Talk:Isaaq

This message concerns the user Skitash

I’d like to understand why you are reverting the edits related to translating the name of the Ishaq tribe from English to Arabic, as well as the edits concerning the tribe’s nisba. For context, Arabic is widely used across shrines in Ishaq-inhabited areas of the Republic of Somaliland, a nation that operates with two official languages - Ishaq Northern Somali and Taʽizzi-Adeni Arabic - and one unofficial language, English - https://www.govsomaliland.org/index.php/article/chapter-one

Arabic is highly relevant to this Wikipedia article, which is why it’s appropriate to retain the Arabic translation of the tribe’s name. Doing so provides clearer information on the tribe’s alternative forms - such as Ishaq, Ishaaq, Isaaq, and others.

Regarding the nisba, even though the Ishaq population adopted the Somali naming system after their migration from Arabia to the Horn of Africa, individuals from the Ishaq tribe who live in the Arabian Peninsula (for example, in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, or Yemen) traditionally continue to use their nisba as part of their name. This can be seen, for instance, in the case of the Arab representative of the Ishaq tribe in Arabia, Sultan Abdullah Al-Ishaqi, a well-established figure who has met with both former and current presidents on multiple occasions - https://x.com/SuldanIsahaqi

I will be reverting the article back to its previous state. Please avoid making changes without providing a clear reason or supporting sources. Much appreciated.

Regards,
cqHydra / Zakaria CqHydra (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Please see MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV. The lede should only include "a single equivalent name" in a closely associated language. Shrine usage doesn't make Arabic the tribe's "native" name; Somali is. As for the nisba used by the diaspora, that is totally irrelevant to the tribe's core Somali identity. Skitash (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe there may be some confusion, which is understandable given how complex this topic is. The Ishaq are an ethnotribe whose native languages are both Somali and Arabic - neither exists to the exclusion of the other. The variant of Somali associated with the Ishaq is Northern Somali proper, which differs from Southern Somali and other dialects through its distinctive incorporation of Arabic, specifically Taʽizzi-Adeni Arabic.

Regarding the nisba, it remains an essential part of the ethnicity’s core identity, and removing it overlooks significant aspects of its history. The Ishaq trace their origins to Banu Hashim through Sheikh Ishaq and his father Ahmed bin Muhammad. Because of this lineage, the Ishaq follow a structure similar to other groups descended from Banu Hashim, making them a unique case when compared to other Somali clans - if one chooses class the Ishaq as Somali of course.

Additionally, nearly all Wikipedia pages related to the Ishaq include the name in English (as expected on the English Wikipedia), as well as in Somali and Arabic. Changing one while leaving the others untouched leads to an inconsistent and less streamlined experience, and may create confusion as to why some pages include certain languages while others do not.

I’m also not sure if you may have misread one of my earlier messages, but Somaliland (an Ishaq majority nation) operates with two official languages, both of which are actively used and are native to the population: Somali and Arabic. Arabic is not an external or “alien” language; it was introduced extensively by Sheikh Ishaq and his descendants.

Lastly, regarding the use of Arabic on this Wikipedia page: Arabic is linguistically related to Somali through the Afro-Asiatic language family, and beyond being spoken by many Ishaq individuals, it is consistently used for traditional purposes - such as preserving the community’s heritage connected to Arabia - as well as for religious reasons. Banu Ishaq is the Arabic equivalent of Ishaq, and the two terms refer to the same group. In English, it is typically written as Ishaq or Isaaq, while in Arabic it appears as Banu Ishaq (بنو إسحاق). Although the English usage of “Banu Ishaq” is less common, it is still the historically correct designation for the tribe.

I’m reverting the Wikipedia page to its original state prior to your edits. Please provide sources or a clear rationale before making further changes. If these unsourced reverts continue, I will request a third opinion if necessary. CqHydra (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

"The Ishaq are an ethnotribe whose native languages are both Somali and Arabic" They do not speak Arabic as a mother tongue or primary language; that would be Somali.

"The Ishaq trace their origins to Banu Hashim through Sheikh Ishaq and his father Ahmed bin Muhammad" The nisba is WP:OR, and the Banu Hashim lineage via Sheikh Ishaq is a legendary myth, not historical fact.

"Somaliland operates with two official languages, both of which are actively used and are native to the population: Somali and Arabic" Your own source states that Arabic is a second language, and not an official or native language.

"Arabic is linguistically related to Somali through the Afro-Asiatic language family, and beyond being spoken by many Ishaq individuals" The Afro-Asiatic family link is distant (Cushitic vs Semitic branches), and that's not an argument for adding Arabic to the lede.

