User talk:Pathawi

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello User:Pathawi, I hope this message finds you well and hope you're doing good. I'm messaging regarding the creation or possible recreation of an article related to ethnic groups who speak Cushitic languages. I noticed that in a previous AfD discussion, you nominated an article called Cushitic peoples for deletion which subsequently was deleted over six months ago. Despite the six month rule, I submitted a deletion review (see here: [[1]]). I added multiple sources on the review showing that the term 'Cushitic' is used in academic literature quite often reflecting both a linguistic categorisation and a ethnic categorisation of the ethnic groups who speak Cushitic languages as the term is quite well known in DNA/genetics literature that is also present. You can see the sources on the deletion review. I have a lot more sources, but for fear of elongation I did not submit.

I do completely understand that the previous Cushitic peoples page was very unprofessionally written and there were many questions regarding WP: RELIABILITY and this is the reason why I don't want to create any article which will be controversial or be subject to another AfD. So I wanted to ask you if there is anything controversial or that you would deem problematic with a new article? My intention is to have pages similar to

etc but with much more rigour in terms of sources. My intention is to only use academic literature in the sources therefore it would be professionally done. However I do not want to move forward without your two cents.

Wadamarow (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wadamarow: Why didn't you ping the people who had been involved in the previous deletion discussion in the deletion review? I can weigh in on these sources, but I would have preferred to do so in the review discussion. Pathawi (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Pathawi

I pinged the administrator who deleted the page and she didn't respond. I had no issues with pinging you but they made it very clear to me that the deletion review was not the place to have long winded discussions. Having said that, I don't mind continuing this discussion in another capacity in any other arbitration setting. I personally do not see any hindrance or issue with having a Wikipedia page dedicated to ethnic groups who speak Cushitic languages as the encyclopedia has many similar pages but I do acknowledge that others may not hold the same view.

Wadamarow (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wadamarow: You have left out No. 5 of the Steps to list a new deletion review, which is regrettable and maybe even a reason to re-open Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Cushitic_peoples_(closed) (something I am not keen on, don't worry; I prefer to disucss content and not procedures).

All sources which you have brought up bring just as much (or as little) support for an article "Cushitic peoples" as the sources in the deleted article and sources that were brought up in the deletion discussion. They fall broadly into the following categories:

1. "Cushitic peoples" is just a shorthand for "Cushitic-speaking peoples". In such sources, nothing else characterizes Cushitic peoples except for the shared linguistic affiliation. This is a mere book-keeping method when talking about ethnic diversity in a region, but not does attribute other commonalities to the group of Cushitic-speaking ethnicities.
2. They only discuss a subset of the Cushitic-speaking peoples, viz. the groups speaking (lowland) Eastern Cushitic languages. The latter definitely share cultural traits which allow for a unified discussion, but these traits do not extend to the whole collective of Cushitic-speaking peoples, and if they do (e.g. cattle raising), they will also apply to several non-Cushitic-speaking neighbors.
3. They use the term "Cushitic peoples" for ancient groups that are connected to the expansion of the Cushitic languages, but not for present-day Cushitic-speaking peoples.
4. They use the term "Cushitic peoples" for aDNA ancestry components that are assumed to be connected to the expansion of the Cushitic languages. Such ancestry components are found among modern Cushitic and non-Cushitic speaking ethnic groups in eastern Africa, and they do show a correlation between linguistic affiliation and the presence of certain ancestry components (otherwise scholars wouldn't assume the latter are connected to the Cushitic expansion). But they do not coherently define a group of "Cushitic peoples"; millenia of language shift and intermarriage have produced a complex picture, just like anywhere else in the world.

You mention Germanic peoples; please have a look at what is covered in the article: it is not about the modern-day "Germanic-speaking peoples", but the ancient Germani. Slavs is a bit more complex, since two centuries of ideological Pan-Slavism have produced a reification in the public awarenesss among at least certain factions within these peoples that it is hard to debunk the concept. I don't think this kind of situation applies to the "Cushitic-speaking peoples": Pathawi can correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard that the news of pan-Cushitism has widely spread e.g. among the Agaws or the Bejas.

