Talk:Horn of Africa

Map

Since this article is the COTW, is the map I made correct? Should only be those four countries be highlighted, or also the others on the list? Or perhaps the others on the list light-green, like Image:Africa-countries-eastern.png? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 23:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The topmost map on the right side of the page has what appears to be two countries highlighted in green. The caption says "Nations of the Horn of Africa". So may I ask why these nations are nowhere named? I think many people are as uninformed as I am, and like me would have to look up which countries these are. (Apparently they are Ethiopia and Somalia.)71.224.204.167 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What actualy constitues the Horn

Physiclly the HOA consists of Somalia and the somali inhabited region of Ogaden in Ethiopia,which together make up the Somali peninsula. if you read the article describing the horn it say that it is a peninsula in the eastern tip of africa situated south of the golf of Aden. what causes the confusion is the name is also used to refer to the greater region of the Horn which contains of countries that are only partialy contained in the horn and in the case of eritrea well outside it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The Horn of Africa constitutes the countries of Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Eritrea like the sources clearly state. Do not manipulate references as you've just done. Middayexpress (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2009 (

this is wiki where anyone is free to contribute. unless my geography is wrong the horn of africa is a peninsula as clearly stated in this wiki entery, you can look at it in the map or pictures from NASA. a peninsula that only contains somalia and a small part of ethiopia. so adding eritrea and all of ethiopia and djibouti to the horn of africa is geographiclly wrong. people are confusing the actual Horn of Africa which is geographical name that only refers to lands phisycly contained in the Horn, with The Greater Horn Of Africa, which is a political term.

Thank you for your opinion, but the facts unfortunately don't bear it out and neither does the map (it highlights all of the Horn of Africa countries: Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Eritrea). And on Wikipedia, only facts matter. Middayexpress (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Horn of Africa.

It is not an opinon it is a fact. the facts do bear out that the Horn Of Africa consists only of somalia and a small part of eastern Ethiopia.check out this link to the columbia encyclopedia six edition published in 2007. . It also states that the Horn Of Africa is also used for the surounding african region. My intention is not exclude countries from the HOA region, a region does not have to be physical land mark.check out this definition of a region from wiki. But to make it clear for the sake of accuracy that the HOA of Africa in its physical form consist only of Somalia and a small part of Eastern Ethiopia .And that the name HOA is also used to apply to the surrounding region.

That's just one idiosyncratic definition. It doesn't jibe with the standard definition of what constitutes the Horn of Africa, which, again, is the countries of Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti because these countries share similar peoples, languages, cultures, and geographical endowments.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

This is why the map named 'Africa-countries-horn' created way back in 2005 and pictured to the right highlights these countries and these countries alone. It is also what all of the sources already in the article indicate. There's also already an article for your so-called 'Horn of Africa': it is called Greater Somalia. And you should know better than to link to a wiki article as "proof" of anything. Middayexpress (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources Midday, I agree!

The Horn of Africa:

• Somalia
• Djibouti
• Eritrea
• Ethiopia

Greater Horn of Africa region:

• Horn of African countries
• +Sudan
• +Kenya --Scoobycentric (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess your not a careful reader you should check the references you've put up. They make the same distinction that I made. They make reference to The " Region" of Horn of Africa, they don’t say The Horn of Africa there is a big distinction. The actual HOA is a peninsula containing only Somalia and small part of eastern Ethiopia and that’s no idiosyncratic definition its the accurate definition. What causes the confusion is that the term is also applied to the surrounding African region. If this wiki article only refers to HOA The Region then it should make it absolutely clear, this is an encyclopedia, only a complete and accurate definitions will do. As for my definition of The Horn of Africa in my previous post. I used The Columbia Encyclopedia 6th edition 2007 published by Columbia University, USA; as reference and not wikipedia as you wrongly stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what The Columbia Encyclopedia 6th edition 2007 says:

HORN OF AFRICA

peninsula, NE Africa, opposite the S Arabia Peninsula. Also known as the Somali Peninsula, it encompasses Somalia and E Ethiopia and is the easternmost extension of the continent, separating the Gulf of Aden from the Indian Ocean. The term Horn of Africa is also used for the surrounding African region, consisting of the countries of Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, and, in some cases, Sudan and other neighboring nations.[1]

This quote in no way contradicts the current wikipedia article on the Horn of Africa, Columbia mentions the core Horn African countries(Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia) and makes it clear that additional countries falling under the definition Horn of Africa is the exception rather than the rule. --Scoobycentric (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Columbia is but one source, and it in no way contradicts the standard definition of the Horn of Africa already cited in the article: the region encompassing Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti. Middayexpress (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but you are distorting the text. the Columbia encyclopaedia does not say that the core HOA countries consist of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia. It says that they are part of the Region of Horn of Africa. It also clearly states that The HOA itself consists of only Somalia and eastern Ethiopia. The HOA doesn't just denote the region as is written in this wiki article. thats one of its definitions and an extended one may i add.