Like I said, please refer to MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV. Skitash (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to continue a full-fledged argument with you, so this will be my last detailed message on the topic. Any further continuation will result in me reporting the issue rather than requesting a third opinion, as your most recent response suggests you are choosing to disregard the sources provided in the Wikipedia page regarding Banu Hashim heritage and may be approaching this with bias.

Regarding the legitimacy of Sheikh Ishaq, his heritage, and the claim of descent from Banu Hashim, there is a wide range of sources that clearly document the existence of Sheikh Ishaq, his lineage, the historical interactions people had with him, and the migration that took place from Mesopotamia to Arabia, then to Egypt, and finally to Northeast Africa (Mayd, Somaliland).

This biography, for example, goes into depth about Sheikh Ishaq, his migration, and his settlement - https://archive.org/details/20221001_20221001_0326/mode/1up

Not to mention the physical evidence of Sheikh Ishaq, such as his final resting place in Maydh, which is the city’s main attraction and a significant site of pilgrimage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maydh#/media/File:Sheekh_Isaaq.jpg

More sources like this one link Sheikh Ishaq to Arabia, reinforcing and supporting the conclusion that he did in fact exist. This is in addition to the numerous DNA studies conducted on his descendants, which further support this evidence - https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/0312120915_Vilhanova.pdf

Historical figures such as Sharif Aydarus Sharif Ali Al-Nudari, when studying the Ishaq tribe, found that the sources predating his lifetime were established and reliable. Tribes like Bani Malik follow a similar structure and rely on oral tradition, and this does not make their tribe or their founder any less legitimate.

Unless you can provide sources that contradict what is presented on this Wikipedia page or what I have stated, Sheikh Ishaq was indeed a real and significant historical figure. Since the Ishaq tribe is directly tied to Sheikh Ishaq, including the Arabic translation in the Wikipedia header is relevant, as the name itself originates from an Arab individual and a population with Arabian heritage and linguistic background.

> Your own source states that Arabic is a second language, and not an official or native language - Skitash

Firstly, the source is not mine, and when it refers to 'second' or 'secondary', it is in the context of being co-official - meaning an official language, but to a lesser degree compared to Somali as the primary state language. Even then, Arabic is written into the constitution, so anything that concerns Somaliland and its largest population group (the Ishaq) should be treated with the understanding that their second native tongue is Arabic.

Secondly, if you are going to change this singular Wikipedia page because you appear to be pushing an agenda, then why not change all of them, such as the page for Sheikh Ishaq or the nation of Somaliland? Are all Wikipedia pages related to the Ishaq and Somaliland that use Arabic for translating their headers to represent local language usage somehow in violation of your personal opinion?

This is my final warning. Any further continuation will result in a report for disruptive editing. Please do not make miscellaneous changes to this Wikipedia page without providing a verifiable source or a clear rationale. Everything you have stated so far is not supported by reliable sources, which is why I have reverted the page to its original state - original research is not considered a valid source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus - emphasizes that editors should reach agreement before making controversial changes

Please do not remove the translation until we have had a chance to reach consensus or conclusion here on this talk page. CqHydra (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

"Regarding the legitimacy of Sheikh Ishaq, his heritage, and the claim of descent from Banu Hashim, there is a wide range of sources that clearly document the existence of Sheikh Ishaq" That is your view, but according to most RS and Ishaaq bin Ahmed's article itself refer to him as a semi-legendary mythical figure present in Somali oral lore. We should approach this with neutrality.

"when it refers to 'second' or 'secondary', it is in the context of being co-official - meaning an official language, but to a lesser degree" That's not true. Sources do not in any way refer to Arabic as an official language alongside Somali, but rather a "second language." The infobox in Somaliland implies the same thing.

"their second native tongue is Arabic" Again, this is false.

"if you are going to change this singular Wikipedia page because you appear to be pushing an agenda, then why not change all of them" Please read WP:OTHER and WP:NPA.

"Please do not remove the translation" The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Furthermore, I suggest you refrain from edit warring or risk violating WP:3RR. Skitash (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

> That is your view, but according to most RS and Ishaaq bin Ahmed's article itself refer to him as a semi-legendary mythical figure present in Somali oral lore. We should approach this with neutrality

All sources present Sheikh Ishaq as ranging from semi-legendary to historical, and a stance that entirely denies his existence is neither neutral nor reflective of the balance of evidence. Several reliable sources support his existence, most indicating that he did exist, originated from Arabia, and belonged to the Banu Hashim lineage, which is the basis for my previous message.

