The result was keep . Nomination went from "it didn't exist" to "even if it existed, info is unsourced". We have input indicating it did exist, which solves the core issue. Unsourced content can be dealt with through the usual channels. Star Mississippi 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. There is no academic or contemporary evidence that this "empire" ever existed. Ajuran is nothing more then a nomadic clan that was at the head of a tribal confederation which controlled much of the Shebelle region in southern Somalia. [1] [2] [3] [4] Mogadishu was never ruled by this "Ajuran Empire" it was ruled by a dynasty of local Somalis who were also related to the Ajuran clan called the Muzaffarids. Sometime around the 16th century the city would fall under Ottoman suzerainty and later under Portuguese and then Omani control. [5]. The Somali cities of Merca, Mogadishu, Barawa were apart of the Swahili city states that were independent and distinct from one other similar to Pate, Mombasa and others. [6], [7], [8]. The Portuguese who sacked the cities of Mogadishu and Barawa never wrote about the existence of a Ajuran state and describe them as being separate entities محرر البوق ( talk) 04:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
References
You nominated the article for deletion, that was an extremely negative and disruptive move and does not show good will on your part nor does it show that you were originally interested in improving the article or the encyclopaedia as a whole, your intent was to get rid of it as quickly as possible with original POV research while weaponising a powerful tool like the AfD, without actually doing the necessary due diligence.
When that didn’t fly, you attempted to mass delete the article by disingenuously misrepresenting a comment made by Aintabli, which again was thwarted by another member. This is a clear pattern of bad-faith behaviour on your part.
No bueno.
You’re currently moving the goal posts and have switched from boldly claiming that it ‘didn’t exist’ and therefore not satisfying the benchmarks of WP:GNG (yet with no sources to back that up) to ‘maybe it existed’, but with the added red herring opinion that its not justified to discuss the economic arteries of an historic state like the Ajuran in the form of its port cities or their exploits in that specific time period.
In any case this AfD nomination is not the place to defend every single claim made in the article (which was not even my original intention). The purpose of an AfD is to determine whether an article is academically and historically notable through verifiable sources to justify its existence and inclusion on this encyclopaedia, and the Ajuran Sultanate qualifies in both cases.
You can start multiple individual sections in the article’s talk page about your issues with some of the claims highlighted above and you will have a better chance at a constructive consensus. I will certainly participate there considering the ethnocentric context of your POV, which is quite obvious from your recorded history of systematically cleansing any sourced content containing the word ‘Somali’ from multiple articles: [30], [31], [32].
All this combined with your bad faith AfD nomination, and unilateral attempts at mass deletion of the article’s content, and I am now tempted to escalate this to the arbitration enforcement committee, since the Horn of Africa still falls under their contentious topics umbrella. GoldenDragonHorn ( talk) 01:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
When there is a clear pattern of bad faith and ethnocentric POV pushing, an editor is not obligated to abide by WP:AAGF, much the same way an editor doesn’t have to assume good faith when dealing with an obvious sock puppeteer or a repeat 3RR offender. Its a privilege not a right. More importantly, two different unrelated users already pointed out to you that your unilateral actions could be perceived by other editors as disruptive and gaming the system. Well, I perceive them exactly as such. You’re also contradicting yourself by stating that the original cause for this nomination was because you confidently believed that the state didn’t exist, nor that there were any academic sources to prove its notability but at the same time push the narrative that it was an inland federation, so I guess it was an inland federation that didn’t exist?
What is clear is that you have made a lot of personal opinions and unsupported assertions in this AfD nomination about the Ajuran Sultanate, but provided no scholarly sources or references to back them word for word. Its irrelevant whether you personally don’t consider the Ajuran polity; a sultanate, a kingdom or an empire. What matters is that there are plenty of reliable sources that do:
“The Ajuuraan sultanate, a Muslim empire, is established in Somalia and soon controls large portions of East Africa.” - Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia Page 34
And another:
”There have been empires throughout recorded human history, such as the Roman, Mongol, and Ottoman Empires in Eurasia, the Ajuran Sultanate in Africa, and the Inca Empire in South America. They are often formed through military conquest or economic coercion.” - Law and Justice around the World: A Comparative Approach page 40 by Mikaila Mariel, Lemonik Arthur
And another:
”The Ajuran Empire, in the Horn of Africa, began to decline in the 17th century, succeeded by the Geledi Sultanate.” - History of Civilizations by Mason Kirby page 25.
