Talk:Horn of Africa/Archive 1

Archive 1

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) hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.5.144.66 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2010 (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)

Definition of Horn of Africa

The name Horn of Africa in not a proper name which refers to a region, as some people in here seem to think.Horn of Africa is in fact a geographical name which refers to a peninsula in eastern Africa.and that term is extended when referring to the region.because most of the region lies outside of this peninsula.The term Horn of Africa is shared by both the peninsula and the region.--Liban80 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2009 (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)

References

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 resorting to out right lies.I contacted you last night on your talk page to discus my intention in wanting to edit the Horn of Africa article. and i put forth my arguments. straight away you made a reply to my posting in which you wrote that my idea was debunked by the admins, and how i should stop. how strange now that that you have deleted this posting from you talk page.It is true that i asked for assistance -from the adminstrators to resolve the issue but they simply suggested that i diiscuss the subject with the people concerned.and here is what they said in their own words.[[[[2]]]]. and as for my absurd idea. are you realy telling me that the Horn of Africa isn't a peninsula comprising somalia and eastern Ethiopia and that term Horn of africa is extended to refer to the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually (and again), it's you that's attempting to "lie" by mounting a strawman argument: I did not say that the administrators debunked your idea; you yet again did. I said that you "attempted to obtain administrative support for this fringe definition, and failed in that as well", which is of course true. Telling you to discuss the matter with the editors involved (i.e. Scoobycentric and I) and pointing out that there are fringe issues to consider ("I guess wiki has guidelines on fringe and credibility issues") is hardly "supporting" your argument. It's actually on this article's talk page in the discussion above where your absurd "points" have been debunked and argument by argument. You're just going in circles now because you actually don't really have any new argument to put forth; just the same discredited nonsense as before. Middayexpress (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Liban80, my post at 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) makes it very clear that the Columbia Encyclopedia 6th edition 2007 in no way contradicts the material currently presented in the article, this is the only source you've provided in this discussion and 'claimed' it backed your definition of the Horn of Africa when in fact it doesn't at all! --Scoobycentric (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont disagree with the definition that The Horn of Africa Region comprises Djibouti,Eritrea,Ethiopia, and Somalia. let me make that very clear. the wiki article about the Horn already states that it is a peninsula. i've simply added a description of what this comprises . and used two very reliable refernces to show this i.e The Oxford Online Reference and The Columbia Encyclopedia.--Liban80 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Name

If a stupid name like the horn of africa can be made and not the atlantic hook, I don't see why. my article on the atlantic hook was deleted. The Atlantic Hook is in the atlantic, under da water near nova scotia. The atlantic hook is also proof atlantis exist, origin of an asian Aztlán maybe? Seeing how wiki articles nowadays are made like text books in texas, I might shy away from like 90 percent of the facts on this stupid website. ex g duh the world is round the world goes around the sun, everything is a robot, i am a small jew grwn fwom a big one duh i love how we dont knwo dat stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2010 (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" [3], [4] 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 [5]". In plain English, Coon was a racist. As proof of this, his work is also lovingly quoted on this neo-nazi website [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=554149&page=23], 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)

redirect from northeast Africa

How confident are we on this project that all people searching for "northeast Africa" should come to this page? Should there perhaps be a disambiguation page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Stele

I don't know how to do this, but can someone rotate that image 90 degrees counterclockwise? It looks really silly sitting there sideways. 209.147.149.198 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The image is set to be rotated. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bantu languages actually spoken in the Horn?

The article says that Bantu languages are spoken in the Horn. I believe there are people descended from speakers of Bantu languages living in the Horn, but do any of them still actually speak these ancestral languages today? Pete unseth (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, many of them do. Please see for example Zigula language and Bajuni dialect. Middayexpress (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

inaccurate History

we request you to remove the history and especially the highly illustrated map linked to the article of the Horn ,which contains major inaccuracies as well which is giving wrong and biased opinion.

Kind regards

Abulnasser — Preceding unsigned comment added by MD.nasser (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Extra name

Should we add Ard-Al-habash(Land of the Habesha) right next to Bilad Al-Barbar? And I'm not exactly an arabic speaker, I can only really read and write and shittily comprehend the language but doesn't Bilad mean country? It should be "The Country of the Berbers", no? Awale-Abdi (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It does mean "country" rather than "land". However, it is usually translated as "The Land of the Berbers" instead of "The Country of the Berbers". AcidSnow (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Al-Habasha was not used for the Horn as a whole, but rather a specific portion of it in the highlands (Abyssinia). On the other hand, Bilad al-Barbar was alternately used for both the region as a whole, and a specific portion of it (northern Somalia & Djibouti). Middayexpress (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware the Ard-Al-Habash was only used for a single region of the Horn (the highlands for example) but I though the Bilad-Al-Barbar was no different/ that it only referred to Djibouti and the Somali peninsula. Are you sure there were accounts where it was used to refer to the entire region (the highlands and interior of the Horn included)? Awale-Abdi (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this would be the first time I have heard that it refers to the whole region. AcidSnow (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The term was originally coined by the Greeks during the time of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. They referred to the northern parts of the Horn inhabited by "Berbers" (whom they traded commodities with) as "Barbara"/"Barbaroi". These were the inhabitants of the ancient trade centers Opone, Malao, Mosylon, Damo, etc.. Medieval Arab writers later sometimes also used the derivative "Bilad al-Barbar" for the Horn region in general, likely because ancestral Somalis had by then reached the more southerly parts of the territory. Middayexpress (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Somaliland

While not internationally recognized, Somaliland being a region of Somalia has sought recognition to separate itself from Somalia and is widely considered a self declared region. It is clearly within the boundaries of Somalia which is in the Horn of Africa. Any objection to listing it with (unrecognized) or similar designation after the name? Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I totally agree. I did actually add Somaliland to the list, but then a certain user removed it. No offence intended against Dalahow, but that person seems to have somewhat of a pro-Somalian bias. If you look at this edit, it seems as such that Dalahow removed Somaliland from the list, as well as renaming "Northern Somalia" to just "Somalia". Shortly after, this edit happened. I left a message Dalahow's talk page but it hasn't yet been responded to. Personally, I think that Somaliland should be mentioned Because of the simple fact that Somaliland is a de facto country. When I added Somaliland to the list, I did specify that it did not have recognition from UN members. - VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I think the Issue of Somaliland has not been exhausted. Somaliland is just a region of Somalia like Puntland, Jubaland and others. I don't see a reason why we should create issues to the Federal Republic of Somalia. Infact, many politicians from Somaliland region have already been added to the Recently concluded Somalia Elections. So, Please don't create issues with Somaliland issues...Infact, if Somaliland is given autonomy, All Regional states of Somalia would ask for an autonomy, which is dangerous VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers are observing and witnessing the clear bias and hypocrisy of some Wikipedia editors who only care about recognizing the unrecognized region of somaliland in Somalia yet when it comes to Oromia (Oromo region) which is also seeking independence you don’t even acknowledge them nor advocate for them. So either stick the UN’s definition of recognized countries of the Horn of Africa or not, but you can’t have it both ways. HornerAfrican15 (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The egyptian image

The article has an image with the text "Inhabitants of the ancient Land of Punt, which is believed to have been in the Horn." But nowhere on the imagepage [14]or it's source [15]does it say "Punt". Is there any reason not to remove it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's from a mural at the Deir el-Bahri temple, which depicts a commercial expedition to the land of Punt during the New Kingdom reign of the Pharaoh Hatshepsut. This is why the file indicates that myrrh (which was native to Punt) is being transported to the Hatshepsut fleet. Soupforone (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Where does it indicate that? Is "Nehabaumes" something like a Commiphora myrrha? Anyway, I have no reason to doubt what you say, but none of it is on the filepage or sourcepage, so it seems unsourced to me. But I see know that you changed the image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the queen was obese. Nehabaumes is indeed a type of natural gum like myrrh. Soupforone (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Horn of Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101209234758/http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=35993 to http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=35993
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307103951/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=3591&title=drought-livelihoods-pastoralists-humanitarian to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=3591&title=drought-livelihoods-pastoralists-humanitarian
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101114004942/http://www.csa.gov.et/index.php?option=com_rubberdoc&view=doc&id=264&format=raw&Itemid=521 to http://www.csa.gov.et/index.php?option=com_rubberdoc&view=doc&id=264&format=raw&Itemid=521
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331192826/http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/um/umn.html to http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/um/umn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112224025/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=4997&title=working-across-borders-harnessing-potential-cross-border-activities-improve-livelihood-security-horn-africa-drylands to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=4997&title=working-across-borders-harnessing-potential-cross-border-activities-improve-livelihood-security-horn-africa-drylands
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224010919/http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/horn_africa/ to http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/horn_africa/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-4-2005-74197.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402205646/http://www.globalgovernance.eu/index.php/p-s-publications/246-new-analysis-the-somali-crisis-and-the-eu-3.html to http://www.globalgovernance.eu/index.php/p-s-publications/246-new-analysis-the-somali-crisis-and-the-eu-3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Horn of Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406115201/http://macroevolution.narod.ru/zh_microsat_hum.pdf to http://macroevolution.narod.ru/zh_microsat_hum.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Irrm56u6?url=http://unpos.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=v067edqd7a8=&tabid=9705&language=en-US to http://unpos.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=v067edqd7a8%3D&tabid=9705&language=en-US
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104013318/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=7810 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=7810
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208133131/http://www.hoa.centcom.mil/ to http://www.hoa.centcom.mil/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Errors

@155.254.115.74 I have reverted your edit because there are 4 oversights with the edit.