I should also mention that there are articles which do not exist, e.g.

Romance peoples

.

Personally, I think there would be much more merit in building an article about the holistic history of the region based on archaeolinguistic and archaeogenetic evidence. Many of your sources have a great potential for that topic. An article that is arbitrarily focussed on a language family and its modern-day speakers will blur out much of the richness and complexity behind it. –Austronesier (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bandwidth for this is a little lower than usual. I don't normally talk much about personal business on Wikipedia but: My dad just got a terminal cancer diagnosis. I'm at his place helping with the caretaking. I apologise in advance if I come off as grumpy in these interactions: I do feel that this matter was addressed with serious & adequate attention months ago, & I wish I weren't having to deal with it again right now. I'm trying not to be crotchety.

My immediate thoughts:

• There is no requirement that you ping other editors when requesting a deletion review. That said, while I don't want to dictate courtesy to anyone, I do think that it's generally a good idea to try to loop in interested editors whenever proposing a controversial change. This doesn't need to be a big deal. I just wish that we had had this conversation before the deletion review rather than after.
• I agree with pretty much everything Austronesier has said, tho I think it might be worthwhile to reopen the deletion review. I am, however, happy to talk informally on Talk pages before that to see if we can reach consensus on a path forward: In general, I prefer to talk thru things informally before engaging formal process.
• I have not reviewed all of the sources that Wadamarow cited, but I have glanced at a few, and I agree with Austronesier that those I have looked at fit into the categories that A mentions: Most particularly, they often use the phrase "a Cushitic people" (in the singular) as a shorthand for "people who speak a Cushitic language," or they talk about reconstructions of the spread of Cushitic languages—not a modernday macroethnicity. Additionally, some use the term in passing, & do not contribute to notability. I'll take a closer look at the genetic studies soon.
• I can confirm that there is no widespread awareness among Beja people of the idea of a "Cushitic people" as a macroethnicity. More importantly for Wikipedia purposes (given that my experience is not a reliable source), that's not represented in the work on Beja ethnicity and the Beja language. I actually don't have expertise in Agaw societies, but my reading on Agaw languages (which is not negligible) does not suggest that scholars in that field think about any kind of Cushitic macroethnicity. I should pay more attention to South Cushitic than I have, but I'd be shocked if serious scholarly work on South Cushitic saw, eg, Iraqw-speakers as part of a Cushitic macroethnicity.
• I like the idea of a page on regional (pre-)history baed on archaeolinguistic and archaeogenetic evidence for multiple reasons, including that it would allow incorporation of the substantial work on Cushitic/Nilo-Saharan interaction without centring one of the two language families, and it wouldn't reify a macroethnicity unnecessarily. I'm not sure how easy it would be to do that without falling into original research, but it's worth looking into. I can also think of at least two other alternatives worth considering, but I'd like to spend a bit more time looking at the genetic sources W cited before proposing any other ideas.
• If someone is going to begin working on a page to replace
  Cushitic peoples
  , I would strongly suggest drafting it in user space first in order to get input from others without opening a spot for our old sockpuppet friend to mess things up before there's a solid draft.

Again: Sorry if I come off as grumpy. Pathawi (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Austronesier and User:Pathawi

Firstly I want to send my condolences to User: Pathawi, I'm very sorry to hear about your father. I wish him good health and a speedy recovery despite it being described as terminal. I pray he is well and I do apologise if I came off as insensitive in any way.

I believe that the main issue here is Cushitic as a macro-ethnicity/ethnicity. If that's the case, would it be ok and would it be fine to create a page called Cushitic speaking peoples with no reference to a macro ethnicity called Cushitic peoples?

Thank you both for your contributions, I really appreciate the amount of information and beneficial content. Just so that I can put my own point across, allow me to delve into some of the points User: Austronesier mentioned category by category.