As for the standard definition of the Horn. There are two uses for the name, one is the actual HOA a peninsula which contains only Somalia and a part of eastern Ethiopia. and secondly when the term is extended to refer to the surrounding region which contains those countries previously mentioned.. This wiki article leaves out two pieces of crucial information. It does not say what the actual HOA consists of. it also fails to mention that the Term HOA is extended to refer to the surrounding region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How can Scoobycentric be "distorting" the text when he quoted it verbatim above? Unilke what you claim, the quote clearly states that "the term Horn of Africa is also used for the surrounding African region, consisting of the countries of Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia". In addition to obviously denoting "the easternmost extension of the continent" -- a fact that, also contrary to what you claim, is already cited in the article ("It is the easternmost projection of the African continent.") -- the standard definition of what constitutes the Horn of Africa is the region encompassing Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti. This has already been explained to you above by two separate users with plenty of sources supporting this in addition to the ones that are already cited in the article. Again, your definition of the Horn of Africa is an idiosynctratic, fringe definition that is only supported by this one Columbia Encylopedia source. Besides being directly contradicted by the aforementioned other sources, your "Somalia and Eastern Ethiopia" definition of the Horn of Africa also does not jibe with the map that's likewise already included in the article. And ironically, even this one Columbia source of yours doesn't deny but also rather explicitly affirms that the Horn of Africa encompasses Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti, unlike what you keep preposterously insisting. Do not again remove reliable sources as you've just attempted. Middayexpress (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

you guys have talent for side stepping the facts. let me just sum up my argument for you. I don’t disagree with the definition that the HOA of Region consists of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Somalia. Where we differ is that this wiki article makes it look that the Term HOA only denotes the region. That's only one of it’s definitions . It also omits two pieces of crucial information which should never have been left out. and these are:

1. what the actual Horn of Africa constitutes which is a peninsula containing only Somalia And eastern Ethiopia.

2. secondly that the term HOA is extended to refer to the surrounding region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I swear, you are like a broken record; so much so that everything you wrote above has already literally just been addressed:

1. You have provided exactly one source which supports your fringe definition of what constitutes the Horn of Africa (i.e. Somali + Eastern Ethiopia). And ironically, even this one Columbia Encyclopedia source of yours doesn't deny but also rather explicitly affirms that the Horn of Africa encompasses Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti, unlike what you keep preposterously insisting.

2. You have provided exactly one source which supports your fringe definition of what constitutes the Horn of Africa (i.e. Somali + Eastern Ethiopia), and per WP:VER:

"All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."

3. All of the other sources and the map of long-standing that are already included in the article support the standard definition of what constitutes the Horn of Africa -- as does the Columbia source you yourself provided -- and that is the region encompassing the countries of Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti.

4. You have removed reliable sources against consensus, including two completely unrelated ones asserting that the Horn of Africa used to be referred to as Bilad al Barbar. That constitutes vandalism.

I hope you're finally getting the picture. Middayexpress (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Midday I think it would be wise if we included an admin into this dispute, as there is nothing more to argue about, every single one of his points have been adressed ad infinitum. Its time we got the article fully protected.--Scoobycentric (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the info i will contact an adminstrator to settle this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I will comment further after I have read the discussion, but I do not believe full protection is appropriate in this case. Enigma^msg 15:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Enigmaman, but have you come to a conclusion? Nothing in the current article contradicts the Columbia reference(which is btw the only reference Liban80 has) and both Midday and I have made this clear to Liban80. He however is determined to remove sourced material which has been reverted several times by various wiki members, if protection is not appropriate in this case, what procedure would you recommend for us to follow? --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

look you cannot dismiss the fact that the horn of africa is a peninsula consisting of somalia and eastern ethiopia and that it is also the name of a region. facts are facts you cant choose what to put in or what to leave out.--absit invidia 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)liban80absit invidia 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

hi am planing a minor editing of the horn of africa article. i would like to discuss it with you before i proceed. as i talk to you previuosly about this subjcet i feel that this article leaves important facts about the horn of africa. the article does not make it clear that the the term HoA has two meaning one is the peninsula containig Somalia and eastren Ethiopia and its other definition the name of a region. also the wiki entry fails to mention that when the term HoA is applied to the region that the name is extended. to support my case i have two defenitive references one is from the columbia encyclopedia 2007 and the second is the oxford online reference.