Its irrelevant that you personally feel that the fortunes and exploits of the coastal cities in the period of Ajuran suzerainty shouldn’t be mentioned in the article just because the Wikipedia articles of other historic polities aren’t set up that way. What matters is that these coastal cities are discussed by scholars for their trade, politics and regional dynamics in a Ajuran context:
”An Ajuran family, Mudaffar, established a dynasty in the city, thus linking the two entities together; for the next 350 years.” - Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: A Historical Encyclopedia Page 253 by Michael Dumper, Bruce E. Stanley
And another:
”The Ajuran are said to have been allied with the Mudaffar dynasty which governed Mogadishu , thus creating a link between coastal and interior politics . The Ajuran leadership relied on this link to buttress its prestige and power.” - The Banaadir Past: Essays in Southern Somali History page 27.
Its also irrelevant that you personally don’t consider the Ajuran polity a naval power or even question its involvement in the wars against the Portuguese, because we have sources that do:
”Ajuraan's era of greatness corresponds very well with the short but intense Portuguese activities in the Indian Ocean” - Islamic Art and Culture in Sub-Saharan Africa page 122 by Karin Ådahl, Berit Sahlström
And another:
”The Portuguese empire expanded into the Persian Gulf, contesting control of the spice trade with the Ajuran Empire and the Ottoman Empire.”
Ibid:
“The Portuguese were soundly defeated in their attempt to capture wealthy Somali harbor cities on the Somali coast such as Mogadishu, Merca, Barawa, Kismayo and Hobyo by the powerful Somalis of the Ajuran Empire during the Battle of Barawa and Battle of Benadir.” - Portuguese empire during the period 1415-1663 and its relations with China and Japan–a case of early globalization by Pavel Stoynov - Journal of International Economy and Business 6 (71), 60-66, 2018
Sources are also unequivocal about Ajuran’s political domination over the South and Central regions of medieval Somalia, including the Indian Ocean coast for a period of over 300 years:
”AJURAN. An imamate or dynasty that emerged in Somalia to control the Shabelle valley from Qallafo, on the upper Shabelle, to the shores of the Indian Ocean, and from Mareeg on the central Somali coast to the Kenyan frontiers in the southwest, thus controlling most of the south-central regions of contemporary Somalia, from the mid-13th to the late 17th centuries.” - Historical Dictionary of Somalia page 35.
However, be that as it may, your systematic removal of any reliable sources that mention the Somali people in various articles is definitely problematic and casts a shadow on your recent actions here, because in the other article you removed a sourced statement that categorically stated in relation to a historical figure that ‘most scholars consider him Somali’ and another sourced statement that directly stated that ‘the army was overwhelmingly Somali’ and replaced it with synth, because a medieval Adalite chronicle (a primary source), discussing the army of Adal, also mentioned other important groups related to the Somali people during that time-period and therefore in your opinion it has precedent over secondary sources (despite the latter being the bread and butter of Wikipedia).
What is even more disturbing is the fact that your mathematical calculation of the army being 1/3 Somali, 1/3 Harla and 1/3 Malassay is not even mentioned by the primary source in question nor do any of the secondary sources available make that specific calculation. So this is the very definition of Original Research, but that edit and other problematic ones like it will be rectified in due time. Now we are discussing the Ajuran Sultanate.
The place to look for consensus was the article’s talk page, you opted instead (without doing your due diligence pertaining to section C of the WP:AFD guidelines) to push for a deletion process that in most cases would mainly involve senior editors with a periphery knowledge of the region or the subject in question and who could only judge the case based on the merit of its notability, which they did.
The correct way to have gone about it was to 1) add citation tags where necessary, 2) create new sections on the talk page about the boldest claims, 3) trace back those specific edits in the history page and contact the editors that added them in the article with a friendly request if they could corroborate or clarify their statements. If you were to still be ignored then look for sources yourself, and if you failed to find any, then apply WP:BOLD.