• The "names" subsection lists about a dozen different historical names for the Horn; it seems wp:undue to mention two and not the others
• The huge list of linguistic scripts seems to throng the lede and hinders readability
• The United Nations lists Horn African countries as East African (Un is a good source)
• Listing the Arabian Sea as bordering HOA is misleading because there are intermediate seas such as Guardafui Channel. 92.19.185.138 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

We're not gonna re-argue this, read previous people consensus, there's nothing wrong with the Arabian Sea, Guardafui Channel is on Somalia side maybe you can mention it there. Please stop vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.254.115.73 (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Horn Africa

Page needs permanent semi-protection from the blatant constant vandalism not pending changes. 31.168.172.140 (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim who is sporting the

This user is American by birth, but Southern by the grace of God!

and others who have an agenda, wiki is not the place.

Question for administrator

Can you please revert the vandalism of the user with the ip 92.19.177.109, the trash blogs Why East African ignorance about the Horn hurts and Dear East-Africans, Don’t Hate And Deny Your Blacknes he/she added have nothing to do with the Horn of Africa. 31.168.172.141 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Horn Africa vandalism

Hi, can you please revert back the last edit of this user SomaliSuldaan, he has been vandalizing the page with different accounts. Thank you.

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Afroasiatic language map

As has been pointed out to me by Mathglot, File:Expansion_of_Afroasiatic.svg is not really suitable for inclusion in this article. Its addition has been reverted several times along the lines of WP:NPOV. Specifically, the map suggests that only one hypothesis is correct, even though linguists have proposed several other explanations for the origin of the Proto-Afroasiatic language. If it were to be included, perhaps it should accompany images supporting other hypotheses with a caption reflective of everything, but I'll leave that to the frequent editors here to decide. ComplexRational (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The image has been in this page for a long time and represents the Horn of Africa hypothesis if other people want to make their hypothesis in their pages so be it but deleting it from the Horn of Africa page using some obscure internet page as a source is completely below what Wikipedia aspires too. The people who do this also believe E1b1b originated from other locations when scientific sources state the Horn of Africa but they keep vandalising its page. If a deleting has to occur it has to be with a consensus based on strong facts that the Horn of Africa CANNOT be the original homeland. Until then the image should be restored. Xiriid (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Xiriid said,

If a deleting has to occur it has to be with a consensus based on strong facts...

You are reading the Verifiability policy backwards; anybody can challenge and remove anything that is not supported by reliable sources. If it has reliable sources that represent a minority opinion, then it can be removed as being non-neutral, or rewritten to make its minority status clear; according to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, we state the facts according to majority view, mention minority views, and ignore fringe views. A caption on an image is too short a space to fully engage in an explanation of majority-minority opinion by different groups or authors, so this image should not be shown on its own, which gives the impression in Wikipedia's voice that this is a majority opinion, when it is not. Per WP:NPOV, it is perfectly fine to include sizable minority opinions in the article, but those minority opinions need to be identified as such. You could include Ehret's view with attribution, for example: "Ehret believes that its origin was in the Horn of Africa, but this does not represent linguistic consensus on the topic," or some such formulation.

As far as this point:

if other people want to make their hypothesis in their pages so be it...

That seems like it might be subject to a type of WP:FALSEBALANCE to me, but if you want to propose something, go ahead. Imho, it's better to just remove the map representing a non-consensus theory, rather than have a whole bunch of competing maps, and just mention that theory in quotation marks, attributed to Ehret, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Then I have no objection to its being included. If you want the map, in some sort of arrangement with multiple competing maps, propose your idea here, and let's see if something can be worked out which respects WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:WikiVoice, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Mathglot (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE is the policy you applied when you approved the deletion of the image in the first place so I am a little confused here. Also Ehret is not some "minority" opinion so deleting the image based on some shady internet page cannot be considered challenging the Horn Africa hypothesis that is supported by archaeology, anthropology and genetics and as I stated above the E1b1b page gets vandalised constantly for the same reason when science again supports the Horn Africa hypothesis. There is no need to edit the image, it has links to the appropriate pages where people can further read the subject matter. I just find the deletion of the image based on some shady site unrelated to linguistics over the top for the Wikipedia standards you are alluding to defend. Xiriid (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jebel Irhoud in Morocco obsession

What is the point of adding Jebel Irhoud finds in Morocco to the Horn of Africa page? is the point to diminish the prehistory of the Horn of Africa? The Jebel Irhoud finds are not even mentioned in the North Africa page, wouldn't it be more appropriate to first mention Jebel Irhoud there instead of spreading it in the Horn of Africa or Cushitic page? The finds were not even categorised as AMH and Ethiopia alone has more hominin fossil finds then all of North Africa combined, so this pollution with Jebel Irhoud has to stop. Dalhoa (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:, Nothing of the kind was my intention. I have reduced the size of the Irhoud paragraph (to avoid undue and off-topic focus — though I believe it should remain in its brief form since it is relevant to the subject of modern human origins.) Some more recent evidence (The Lahr and Mounier study) also does in fact suggest an old and partly East African origin for modern humans, and I have included on this page as well. I will probably also add the Irhoud material (and other material relevant to modern human origins) to the North Africa page at some point also where Irhoud is more directly relevant. In addition, I did remove all of this (including the Irhoud section) from the Cushitic page (It was not me who had put it there), since deep history and the origin of modern humans in general (taking place hundreds of thousands of years ago) is hardly relevant on a page about the Cushitic peoples in particular. Skllagyook (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you mention Herto and Omo I in the Morocco page or the North Africa page? Jebel Irhoud is appropriate in its relevant pages i.e its own page, North Africa and the Homo sapiens page, the Horn of Africa page is about the prehistory of the region and what you are doing feels like you are intentionally promoting other regions, you even used South Africa instead of Southern Africa and linked to the country itself. The Horn of Africa prehistory section should not be a place to promote Morocco or South Africa, if that was not your intention it feels that way. The information you are bringing is available in other parts of Wikipedia where it is more appropriate, cluttering it in the Horn of Africa page when you have been uncluttering things all over the place might suggest you have some ulterior motives, in any case, in my opinion these changes are not warranted. Dalhoa (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:, I add and/or remove things where it seems appropriate, and there is no need for incivility or accusations. The section says South Africa because that is what the study says (along with East Africa), but I can unlink the words. It's not about "promoting" any particular region (which seems a strange way to look at this). The purpose of the additions was to include relevant information about modern human origins; to mention only the earlier Horn of Africa finds would be somewhat misleading when many researchers now believe that H. Sapiens emerged earlier based on new evidence. And again, the most recent study by Lahr and Mounier suggets a partly East African origin for early AMH, which could, and may, include the Horn of Africa. The section on Omo and Herto still has the geatest size (weight) in the section (and rightly/correctly so), and Irhoud is now only briefly mentioned. Skllagyook (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The Horn of Africa page is not about the human origin, it is about the Horn of Africa, the human origin has its own page and I don't see how mentioning Morocco and South Africa fit in the Horn of Africa page. I went to the appropriate pages of these respective countries and even checked their region and I saw no mention of your information, it seems like you wanted to diminish the prehistory of the Horn of Africa because it competes with these other regions in this field, and knowing how most Europeans favour those other regions one can wonder without being accused of incivility what is going on? Dalhoa (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:, Assuming one's motivations with no evidence does seem highly innapropriate and in indeed uncivil. I may have not thus far have put that information in those other country/region pages mainly because I likely have not seen them or gotten to it yet (but I might later add some of that information to those other pages if and where it seems relevant). I put the information on this page first because I had just seen and removed it from the Cushitic page and this seemed like one place where it might be more relevant. That being said, I can see a case for removing the Irhoud section because it does not relate to the Horn or East African region, and I will remove it. The the other study however, is relevant the Horn of Africa (and to East Africa generally, including the Horn region) since it posits that AMH/ancestral AMH evolved partly from East African source populations, and should also remain, as without it the article would misleadingly state that AMH only evolved in 200-150kya when the current scholarly opinion is that AMH is somewhat older than that. I have de-emphasized the mention of South Africa in the section per relevance to the topic of this article (and given a somewhat greater emphasis to East Africa), but I can't remove the mention of South Africa entirely since it is also in the source. Skllagyook (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't assume without evidence I read what you added and inquired and checked around and found no reason for the addition or relevance to the prehistory of the Horn of Africa, so I reverted you but they rejected it. This page is about the Horn of Africa as the title clearly says, people do not come to this page to read about the humans origin or about AMH so cluttering it with other regions information was unnecessary and unwarranted specially when it was not compelling, I guess the recent Botswana hype overtook you :) in any case, your last changes seems more appropriate. Dalhoa (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:, It did not. The "Botswana" study (which is heavily disputed and has been criticized by many scholars) is a completely different study, and is not what I added.Skllagyook (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I know it's not what you added I was just being lighthearted and didn't want to say you're Eurocentric, all I am trying to say is you need to be more objective and balanced, if i came off as uncivil, i apologise. Dalhoa (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:, Understood. Skllagyook (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I have read what you posted on my page but will continue the convo here as it still relates to this topic. With all due respect, the changes you are making clearly favor a North African narrative, one does not have to be an anthropologist to notice that, for instance, in the Jebel Irhoud page, you and Nezahaulcoyotl were constantly relabelling Herto to try to fit him with Jebel Irhoud, everywhere you are making changes you're rewriting facts and data to fit in a North African narrative. The changes I made here are NOT fake they come directly from the academic paper you have yourself posted, instead of using a second opinion from a journalist to support a narrative I think we should use the academic paper. Dalhoa (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:, None of the changes I made on this page (that are still there) have anything at all to do with Irhoud or North Africa or any "North African narrative". There is nothing about North Africa there now. I never said the changes you made were fake, but they left out information that was in the preceding edit (before yours). The other source (the article) contains direct quotes from the scientists (Lahn and Mounier) interviewed for the source, where the scientists elaborate on their findings (which are in the excerpts I posted on your page), and so the information I used from it (based on those quotes, as well as the academic source) is not opinion from a journalist.