It's already been explained to you in no uncertain terms by several different users that you are pushing a fringe definition of what constitutes the Horn of Africa. You have attempted to obtain administrative support for this fringe definition, and failed in that as well. Consensus on this matter has been established, and I'm afraid there is nothing you can do about it without breaching that consensus and therefore Wikipedia policies. Doing so will also only result in your edit getting reverted. Kindly do not again litter my talk page with this nonsense as if we haven't already been through this before. Middayexpress (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

look mate stop resorting to blatant lies the adminsrators did not debunk my idea they did n't say it was wrong so stop lying. they simply said i had to discuss the idea with the groups involved. one more thing is the horn of africa article about defining the term or is it just about the region. answer me that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's you that's attempting to "lie" by mounting a strawman argument: I did not say that the administrators debunked your idea; you did (Freudian slip?). I said that you "attempted to obtain administrative support for this fringe definition, and failed in that as well", which is of course true. It's actually on the article in question's talk page where your absurd "points" have been debunked. That's also where I have just moved this discussion to so that all parties involved have the benefit of seeing it juxtaposed by the answers to your arguments already supplied (I'm afraid there'll be know "convincing" me in the relative isolation afforded by my talk page). I suggest you learn to respect consensus. Middayexpress (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

so now you are resorting to out right lies. it is true that i asked the adminstrators to get involved to resolve the issue but they simply suggested that i diiscuss the subject with the people concerned.here is what they had to say in their own words.absit invidialiban80

Race/ethnicity

The following sentence caught my eye:

Excepted in Sudan, most people of Horn are not Black Africans. They ressemble Mediterranean Europeans, but with darker complexions.

I doubt it was the editor's intention but this comes off as sounding like "they're not really black." In various conversations I've heard this bandied about as though it were a positive attribute. Again, perhaps not the writer's intention. Moreover I'm not sure about the statement's accuracy as there are, for example, plenty of Ethiopians who don't have Mediterranean features at all (though granted, that isn't the same as "most people of the Horn.") -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've re-read this more carefully it makes even less sense to me. "Mediterranean Europeans?" Greeks? Catalonians? Sicilians? So they don't look like "Black Africans," but do Sudanese (for example) look like Ghanaians? Or Wodaabe? For that matter do all Sudanese look similar? I'm prepeared to dispense with the sentence in question, but thought I'd wait for other comments.-- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence seems to be unnecessary. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 08:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, after rereading it, I also admit that the sentence is unnecessary...Qwertzy2 15:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted the sentence. Thanks for the feedback. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The Horn: Sudan & Kenya?

Just want to double check something: Are Kenya and Sudan really considered part of the Horn? They are included in East Africa, but I don't see how they lie within the Horn. (For that matter, it's hard to say that Ethiopia, in its entirety, is physically part of the Horn.) Unless "Horn of Africa" is used as a synonym for "East Africa." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point.

• Perhaps I have taken on a Somali cultural viewpoint which believes their 'real' traditional lands were broken up into 5 regions by Europeans. This would include the former Northern Frontier District of Kenya and might even include parts of Sudan. I was often told of the special relationship Somalis had with the "Sudan". I can see how my thoughts strongly link the concept of "the Horn" with the Somali culture. However I am not responsible for adding these two countries to text. :)Amazing what I learn about myself with the help of others.
• I recently edited some copy that excluded the mountains (I was thinking of Ethiopia) from "the Horn" and was corrected. Recognizing the above bias, if I took a ruler and drew a line from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean it would only include a little bit of Ethiopa, and no Kenya nor Sudan. Looks like more research is needed. I found http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-HornAfrca.html which seems to indicate two definations, both loose.
• What are some early references to the "Horn" and when? Was it the traders from the Persian Gulf or was it some European? --Rcollman 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Greater horn of africa

the name for this wiki enetry is all wrong it should be The Greater Horn of Africa Region and not the Horn of Africa. People are confusing the actual Horn of Africa whith the greater region of The Horn. there is a big difference when you are refering to the actual horn, you are talking about a small peninsula and not the greater horn. more accuracy is requied here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

'Racial Bloc' must go

I will rework the following sentence...

"The countries of the Horn of Africa are culturally linked together. Local people have been using the plow for cultivation and kept the Arabian dromedary as domestic animals for a long time and for the most part represent a unique cultural and racial bloc on the continent."