This would have accorded you good faith in my eyes and those of others, but your entire modus operandi was the opposite of this. Nominating an article for deletion is not being bold or looking for consensus, its disruptive especially when there was clear easy access to a mountain of reliable sources proving its notability. I repeat again none of your sources in any shape or form claim that the Ajuran Sultanate never existed, which was the foundation of your case for deletion. I also reiterate once more that several dozen reliable sources have now been provided by me and by others that confidently determine that this article meets all the bench marks of notability, so I suggest you withdraw the nomination if improving the encyclopaedia and the article was your true intention. — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk) 04:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
As expected, after multiple sources (proving clear due weight and notability) were provided by us you are now nitpicking and shifting to wikilawyering on whether you personally consider them ‘reliable’ or not. Despite four different unrelated editors pointing out to you that this polity does meet the benchmarks of notability you still refuse to acknowledge this reality, even terming some of the sources provided as ‘crap’ in your personal hierarchy. This is not helpful.
But let’s use a scholar that you yourself recommended above (I.M Lewis) and see what he has to say about the Ajuran polity and the most important coastal city:
”Under a hereditary dynasty, the Ajuran consolidated their positions as masters of the fertile reaches of the lower Shabelle basin and established a commercial connection with the port of Mogadishu where some of their clansmen settled.
The fortunes of this Ajuran Sultanate thus appear to have been closely linked with those of Mogadishu, and the Ajuran reached the summit of their power in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century when Mogadishu was ruled by the Muzaffar Dynasty, an aristocracy related to if not actually of Ajuran stock.” - [35]
Its important to highlight that you have provided several sources but none of which that support any of the bold claims you made in your original nomination post outside of synth. None that question the existence of the Ajuran polity, or deny its notability, which was simply pointed out to you, and which made this AfD bankrupt at conception. That’s not me dismissing your sources, that’s you not substantiating your bold opinions and assertions, which is a big difference.
Whether one scholar considers the violent Portuguese sack of Barawa as a victory, and whether another scholar considers it a defeat is not the subject matter in this discussion (and is still protected by WP:THISORTHAT), what does matter is that I have demonstrated adequately that the Ajuran polity is most definitely discussed by academics in relation to the Portuguese and their medieval activities in the Indian Ocean, which is something you denied.
I will ignore the side discussion not related to the Ajuran Sultanate for now and your amusing comment on my cognitive skills aside, I do not think that your incompetent, which makes this nomination all the more sinister, because how could four different unrelated editors come to the same conclusion, but you didn’t?
I would never accuse another editor of pushing an nationalist POV unless there was a clear history in the form of diffs, see here another example. [36] There is no need to defend your rationale behind the edit in this AfD like you did with the previous diffs. I only use them to demonstrate that you do have an angle, much the same way a Russian nationalist editor mass deleting content or nominating articles for deletion about Ukrainian culture or Ukrainian history would have an angle and would be seen as problematic. Its not a personal attack to point this out with evidence, but I can see that you’re getting frustrated, so from henceforth I will refrain my pointing this out any further.
However, I will remind you of the fact that the Horn of Africa and all the articles about the region fall under the contentious topics umbrella overseen by the Arbitration Committee for a good reason. Unilateral actions such as mass deletions, sudden page moves that change the common name of an article or creating an AfD nomination without clear talk page consensus or discussion beforehand can be perceived as actively undermining the encyclopaedia, and are therefore potentially subject to sanctions, because editing a Horn of Africa related article is not the same as editing the Mickey Mouse or the Eiffel Tower articles.
I made my case for this article’s notability, and will defer judgement to the other editors. — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has policies for tertiary sources which allows for its inclusion into articles when necessary, dismissing them solely for their status as tertiary is not productive. There is also no need to patronise me, I have not added any of the secondary and tertiary sources listed above into the article, so your demand for ISBN numbers and other benchmarks as proof of competency, or a lack thereof, as a Wikipedia editor is kind of strange, since this is a talk page, where sources are regularly put forward, dismissed or accepted during a discussion. I.M Lewis also quite clearly refers to the polity as the ‘Ajuran Sultanate’ not the clan, or a tribe.