> That's not true. Sources do not in any way refer to Arabic as an official language alongside Somali, but rather a "second language." The infobox in Somaliland implies the same thing

I believe there may be a misunderstanding regarding how official languages function within a nation. Arabic is regularly used alongside Somali in Somaliland, including on products and road signs. In this context, “second language” refers to the second state language, following Somali. You also cited the Wikipedia page for the Republic of Somaliland, which lists English as an additional secondary language; however, this is inaccurate, as the official constitution (Article 6 in this case) does not support that claim. This is why I have relied on the official constitutional source rather than the Wikipedia page.

For example, the previous Somaliland licence plate used only Arabic, rather than English or Somali. The new design incorporates both English and Arabic, but omits Somali - does that mean Somali isn't native to the land?

> Please read WP:OTHER and WP:NPA

I would like to clarify that none of my previous messages have breached WP:OTHER or WP:NPA. My actions have been limited to reverting unsourced changes to maintain the accuracy of the article and ensure consistency with other Somaliland-related pages, many of which include Arabic translations in their leads. To prevent further back-and-forth, I have now submitted a third opinion. While we await the neutral review, I will refrain from making further edits to the disputed material.

Additionally, please keep WP:3RR and WP:OTHER in mind for future edits to help avoid similar issues CqHydra (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Additional note: I would encourage you to avoid making unsourced changes based on personal interpretation. You have reverted content on this topic without cited sources, including claims about Sheikh Ishaq’s existence. A misapplied WP:3RR notice was added to my personal talk page in relation to this discussion, though no actual violation occurred. I have been reverting the article to its previously sourced state to maintain accuracy and consistency with related pages. CqHydra (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"Several reliable sources support his existence" The general agreement among RS is that Ishaaq was a mythical figure.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

"Arabic is regularly used alongside Somali in Somaliland" Assuming that this makes Arabic an official language would be WP:OR.

"I would like to clarify that none of my previous messages have breached WP:OTHER or WP:NPA" By WP:OTHER and WP:NPA I was referring to your "then why not change all of them" and "you appear to be pushing an agenda" remarks respectively.

"avoid making unsourced changes based on personal interpretation. You have reverted content on this topic without cited sources" The WP:BURDEN of citing sources lies with the editor adding material. In fact, you're the one who added the WP:OR "Al-Ishaqi" nisba; your only citation being a random X account belonging to an Isaaq diaspora in the Gulf, despite acknowledging yourself that "the Ishaq population adopted the Somali naming system." Skitash (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

> The general agreement among RS is that Ishaaq was a mythical figure

While individual studies may vary in scope, multiple sources, including biographical accounts and physical evidence, support the historical presence of Sheikh Ishaq. These sources suggest he was at least semi-legendary, and they provide stronger historical grounding than claims that he did not exist at all. Many sources that describe Sheikh Ishaq as legendary differ in their inconsistency as information from sources against clash, but as noted previously, there is overall more evidence supporting his historical existence than disputing it.

> Assuming that this makes Arabic an official language would be WP:OR

I would like to clarify that I have never referred to Arabic as an official language of Somaliland. I have described it as co-official for simplicity and context, but have consistently referred to it as a second or secondary language, or the state’s second language - like shown on the official portal I've linked in my previous message.

You stated that Arabic is not native to Somaliland or to the Ishaq specifically. My point was that Arabic functions as Somaliland’s second state language and is regularly used in cultural and religious contexts, as well as formally - for example on licence plates and road signs. Additionally, the language has longstanding historical and religious significance within the community, including through lineage traditions associated with Sheikh Ishaq. So no, this is not original research on my part.

> By WP:OTHER and WP:NPA I was referring to your "then why not change all of them" and "you appear to be pushing an agenda" remarks respectively

To clarify, when I said 'then why not change all of them', I was referring specifically to the inconsistency in your edits. Nearly all Somaliland-related Wikipedia pages include Arabic in their lead sections, and your changes singled out this page while leaving the others untouched. My point was about maintaining consistency across related articles, not about you personally.

And regarding my earlier wording about 'appearing to push an agenda', this was not intended as a personal accusation, nor does it fall under WP:NPA - it was a comment on the editing pattern, specifically the repeated removal of sourced material without providing counter-sources or rationale. My point was simply that those actions gave the impression of a non-neutral starting position in this discussion.

> The WP:BURDEN of citing sources lies with the editor adding material

In this context, the inclusion of Arabic translations does not require its own dedicated source, as per WP:LEADLANG and general practice across comparable articles; editors have discretion to include widely-recognised local names when they are verifiably associated with the subject. Arabic is closely tied to the Ishaq tribe through long-established cultural, religious, historical, and genealogical usage, and it remains a widely used second language in Somaliland (officially as well). These factors make the Arabic form relevant to the lead in the same way Somali and Arabic names appear consistently across other Somaliland-related articles.