By using the unscientific phrase 'racial bloc', this sentence seems to be a sly attempt at reintroducing the old 'mediterranean european' criticised above in the 'Race/ethnicity' talk section. The 'Mediterranean European' argument was championed by Carleton S. Coon's 1939 book "The Races of Europe" [2], [3] in which the very first sentence of the chapter "The Mediterranean Race in East Africa' contains the utterly fatuous claim that Somalis are 'white racial stock'.

According to Prof. John P Jackon Jr, the American Coon, "actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity [4]". In plain English, Coon was a racist. As proof of this, his work is also lovingly quoted on this neo-nazi website [5], where the 'racial' arguments about Somalis are regurgitated ad nauseum.

I cannot accept the term 'racial bloc' as it has no scientific meaning, furthermore the term is directly contradicted by the supposed references. The first, Tishkoff,[6], does not mention the words 'race' or 'racial'. The second, Marks [7] uses the term, but primarily in order to discredit scientific racism not uphold it.

As for the phrase 'culturally linked together'. This is clumsy because all countries are 'culturally linked together' and in many ways always have been. The terms 'local people' 'for a long time' and 'for the most part' are similarly vague. The only specific terms used are 'plow' and 'dromedary' - but nothing further is said, which, given the rich, varied and impressive culture of the region, is disappointing. I shall do my best to improve it. Ackees (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please. Crying "racism" when there is none won't invalidate the cited reliable sources. These are modern sources, not segregationist-era crap. And the fact remains that you have removed them for no legitimate reason. The Tishkoff study, for one, doesn't mention race; what it mentions is the following:

"The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations."

If Ethiopians & Somalis are genetically intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africans and non-Africans, that most certainly makes them racially unique and distinct from others in Africa. The Jonathan M. Marks source also states something similar:

"Furthermore, grouping the peoples of Africa together as a single entity and dividing them from the peoples of Europe and the Near East (European/white/Caucasoid) imposes an exceedingly unnatural distinction at the boundary between the groups. In fact, the "African" peoples of Somalia are far more similar to the peoples of, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran -- which are relatively closer to Somalia -- than they are to the Ghanians on the western side of Africa. And the Iranis and Saudis are themselves more similar to the Somalis than to Norwegians. Thus associating the Ghanaians and Somalis on the one hand (as "Negroids"), and Saudis and Norwegians on the other (as "Caucasoids"), generates an artificial pattern that is contradicted by empirical studies of human biology."

And here's another from Risch et al. (2002) that talks explicitly about race:

"Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians."

As for the phrase about the Horn African countries being "culturally linked together", this too is established fact:

"The Horn of Africa encompasses the countries of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia. These countries share similar peoples, languages, and geographical endowments." Sandra Fullerton Joireman, Institutional Change in the Horn of Africa, (Universal-Publishers: 1997), p.1

Middayexpress (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Middayexpress. With regard to the new 'Ethnicity' heading, I've read your quotes (immediately above). They do not mention the words 'race' or 'racial'. Only one mentions the 'Horn of Africa'. There is no mention of the phrase 'racial bloc'. There is no mention of the phrase 'for the most part' or indeed any statistical research about so-called 'racial' majorities and minorities. The quotes only use the (acceptable) words 'peoples' and 'groups' with regard to these countries, but do not specifiy which peoples and groups they are referring to. This is especially important in Eritrea and Ethiopia where there are very divergent 'peoples' and 'groups' (defined by language and religion). Therefore, I can only conclude that the phrase "The countries of the Horn of Africa... for the most part represent a unique racial bloc on the continent." is purely Original Research on your part. If you can provide evidence that there is a generally accepted, scientifically valid concept called a 'racial bloc', I would be very interested to read about it. Do Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti or Eritrea conduct 'Racial monitoring' in their census?' I think not. Is there any evidence of being a 'self-idenitified' 'racial bloc' between 'most' Ethiopians, Somalis and Eritreans? No. At the most, these states carry out 'ethnicity' studies. I have never heard of 'racial bloc' studies. You may or may not realise that Original Research is specifically prohibited from Wikipedia articles. Therefore the phrase 'racial bloc' simply has to go.

Furthermore, the new heading refers to 'ethnicity' which in itself is a vague and dubious concept that is virtually impossible to define with any clarity (be my guest). I don't know why you removed the Heading 'Languages and Peoples' it seems far more objective and sensible. The concept 'race' is extremely controversial and many highly-respected thinkers reject the concept of race as a scientific, biological fact. For example, Dr J Montoya states that racial theories "correspond best to the imaginations of the scientists and not the presumably defining and stable features being measured[8]". Dr A.H. Goodman says that, "race is an inadequate and even harmful way to think about human biological differences" [9]. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, despite all his efforts, eventually admitted that "Classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin[10]". You will realise that 'race' is not a generally accepted or scientifically established concept but, is instead a social/political point of view (PoV). Therefore, by inserting your personal racial theories ('racial bloc') you are applying your social/political racial PoV to this article about the Horn of Africa, which is contrary to Wikipedia polices.