1. Regarding terminologies, the academic literature uses language which is both particular and universal, although I do agree with you that sometimes "Cushitic peoples" is used merely to describe those ethnic groups that are Cushitic speakers, there is also plenty of evidence to show that it is used to describe ethnicities. For example: Laura B. Scheinfeldt, Sameer Soi et al (2019) Genomic evidence for shared common ancestry of East African hunting-gathering populations and insights into local adaptation. See link here: ([[2]]) in the section of Selection Scan Population Groupings, it states: "When we grouped two or more population samples, we used shared ethno-linguistic affiliations among the included population samples to refer to these population groupings in the text (SI Appendix, Table S2)."

You said "nothing else characterizes Cushitic peoples except for the shared linguistic affiliation." This study states that although some studies do use Cushitic peoples/ancestry as a shorthand for Cushitic peoples, a homogeneous and unique Cushitic ancestry has been established. It clarifies that exact point. The link to the study is here: ([[3]]). It states: "The only previously observed ancestry not present in this set of 21 was ancestry predominantly found in Cushitic-speaking peoples from East Africa, which we subsequently refer to in shorthand as Cushitic ancestry. Given that Cushitic ancestry has been detected before." Although the terminology can be used for a more universal general shorthand meaning, that's not the only use.

2. Although there are more specialised focused studies on specific subsets of Cushitic speaking peoples, this doesn't necessitate that Cushitic speaking peoples do not share any genetic affiliation and traits more common to them as a whole. For example, in this study: Hollfelder N, Schlebusch CM, Gu¨nther T, Babiker H, Hassan HY, Jakobsson M (2017) Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations (link here: ([[4]]). It states: "The Beni Amer also showed a strong admixture signal with a Eurasian population as well as a shared ancestry com- ponent with the Somali population (pink component in Fig 2)". This is an example of a North Cushitic ethnic group (Beja) sharing ancestry component with an Eastern Cushitic ethnic group (Somali) and there are more examples. Although, you are absolutely right that there could be shared ancestry between Cushitic and non Cushitic populations, there are many reasons why this happened that is mentioned clearly in the literature. For example, the Semitic speaking populations in the Horn of Africa being closely genetically related to the Cushitic speaking populations (Hodgson: 2014). This was a situation of native ethnic groups adopting languages that were not native such as the Agaw adopting the Amharic language. But having said that, in this study: Hassan, Hisham Y.; Underhill, Peter A.; Cavalli-Sforza, Luca L.; Ibrahim, Muntaser E. (2008), "Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History" (PDF), American Journal of Physical Anthropology, link here: ([[5]]) the study states that there is a correlation in genetic and  linguistics in establishing a strong relationship between Beja and other Cushitic speaking peoples in the Horn of Africa.

3. I think the same points mentioned about the usage of Cushitic peoples would apply here. Although I should mention that Cushitic (with a C) in more modern literature is mainly used to speak about the ethnic groups who speak Cushitic languages. There have been different usages before about ancient communities aswell.

5. You're absolutely right in that they have been used in debating points relating to ancestry and tying it to the expansion of Cushitic languages, but that fails to mention established genetic Cushitic ancestry. Such as you can find here here: Shriner D, Tekola-Ayele F, Adeyemo A, Rotimi CN.. (2016) Ancient human migration after Out-of-Africa. It states: "A notable exception is Cushitic ancestry, which did not form by a splitting event but rather by a mixing event between Arabian ancestry and Nilo-Saharan or Omotic ancestry." Link here: ([[6]]). So Cushitic is an ethno and linguistic classification.

Although I agree with most of your points, I feel that we are overlapping points and interpreting them differently although we may agree on many points.

Having said that, if we agree that Cushitic peoples are defined by ethnic groups who speak Cushitic languages or they are related ethnic groups. Does this disqualify the creation of an article if it was clearly mentioned that it's describing ethnic groups and not a macro ethnicity?