> you're the one who added the WP:OR "Al-Ishaqi" nisba; your only citation being a random X account belonging to an Isaaq diaspora in the Gulf

Regarding the X/Twitter link: the individual I referenced is not a 'random' account. He is a recognised figure within the Ishaq tribal community - a Sultan and a representative of the Ishaqi diaspora in the Gulf region who works closely with Somaliland and Saudi Arabia. The link was provided only as supplementary context, not as the primary source for the nisba. The nisba itself is documented independently in published genealogical and historical material relating to Sheikh Ishaq and his descendants. The intention was never to rely on social media as the basis for article content.

For the final point: the Republic of Somaliland is an Arab state, and this is explicitly supported by a primary source - the Somaliland Constitution. Article 6 clearly states that 'the state of the Republic of Somaliland is an independent republic which has its place among the Arab nations, and the peoples of Africa and the Islamic World'. Furthermore, if anyone argues that this wording does not directly affirm that Somaliland is an Arab state, the OFFICIAL government portal provides additional clarification. When you scroll further (from the same page), it explicitly describes Somaliland as 'an African, Arab and Muslim nation'. Given this, including the Arabic translation in the lead section of the Wikipedia page is entirely appropriate and supported by official documentation - https://www.govsomaliland.org/index.php/article/chapter-one CqHydra (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"multiple sources, including biographical accounts and physical evidence, support the historical presence of Sheikh Ishaq" Sheikh Ishaq is only known from oral tradition and hagilogical accounts.^[6] These are not historical evidence; they are the very myths scholars are describing.

"My point was that Arabic functions as Somaliland’s second state language and is regularly used in cultural and religious contexts, as well as formally" This doesn't change the fact that their native language is Somali.

"Nearly all Somaliland-related Wikipedia pages include Arabic in their lead sections" Again, this is exactly what WP:OTHERCONTENT states: "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether similar content exists on another page."

"it was a comment on the editing pattern, specifically the repeated removal of sourced material" Well that would be an WP:ASPERSION, since all I'm doing here is going by what reliable sources say. Also, if you believe that anyone reverting your additions to an article constitutes "pushing an agenda," then you should definitely familiarize yourself with WP:BRD and WP:ONUS.

"as per WP:LEADLANG" Please scroll down to the MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV part where it explicitly says "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single equivalent name in another language may be included in the lead sentence."

"He is a recognised figure within the Ishaq tribal community - a Sultan and a representative of the Ishaqi diaspora in the Gulf region" It's still WP:OR and not representative of the non-diaspora Isaaq population in Somalia. Also see WP:RSPX.

"the Republic of Somaliland is an Arab state" An unrecognized government's constitution has zero relevance to an article about a Somali clan. Skitash (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

> Sheikh Ishaq is only known from oral tradition and hagilogical accounts. These are not historical evidence; they are the very myths scholars are describing

This is simply untrue. I’ve repeatedly pointed out the physical evidence for this, yet it continues to be dismissed. The evidence supporting this is overwhelmingly stronger than anything to against.

> This doesn't change the fact that their native language is Somali

Both languages are native in this context, and that is why they are both included, with Somali appropriately listed first in the lead translation. The dialect of Somali spoken in Somaliland is Northern Somali proper, and within that, a specific sub-dialect commonly referred to as 'Ishaqi Somali'. This dialect incorporates a substantial amount of Arabic - often cited as roughly 30% - and has phonological features distinct from Southern Somali. This is in addition to the fact that Arabic is regularly used for cultural and religious purposes and is spoken natively by a minority as a primary language.

> Again, this is exactly what WP:OTHERCONTENT states: "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether similar content exists on another page."

Notice the word 'solely'? I have never relied solely on other Somaliland-related Wikipedia pages as justification. I’ve given multiple, independent reasons for why Arabic is relevant to this article. Pointing to other Somaliland pages was never a standalone argument - it was an example of consistent editorial practice based on the same criteria. That set of criteria is what you continue to overlook in favour of a viewpoint that isn’t supported by the factual context, and one whose standards seem to shift slightly with each post.

> Well that would be an WP:ASPERSION, since all I'm doing here is going by what reliable sources say. Also, if you believe that anyone reverting your additions to an article constitutes "pushing an agenda," then you should definitely familiarize yourself with WP:BRD and WP:ONUS

Firstly, to clarify: I never stated you were 'pushing an agenda'. I specifically said you appear to be taking a non-neutral position - which is an observation about your editorial stance in that moment, not an accusation of misconduct. Conveniently omitting the word 'appear' misrepresents what I actually wrote. The reason I said this is because your position on Sheikh Ishaq did not reflect the balance found in the sources. The majority classify him as semi-legendary or historical; sources stating he is entirely legendary are comparatively limited. Highlighting that imbalance is not a personal attack - it’s a comment on how the material was being approached.