Though I understand you might feel that me pointing out that you have POV is a personal attack (we all have one), that was not the intention. More importantly, in doing so I have not broken any rules, either set by Wikipedia or the ArbCom, as I used clear diffs to demonstrate it. However, since I have no interest in making this platform a toxic place for another editor, I will retract my previous statements, and we can start from a clean slate. — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk) 18:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . Nomination went from "it didn't exist" to "even if it existed, info is unsourced". We have input indicating it did exist, which solves the core issue. Unsourced content can be dealt with through the usual channels. Star Mississippi 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. There is no academic or contemporary evidence that this "empire" ever existed. Ajuran is nothing more then a nomadic clan that was at the head of a tribal confederation which controlled much of the Shebelle region in southern Somalia. [1] [2] [3] [4] Mogadishu was never ruled by this "Ajuran Empire" it was ruled by a dynasty of local Somalis who were also related to the Ajuran clan called the Muzaffarids. Sometime around the 16th century the city would fall under Ottoman suzerainty and later under Portuguese and then Omani control. [5]. The Somali cities of Merca, Mogadishu, Barawa were apart of the Swahili city states that were independent and distinct from one other similar to Pate, Mombasa and others. [6], [7], [8]. The Portuguese who sacked the cities of Mogadishu and Barawa never wrote about the existence of a Ajuran state and describe them as being separate entities محرر البوق ( talk) 04:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
References
You nominated the article for deletion, that was an extremely negative and disruptive move and does not show good will on your part nor does it show that you were originally interested in improving the article or the encyclopaedia as a whole, your intent was to get rid of it as quickly as possible with original POV research while weaponising a powerful tool like the AfD, without actually doing the necessary due diligence.
When that didn’t fly, you attempted to mass delete the article by disingenuously misrepresenting a comment made by Aintabli, which again was thwarted by another member. This is a clear pattern of bad-faith behaviour on your part.
No bueno.
You’re currently moving the goal posts and have switched from boldly claiming that it ‘didn’t exist’ and therefore not satisfying the benchmarks of WP:GNG (yet with no sources to back that up) to ‘maybe it existed’, but with the added red herring opinion that its not justified to discuss the economic arteries of an historic state like the Ajuran in the form of its port cities or their exploits in that specific time period.
In any case this AfD nomination is not the place to defend every single claim made in the article (which was not even my original intention). The purpose of an AfD is to determine whether an article is academically and historically notable through verifiable sources to justify its existence and inclusion on this encyclopaedia, and the Ajuran Sultanate qualifies in both cases.
You can start multiple individual sections in the article’s talk page about your issues with some of the claims highlighted above and you will have a better chance at a constructive consensus. I will certainly participate there considering the ethnocentric context of your POV, which is quite obvious from your recorded history of systematically cleansing any sourced content containing the word ‘Somali’ from multiple articles: [30], [31], [32].
All this combined with your bad faith AfD nomination, and unilateral attempts at mass deletion of the article’s content, and I am now tempted to escalate this to the arbitration enforcement committee, since the Horn of Africa still falls under their contentious topics umbrella. GoldenDragonHorn ( talk) 01:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
When there is a clear pattern of bad faith and ethnocentric POV pushing, an editor is not obligated to abide by WP:AAGF, much the same way an editor doesn’t have to assume good faith when dealing with an obvious sock puppeteer or a repeat 3RR offender. Its a privilege not a right. More importantly, two different unrelated users already pointed out to you that your unilateral actions could be perceived by other editors as disruptive and gaming the system. Well, I perceive them exactly as such. You’re also contradicting yourself by stating that the original cause for this nomination was because you confidently believed that the state didn’t exist, nor that there were any academic sources to prove its notability but at the same time push the narrative that it was an inland federation, so I guess it was an inland federation that didn’t exist?
What is clear is that you have made a lot of personal opinions and unsupported assertions in this AfD nomination about the Ajuran Sultanate, but provided no scholarly sources or references to back them word for word. Its irrelevant whether you personally don’t consider the Ajuran polity; a sultanate, a kingdom or an empire. What matters is that there are plenty of reliable sources that do:
“The Ajuuraan sultanate, a Muslim empire, is established in Somalia and soon controls large portions of East Africa.” - Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia Page 34
And another:
”There have been empires throughout recorded human history, such as the Roman, Mongol, and Ottoman Empires in Eurasia, the Ajuran Sultanate in Africa, and the Inca Empire in South America. They are often formed through military conquest or economic coercion.” - Law and Justice around the World: A Comparative Approach page 40 by Mikaila Mariel, Lemonik Arthur
And another:
”The Ajuran Empire, in the Horn of Africa, began to decline in the 17th century, succeeded by the Geledi Sultanate.” - History of Civilizations by Mason Kirby page 25.