Regarding pan Slavic identity, I don't know how that would make it more notable as an identity because the

which speaks about the peoples who speak Germanic languages which is exactly what I wanted to do for Cushitic speaking peoples.

My proposal:

If there is a page speaking about Cushitic speaking peoples, with detailed information about the specific ethnic groups and not presenting them as a macro-ethnicity, would there be any problem with that? So let's say a page similar to

. So Cushitic speaking peoples with NO mention of Cushitic as an ethnicity, but as a category of Cushitic speaking ethnic groups. Would that be ok? I feel like most of the points of disagreement would be gone here. Let me know your thoughts.

Wadamarow (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Pathawi

This is what I had in mind. Please let me know your thoughts. So I don't want to create any page that refers to a Cushitic macro-ethnicity as we've already established. I want to create a page called: "Cushitic speaking peoples". The page would only and solely be dedicated to the ethnic groups that natively speak

.

So the title and first paragraph would look something like this:

Cushitic speaking peoples

Cushitic speaking peoples refer to the ethnic groups who speak Cushitic languages as a native language.

So I want to emphasize that there will be absolutely no mentioning of any macro-ethnicity which was the main point of contention in the deleted article. It's purely a page dedicated to the ethnic groups that speak Cushitic languages.

Let me know your thoughts.

Wadamarow (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been slow to reply. As I've mentioned, I'm a little busy these days. In principle, I don't have a problem with this. The question will be whether there are adequate reliable sources that deal with this issue to achieve notability without falling into original research, you know?

Germanic-speaking Europe draws centrally on resources that are specifically about Germanic-speaking Europe—it doesn't draw conclusions by comparing sources on the Nordic countries, sources on the Netherlands, sources on England… I'm a little skeptical that such sources exist for the Cushitic speech communities in general, & I suspect that a narrower article focus might be better supported by whatever useful sources there are. But again: I have no opposition in principle. It's all a matter of sources. Sorry I haven't been able to respond in greater detail to your previous longer comment. Pathawi (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi User:Pathawi

Thank you very much for your reply. No need to apologise, I completely understand the circumstances and I hope for the best in everything for you. Thank you very much once again, I really appreciate it! Regarding the proposed page, I have quite a number of sources that speak of Cushitic speakers specifically that would almost certainly avoid original research. If the proposed page becomes reality, then I will make sure to focus my work on it as to avoid any original research or any inclination towards the suggestion of a macro-ethnicity. I will focus on the ethnic groups specifically with maybe a focus on the history of the spread of Cushitic speakers in East Africa and the countries they inhabit etc. I'll be watching over the page to make sure there is no vandalism or misinformation. Please feel free to overlook and watch the page.

Wadamarow (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wadamarow: You can start a draft in User- or Draft-space and notify Pathawi and me with a ping about the progress. Speaking for myself, I'll be happy to contribute with suggestions or even by directly adding content related to the topic. –Austronesier (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User: Austronesier

Thank you, I'll definitely do that. I'll keep you both posted with the draft. Although the page will be a work in progress, I don't envisage it would necessarily ever be 'complete'. So I'll ping you on the skeleton and let me know what you think. I would probably continue the process of improving it after publishing.

Wadamarow (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User: Pathawi User: Austronesier

Here is a link to the draft:

[[7]]

I just wanted to mention that I quickly made this brief skeleton and draft. The main focus will be the history section and another section I'll be creating aswell. The introduction paragraph and the ethnic groups section is just extra added information about the ethnic groups. It's a work in progress, but I intend to take care of it and make sure that it's a protected page that avoids anything non factual. I want to focus on the the geography of the earliest Cushitic speakers and their migration patterns. Let me know your thoughts. Please fee free to add content, I'll be sourcing everything.

Wadamarow (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pathawi User: Austronesier

Just letting you know, I published the page, it was in draft for around 3 days. But I was quite happy with the skeleton so far. Please feel free to contribute to it. I'll be adding more sources and content regarding the history of Cushitic speakers and their migration and maybe some history about the earliest Cushitic speakers and their spread.