> Please scroll down to the MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV part where it explicitly says "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single equivalent name in another language may be included in the lead sentence."

I'm fully aware of MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, and it actually supports the position I’ve outlined - it does not contradict it. The guideline states that a single equivalent name in another language may be included in the lead when the subject is closely associated with that language. Arabic is closely associated with the Ishaq in several ways: historically, culturally, religiously, and linguistically, and it is also one of Somaliland’s two state languages as defined in the constitution. That clearly meets the guideline’s threshold. MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV does not require the language to be the sole native language, nor does it restrict inclusion to only primary languages. Your interpretation adds requirements that are not present in the guideline.

> It's still WP:OR and not representative of the non-diaspora Isaaq population in Somalia. Also see WP:RSPX

The Ishaq diaspora in Somalia is comparatively lesser in size than the communities in the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Accordingly, discussions about the tribe’s cultural or linguistic context should focus on diasporas of significant size, such as those in the Gulf states and the United Kingdom. Regarding OR, that policy applies to article content, and it is not a sourcing violation in this case, as I have not used it on the Wikipedia page. If there are additional concerns you wish to raise, please list them specifically so we can refute them one by one.

> An unrecognized government's constitution has zero relevance to an article about a Somali clan

It is a tribe, not a clan, and this cannot be overlooked. The Ishaq constitute the majority of the population in the Republic of Somaliland, so the constitution provides relevant context regarding their linguistic, cultural, and political affiliations. You have not provided sources as reliable or strong as those I have cited; most of your arguments rely on claims or accusations rather than verifiable evidence. Legitimacy or recognition is irrelevant as long as the information directly relates to the Wikipedia page’s subject. By that logic, should official figures for GDP or other statistics about Somaliland also be dismissed simply because the state is not widely recognized?

It honestly seems as if you are disregarding the sources I provide, even when they are governmental. You have shifted the goalposts multiple times while citing very few reliable sources yourself. CqHydra (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed thoughts, but I don't have the time to keep responding to these long walls of text. At this point it's starting to feel like WP:BLUDGEONING, so I'll keep it short.

Your "physical evidence" (an image of a tomb, your "DNA study" that says nothing about DNA, and a 1941 hagiography) are not sources but rather examples of pure WP:OR. These are most certainly not "overwhelmingly stronger" than the myriad of scholarly RS as cited above, on this article, and Ishaaq bin Ahmed's article. Everything else you keep mentioning (i.e. Arabic as a second state language of the Somaliland government, Gulf diaspora nisba, Ishaqi Somali containing some Arabic loanwords, Somaliland license plate featuring Arabic but omitting Somali) is completely irrelevant to this article.

Also, all your responses read like they may have been AI-generated, as they strongly match the signs on WP:LLMSIGNS. If that is the case, see WP:LLMTALK. Skitash (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This message concerns the user Skitash

I’m concerned that my comments were collapsed on the basis of alleged AI-generation. I want to clarify that all of my posts were written by me, with only grammar assistance using third party websites - which is permitted under the relevant guidelines. The notices placed on my talk page and the collapsing of my comments feel disproportionate, and I intend to request administrative review at WP:ANI so this can be evaluated neutrally. The use of dashes was simply to separate sections for clarity and to make the discussion easier to follow - nothing more. CqHydra (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It kinda does read as LLM-generated to me, but I would WP:AGF

Anyways, I'm here from WP:3O. I agree with Skitash that MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV does state that at most one foreign equivalent should be included in the lead. I looked for discussions on this guideline on the talk page and found several . My reading of these discussions informs my understanding of MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, which I am reading "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language". It seems to me that this guideline best applies when the subject of the article is most closely associated with one language, in which case it would be proper to include that non-English foreign equivalent in parentheses in the lead sentence. In this case, there are two commonly associated languages with this subject, so the resolution would be to remove the parenthetical altogether and put all the information in a footnote to avoid cluttering the lead.