Its irrelevant that you personally feel that the fortunes and exploits of the coastal cities in the period of Ajuran suzerainty shouldn’t be mentioned in the article just because the Wikipedia articles of other historic polities aren’t set up that way. What matters is that these coastal cities are discussed by scholars for their trade, politics and regional dynamics in a Ajuran context:
”An Ajuran family, Mudaffar, established a dynasty in the city, thus linking the two entities together; for the next 350 years.” - Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: A Historical Encyclopedia Page 253 by Michael Dumper, Bruce E. Stanley
And another:
”The Ajuran are said to have been allied with the Mudaffar dynasty which governed Mogadishu , thus creating a link between coastal and interior politics . The Ajuran leadership relied on this link to buttress its prestige and power.” - The Banaadir Past: Essays in Southern Somali History page 27.
Its also irrelevant that you personally don’t consider the Ajuran polity a naval power or even question its involvement in the wars against the Portuguese, because we have sources that do:
”Ajuraan's era of greatness corresponds very well with the short but intense Portuguese activities in the Indian Ocean” - Islamic Art and Culture in Sub-Saharan Africa page 122 by Karin Ådahl, Berit Sahlström
And another:
”The Portuguese empire expanded into the Persian Gulf, contesting control of the spice trade with the Ajuran Empire and the Ottoman Empire.”
Ibid:
“The Portuguese were soundly defeated in their attempt to capture wealthy Somali harbor cities on the Somali coast such as Mogadishu, Merca, Barawa, Kismayo and Hobyo by the powerful Somalis of the Ajuran Empire during the Battle of Barawa and Battle of Benadir.” - Portuguese empire during the period 1415-1663 and its relations with China and Japan–a case of early globalization by Pavel Stoynov - Journal of International Economy and Business 6 (71), 60-66, 2018
Sources are also unequivocal about Ajuran’s political domination over the South and Central regions of medieval Somalia, including the Indian Ocean coast for a period of over 300 years:
”AJURAN. An imamate or dynasty that emerged in Somalia to control the Shabelle valley from Qallafo, on the upper Shabelle, to the shores of the Indian Ocean, and from Mareeg on the central Somali coast to the Kenyan frontiers in the southwest, thus controlling most of the south-central regions of contemporary Somalia, from the mid-13th to the late 17th centuries.” - Historical Dictionary of Somalia page 35.
However, be that as it may, your systematic removal of any reliable sources that mention the Somali people in various articles is definitely problematic and casts a shadow on your recent actions here, because in the other article you removed a sourced statement that categorically stated in relation to a historical figure that ‘most scholars consider him Somali’ and another sourced statement that directly stated that ‘the army was overwhelmingly Somali’ and replaced it with synth, because a medieval Adalite chronicle (a primary source), discussing the army of Adal, also mentioned other important groups related to the Somali people during that time-period and therefore in your opinion it has precedent over secondary sources (despite the latter being the bread and butter of Wikipedia).
What is even more disturbing is the fact that your mathematical calculation of the army being 1/3 Somali, 1/3 Harla and 1/3 Malassay is not even mentioned by the primary source in question nor do any of the secondary sources available make that specific calculation. So this is the very definition of Original Research, but that edit and other problematic ones like it will be rectified in due time. Now we are discussing the Ajuran Sultanate.
The place to look for consensus was the article’s talk page, you opted instead (without doing your due diligence pertaining to section C of the WP:AFD guidelines) to push for a deletion process that in most cases would mainly involve senior editors with a periphery knowledge of the region or the subject in question and who could only judge the case based on the merit of its notability, which they did.
The correct way to have gone about it was to 1) add citation tags where necessary, 2) create new sections on the talk page about the boldest claims, 3) trace back those specific edits in the history page and contact the editors that added them in the article with a friendly request if they could corroborate or clarify their statements. If you were to still be ignored then look for sources yourself, and if you failed to find any, then apply WP:BOLD.