I also do not see how my labelling of Herto on the Irhoud page had anything to do with a "North African narrative" at all (which seems quite irrelevant to those edits). I preferred to describe Herto (as Chris Stringer in his 2016 study did) as an example of "modern Homo sapiens: (as opposed to where Stringer described Irhoud as an instance of a more "early" or "archaic" type of Homo sapiens). The other editor (Nezahaulcoyotl) seemed to prefer to label Herto as having both early and later Sapiens tendencies, but I thought this was not necessarily justified since Stringer seemed to think Herto had more in common with more clearly "derived" Sapiens specimens like Skhul/Qafzeh, the Aterians, and Omo I (if anything I was slightly more in favor of listing more prehistoric East African H. Sapiens specimens on that page). None of that has anything to do with a North African narrative. I have no interest whatsoever in any such narrative; I am interested in reflecting the sources. You seem to be interpreting a wide range of things as evidence of some "Irhoud obsession" in cases when there is no reason to do so. Skllagyook (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: This is what you added to the North Africa page and I quote: Recent finds in Jebel Irhoud in Morocco have been proven to contain older modern human remains then the ones found in the Horn of Africa. The reason you added that New york article and have chosen to quote it instead of the more authoritative academic paper was to support that Jebel Irhoud in Morocco narrative, we have to be objective and not be biased toward one region only. I don't know why you seem bothered by the fact that Herto and Kibish are recognised as AMH and not Jebel Irhoud, you can keep pushing your narrative with word plays, relabelling, dates pushback and all but it will not change the facts from an academic standpoint, even your academic paper says it clearly: This phase may have been followed by a period of fragmentation and differential expansion of populations leading to hybridisation and coalescence of groups, which could have resulted in the emergence of morphologically derived populations of anatomically modern humans between 200 to 100 ka, as exemplified by the fossils from Herto, Skhūl and Qafzeh. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to spread a narrative which you are still doing even though you said you "understood" my concern.Dalhoa (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:, I copied much of that material added to the North Africa page from another page, and that wording was not originally my own, but originally added by some one else. And I have just now modified it to be more neutral. I did not add the mention of new evidence from East Africa there because it would not have been relevant (just like we agreed that the mention of Irhoud was not relevant on this page). The New York article does not support any Irhoud narrative but instead (like the study) states that the Irhoud population likely died out and that living people instead descend from populations from East and South Africa. I do not see how this supports a North African narrative. I also would appreciate if you would not make assumptions about my beliefs and motivations. I am not "bothered" about anything except being rudely repeatedly accused of positions, agendas and obsessions (and emotions) that I do not hold. And now you are accusing me or "word plays" and "rebelling" and dishonesty.

The quote regarding the "emergence of morphologically derived populations of anatomically modern humans" "between 200 to 100" does not mean that the species H. sapiens originated then, but that more derived populations (more derived versions of H. sapiens with fewer archaic retentions) began then to become more evident in the fossil record (similar to Stringer's describing of more "modern vs "early" H. sapiens (though he classes them all as members of the H. sapiens species). Also, in Figs 2, 4, and 5 of the study, the "LCA" ("last common ancestor" of all living humans, which arose between 260-350,000 years ago, also discussed in the article) as well as the 259,000 year-old Florisbad specimen, are depicted in the plot graphs as being within the range of H. sapiens: either within the depicted range of "early H. sapiens" and/or overlapping with the range including groups of modern living peoples.

Also, Mounier (one of the authors of the study) explicitly is quoted (in the excerpts I posted on your page) on the NYT article as saying that the common ancestor (which lived between 260-350kya and originated from the merging of South and East African populations) was a modern human, though different from any population living today.

“More or less, it’s quite a modern human,” Dr. Mounier said of the skull. “But it doesn’t really correspond to any current population — it’s something different.”"

This source, with statements from the scientists themselves is a valid one.

Wikipedia has rules against the kind of incivility and hostility (which is what it is) you continue to demonstrate (including inapropriately personal comments and accusations, and unduly inflammatory terms like "pollution"), along with apparently accusing the user Nezahaulcoyotl of having a North African agenda as well. I have shown no such hostility toward you. And, again, I have no interest in any "narrative" as you say (nor do I have an "obsession" with North Africa; most of my edits on Wikipedia have had little to nothing - usually nothing - to do with North Africa at all, though many have related to Africa) And if it continues and you cannot engage civily I will seek arbitration. Skllagyook (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I am just trying to understand what is going on, you seem to be knowledgeable in this field and yet you add information that is biased, you can't blame the original author for it, you are editing everywhere, you could have edited it and wrote unbiased information but like you did in here you just repeated the misinformation. All I am saying is that your changes don't seem objective as per the facts from academia. In terms of Homo Sapiens Sapiens or AMH, Herto and Omo I are the oldest, in terms of archaic Homo Sapiens Jebel is oldest, you can't play with words and equate Jebel and Herto, even in Herto page you are trying to equate the two, you even added Jebel Irhoud to Anatomical mordernity when Jebel Irhoud is not even categorized as AMH in its own page. All I am saying is that you need to be objective and not be biased toward one region and its fossil finds and then rewrite everything for it and if you consider questioning your edits uncivil and rude when they are not fact based then so be it. I think you should remove Jebel Irhoud from the AMH section and I think a proper unbiased quote from the academic paper needs to be added here because it looks like you are deliberately conflating AMH with Jebel Irhoud to push back the AMH emergence date so that misinformation like this statement Recent finds in Jebel Irhoud in Morocco have been proven to contain older modern human remains then the ones found in the Horn of Africa. and others are added everywhere.

@Dalhoa:. "H. sapiens" is typically used to mean basically the same thing as AMH (as is explained on the Homo sapiens page) in the (broader) species sense (they are synonymous in that sense). In that sense Irhoud (and certain other early fossils, Florisbad even more so) is AMH (but of an early type). However, to some understandable confusion, a few researchers (like Stringer, and Lahr and Mounier) have attempted to distinguish between types of AMH/sapiens that are more early with some archaic retentions (an earlier, perhaps more primitive, form of AMH), and those that are more derived with fewer of those retentions (the latter Stringer called modern Homo sapiens, which is somewhat like saying "modern AHM" vs "early/archaic AMH" - early AMH nonetheless exhibit characteristics that distinguish our species from all other hominid species, such as Neanderthals, Denisova, Heidelbergensis, Rhodesiensis, or Erectus). As the Homo sapiens page explains under "Anatomical modernity: "The term "anatomically modern humans" (AMH) is used with varying scope depending on context, to distinguish "anatomically modern" Homo sapiens from archaic humans such as Neanderthals and Middle and Lower Paleolithic hominins with transitional features intermediate between H. erectus,"

My addition to that section of the Homo sapiens page (and, as far as I know, other additions of mine that mention Irhoud) explain that Irhoud was classified as "early H.sapiens" and describe it as such.

Also, you wrote: "even in Herto page you are trying to equate the two"

I was not. As I have explained, on the Irhoud page I was doing something closer to the opposite of that; I was mentioning the distinction Stringer had made between more derived/modern sapiens (like Herto, Omo I, and the Aterians) and more "early"-type sapiens (like Irhoud) - the page now (due, I believe to an edit by Nezahaulcoyotl) only contrasts Irhoud with the Aterians and Iberomaurusians, and no longer mentions Herto. Regarding the Herto (Homo sapiens idaltu) page, I do not recall ever mentioning Irhoud at all on there; there is no mention of Irhoud there, and I was the last to edit it 2 months ago.

