam Ahmad between 1527 and 1537, the overwhelming majority were members of the hereditary land Adare or Harla aristocracy." [3]. Another notable historian in this field is Amelie Chekroun who states only a fraction of the army was Somali refer to p.17 [4]. Magherbin (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That was from 2003 the paper I posted is from 2017 it’s clear that Prof. Hassen clearly changed his mind. You are clearly cherry-picking to support your biased, and as I suspect ethnically fueled, version of events.

“Yet, the Somali and the Afar composed the bulk of Imam Ahmed‟s army. In

bringing together a huge army, Imam Ahmed used his charismatic power and ability to organize a multiethnic force”.

https://www.scribd.com/document/459147804/d0e1b1bd35243357afb8138d8e7336620516-pdf

Stop trying to act unbiased when you are just purposefully misinterpreting history to fuel your own ethnic narcissism. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hassen clearly states the malassay were Afar.

“the Futuh, might suggest that the Malasayis simply the ethnic appellation for the Afar”

Pg.17

https://eajsh.haramayajournals.org/index.php/eajsh/article/view/475/335 Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks that article was written by another person who only has written one article on the subject and he is using outdated claims. Mohammed Hassen Hinka is not Mohammed Hassen Ali. Magherbin (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

What outdated claims Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Manfredo Kropp also concludes that the Malassay were Somali

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40732663 Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

He stated Somalis were involved in the unit, the title of his work is Harari officers but if you find secondary sources that state Somalis were in the Malassay at the battle of Shimbra Kure I dont have an issue including it. Manfred is talking about the reign of Sarsa Dengel thats long after imam Ahmed's era by the way thats where the Somali under their Harari name Simur were mentioned. Articles should stay in context of time period discussed. Magherbin (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly it was a multi ethnic force I never claimed it was exclusively Somali but you claimed it was exclusively Harari. The Chronicle of Sarasa Dengel is only one source used, If you read the work you would know that Krupp also mentions the invasion of the lake tana islands under gurey and mentions that the Malasay were a multi ethnic force Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the references before stating "I/You". Can you explain why Krupp named his article "Malassay name of Harari officer.."? Also read the abundance of references on the article that states Malassay were Harari. Magherbin (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read more than just the title if you want to claim something like this

“Die militärische Gruppe der Mäläsay umfaßte also Mitglieder

verschiedener Völker, darunter auch Somali.

Translation: The Mäläsay military group therefore included members

different peoples, including Somali.

Source: pg 7 of the document Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue with your edit and talk page comments is that you go off topic. I would suggest opening a talk page discussion on this on the article about Malassay. We are not here to discuss the identity of Malassay, this is not what the article is about. The only reason their identity is discussed here is because the historians specifically mention them being active in the battle. For example Mohammed Hassen states the Malassay needed to be from the same ethnic group who spoke related language for effective communication in battle. Magherbin (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It definitely is related to this battle since this page claims the Malasay were Harari. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Why does the page claim that? Is it original research or referenced? Kropp is specifically referring to Harari ethnic group thats why he titled it "MÄLÄSAY: SELBSTBEZEICHNUNG EINES HARARINER OFFIZIERSKORPS UND IHR GEBRAUCH IN ÄTHIOPISCHEN UND ARABISCHEN CHRONIKEN" on p.111 [5] he states he received this information from a known Harari historian named Abdulrahman Garad -in German "Diese Auskünfte verdanke ich Herrn Abdur-Rahman Garad, einem Harariner Promovenden bei Herrn Professor Ewald Wagner in Giessen; sie wurden mir von Herrn Pro-fessor Wagner in einem Brief vom 21.9.1986 mitg" the page later goes on to state it was used in the Emirate of Harar. The argument that it was possibly multi ethnic is addressed but Manfred did not go and state it was not a Harari corps. Magherbin (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:PRIMARY and I think i've warned you enough about your removal of content. Magherbin (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of Primary Sources:

You initially argues that primary sources shouldn't be quoted extensively and that secondary sources are necessary. They state, "if you can't interpret it properly then yes you need [secondary sources]." However, later in the thread, when Matan ibn Uthman provides a primary source contradicting your position, you dismisses it , saying, "See Wikipedia:No personal attacks that article was written by another person who only has written one article on the subject and he is using outdated claims."

Historical Interpretation:

You argues that Somalis played a minimal role in Adal, citing historians like Mohammed Hassen and Amelie Chekroun. However, when Matan ibn Uthman presents a more recent source from 2017 suggesting a different perspective, you dismisses it as cherry-picking and accuses Matan ibn Uthman of having a biased and ethnically fueled version of events.

Changing Perspectives of Historians:

You accuses Matan ibn Uthman of cherry-picking by presenting a 2017 paper by Mohammed Hassen that contradicts an earlier statement by Hassen. Magherbin asserts, "It’s clear that Prof. Hassen clearly changed his mind." However, when Matan ibn Uthman provides another source, you dismisses it, saying, "Manfredo Kropp also concludes that the Malassay were Somali," to which you responds, "He stated Somalis were involved in the unit, the title of his work is Harari officers..."

Identity of Malassay:

You argues that the identity of Malassay is not the focus of the article and suggests opening a talk page discussion. However, when Matan ibn Uthman asserts that the page claims the Malassay were Harari, you engages in a discussion about the identity of Malassay and provides arguments against the claim.

All in all your behavior is clear evidence for bias and reportable offence Aurelius5150 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)