I'm going to comment on the other aspect here shortly. Katzrockso (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I truly don't understand the locus of the dispute with regards to the nisba or whatnot. What are you trying to include @CqHydra and what are you trying to exclude @Skitash? Katzrockso (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Katzrockso. Thanks for the third opinion. In my view, given that Isaaq are a Somali clan indigenous to Somalia whose native language is Somali, it would make sense to say Somali is the most closely associated language with this subject. As for the proposed nisba (al-Ishaqi), it appears to be WP:OR. CqHydra has acknowledged that Isaaq uses the Somali naming system, and their only source for the nisba is the X account of a random Isaaq diaspora in the Gulf. Skitash (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Having looked into this topic a bit more, I agree with your contention that Somali is the most closely associated with this subject. Academic linguistic work on Somali language refer to the Isaaq people as a Somali-speaking people. Katzrockso (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

A nisba essentially functions like a family name - similar to how someone today might have a surname such as Jack or Harold. In this context, it refers to a tribal affiliation, effectively serving as a surname. My reason for including this is that al-Ishaqi (and variants) is the tribe’s nisba - its effective surname. It has fallen out of everyday use in Somaliland due to the Somali naming system but remains in use among the Somaliland diaspora in the Gulf, who form the majority abroad.

There is also direct historical usage of the nisba, for example in Amjaad of Sheikh Husseen bin Ahmed Darwiish al-Isaaqi as-Soomaali, a printed work published in Aden.

See Lewis (1999), p. 131:

Lewis, I. M. (1999). *A Pastoral Democracy*. LIT Verlag Münster.

> their only source for the nisba is the X account of a random Isaaq diaspora in the Gulf

When Skitash refers to this, he is talking about the X account of a tribal leader of the Ishaq/Isaaq in the Gulf states and Arabia, who he holds the title of Sultan and goes by Sultan Abdullah Al-Ishaqi. I referenced this only to help clarify my point for Skitash; I have not used it as a source in the Wikipedia article at all.

X account in question:

https://x.com/SuldanIsahaqi

That’s also not mentioning the fact that the nisba of the Ishaq tribe has been used in multiple related Wikipedia pages before, such as this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisba_(onomastics) (ctrl + f to see 'al-Ishaaqi, from the tribe or clan of Ishaaq in Somaliland')

I personally believe the inclusion of the nisba is relevant to the article, and there are historical references supporting its usage. Even if the nisba was more commonly used before the 21st century, it continues to have significant usage in the Gulf states and Arabia. For these reasons, I believe its inclusion in the article is reasonable.

For example, the Wikipedia article on the Bani Malik tribe includes the nisba Al-Maliki, which demonstrates that similar usages are already present in comparable articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bani_Malik_(tribe) CqHydra (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@CqHydra So I take it you want to include the nisba in the infobox? Katzrockso (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. I would like to include the nisba of the Ishaq/Ishaaq/Isaaq tribe in the infobox because (A), it is still actively used today, even if less commonly than in previous centuries, and (B), it remains directly relevant to both the tribe and the content of this Wikipedia article. CqHydra (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not true. The source you cited above for "active use" of the nisba is a footnote about a 1955 religious hagiography printed in Aden. That doesn't support your claim that it's commonly used at all.

Also, comparing Isaaq to Bani Malik makes no sense. Bani Malik is an Arab with a native Arabic naming system built around nisbas. The Isaaq are a Somali clan with a completely different naming system that doesn't operate on nisbas. Skitash (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

> The source you cited above for "active use" of the nisba is a footnote about a 1955 religious hagiography printed in Aden. That doesn't support your claim that it's commonly used at all

You appear to be taking many of my statements out of context. In the paragraph you’re referring to, I clearly wrote that 'there is also direct historical usage of the nisba' after citing Lewis (1999), p. 131. I did not claim that this citation shows it is commonly used today - it was specifically provided as evidence of historical usage.

This source therefore supports my point that the nisba has documented historical usage, and it does so from a credible academic reference.

> Also, comparing Isaaq to Bani Malik makes no sense. Bani Malik is an Arab with a native Arabic naming system built around nisbas

I believe there may be some confusion here. The Ishaq tribe’s internal structure and naming conventions - apart from personal names used in Somaliland - still follow their original framework, which is very similar to that of tribes such as the Bani Malik. The Ishaq are structurally distinct from their neighbouring Somali clan model; their formation, organisation, and historical lineage differ in ways that make them unique - comparable to tribes such as Bani Malik, which is why the comparison is relevant.

> The Isaaq are a Somali clan

The distinction between a tribe and a clan is important. The modern term 'Somali clan' originates from colonial classifications - it has no historical basis and was created mainly to differentiate Somali groups from North African and Middle Eastern tribes. The accurate terminology in this case is tribe, since a clan is usually a subdivision of a tribe. The Ishaq are not part of any higher grouping in practice; they function as a standalone group. This is why the comparison to tribes like the Bani Malik is appropriate. CqHydra (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a note: under the framework of a single shared origin, other groups from Somalia and Somaliland could be reasonably referred to as clans or clan-families. However, the Ishaq do not make such a claim, particularly given their clearly defined heritage and lineage through Sheikh Ishaq.