This would have accorded you good faith in my eyes and those of others, but your entire modus operandi was the opposite of this. Nominating an article for deletion is not being bold or looking for consensus, its disruptive especially when there was clear easy access to a mountain of reliable sources proving its notability. I repeat again none of your sources in any shape or form claim that the Ajuran Sultanate never existed, which was the foundation of your case for deletion. I also reiterate once more that several dozen reliable sources have now been provided by me and by others that confidently determine that this article meets all the bench marks of notability, so I suggest you withdraw the nomination if improving the encyclopaedia and the article was your true intention. — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk) 04:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
As expected, after multiple sources (proving clear due weight and notability) were provided by us you are now nitpicking and shifting to wikilawyering on whether you personally consider them ‘reliable’ or not. Despite four different unrelated editors pointing out to you that this polity does meet the benchmarks of notability you still refuse to acknowledge this reality, even terming some of the sources provided as ‘crap’ in your personal hierarchy. This is not helpful.
But let’s use a scholar that you yourself recommended above (I.M Lewis) and see what he has to say about the Ajuran polity and the most important coastal city:
”Under a hereditary dynasty, the Ajuran consolidated their positions as masters of the fertile reaches of the lower Shabelle basin and established a commercial connection with the port of Mogadishu where some of their clansmen settled.
The fortunes of this Ajuran Sultanate thus appear to have been closely linked with those of Mogadishu, and the Ajuran reached the summit of their power in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century when Mogadishu was ruled by the Muzaffar Dynasty, an aristocracy related to if not actually of Ajuran stock.” - [35]
Its important to highlight that you have provided several sources but none of which that support any of the bold claims you made in your original nomination post outside of synth. None that question the existence of the Ajuran polity, or deny its notability, which was simply pointed out to you, and which made this AfD bankrupt at conception. That’s not me dismissing your sources, that’s you not substantiating your bold opinions and assertions, which is a big difference.
Whether one scholar considers the violent Portuguese sack of Barawa as a victory, and whether another scholar considers it a defeat is not the subject matter in this discussion (and is still protected by WP:THISORTHAT), what does matter is that I have demonstrated adequately that the Ajuran polity is most definitely discussed by academics in relation to the Portuguese and their medieval activities in the Indian Ocean, which is something you denied.
I will ignore the side discussion not related to the Ajuran Sultanate for now and your amusing comment on my cognitive skills aside, I do not think that your incompetent, which makes this nomination all the more sinister, because how could four different unrelated editors come to the same conclusion, but you didn’t?
I would never accuse another editor of pushing an nationalist POV unless there was a clear history in the form of diffs, see here another example. [36] There is no need to defend your rationale behind the edit in this AfD like you did with the previous diffs. I only use them to demonstrate that you do have an angle, much the same way a Russian nationalist editor mass deleting content or nominating articles for deletion about Ukrainian culture or Ukrainian history would have an angle and would be seen as problematic. Its not a personal attack to point this out with evidence, but I can see that you’re getting frustrated, so from henceforth I will refrain my pointing this out any further.
However, I will remind you of the fact that the Horn of Africa and all the articles about the region fall under the contentious topics umbrella overseen by the Arbitration Committee for a good reason. Unilateral actions such as mass deletions, sudden page moves that change the common name of an article or creating an AfD nomination without clear talk page consensus or discussion beforehand can be perceived as actively undermining the encyclopaedia, and are therefore potentially subject to sanctions, because editing a Horn of Africa related article is not the same as editing the Mickey Mouse or the Eiffel Tower articles.
I made my case for this article’s notability, and will defer judgement to the other editors. — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has policies for tertiary sources which allows for its inclusion into articles when necessary, dismissing them solely for their status as tertiary is not productive. There is also no need to patronise me, I have not added any of the secondary and tertiary sources listed above into the article, so your demand for ISBN numbers and other benchmarks as proof of competency, or a lack thereof, as a Wikipedia editor is kind of strange, since this is a talk page, where sources are regularly put forward, dismissed or accepted during a discussion. I.M Lewis also quite clearly refers to the polity as the ‘Ajuran Sultanate’ not the clan, or a tribe.
Though I understand you might feel that me pointing out that you have POV is a personal attack (we all have one), that was not the intention. More importantly, in doing so I have not broken any rules, either set by Wikipedia or the ArbCom, as I used clear diffs to demonstrate it. However, since I have no interest in making this platform a toxic place for another editor, I will retract my previous statements, and we can start from a clean slate. — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk) 18:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)