Wadamarow (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at

]

Hi, User:Chris troutman. I'm not actually sure what you're referring to. Which post? Is this about moving my comment out of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? I did that because I was asked to do that. Pathawi (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I clicked on the wrong user talk! I've struck my comment; sorry about the interruption. Happy editing! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Take care! Pathawi (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pathawi, just wondering, do you know a good comprehensive source about the phonetics of

]

@Austronesier: That's a good question, & the answer is that I don't know. It's certainly pretty easy to mentally translate "traditional" explanations into an academic phonological framework, but I haven't seen anyone outside my head do that… probably because I haven't looked. I know there are a couple of English works on tajwīd at the university library. It's possible they're by linguists, or at least by Arabists with an orientation toward formal linguistics. I think I'm going in tomorrow anyhow… If I do, I'll take a look. Pathawi (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No dice. Nothing I saw at the library fit the bill. I have a friend who might know. I'll sound her out. Pathawi (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I contacted a friend who's a phoneticist & a native Arabic-speaker, & she recommended Saleh Sulaiman Al-Wohaibi's 1982 Indiana University dissertation "Qur'anic Variants (ʿIlm al-Qirā'āt): An Historical-Phonological Study". I took a look, & there are usable portions, but it doesn't cover everything—tajwīd as such is a secondary consideration. But looking out from there thru the bibliography & thru the works that cite it, it seems that there's a small but not insignificant body of work on phonological & phonetic research using tajwīd concepts as tools. I think it might be possible to pull things together from a range of academic articles. I have not, however, been able to find one source that covers all the standard terms. Pathawi (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort! I will try to get hold of Saleh Sulaiman Al-Wohaibi's dissertation. Our local specialized library was relocated to Marburg when the institute was closed with the retirement of Hans Daiber, but I think I can order it via interlibrary loan. –Austronesier (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A PDF is available via ProQuest. E-mail me if you have trouble gaining access. Pathawi (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Your feedback is welcome here! Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a discussion around the Arabic dialect map here, regarding which sources to use and whether to rely entirely on Ethnologue. I'd love to hear your thoughts. High surv (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:A455bcd9. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing, thank you. Please try to be civil in your interactions. It's a collaborative encyclopædia. Pathawi (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doing what you're doing (casting aspersions) and you'll take a trip to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. Maybe check your edit history & comments first, but feel free. Pathawi (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep digging and see where that takes you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either submit a complaint or buzz off. I've said what I have to say. I've reviewed the one comment that you seem upset by & I feel fine about it. I feel great about it. You're not going to achieve anything by threatening me on my Talk page. Pathawi (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Happy Thanksgiving! It's hard to follow discussions going on everywhere, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Glottolog_unreliable_for_linguistics and Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Maps,_OR,_and_SYNTHESIS. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misfiled SPI

I've deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaeq00, per your request and correct refiling. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 06:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pathawi, how are you doing?

Have you seen these two new dictionaries? I thought you might be interested:

• Currasat for Libyan, Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Sudanese and Yemeni (1.3m words, copyrighted)
• Maknuune for Palestinian (36k entries, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Best, a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: That's fascinating! Thanks for sending it my way! Pathawi (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pathawi My pleasure! Shahd, the author of Maknuune, is a friend. Her dictionary is licensed under CC BY-SA: I'd like to import it to the Wiktionary. If you're interested, feel free to join the discussion here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is nice as well: https://camelira.abudhabi.nyu.edu/ (I've just chatted with Christian who's working on it) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamazirt (city), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello User:Pathawi the Joshua project is not always accurate with their population estimates of different groups. Because it's a christian evangelical missionary website their population estimates and where they get these numbers from should not always be treated like they are accurate. When a person uses their website and reads these population estimates they should read with caution as there's still no research conducted on the number of Beja in Egypt. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618: I agree with this, but information needs to be sourced, & if we provide a source the information needs to match it. It doesn't work to leave the citation but then change the number—that's especially true if there's no other citation to tell us where the new number comes from! Pathawi (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello the source I cited was only which was from brittanica and it said there were 1 million speakers of the Beja language the other source I didn't add it it was already there I justed edited to include my source. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you request for the file i added to be deleted and why was it deleted? I added the link to the website i had no idea that the picture belonged to a photographer named Agence. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618: Because the picture was copyrighted, so we couldn't legally use it. Check out Wikimedia Commons: Copyright rules. Pathawi (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello can you take me to an administrator who can delete 4 of my files I uploaded on wikipedia. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618: Did you upload them to Wikipedia directly or Wikimedia Commons? Pathawi (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia commons Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618: I know Wikimedia Commons far less well than I know Wikipedia, but my understanding is that an administrator can't just delete a file on request. What you should do—I think!—is go to each file and select 'Nominate for deletion' under 'Tools'. You can then explain why you want the file deleted. It should take a few days. Good luck! Pathawi (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618: Additionally, you can request to have files that you have uploaded yourself speedily deleted (see c:Commons:GCSD, point G7), but this is only possible for recent uploads. For older uploads, the exact procedures are described here: c:Commons:Deletion requests. –Austronesier (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you need to put Sunni Islam in Sudan. Sunni Islam is universal and there is nothing different or special about its practice in Sudan. Also I added those sources because one annoying user kept claiming the numbers and estimates put over there are vandalism even though they were cited before, and the source next to the Sunni Islam was a good source so I don't know why you removed it.Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually on Islam in Sudan, not Sunni Islam in Sudan. The nice thing about having the specific article is that while Sunni Muslims may consider themselves to all share one dīn, the history is different in different places which leads to certain (orthodox!) differences in practice: The particular history of the Sudan has led to the majority of trained members of the ʕulamā' being Maliki, for instance. There are other distinctive aspects of Islam in Sudan: The importance of the 'anṣār and the Mīrġaniyy Sufi orders is particular to the Sudan, as is the decidedly non-Sunni Republican Brotherhood. Pathawi (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way are you from Sudan?. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I lived there for a while, have important relationships there, & speak multiple Sudanese languages. Why? Pathawi (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What languages from Sudan do you speak? Can you speak Bedawi for example?. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can, yes. Again: Why? Pathawi (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

original research. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Disruptive editing

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to History of slavery in the Muslim world, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 1Firang (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bohairic Coptic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glide.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm speaking to a bot, but in case any human looks at this later: Fixed it. Pathawi (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

- 1Firang (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Pathawi (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pathawi I was thinking how about you use Ethnologue to find out the number of speakers of the Beja language. I cant access figures for number of speakers of the language on Ethnologue because I have not subscribed nor paid online on their website to access that. If you are subscribed to Ethnologue you can add the number of speakers of the Beja language. Thanks! Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cookiemonster1618! It's good to hear from you. Ethnologue's last version drew from the sources we already had cited. They don't have any special means of determining populations. Since we were already using the sources, we didn't bother with them last time around. I'll check the new edition to see if anything's changed, but I doubt it: There's been no new major research on Bidhaawyeet, & no new Sudanese census. I'll take a look & let you know what I find. Pathawi (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello well is there an updated number of speakers of Beja on Ethnologue?. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618: I have full access to Ethnologue. The current (26th) edition says:

• Population: 2,220,000 in Sudan (2017). Total users in all countries: 2,424,000.