Also, the North Africa page no longer reads as you have quoted above. As mentioned, I recently re-edited it for neutrality. It now reads: "Recent finds in Jebel Irhoud in Morocco have been found to contain some of the oldest Homo sapiens remains; This suggests that, rather than arising only in East Africa around 200,000 years ago, early Homo sapiens may already have been present across the length of Africa 100,000 years earlier." Skllagyook (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I am trying to understand why you seem determined to make Jebel Irhoud AMH when its finds are not even qualified as such in its own page, adding it to the AMH section seems inaccurate and misleading at best. I think we should be objective and not be biased toward a region and its fossils, the changes I made using direct quote from your academic paper are objective and unbiased and they should replace your text which from the getgo was meant to support a Jebel Irhoud narrative, I am not accusing you of anything I am just stating my opinion. Dalhoa (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:, My addition to this page has nothing to do with Irhoud or an Irhoud narrative and I do not understand why you keep repeating this. The study (and my addition based on it) gives primacy (in terms of H. sapiens/AMH origins) to South and East Africa, not North Africa, and Irhoud and North Africa are not mentioned on this page anywhere (except that I have now added to the page the finding that the study considers Irhoud not to be ancestral to living people). As explained (I believe I have addressed this in my last response), "AMH" is a broader term, which in most contexts refers to the species H. sapiens, not only to the more derived types (and the flexibility of the term is already explained at the top of the "Anatomical modernity" section of the H. sapiens article). And anyway, as mentioned, on the Homo sapiens page under "Anatomical modernity" Irhoud is described as "early H. sapiens" (not as "modern humans" or "AMH", to be specific and avoid confusion). Hublin (2017) described them simply as "Homo sapiens".

You wrote: "if you consider questioning your edits uncivil and rude when they are not fact based then so be it."

That is not what I said at all. Please do not mischaracterize what I have written. There is nothing wrong with questioning my (or another's) edits. What is uncivil and rude is persistently making assumptions about another editor's personal motivations and accusing them of strange political or nationalistic (or whatever) agendas based on no evidence (other than disagreement), in an aggressive and unjustifiedly/unduly combative manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility

I have only been polite and civil in this exchange with you in my attempts to explain my reasoning, and your combative and inflammatory responses are not appropriate.

You say you are not accusing me of anything, yet have just written this (one of the same unfounded and inflammatory accusations again, assuming my motivations): "and they should replace your text which from the getgo was meant to support a Jebel Irhoud narrative"

I'm not sure what to say at this point. This is becoming frustrating. Skllagyook (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You added fossils that were never qualified as AMH to a section where it clearly says to distinguish "anatomically modern" Homo sapiens and if I question that I am considered combative with inflammatory responses that are not appropriate? I don't get that logical of yours, are you saying nobody can question your edits and disagree with you? The Jebel Irhoud fossils have to be first qualified as AMH to be listed in that section and calling them early Homo Sapiens does not make them early AMH like Herto same with the Florisbad Skull. Adding these fossils to the AMH section seems misleading and revisionist. I think you should stick to the facts, these two paraphrases should be removed from that section Wikipedia has to be neutral and not used to spread a narrative. Dalhoa (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: Due to the contentious/controversial nature of Irhoud's precise classification within H. sapiens, I have now removed the part mentioning Irhoud (and Florisbad) from the "Anatomical modernity" section of the Homo sapiens page. They are now mentioned only in other areas of that page that pertain to Homo sapiens in general. Skllagyook (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I think that changes reflect more the facts as per the Jebel Irhoud finds, I have also removed the other section as it is more appropriate in the Homo Sapiens page and not be cluttered here. Dalhoa (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Is there a reason why you want to keep the New York times article quote section in the Horn Africa page? You already have that section in the main Homo Sapiens page under the AMH. Is there any reason why you want a duplicate in the Horn Africa page? I am just trying to understand. Dalhoa (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: Because it is relevant to the origin of H. sapiens in East Africa (which includes the Horn, a large area of East Africa) — or partly in East Africa as the case may be — (which is what it posits). There is no rule against having the same or similar content on more than one page (if it is relevant on each of them). It is also in the East Africa page (under the relevant "prehistory" section). On this page, I also removed the section mentioning the authors' hypothesis on Irhoud, because even in that form it seemed an undue detail (not relating to East Africa or the Horn of Africa). Skllagyook (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Are you going to add it to all the East Africa regions and all the pages that refer to the origin of H.sapiens? The Horn of Africa page should be a page that reflects the prehistory of the Horn of Africa region, if we had to add everything related to the East Africa region to the Horn Africa region just because it is a sub region it would not make any sense. East Africa has it own page and H.sapiens has it own page, so I am wondering why would you want to keep it in the Horn Africa page when you have not added to the Southern Africa region or even South Africa, is there any other reason you are not telling me? or should I not ask that question too because it's uncivil and inappropriate? Dalhoa (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: You don't need to be snide. I never said (or indicated) that asking questions was uncivil or inappropriate and I think you know that (If it's not clear to you why assumptions about another editor's motivations and emotional states, personal comments, inflammatory accusations, and combativeness out of nowhere are uncivil and inappropriate, I don't know what to say). There are not (as are as I know) pages on other large regions of East Africa (other than the Horn of Africa page), only pages on individual countries (and I am not going to add it to them — if there are pages on other East African regions, I may add it to them if it seems relevant). The Horn is a large region of East Africa and the addition concerns the latest research on origin of H. sapiens, which is touched upon earlier in the prehistory section of this page. As mentioned, to mention only the earlier finds would be somewhat misleading when many researchers now believe that H. Sapiens emerged earlier (than they previously did) based on new evidence.

Edit: Apparently there is a page on at least one other East African region, Southeast Africa, and I have added it there, as well as to the Southern Africa page (both pages had had little attention and don't have much content, but do exist). Skllagyook (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I think your whole editing of the Horn of Africa is not in good faith, editors have to come to a consensus for changes to apply and I am not in agreement with your changes, therefore I request the Horn of Africa page be returned to the way it was before your changes.Dalhoa (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I have made compromises, and explained my reasoning for the changes that I wish to keep (as I have recently). And I do not understand your problem with my reasoning, nor the reasons for your continual accusations (which you have never justified). I have engaged with your points and acted in good faith (and, as mentioned, made compromises) and your accusations to the contrary (such as the latest one), yet again attacking me and impugning my motivations for editing, are honestly offensive and hurtful, and most of all very frustrating and confusing (One does not attack another's editor's motives and character because one disagrees with them or their edits. I have never done that with you or anyone else on Wikipedia). If an edit of mine is shown to be wrong I will change it, as I have previously done. The solution when two editors cannot agree is not simply to return the page to the way one editor wants it, but to seek arbitration from a neutral third party, which it seems, is what I will have to do. Skllagyook (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I think from the getgo you wanted to spread a narrative, the changes you made were because I pointed to you how biased they were not because you deemed them as such and for pointing that out you called me all kinds of names. I believe Wikipedia should not be a place to spread a biased, non-factual narrative. The Horn of Africa page is about the prehistory of the Horn of Africa region but you want to spread the narrative that Jebel Irhoud is the oldest AMH and you are constructing your edits around that, this is totally unacceptable. I think you should be objective and fact oriented and not be biased toward a region which unfortunately is not the case here. Like I said before, the Horn of Africa is not about the AMH or the origin of H.sapiens, it is about the prehistory of the Horn of Africa and you are deliberately undermining its prehistory with false facts because it competes with North Africa. Dalhoa (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I never did any of that. From the get go I wanted to add relevant and up-to-date information on the origin of Homo sapiens. That is all. The edit does not say Irhoud is the oldest, as I have explained repeatedly (and I do not particularly care whether it is the oldest or not — even my old edit did not say that since it included research proposing that the earliest H. sapiens likely came from East and South Africa rather than Irhoud). I cannot understand why you keep accusing me of that. And I never called you names. I criticized your way of addressing me and the disagreement, not the fact that you disagreed with my content or points (I never said or implied that there was anything wrong with disagreeing with me or any other editor. There is not), and I never attacked you personally or impugned your motives (I cannot know what your motives are and it is not my place to speculate, nor relevant on Wikipedia). This is getting ridiculous. You are continuously attacking me and nothing I do seems to help. I have put in a request for dispute. resolution. Hopefully that will help this situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Horn_of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession Skllagyook (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: How were you adding up-to-date information from the get go? You are still adding outdated information in the background as we talk in here, how good faith is that? You added a Stringer comment to the Horn of Africa that is from a 2003 source while his recent source classifies Herto as anatomically modern. Like I said, from the get go you had a narrative and you are still spreading it. Wikipedia is about non biased information and your changes in the Horn of Africa are biased and not in good faith. Dalhoa (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I did not add a Stringer comment to the article (I have not added any Stringer source to this article at all anywhere) I mentioned his study on this talk page when we were discussing the Irhoud page (which uses him as a source). And the Stringer source is from 2016, not 2003 (I mentioned that also here and never used a Stringer source from 2003). I know his 2016 source classified Herto as anatomically modern; I just earlier explained that in an earlier reply describing how I had favored that characterization of the of Herto (as modern Homo sapiens) to be on the Irhoud page. Please read what I write so that you do not mischaracterize it. This is going nowhere and becoming exhausting. I think it is best to wait for a third party to help mediate this situation (as I requested). Skllagyook (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Wasn't this your changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horn_of_Africa&type=revision&diff=926247001&oldid=926246388