The Horn of Africa is a geo-political region comprising the states previously agreed upon. It has languages and peoples unique to the area that, in some respects, distinguish it from other areas. For example, the Somali people are clearly unique to the region (in that they are 'of' Somalia), and not 'of' somewhere else. There are languages and peoples that are 'shared' by the states (such as Somali or Afar speakers). However, I cannot accept the introduction of a new category called a 'racial bloc' which has no basis in science or any respectable field of study. What I shall do therefore, is rework the opening sentence to conform to the specific phrases used in your quotes (peoples and groups). I hope this compromise satisfies you.

 Ackees (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's your edit that's original research:

"However, despite the great cultural diversity in religion and language, genetic and linguistic studies indicate that there are common ancestral and cultural relationships between various population groups within the region and beyond its borders in neighbouring regions of Africa and the Arabian Peninsular."

None of the sources quoted above even come close to supporting this edit, as the quotes themselves show. What you appear to be trying to do is indicate that Horn Africans are not biologically distinct from Sub-Saharan Africans despite the sources I've quoted above clearly indicating otherwise:

"The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations."

That they don't form a unique racial bloc on the continent despite the Risch source stating this outright (the entire paper is on race; it's called: "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease"):

"The continental definitions of race and ancestry need some modification, because it is clear that migrations have blurred the strict continental boundaries... Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians."

And that they aren't linguistically linked despite the Fullerton source and commonsense indicating otherwise:

"The Horn of Africa encompasses the countries of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia. These countries share similar peoples, languages, and geographical endowments."

In case you are wondering, the quotes above are obviously referring to the Cushitic & Semitic speaking majority of the Horn. These are the people that consistently cluster intermediate between Africans and non-Africans, not the region's few Sub-Saharan or Arab minority groups. And about whether or not race is a valid construct, that's still under debate and likewise irrelevant to this article. Just because you personally do not subscribe to it (i.e. that is your, as you would say, "POV") doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. Neil Risch, for one, certainly does not, and it's his reliable source that was referenced in the article, not me. Middayexpress (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Culture and History

I've completely got rid of the old 'Culture and Ethnicity' heading, replacing it with 'Regional Culture'. Instead of the rather plaintive references to 'camels and plows' I have created a section that tries to cover a broad range of cultural practice, citing specific examples, references and pictures. Obviously if specific camel and plow references are needed, they should be reintroduced according to Wiki standards. I have put 'Peoples and Languages' into a separate section, but this needs much greater work (but please, no more 'racial theories'!).

The general history section is a start, but needs much more serious work. Perhaps I shall come back to it...Ackees (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sports

Yesterday, somebody unaccountably removed sports from the culture section but forgot to replace it. Given that Sports personalities and sporting achievements are among the most prominent aspects of the region, I have reinstated it. So leave it in please.Ackees (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Sports section was removed because it, as well as just about all of your previous edits, was far too Ethiopia-centric. I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but the Horn is home to three other countries as well. That said, I've retained the section, but removed the images of Ethiopian athletes. I've also expanded the Somalia part; it's not just a case of "Somalian sport has been hampered by the continuing conflict in Somali", as you have unhelpfully indicated. Middayexpress (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethno-centricism / Diversity / Consensus

Dear Middayexpress,

ETHNO-CENTRICISM

My edits were not 'Ethiopia-centric'. In significantly improving the article's text on culture, I introduced Eritrean Teff as an example of agriculture, Eritrean injera as an example of cuisine, Somalia's Fakr ad-Din mosque as an example of architecture, Waberi as an example of Djibouti literature, Eritrean runners and the Tour of Eritrea as examples of sports (before you came up with your 'Ethiopia-centric' argument). In contrast, my edits about a Dijbouti author, images of Ethiopian runners and Eritrea runners have been removed and replaced with material about Somali writers, sports people, script and Islam. Personally, I think that we should avoid all kinds of bias on this regional article (including euro-centricism).