You can update the figures by adding the parameter "|ref = 26" in the infobox, which automatically displays a full citation to the 26th edition of Ethnologue. –Austronesier (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait did Ethnologue list the number of beja speakers in Egypt and Eritrea as well would be nice if you can give me the estimate for Beja speakers in both countries as well. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any update did you find a a recent estimate for number of speakers of the Beja language? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Aksum

Dear User, The information on the Kingdom of Aksum page is not remotely interested in facts other than to distort them. Incorrectly stating Ezana made Ge'ez the official language after Greek is not factual. The two scripts have always been used by side by side and should read 'Greek was used as a mercantile and diplomatic language' Ge'ez was already in use and fully formed by Ezana period. Then then use dubious quotes like the US printing office as a source. They have also written another one the Ethiopian Greeks where they make claims of an annexation of which there is no proof. Rania212 (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rania212: I agree that many of the sources are of poor quality, or are cited in misleading ways, though I don't think that this is with an intention of misleading: The editor just seems to have a very narrow focus. Additionally, not everything is misleading: Some of their sources are scholarly sources that do in fact say that Greek was an official language of Aksum. This is of course strange & wrong—wrong principally because the category 'official language' is probably anachronistic for Aksum, & because there are no primary sources that establish any official language. It's not entirely clear what the term should mean in relation to a comparatively poorly documented state from a period in which the establishment of official languages is improbable. But this is an error in language use made by scholars writing reliable sources, & it's not limited to sources that support one side of our current debate: It's not hard to find scholarly sources that say that Gəʕz was the official language of Aksum. They're probably just as anachronistic as the sources which state that Greek was an official language, but from what you & I appear to interpret in this context they just strike us as less wrong. We have to keep in mind that the aim in Wikipedia isn't truth but verifiability. For my situation, there are two difficulties in addressing this right now:

1. We actually need to have a serious discussion about how to deal with these sources. Many of the sources adduced to support the Greek claim should be discarded or are not relevant, but not all of them. Some of them really do make that claim, & should generally be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Meanwhile, there are other sources which identify only Gəʕz as the official language of Aksum. This has to be resolved on the Talk page thru a discussion of the material. This may be a difficult discussion, as the editor who is promoting Greek has thus far been fairly unwilling to accept that others are acting in good faith, & has been very consistently insulting to everyone who disagrees with them. I suspect that this will be a long process that requires appeals to dispute resolution mechanisms beyond the Talk page.
2. I have been gathering scholarly sources (some of which, by the way, make the case for Greek!), but I really don't have time right now for a process as lengthy as what I imagine this will be. I'm a graduate student. I have to do some fieldwork this coming month, & am preparing a paper for a conference in January. I just don't currently have time for a protracted substantive debate on Wikipedia that is certain to get nasty (since nearly every comment so far has been nasty). I'm hoping to be able to address this in January, but my guess is that I won't really have time until February.

Your edit history looks like you've been editing for only one week, & solely the page

WP:DISPUTE might be good policies to become familiar with, as they're all likely to be relevant in resolving this situation. Pathawi (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank for your response, I appreciate it. Very intelligent and mindful of aspects. I state they are deliberately skewing the facts because they have another page claiming an annexation of Ethiopian lands and colonies by the Ptolemies of which there is no evidence and no historian supports. They misconstrued the inscription found at Adulis and ran with it, so I feel there is a desire to suppress history in some way. Claiming that Ezana promoted Ge'ez and that it later became the official language alongside Greek is a bizarre claim, Ezana made Christianity the official state religion not Ge'ez which was fully formed by the Ezana period. I really don't the US Printing office should be be considered reliable and that should definitely be removed. Those that are claiming Greek is quite bizarre and I suspect that is because of the accounts of the Periplus, which is problematic in itself rather than solid evidence. There is also the fact that they discount Ge'ez because it is modified (although disputed) script of the SA. Well, if we are to use that Greek can be said to be written in the Phoenician alphabet, Undertook the same modifications that Ge'ez did with SA. As you are probably aware Ethiopian/Eritrean history has been subject to some eurocentric fallacies over the years, these have now been corrected based on historical and linguistic evidence but those old fallacies still take hold.

I am most certainly a novice in terms of editing and will look at the guidance you have provided. I am about to respond with further sources in that conversation regarding the use of Greek and I would kindly ask you take a look when you have time. Thank you Rania212 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]