I am not making things up as you keep repeating I am just reading your edits but for some reason you don't want me to have an opinion of your edits and are calling me names for even raising the issue. This is very perplexing to me. Dalhoa (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: My mistake (regarding the Stringer addition). I had forgotten about that edit. And you seemed to think that I was using Stringer to say that Herto was not anatomically modern (when I was doing the opposite), so that also confused me. I had meant to use the 2016 Stringer source instead (which also says that Herto is not different enough from modern people to need its own subspecies designation) and used 2003 by mistake (that is now corrected). I assumed the ref I was adding was Stringer 2016 (I copied it from another page with the 2016 ref and copy/pasted the wrong one by mistake. I have replaced the 2003 ref with the 2016 one. And at any rate, my edit, and the Stringer (2016) source, both say that Herto is anatomically modern (just as modern people are, instead of belonging to a different subspecies), which I think you agree with, so I am not sure what about my adding the information from it you object to. Skllagyook (talk)

@Dalhoa: I did not say I did not want you to have an opinion. That is not true There is nothing wrong with criticizing me or having an opinion. I have never said that there is. I never called you names for raising any issue or at all for any other reason. That is not accurate. You have been making assumptions about agendas, ideologies, narratives and personal motives, and telling me what my intentions were and what my narratives are and making accusations. Do you understand how that is different from criticism of arguments or edits? It clearly is not the same thing, I have explained that many times. In your first comments out of the gate you accused me of having some kind of partisan agenda related to nationalism or favoring certain regions of the world and wanting to diminish others (or something similar) and continued to maintain those accusations (claiming to know what my ideology and worldview was from a Wikipedia edit). That is not the same thing as criticizing edits or arguments on their merits, but far from it. Again, this is going nowhere, and it is best to wait for the third party to help determine the merits of our respective cases. Skllagyook (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I think you should let the Horn of Africa page go back to its state before your changes. Dalhoa (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I know you think that and I have explained why I do not agree. We are now waiting for a third party (what they decide, rather than what either of us want, may determine what happens to the page). Skllagyook (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You seem confident like you already know the outcome, in any case, my intention was not to oppose any changes my intention was simply to request you add objective and unbiased changes, whatever the outcome you should strive to make objective changes throughout Wikipedia.Dalhoa (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I do not know the outcome and I am not particularly confident one way or the other. Whatever happens will probably be determined by the third party (if I understand how it works). Skllagyook (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I am going to try this one more time (to see if this can be resolved without a third party). What are you so against the inclusion of one brief sentence about the possible origin of H. sapiens partly in East Africa before Herto and Omo? (Much earlier in this discussion you did not seem to be against it.) It has nothing to do with Irhoud or North Africa (and I am not proposing adding that), and please do not accuse me of any personal agendas or political narratives. As mentioned before, it seems to me that to mention only the earlier finds would be somewhat misleading when many researchers now believe that H. Sapiens emerged earlier (than they previously believed) based on new evidence. Without the new addition, the section regarding H. sapiens origins would simply state: "According to both genetic and fossil evidence, it has been theorized that archaic humans evolved into anatomically modern humans in the Horn of Africa around 200,000 years ago". The "Anatomically modern humans" link (as usual) links to the "Homo sapiens page and this is no longer believed that H. sapiens began 200kya only in the Horn of Africa. I added the additionally initially to the Horn article, not because I had some secret agenda to "diminish" the history of the region (I have never remotely wanted to do that), but partly because the Horn article discussed possible H. sapiens origins, while articles on other regions of Africa generally did not (though, in part to demonstrate that I am consistent, I have added some of the same information to other regionally relevant articles as well like the Southeast Africa and Southern Africa articles). What is the harm in adding the brief mention of the research that suggests that H. sapiens emerged earlier and in a somewhat wider range of Africa (which included East Africa and probably included the general Horn region — it's not as though I am currently proposing keeping the Irhoud material, which never mentioned East Africa at all). The fact that there is evidence of earlier H. sapiens is relevant on a page discussing the origins of H. sapiens and I believe (whether it be Irhoud or the Mounier and Lahr study) it should be mentioned even if briefly. I genuinely hope it is still possible to resolve this. Skllagyook (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: Edit: (If this is resolved I will attempt to cancel the third party request, if possible.) Skllagyook (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: In part due to the long, drawn-out and acrimonious nature of this dispute, I am going to remove the section that you want removed. It does not seem worth the long and and unbeneficial exchange that has been going on. I still do not agree with your preferred change (nor really understand your objection), but I feel that it is better to end this conflict, since it is over a relatively minor issue (and the addition is present on other relevant pages./articles), rather than involving a third party. Though I am removing my addition, I would like, and think it is best, to make a very minor edit to the remaining material at the beginning of the "Prehistory" section (from " around 200kya" to "by around 200kya) to leave the summary open to/not excluding the existence of evidence of H. sapiens earlier than that date (as is supported by the recent evidence, which you are insistent not be included.) Also, the part about the exit of AMH through the Bab el Mandeb should remain, since it directly relates to the Horn of Africa and its history and its role in the colonization of Eurasia by H. sapiens/AMH (and it was not originally added by me). Skllagyook (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Your changes are not in good faith, your are mixing deliberately the fossils and spreading inaccurate and erroneous information around. The only reason you wanted to keep that section is because the article mentions Morocco and the dating coincides with your Jebel Irhoud dates, you were not adding it to mention East Africa and South Africa coalescence, the quote I added from your academic paper mentions coalescence of South and East-African source populations but you are not interested in that, it is basically the same reason you have added the Florisbad Skull alongside Jebel Irhoud in the AMH section, I highly doubt you would have added Florisbad Skull only. You want to rewrite the prehistory of AMH fossils which is a revisionist act, you cannot do that, Jebel and Florisbad are different fossils from Herto and Omo I, you cannot spreading false information by playing with words and terms, what you are doing is not in good faith. I think you should stop spreading misinformation and go only with what the academic sources like many others report, your own source states that, the emergence of morphologically derived populations of anatomically modern humans between 200 to 100 ka so adding words like "theorized" and Jebel Irhoud narratives to the Horn Africa is clearly biased, even your addition of Chris Stringer was not in good faith, he considers Herto AMH which is distinct within the H.sapiens and infidelity distinct from Jebel Irhoud and Florisbad which you are rewriting prehistory for and relabelled them AMH when that is not how they are qualified. The Horn of Africa page is not about AMH or H.sapiens, it is about the prehistory of the Horn of Africa, there is nothing on that page that is in any shape or form demeaning to Jebel Ihroud, therefore there is no reason for your changes specially when those changes can be added to other pages where they are more appropriate, and your insistence on them being added to the Horn of Africa page also speaks loudly that you are not doing this in good faith. Dalhoa (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: Your accusations are baseless and simply not correct. I explained my reasoning and explained the edits that you objected to or thought were in bad faith as best I could. If you dissagree that is fine, but it is not apropriate to simply assume ill will as you did initially from the very beginning of this discussion/dispute. I will again ask you to please stop making accisations. I do not have any special fixation on Irhoud that you imagine I do, and the Lahr and Mounier study does not propose Irhoud (or North Africa) as the first Sapiens or as ancestral to modern people (and Lahr and Mounier is the study I most favored keeping on this page, not the Irhoud material). I added the Florisbad addition to the other page because it is believed to be a case of early sapiens and thus is relevant. That is all. I did not have to add it, and it does not bolster any North African narrative (it could have even been argued by some to suport a Southern African origin hypothesis for sapiens, since Florisbad has been said to have fewer archaic-like retentions than Irhoud/it been said to be more modern-like, but a Southern African origin hypothesis would not seem to be entirely/fully true either if at all). I have done what you wanted and I will ask you again to please stop personally attacking me and assuming you know what my personal beliefs and supposed agendas are. I explained my reasons and they are not what you are or were assuming. You should not assume to know another editor's reasons for editing. This conflict/dispute is (hopefully) over. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: When many places in Wikipedia promote the Morocco fossils like you were doing there is clearly a bias toward those fossils and so I don't need to accuse you of anything, the evidence is all over the place. I think you should leave the Horn Africa page as it was, there are already many places for the Jebel Irhoud narrative. If you feel the page isn't talking about H.sapiens and that somehow takes away from Jebel Irhoud then by all means add Jebel Irhoud to other places. The Horn of Africa is the only place in the whole Wikipedia sphere where the fact is accurate in every other places in Wikipedia they are spreading your Jebel Irhoud narrative even in Ethiopia's own page, here is the quote Homo sapiens fossils excavated at the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco have since been dated to an earlier period, about 300,000 years ago. I think other regions should be permitted to cite their own fossils without being harassed or inaccurate information spread on their pages to diminish their prehistory in favor of other regions. Dalhoa (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:My issue was not that it took away from Irhoud. What I most (and most lately/for longest) was in favor of was adding information based on evidence for early Sapiens in East Africa and South Africa. But the page is now back to the way it was, so hopefully this conflict is now over. Skllagyook (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Your issue is the quote you keep adding around the Out of Africa word and it says a lot. I think you should return the Horn of Africa page to its original state before any of your changes. Dalhoa (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:I am fairly sure I was not the one who added the quotes And I would guess that they were there to express that that is the name commonly used to refer to the theory, not to cast doubt on the theory. But I have removed them anyway. Skllagyook (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I have removed Stringer, he already qualified Herto and Omo as AMH, I also removed some redundant words. Dalhoa (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:I added back Stringer 2016. He doesn't consider Herto or Omo a to be a separate subspecies. The source says of Idaltu: "Its modernity was reaffirmed in metrical studies.....However, the addition of the subspecific nomen idaltu does not seem justified." He does not agree that Idaltu/Herto should be considered a different subspecies from modern people (the idea that Herto is H. sapiens Idaltu and modern people are H. sapiens sapiens. He considers them not distinct enough to warrant that - He had stated this in both his 2002 and his 2016 studies). Of Omo 1, he says that it is evidently modern H. sapiens, and also classifies Omo 2 as modern H. sapiens but "tentatively" (with less certainty). Also from Stringer 2016: "It is evident that Omo 1 can be assigned to modern H. sapiens from the preserved parts, but Omo 2 can only be tentatively placed in the clade through the apomorphy of supraorbital reduction." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920294/ Skllagyook (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the term Homo sapiens idaltu, it was classified as such, it has a Wikipedia page and the term is in academia, you did not add Stringer because you disagreed with the scientific classification of Herto as Homo sapiens idaltu, you added Stringer because you want to reclassify Herto as H.Sapiens along the line of your Jebel Irhoud fossils and it is probably the reason why you have added his 2003 source in the first place. I am not sure but I think you added that Stringer line when you removed Jebel Irhoud from the AMH section. So basically since you cannot classify Jebel Irhoud as AMH you want to reclassify Herto as H.Sapiens. I think what you are doing is inaccurate and misleading. Dalhoa (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|User:Dalhoa} This is getting ridiculous. This has nothing to do with Irhoud and that should be clear. I cannot see how this isssue connects to Irhoud at all. Regarding Herto, there is a difference of opinion among researchers regarding the proper classification of Idaltu (also known as Herto). Stringer does not believe that it (or Omo) merits its own subspecies classification (though some other researchers disagree with him) and I provided quotes from his 2016 studyclearly showing this (not all researchers agree with the idaltu designation; Stringer is one who does not). It is sourced material and there is no reason to revert it. It you revert it again or begin to edit war I may have to report you. Skllagyook (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You have added Jebel Irhoud as AMH when the fossils were not classified as such, in doing so you were misleading and misinforming the users on purpose. Stringer in 2016 reclassified Herto and Omo as AMH not H.sapiens as you are implying here, you are deliberately using his 2003 term to mislead and misinform the users on purpose again. I think you should stop your Jebel Irhoud crusade, it is biased, inaccurate, and misleading. Wikipedia should be a place for accurate and unbiased information. I think for changes to apply editors have to agree, and I do not agree with your biased and misleading information, and as such it should be removed if there is no agreement. Dalhoa (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: The study I quoted from was Stringer's 2016 study. He classified Herto and Omo as H. sapiens and also specifically as AMH and as modern H. sapiens (sharing the same species as modern people and also not different enough from them to warrant a separate subspecies designation. I can add to the article that he also considers them modern humans to make it clearer. Skllagyook (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: If you don't like the term subspecies then you can remove it and then there will be no need to clutter the page with Stringer. The text will still be readable The recognition of Homo sapiens idaltu and Omo Kibish as anatomically modern humans would justify the description of contemporary humans with the name Homo sapiens sapiens Dalhoa (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: That text implies that idaltu and contemporary humans belong to different subspecies, which Stringer disagrees with. It is fine to include that opinion, but Stringer's differing opinion should also be included. One sentence, especially when it is relevant to the topic (Herto and Omo and their classification), is hardly clutter. Skllagyook (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: There is no need to clutter the section with Stringer once the word subspecies is removed, and Stringer is already cited in the Homo sapiens idaltu and the AMH section it is not like you are adding new information.Dalhoa (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: As explained, the text you quoted above is only true if Herto and contemporary humans belong to different subspecies, which sone researchers have proposed/ belive, but which others (like Stringer) do not believe. The fact that it s on other pages where it is relevant does not mean it should not also be on another page (like this one) if it is relevant and useful information here. There is not, as far as I know, any rule or guideline that says that relevant information cannot be on more than one page. It is not clutter. It is useful information. Skllagyook (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I think Stringer should stay in the Homo sapiens idaltu and the AMH section where it is more appropriate and should not be clutter here, the Horn of Africa page is not about the origin of H.Sapiens, it is also disingenuous to only cite Stringer when others like Clark J.D., Beyene Y., WoldeGabriel G., Hart W., Renne P., Gilbert H. White T.D., Asfaw B., DeGusta D., Gilbert H., Richards G.D. consider idaltu its own subspecies. In any case, I do not agree with the addition of Stringer to clutter the page and as such should be kept in Homo sapiens idaltu page and AMH section. Dalhoa (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: It is not clutter or disingenuous to represent both views (as both are represented now): that Herto is its own subspecies and that it is not its own subspecies. To only represent one would in fact be biased. I can avoid mentioning Stringer by name and perhaps write something like: "scientists agree that Herto represents Homo sapiens or anatomically modern humans, but differ regarding whether or it warrants its own subspecies (as H s. Idaltu in contrast to the membership of contemporary people in H. s. sapiens), or is not distinct enough to warrant its own subspecies designation." Also, if you are going to say that all of those researchers classify Herto as its own subspecies, it might be best (even on the Talk page) to provide sources (though I would imagine that at least some of them do). Skllagyook (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Again, the Horn of Africa is not about the origin of AMH or H.sapiens, there is no need to clutter the page as there is nothing erroneous on the page. Herto is classified as H.s.idaltu by many scientists, Stringer says no it's H.s.sapiens. Both classifications are listed on the page so there is nothing controversial, I think what you want is to reclassify Herto as H.sapiens along the lines of your Jebel Irhoud fossils. I think you should be objective and not be biased towards any fossils. Dalhoa (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I do not understand what you are saying. Including Stringer's opinion is not classifying Herto along the same lines as Irhoud, since Stringer classifies Herto and Irhoud differently (the first as modern H. sapiens and the second as early H. sapiens). If it is mentioned that some researchers consider Herto a separate subspecies, it should also be mentioned (briefly, as it is) that some researchers do not. I do not understand you resistance to that. Without the brief addition that cites Stringer, only one view (the first) would be represented, and that would be misleading. Skllagyook (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I my opinion there is no need for a Stringer addition here, his classification of Herto as H.s.sapiens and AMH are both represented here. Dalhoa (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I do not belive that is the case. The only part that challenges the chatacterization of Herto as a different subspecies is the Stringer addition. Other parts describe it as H. sapiens and AMH but none of that contadicts the idea that it is of a different subspecies (though the same species) as contemporary humans. Skllagyook (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I think this would be fine: Though Chris Stringer does not consider idaltu distinct enough within H. sapiens to warrant its own subspecies designation and instead classify him simply as H. sapiens. He also considers the date of origin of H. sapiens has changed in the face of new discoveries and dating work and is now often placed at about 200 ka, with the generally accepted first appearance of ‘anatomically modern humans’ (that is to say fossils that predominantly share the skeletal morphology of extant humans) in the form of the Omo Kibish 1 skeleton and the somewhat younger Herto material.Dalhoa (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I'm not sure how Stringer's views in 2016 on the date of the origin of H. sapiens are relevant to that section, but the study is from 2016 (if it says that its views on the date of H. sapiens are no longer current) and Stringer's views on the origin date of H. sapiens are likely to have changed. More recently the origin of H. sapiens (early H. sapiens) has been dated to about 300 ka or 350-260 ka (no longer 200 ka). This is not only due to Irhoud, but also the classification of Florisbad (and a certain Kenyan fossil) and the recent work of Lahr and Mounier (discussed earlier). Skllagyook (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You wanted a Stringer classification of Herto as H.sapiens, there you have it. Dalhoa (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I do not understand why you keep deleting the addition that mentions that some research does not classify Herto as a separate subspecies. It is a position held by some academics and is correctly sourced. It should be included. You edit without it is one-sided. You reply above seemed to imply that you were fine with including Stringer 2016. I have explained the reason forbincluding it repeatedly and you seem not to understand. What is the problem. You cannot just keep ignoring the reasoning and deleting. I really hoped this long confict was over. I would rather not seek administrative intervention but I fear I might soon have to. Skllagyook (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You cannot force your content when there is no agreement. I proposed a Stringer compromise quote but you rejected it. This is the second compromise quote I proposed to you that you have dismissed. What you want is to cherry pick the Stringer view that fits your Jebel Irhoud narrative. I think at this point anything I propose will not fit your narrative. Therefore, if editors cannot agree on a content, it should not be added. I will also remind you that your threads and other means of harassment have no place in Wikipedia. Dalhoa (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: Mentioning what Stringer says about Herto is not an "Irhoud agenda". That is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with Irhoud (not everything is about Irhoud). I will ask you again, as I have before, to please stop with the personal attacks and accusations. And I have never harassed you. The addition is not cherry picked; it is simply Stringer's position (he expressed it in both his recent 2016 study and his old 2003 study — he never says the opposite so it does not make sense to describe it as cherry picked; it his position and he is a reliable source — what is the problem?), I have quoted it to you here (and it is relevant to the topic, and i cannot figure out what your objection is. You did seem to approved the addition in a recent reply. When I again proposed and explained my reason for wanting it, you wrote in response: "I think this would be fine: Though Chris Stringer does not consider idaltu distinct enough within H. sapiens to warrant its own subspecies designation and instead classify him simply as H. sapiens."