DIVERSITY

As for diversity/commonality. My edit did mention 'common ancestral and cultural relationships' - not quite sure why this was removed. However, the extant edit does note 18 specific languages (plus many others) indigenous to just 4 states. It accepts the ancient presence of 3 distinct Abrahamic religions, plus other indigenous varieties of belief. (Ethiopians also practice more than one version of Christianity). And is it right to describe some language groups as 'important' while completely ignoring others? Who is deciding 'importance' and what criteria are they using? Can anybody seriously maintain that 18+ indigenous languages in four states is not 'diversity'? Failing to mention the obvious 'cultural diversity in religion and language' literally compromises the article's intellectual integrity.

ANTI-RACIST CONSENSUS

I am glad that you are in consensus with me about stopping 'segregationist era crap' infecting this article. I think it important to draw editors' attention to the fact that crypto-fascist, neo-nazi and white-power elements are constantly trying to undermine the intellectual integrity of articles about Africa and Africans by infecting them with various brands of 'racial' ideology. But, on this I must raise a sensitive point - which I hope you don't misconstrue. Recently three images of prominent regional figures have been removed from the article. All of them had a skin colour that was closer to Isaias Afewerki than to Benito Mussolini. If this kept on happening, and instead other editors (not us, of course) kept introducing only images that were closer in skin colour to Mussolini than Afewerki, do you think that this might introduce a perception amongst readers that the article was 'racially' hostile to people with a darker skin tone - even if such editors kept disingenuously claiming that it was just a 'coincidence'? Believe me, I've seen it happen. Plus, do you think that such a reader perception might be enhanced if that visual racism was accompanied by various references to racial ideology? These are just hypotheses, but I utterly agree that all editors should unite with you against 'segregationist era crap' by guarding against the slightest hint of crypto-fascist ideology infecting the article. Naturally, this means guarding against the visual practice, as well as the language, of racism.

Ackees (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Ackees (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Your edits were very much Ethio-centric and actually quite dismissive of Somalia, for one. All of the images you added were of Ethiopia; not one was of Somalia. The sports section strictly concerned Ethiopia except for a blurb on Eritrea and the following unflattering mischaracterization of Somali sports: "Somalian sport has been hampered by the continuing conflict in Somali". Not only that, but the intro to the Sports section also read "in the modern era, the Horn of Africa has produced several world famous sports personalities; in particular, long distance runners from Ethiopia and Eritrea such as the world-record holder Kenenisa Bekele and Derartu Tulu", again choosing to highlight only Ethiopian nationals. In addition, the Ethiopian Ge'ez writing script was elaborately discussed, but there was of course nary a mention of the Somali Osmanya writing script. Those were just some of the issues. One more thing, in your future encounters with other editors, it's best to stay on topic and not air personal views. Do not discuss things or people that have nothing to do with the article as you keep doing, and kindly do not speak cryptically => WP:TALK. Middayexpress (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Middayexpress,