For example, the Hawiye may appropriately be described as a clan, but applying the term 'clan' to the Ishaq is not accurate in a factual or historical sense. CqHydra (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Everything you said here is unsourced nonsense. Isaaq are not "very similar" to Bani Malik at all, and no scholar has ever claimed they're "structurally distinct" from other Somali clans. The idea that Somali groups were separated from North African and Middle Eastern tribes by colonialists is absurd at best. Reliable sources constantly refer to Isaaq as merely one of the six Somali clan families that are Hamitic, Cushitic, and "physically and culturally homogeneous."

The 1955 source you're trying to use is a hagiography (not reliable), and claiming that this is enough to warrant "documented historical usage" would be WP:UNDUE. You are using a WP:FRINGE passing mention to draw the false conclusion that nisbas were somehow widespread in the past and this therefore warrants their inclusion in the infobox. Skitash (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

> Everything you said here is unsourced nonsense. Isaaq are not "very similar" to Bani Malik at all

This is the third time you’ve misrepresented something I wrote. Stop altering my statements to fit your narrative. I clearly stated that, structurally, the Ishaq are more comparable to tribes in the Arabian region and North/Northeast Africa - that is a factual point. Please stop confusing 'tribe' and 'clan' in this discussion and stop changing my wording.

> Isaaq as merely one of the six Somali clan families that are Hamitic, Cushitic, and "physically and culturally homogeneous."

The term 'Hamitic' is an out-of-date racial classification that is no longer used in modern scholarship. Calling my statements 'unsourced nonsense' while simultaneously referring to the Ishaq as 'Hamitic' is both inconsistent, inappropriate, and ridiculous. If you are going to challenge the sourcing I’ve provided, please avoid relying on outdated racial terminology.

> The 1955 source you're trying to use is a hagiography (not reliable), and claiming that this is enough to warrant "documented historical usage" would be WP:UNDUE

I beg to clarify that I am not using it to prove ancestry, legitimacy, or historical reality, other than the fact that Al-Ishaqi is a nisba which has been historically used. This is not an assertion of a controversial historical fact and thus cannot be labelled as WP:UNDUE. The study was published by Oxford University Press, which applies peer review and editorial standards, and therefore qualifies as a secondary WP:RS. Ioan Myrddin Lewis, the author, is generally considered a credible source on Somali history, lineage, and heritage.

> You are using a WP:FRINGE passing mention to draw the false conclusion that nisbas were somehow widespread in the past and this therefore warrants their inclusion in the infobox

The Al-Ishaqi nisba is not extinct; it continues to be used in the Arabian and Gulf states. Widespread usage is not required for inclusion in the infobox - Wikipedia focuses on notability and documented historical evidence, which applies here. My previous message does not fall under WP:FRINGE, as Lewis is a credible scholar, and the source was used solely to document the historical usage of the nisba.

> The idea that Somali groups were separated from North African and Middle Eastern tribes by colonialists is absurd at best

The distinction between the Hawiye being labelled a 'clan' and the Saud being labelled a 'tribe' is a matter of title, which was largely a product of colonial administration. Realistically, the Hawiye would fall under the broader category of a tribe rather than a clan. I was not referring to genetics. Your repeated personalized statements in this discussion may of violated WP:CIVIL. CqHydra (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"The Al-Ishaqi nisba is not extinct; it continues to be used in the Arabian and Gulf states" Even if this were true, this pretty much settles our argument here. You've just admitted that Isaaq does not use the nisba in their native homeland in Somalia. A minority diaspora practice in Gulf Arab states (according to you) does not override the native naming system of Isaaq. Therefore, a nisba definitely has no place in the infobox @Katzrockso. Skitash (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

From my understanding of the dispute over the nisba now, it seems like it is used primarily in Islamic religious scholarship rather than the full breadth of scholarship on this people. I concur that adding this to the infobox is UNDUE. Katzrockso (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and clear third opinion. Both points are now settled: the nisba is WP:UNDUE for the infobox, and Somali is the most closely associated language with the subject. Skitash (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

> It kinda does read as LLM-generated to me, but I would WP:AGF

I genuinely write everything myself; I only use third-party tools to check and correct grammar. I understand that the text may look LLM-generated, but that was never my intention.