And yet you then deleted the addition, and said you never agreed to it (I had also tried to make it more concise in response to your complaint that it was "clutter"). Your responses are inconsistent and you have ignored my explanations and quotes from the source (now calling it cherry picking). And you refuse to stop making accusations and personal attacks. I am sorry but I am going to have to report you and this situation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Skllagyook (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You are deliberately misquoting me, you have a habit of misquoting, mislabelling and misinterpreting facts to suit your view, it is very disconcerting. This is the compromise quote I added above:

Chris Stringer does not consider idaltu distinct enough within H. sapiens to warrant its own subspecies designation and instead classify him simply as H. sapiens. He also considers the date of origin of H. sapiens has changed in the face of new discoveries and dating work and is now often placed at about 200 ka, with the generally accepted first appearance of ‘anatomically modern humans’ (that is to say fossils that predominantly share the skeletal morphology of extant humans) in the form of the Omo Kibish 1 skeleton and the somewhat younger Herto material.

You cherry picked my quote just like you are cherry picking everything to suit your narrative. I believe you are not adding your edits in good faith, from the get go your edits were biased and one way leaning, you are misrepresenting facts and findings and rewriting fossil classifications to suit your own view of the origin of H.sapiens to align them with your Jebel Irhoud fossils. Wikipedia is about compromised and consensus, what you want however is your own interpretation of the origin of H.sapiens which in my view is biased, misleading and at best revisionist. If you are throwing temper tantrum because you only want your selective view of Stringer than we will never agree. Stringer believes H.sapiens origin is 200ka, you say others disagree with him, but others also disagree with him on Herto yet you are unwilling to accept that fact. If you want to turn Stringer into a Holy grail then you have to accept his H.sapiens origin date too. I believe you should stop with your Jebel Ihroud crusade, the fossils are classified as archaic H.sapiens, you can keep calling them early H.sapiens and even continue to purposely conflate and mislabel them as AMH, the fact will remain that they will still be considered different species from Herto and AMHs. I think you should stick with the facts and not spread you own views of the facts which in my opinion are biased and misleading. Dalhoa (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: Why do you object to me adding that Chris Stringer does not consider idaltu distinct enough within H. sapiens to warrant its own subspecies designation? You have not explained this. Even if Stringer had thought that H. sapiens was only 200,000 years years old in 2016, other more recent scientific research has updated that view (the 200 kya origin of H. sapiens is no longer scientific consensus; it is now believed that H. sapiens, at least in an early form, began about 300,000 years ago. Stringer's 2016 study was written before the recent re-dating of Irhoud in 2017 to about 300,000 years old (which Stringer also classified as H. sapiens but believed was only about 130-190,000 years old at the time). And I have not seen you produce a quote from Stringer supporting the claim that he thought H, sapiens began at 200kya. He also classified Florisbad as a member of the species H. sapiens (of an early type), and Florisbad is about 259,000 years old. But (unlike the issue of the origin of H. sapiens) there is not new research (as far as I know) contradicting Stringer's classification of Herto (in the sense of changing an earlier consensus). There are some researchers who disagree with his classification of Herto (or have disagreed in the past), but (again) their view is already included in the article (the idea that it belongs to a different subspecies form contemporary people is included and I do not object to it being included and have never argued that it should not be. I do not know where you get the idea that I am unwilling to accept that fact, since I have repeatedly said that both view of Herto should be represented , (both views, not only Stringer's view). Regarding H. sapiens, Stringer in 2016 wrote:

"Thus, it is likely that the African fossil record will document early members of the sapiens lineage showing only some of the derived features of late members of the lineage. On that basis, I argue that human fossils such as those from Jebel Irhoud, Florisbad, Eliye Springs and Omo Kibish 2 do represent early members of the species." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920294/ Skllagyook (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook:

Your Question: Why do you object to me adding that Chris Stringer does not consider idaltu distinct enough within H. sapiens to warrant its own subspecies designation? You have not explained this.

What you want to add:

While some researchers, such as Chris Stringer, do not consider Idaltu or Omo distinct enough within H. sapiens to warrant its their own subspecies designations, and instead classify them, together with living humans, simply as modern humans or modern H. sapiens.

What I want to add:

Chris Stringer does not consider idaltu distinct enough within H. sapiens to warrant its own subspecies designation and instead classify him simply as H. sapiens. He also considers the date of origin of H. sapiens has changed in the face of new discoveries and dating work and is now often placed at about 200 ka, with the generally accepted first appearance of ‘anatomically modern humans’ (that is to say fossils that predominantly share the skeletal morphology of extant humans) in the form of the Omo Kibish 1 skeleton and the somewhat younger Herto material.

Now Sir, please explain to me how I am supposed to interpret your question. This to me clearly you are not either reading facts or either not understanding them, I am just baffled. I don't know why you asked that question when I already conceded that to you, maybe you want to create a narrative here too.

In any case I think at this point it is clear to me you are not interesting in any compromise, it is unfortunate and very tiring to keep at this, your intention are clear and in my opinion they are misleading, inaccurate and revisionist. Wikipedia should be a place for facts based science and not narrative based views. Dalhoa (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: To state that the origin of H. sapiens is now placed at 200 ka in the face of new discoveries would be misleading and innacurate (even if Stringer did say that in 2016, which you have not shown a quote demonstrating) given that more recent research places it at ca. 300 ka. Everything else on this page mentioning H. sapiens earlier than the period of Herto and Omo has already been removed (at your insistence), which I compromised on). It simply does not make sense to now add a statement on the (currently) estimated date of origin of H. sapiens that is outright misleading and does not account for the more recent research. Skllagyook (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Since we cannot agree then it's best to stay neutral, you still have Stringer in H.s.idaltu and H.sapiens page. I think this should be the compromise. Dalhoa (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: What should the compromise be? Removing Stringer alltogether would be misrepresentative and one-sided. Adding the part about Stinger saying H. sapiens began in 200 ka (which I cannot find in Stringer's 2016 study, and which, if it is there, is outdated anyway) would be very misleading (and also would add significantly more "clutter", as you put it, than my shorter addition). Neither of those changes would be neutral. I believe my proposed edit is neutral, as it would allow the page to include both views regarding the Herto classification (I am, of course, open to re-phrasing it, without significantly changing its content). The date of H. sapien's origin is a separate one (which should be based on the most recent research if it is included at all). Or are you referring to another compromise (If so, what compromise?)? Skllagyook (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: The Stringer quote I added is from your Stringer academic source, if you are saying you cannot find it I don't know what to tell you, you are editing Wikipedia all over the place, if you're adding content from sources you haven't read it is very unethical to say the least, also dismissing Stringer quote by saying it is outdated anyway is very childish and unbecoming. You're mixing and mashing things up, H.sapiens is a abroad term, it was the Jebel Irhoud archaic H.sapiens that was dated to 300ka and still is, Stringer date is conform to the modern H.sapiens/AMH of Herto and Omo I date of 200ka so dismissing him in such baseless act is disturbing. Since we cannot agree Stringer stays at H.s.idaltu and H.sapiens and I would also encourage you to added his H.sapiens date of 200ka there. Dalhoa (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: You seem to be missing the piont, which I will try to explain again below. Also, you did not provide a quote from Stringer saying that, just a proposed addition written by you claiming he said that. And, again, the Irhoud specimens (which he clearly said belonged to the species sapiens) were re-dated by Hublin in 2017 after Stringer's study (in 2016 Stringer thought the Irhoud fossils were from before 200 ka, but he also said the 259 ka Florisbad was early sapiens). That is one reason why relying on Stringer as the latest word on the date of H. sapiens' origin is misleading, in addition to later sources like the 2019 opinions of Lahr and Mounier (which has been discussed) Yes, H. sapiens is a somewhat abroad term (with vaiations within it), and to say that the species H. sapiens began in 200 ka is not what the most recent research says. From what I can tell, what Stringer said was that the more modern (derived) type of H. sapiens dated to 200 ka (as represented by Herto, Omo, Skhul/Quafzeh, and most of the Aterian specimens), not that the species H. sapiens in general as a whole originated only at that time.