You said "All of the images you added were of Ethiopia; not one was of Somalia". Any objective reading of the article history reveals that statement to be wrong. It was I that added the image of the Fakr ad-Din and I that added the image of Waberi - (Somalia and Dijbouti), neither of which are Ethiopian. Which is why Gebresellasie is going back in, because your claim of Ethio-centicism is so blatantly false. (Along side your continued failure to acknowledge my several edits about Dijbouti, Eritrea and Somalia where previously there were none). Plus, readers will think it a mystery as to how adding in British and Italian athletes while removing reference to Somalia's long-standing civil calamity is indicative of the excellent sporting environment in Somalia. I really don't think that it is 'dismissive' to acknowledge the great difficulty which decades of invasion and civil war are causing. Are these the type of things that you think 'shouldn't be discussed'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, you did not add the Fakr ad Din mosque image. I did, just like I added all of the other images that aren't, by contrast, Ethiopia-related. In fact, I'm surprised you even know of the mosque's existence since it has nothing to do with Ethiopia (given your overwhelmingly Ethio-centric edits). The Waberi image was the lone non-Ethiopian image you added, and that's of a moderately successful up and coming writer. In doing so, you conveniently omitted the single greatest and most decorated writer the Horn has ever produced: Nuruddin Farah, a Somali. And just where do you get off labeling ethnic Somali athletes -- folks who were born in Somalia, to boot -- "British" and "Italian" athletes? That sounds an awful lot like sour grapes, as does that unprovoked "civil war" cheap shot. Middayexpress (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim to have added 'all' of the non-Ethiopian images while simultaneously criticising me for adding Waberi (who you removed)! With regard to the British and Italian athletes, I can assure you I had absolutely nothing to do with 'labeling' them. Ackees (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Ackees is seeing racism and white power elements where there is none. The Horn of Africa is clearly a distinct region on the African continent and emphasizing this fact is not 'racism'. Indians and Russians are both Asians but highlighting that the former belongs to a sphere that includes Pakistanis,Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans who are clearly distinct from Russians and Japanese people is not 'racism' it's just a fact, same goes for Africa. As for the sports section, civil war or not Somalia's Abdi Bile was still winning awards at the peak of the conflict, Somalia's Ocean Stars recently shook the CECAFA CUP when it defeated favourite Tanzania and not to forget how Somalia still managed to send a team to the Beijing Olympics. Calling Ayub Daud - the son of a famous Somali football player Daud Hussein - a Italian athlete is showing ignorance on your side especially considering how Ayub Daud was one of the many Somali players called up to represent Somalia in the World Cup Qualifications which is evidence enough of where his and other Somali Athletes like him allegiances lie(legally you can't play for two countries). --Scoobycentric (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Scoobycentric, I've never mentioned Daud, I'm pleased that he's done so well. Bani is definitely an Italian athlete (albeit with an African connection) - but there's no shame in being an Italian athlete at all as far as I'm concerned. So, please no personal attacks ('showing your ignorance') ...try to stick to the rules of Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you're suddenly introducing the question of a 'distinct region'. Has somebody tried to say that HoA isn't a region? Certainly not me - its definitely a region as far as I'm concerned. And, like virtually all other regions, it is distinct (that's why they're recognised as regions - because they're distinct). I'm really glad that you've added some Somali-born sports people to the sports section I created. Thanks! Ackees (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Zahra Bani is not "an Italian athlete". She is Somali-Italian (her mother is Somali) , has a Somali first name, and was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. She's not just "Somali born", as you have attempted to reduce her Somali affiliation to (not the nebulous "African"). And no, Scoobycentric did not personally attack you, as can quite clearly be seen in his post above. You've just falsely accused him of having done so with zero proof. And when Scoob was talking about distinct regions in his post above, he was obviously alluding to the people within those regions, which is why he stated that:

"Indians and Russians are both Asians but highlighting that the former belongs to a sphere that includes Pakistanis,Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans who are clearly distinct from Russians and Japanese people is not 'racism' it's just a fact, same goes for Africa."

Spare us anymore of the distortions. Middayexpress (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Athletes are only allowed to run for one country at a time. There's no such thing as a 'Somali-Italian' athletics team or federation. Bani has Somali roots but runs for Italy. Therefore as far as athletics goes, she's Italian. Viva Italy, her fans are shouting! Ackees (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you can try and divorce Zahra from her Somali roots while simultaneously attempting to claim her into a nebulous greater "African" heritage, but that won't make one half of her heritage any less fully Somali nor will it change her place of birth from her native Mogadishu, Somalia to Italy (a country she first arrived in at the age of ten, by the way). Middayexpress (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the nature of the dispute, but if it is about images, a possible solution is not to use human images at all. Since the horn of Africa is a large geographic area, the people who live there are quite diverse. No one picture will be representative of all the people from these regions. Since there are articles that deal with the people from the related countries, ie Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti, there is probably no need for images of people on this article. Images can be viewed on the country articles. Another alternative is to use a wp:gallery with numerous images, but this practice is discouraged. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have an excellent point Wapondaponda, especially in observing the great diversity of peoples and languages in the region. Ackees (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cushitic and Semitic speaking majority in the Horn are not diverse, but ethnically and linguistically linked. It's the few minority groups that add the diversity. And no picture was selected to be representative of all the people from this region, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Wikipedia also discourages image galleries, so that's actually not a possibility nor is it even necessary. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ackees, you never mentioned any names(including Daud) but instead vaguely baptized them all as non-Somali athletes, which is why i took the initiative and used Ayub Daud as an example. Zahra Bani is as much a Somali athlete as Sun Mingming is a Chinese Athlete and mentioning the latter's success on a Chinese related sports article is perfectly legitimate!

I don't appreciate you twisting my words and insinuate that i projected a 'personal attack' towards you when there is nothing ad hominem about the words 'showing ignorance' especially in the context that i used it, as you were clearly showing ignorance when it comes to the allegiances of Somali Athletes. It's perfectly good english and used on a daily basis in 'civil debates'. My point on the distinctiveness of the Horn of Africa is clear for everyone to see, as my analogy of the Indians & the Russians is spot on, so there is no need for red herrings. --Scoobycentric (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Scoobycentric,

when referring to 'British and Italian athletes' I was obviously and clearly referring specifically to those athletes who compete for the British and Italian national athletics teams. You may (or may not) be aware that top-flight European football clubs commonly have several players from different countries in their squad, so Daud is far from unusual. For example, the English club Arsenal has on occasion fielded teams with just one or two English players. People familiar with this perfectly normal state of affairs in European club football (and the rules governing national athletics teams) would not automatically assume that the phrase 'British and Italian athletes' referred to a Somali Juventus player. P.S. I expect you meant to write 'perfectly good English' - instead of 'perfectly good english'. What an irony, eh? Ackees (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Middayexpress,