Regarding your response, I am personally in favour of placing both the Somali and Arabic equivalents in a footnote, especially given the significance of Arabic to the subject of this article and its continued relevance today (per constitution, formal, and traditional usage). CqHydra (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Obviously AI-generated wall of text, featuring WP:MARKDOWN, WP:LLMISM, WP:AIVOCAB, WP:COLLABCOMM, WP:AIDASH, etc, consistent with the editor's AI use on other talk pages.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
> Thanks for the detailed thoughts, but I don't have the time to keep responding to these long walls of text. At this point it's starting to feel like WP:BLUDGEONING, so I'll keep it short I understand why you might feel my responses are lengthy - they absolutely are, because I’m addressing your points in full rather than trying to overwhelm you or 'win' by volume. I’m giving detailed replies because your own messages raise complex points that deserve proper, comprehensive responses. This isn’t about forcing an opinion. I’m genuinely confused as to why Arabic would be considered unrelated to the topic, given the cultural, historical, and linguistic context I’ve already outlined. You’re arguing intensely to remove something that has clear relevance, whereas I’m supporting the existing status quo with policy-based reasoning. You want to make a change; I’m explaining why the current version is justified. > Your "physical evidence" (an image of a tomb, your "DNA study" that says nothing about DNA, and a 1941 hagiography) are not sources but rather examples of pure WP:OR Labelling a physical structure as OR is simply incorrect. OR applies only when an editor invents a new or unpublished interpretation. I have done no such thing. The existence of a tomb attributed to Sheikh Ishaq is a long-established element in discussions about his historicity. Mentioning that the tomb exists is not OR in any sense - it becomes OR only when someone tries to draw a novel conclusion from it, which I have not done. I’m referencing evidence that is directly tied to the subject, and dismissing it as 'OR' is true misuse of the policy. > Everything else you keep mentioning (i.e. Arabic as a second state language of the Somaliland government, Gulf diaspora nisba, Ishaqi Somali containing some Arabic loanwords, Somaliland license plate featuring Arabic but omitting Somali) is completely irrelevant to this article When I reference the relevance of Arabic in Somaliland, I am pointing to concrete, real-world examples - such as its appearance on licence plates and road signs - to demonstrate its practical and cultural significance within the state. These are not subjective interpretations but observable facts supporting the argument that Arabic plays a meaningful role in Somaliland’s public life. By contrast, you have dismissed this relevance without providing any clear rationale or counter-evidence. The Ishaq are an ethno-tribal group forming the largest share of Somaliland’s population, and Somaliland itself explicitly frames its identity in ways that include linguistic and cultural ties to the Arab world. This makes Arabic contextually relevant to the topic of this article, not as a primary language of the tribe, but as part of the broader cultural and state framework connected to the group. As per its own constitution, Somaliland explicitly refers to itself as an Arab nation. Regardless of your personal view on Somaliland’s international status, its constitutional languages remains a primary source reflecting how the state defines its identity. Even if one were to treat Somaliland as a federal entity within Somalia, that constitutional wording would still exist and still represent the self-identification of the population governed by it. Given that Arabic is native to Arab-identifying communities - just as it is for Moroccans or Sudanese - its cultural and political relevance to Somaliland’s population is clear. This further supports why Arabic is contextually appropriate in discussions relating to the Ishaq, who form the majority of Somaliland’s demographic and institutional identity. > These are most certainly not "overwhelmingly stronger" than the myriad of scholarly RS as cited above, on this article, and Ishaaq bin Ahmed's article Physical evidence, historical accounts and biographies, oral tradition, and recent studies should be considered together, not isolated from one another. Some of your studies you cited appear to be repetitions of earlier work, and many - if not most - were not even conducted in Somaliland, which limits their applicability to this specific context. Oral tradition is a core component of historical transmission across much of Arabia as well. By your logic, this would imply that large portions of Arabian heritage are 'fabricated' or merely 'myth and legend', which is clearly not a reasonable standard. Oral history is a legitimate form of cultural preservation and should not be dismissed selectively. > Also, all your responses read like they may have been AI-generated, as they strongly match the signs on WP:LLMSIGNS. If that is the case, see WP:LLMTALK Everything I’ve written here is my own work. Suggesting otherwise is inaccurate and, frankly, quite dismissive of the time and effort I’ve put into responding in detail. The length and depth of my messages reflect the fact that I am taking the discussion seriously and writing carefully - nothing more. I would appreciate it if you did not imply that my contributions are machine-generated simply because they are thorough. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding the third opinion: I will continue requesting one until an assessment is provided. Once that opinion is given, I expect that both of us will accept its conclusions - I certainly will. I’m disappointed that you appeared to push toward an edit war rather than seeking a compromise. The appropriate approach would have been to keep the article in its original form until either a third opinion was secured or a mutually acceptable compromise was reached. At this point, I don’t have the energy to continue repeating the same explanations, especially when they seem to be ignored. This will likely be my final direct response. Thank you for the difficulties this situation has created. CqHydra (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)