I am not asking to re-add the material summarizing the Irhoud findings or the Lahr and Mounier study (since you insist it is not relevant to the Horn of Africa). But it is simply not honest to add the statement that the species H. sapiens is only 200,000 years old based on the latest research, when that is simply not correct. Skllagyook (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Again you are conflating things on purposes, there is absolutely nothing wrong or invalid in the Horn of Africa page. The timing, the mention of AMH, the mention of idaltu and Omo, it is all substantiated and supported and there is nothing misleading about it, what is misleading on the other hand is you wanting to use a broad term to encompass all the different classification of H.sapiens and then go around and claim Jebel Irhoud is the oldest. The Horn of Africa content is conform to the experts acknowledgement that modern H.sapiens/AMH are dated to 200ka period. I will stop here, i wish you a good day sir. Dalhoa (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I am not conflating anything. Please read what I wrote again. I wrote: "...what Stringer said was that the more modern (derived) type of H. sapiens dated to 200 ka (as represented by Herto, Omo, Skhul/Quafzeh, and most of the Aterian specimens), not that the species H. sapiens in general as a whole originated only at that time." (and, as mentioned, more recent research supports the origin of the species H. sapiens, at least the early or archaic version, significantly before 200 ka). Again, I am not (as you seem to be implying I am) trying at this point to add anything to this page mentioning earlier H. sapiens (like Irhoud, Florisbad, or the projected Last Common Ancestor from Lahr and Mounier). But an addition that claims that H. sapiens (that is, H. sapiens in general) originated in 200 ka is not what the current research says. Skllagyook (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Can you please tell me if there are any Editors/Administrators doing editings in the background? I have reverted an edit by user Lutzv who has added a URL to the Counsel on Foreign Relations which is a Political organisation. I reverted the edit because the link did not mention anything about the Horn of Africa being shortened as HOA and I also made sure to mention that it was a media outlet but the URL has been changed to a "Reference" and the original link user Lutzv added has been removed, and my edit put on pending even though it was accepted. Are there people with political agenda doing editings in the background we do not know about? Dalhoa (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The article was put under Pending changes protection level on January 30, 2019, until January 30, 2020.. You may click on the link to see what that means. But it mostly means that there were enough disruptive edits back in January of this year, that some kind of protection was needed. New users can still edit, but their edits are not accepted until one of the long-time editors clicks on the "accepted" link. It's not especially about what you wrote, but that it needs to be "accepted" by an long-time editor. — Maile (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The change of the URL to a Reference had nothing to do with the pending review that was put on me, I accept any review that is put on me, but what shocks me is there are Admins with agendas doing pov editing in the background on this Wiki page. The link user Lutzv added has been changed to a Reference and there was no traces of that change in the history, there was no bot or anything. If there are Admins with their own political agenda using this page as their playground we need to know. Dalhoa (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I just checked the History of this page and the Reference has disappeared, I don't know what is going on in the background but if the History is even tampered with then there is definitely something unethical going on in this Wiki page. Double checked link again and it turns to a Reference on some medium and not on others, don't know why it does that but in any case that Reference does not support its claim.Dalhoa (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

2008 lead with sources

The Horn of Africa (alternatively Northeast Africa, and sometimes Somali Peninsula; shortened to HOA) is a peninsula in East Africa that juts for hundreds of kilometers into the Arabian Sea, and lies along the southern side of the Gulf of Aden. It is the easternmost projection of the African continent. The term also refers to the greater region containing the countries of Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia.

Perhaps we need to replace some of the text with this as it's sourced and the ones I can check back the text. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I support the change. Here are a couple of other sources to support the "sometimes Somali Peninsula" statement. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Reverted latest edit

‎Somaliland is not part of Somalia's federal system and is a claimed and disputed territory. Therefore it is fair to include it as well per consensus Dabaqabad (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Somaliland

@HornerAfrican15: Somaliland, although it is de-jure not a country, is de-facto a sovereign state that is already referenced in the article. Therefore I do not see why mentions of it should be removed. I'll ping you here to see your point of view and see if we can build a consensus.

Dabaqabad (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The user has clearly violated the "three reverts" rule. I myself don't want to break the rule and I'm not willing to report the user. Any suggestions on what can be done? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence - (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horn_of_Africa&type=revision&diff=1014588472&oldid=1014534205 (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horn_of_Africa&type=revision&diff=1014626937&oldid=1014604015 (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horn_of_Africa&type=revision&diff=1014629498&oldid=1014628034 (4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horn_of_Africa&type=revision&diff=1014633579&oldid=1014630847 (5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horn_of_Africa&type=revision&diff=1014751873&oldid=1014656038 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@HornerAfrican15: You should not alter quoted-text in a reference. This is knowingly dishonest and I'm pretty sure it's an offence according to Wikipedia's editing rules and guidelines. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horn_of_Africa&type=revision&diff=1013890814&oldid=1013881607 I'm not sure what the original source material says, but it is clear that you have changed the wording of a quote from a reference. The original text might (or might not) be incorrect, but you haven't provided any evidence of this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: At this point we have tried to reason with this person. I will file the report tomorrow if I have time. This nationalistic pov editing needs to stop.

Dabaqabad (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Improvements

Article needs some improvements. Currently written as a country article, adding improvement per template guidelines. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That may be so, but it doesn't mean that you can butcher it at will without a valid explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The content that was removed was stuff that didnt fit into this type of template, i.e the info box with economics, capitals, denonumys, languages, and the sport and religion section. This is not an administrative region but a geographical region. The use of random images not adding any value to the article was also removed. Content such as macrobia was removed since it was too long and hardly touching subject and contained more about Persia than HOA. UAE content was removed since it was inaccurately portrayed, ie UAE being major trade partner. For instance if you look at African Great Lakes Region (or other region articles) it briefly touches these subjects while this article for some reason is written like a country article. A lot of info that was present like economy, sports, languages, religion can be read about in each of the country articles. The namings was adjusted per WP:NCGN, there is one widely accepted name which is in English. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I restored the names section and the fact that it's also known as the Somali Peninsula. The rest of the content that you removed will have to be checked. M.Bitton (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Somali Peninsula is not the same as the geographical region of HoA, they are not synonymous. The peninsula is mainly part of Somalia while the geographical region of Horn of Africa stretches far beyond the peninsula into mainland of Africa. Leechjoel9 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact, rightly or wrongly, that the HoA is also known as the Somali Peninsula (which also happens to be a redirect to this article) can easily be sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Then your misinterpreting what the Horn of Africa is made up of, or misinterpreting the source your referring too. The redirect is incorrect. A peninsula does not stretches far into a mainland. Do you mean that the peninsula that stretches out of the Somali coast does not have a name or are you implying that this is also just called Horn of Africa? Of course it does have a name and it is called the Somali peninsula. The Somali peninsula lies within the Horn of Africa region but it is not equivalent to the region of Horn of Africa, which includes four other countries and also located far from the Somali peninsula. Leechjoel9 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not misinterpreting anything. Some sources say that it's also known as the Somali Peninsula and that's all we are mentioning here. You're obviously free to add an explanatory footnote if you think it's necessary. M.Bitton (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Leechjoel9: If you're not happy with this, we'll revert to the stable version and seek input from the community. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You clearly have misinterpreted it, your going against facts per WP:NPOV. There is not a reason to add a explanatory footnote since there is a clear distinction between the two. If you feel the need to create a Somali peninsula page than feel free to do so. Leechjoel9 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear is your edit warring. One more revert and you'll be reported to AN3. Also, I don't feel the need to create or change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

UTC)

Clearly your the one edit warring without, valid reason several of times, feel free to look who’s the initiator of the reverts. If you do one more revert I’ll report you myself. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We can always go back to the stable version and start over. M.Bitton (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Distinction between HOA region and Somali Peninsula. There are more books and academic papers that confirms this.

[16] Makes a distinction between Greater Ethiopia and Somali Peninsula throughout the paper. Somali peninsula covers Somalia, Somaliland and a fifth of Greater Ethiopia.

[17] “The Somali Peninsula is part of the Horn of Africa and is a term used to refer to eastern Ethiopia and Somalia”

[18] “Part of the Horn of Africa region is also known as the Somali peninsula; this term is typically used when referring to lands of Somalia and eastern Ethiopia ..”

[19] “The Somali Peninsula, one of the most culturally homogeneous regions of Africa, was divided into British Somaliland, French Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, Ethiopian Somaliland (the Ogaden region), and what is now Kenya's North-Eastern Province.”

[20] Describes Somali Peninsula as areas that consist of the Somali Plateu and sorrounding areas and not as the whole HOA region.Leechjoel9 (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Pingin M.Bitton for response.Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't change anything to the fact that some sources refer to the HOA as the Somali Peninsula. Please re-read what I said about the footnote and have a look the change that was proposed by Doug Weller. M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does, since they are not the same. “Horn of Africa region” is not same as the shape that looks like a horn. The peninsula is made of “Somali peninsula” while the region is bigger and include other countries such as Djibouti, Eritrea and four fifths of Ethiopia. The options here are remove ”Somali Peninsula” from the lead and explain what Somali Peninsul is further in the article since peninsula is located within Horn of Africa region. Leechjoel9 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)