In the field of linguistics, 'Cushitic' and 'Semitic' are not actually languages in themselves - they are linguistically-related groups of languages. Each group contains several distinct languages. This fact constitutes one form of diversity. Furthermore, the Cushitic and Semitic language groups are different from each other, too. This fact constitutes another form of diversity. Diversity doesn't mean that things are not 'linked' (because in a unitary universe, all things can technically be described as 'linked'). What diversity means is that an observer can distinguish distinctions. In fact, the whole field of linguistics comes about as a result of studying the mutual history of divergent languages. The intellectually correct position is to observe (a) what links the diverse languages and (b) what it is that constitutes their diversity. To insist that there is literally no diversity of language in the Horn of Africa would come as a bizarre surprise to the population itself, as well as anybody who knew the slightest thing about the region. Ackees (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The pettyness has started, why do people always focus on silly 'typo's when they fail to put forward a logical argument? I will cut to the chase; your contradicting yourself, on 26th of April you said the following:

"I'm really glad that you've added some Somali-born sports people to the sports section I created. Thanks! (User talk:Ackees) 03:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)"

what we know of the Athletes:

Mohammed "Mo" Farah (Arabic: محمد فرح‎; Somali: Maxamed Faarax; born 23 March 1983 in Mogadishu, Somalia)

Zahra Bani (born 31 December 1979 in Mogadishu, Somalia)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Farah
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahra_Bani

The criteria you have set for an athlete to be included into this article is contradictatory and the initial dispute has actually nothing to do with the allegiances of the Athletes or where they were born, the current dispute traces itself back to your following words:

"Somalian sport has been hampered by the continuing conflict in Somali.[11]"

There are plenty of peaceful African countries who's sporting culture is hampered because of:(insert reason) why should Somalia be isolated on the basis of a 'civil war'?. It managed to send a delegation to the Beijing Olympics, so what if it didn't bring home medals?, again there are plenty of peaceful African countries who didn't either.

Your point about the diversity of the Horn of Africa is irrelevant to what is actually being discussed here and what caused Midday to continuesly re-insert a source-backed statement on the make-up of the Horn of Africa which your trying to delete, see here quote in question:

"Besides sharing similar geographic endowments, the countries of the Horn of Africa are linguistically and ethnically linked together[12]"

- Geographical endowments - Linguistics - Ethnicity Facts:

• GEOGRAPHICAL ENDOWMENTS: The Highlands of Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea all uniquely connect to one another
• LINGUISTICS: The Cushitic and Ethiopic languages of the Horn of Africa could be compared to the Romance and Germanic languages of Europe, both are Indo-European as the former two are both Afro-Asiatic nevertheless Romance French is still closer to Germanic English than both are to Indo-European Persian. Your trying to disintergrate the above statement of a scholar by stressing the minority languages as opposed to the majority languages. By that logic we could disintergrate the Somali language into several languages, but it doesn't change the fact that the quote in question is still spot on. Through millenia's of interaction between Cushites and Ethio-semites a linguistic connection was solidified which is what the quote is referring to!
• ETHNICITY: The Haplogroups predominant in the Horn of Africa are of Horn African origin. The ethnic groups such as the Oromo, Somali and Afar transcend Horn African borders and many of today's Oromo speakers were Amharic,Somali or Sidamo speakers in the past and vice versa.

All of this gives credence to the scholary quote, no amount of crypto-facist or white racist boogeymen scare talk will change what is obvious for everyone to see! --Scoobycentric (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Scoobycentric,

Thanks again for your comments, some of them probably have great significance. Don't stress about the typos, it happens to everybody:-) Like I said before, well done for your contributions to the sports section. At first, Middayexpress didn't improve the article by adding any Somali athletes, but just deleted all reference to sport in the Horn of Africa instead.[13] Nevertheless, I persisted and reinstated the sports section. Eventually, you both realised that deleting all sports was an error and that readers could actually learn more about the region's sports by finding out about the two Somali-born British and Italian athletes. Now - I'm happy, you're happy, the athletes are happy, the readers are happy, the sports fans are all happy - I think it's a job well done! Be happy, dude! Ackees (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)