Talk:Zeila

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing Zeila and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Somaliland Top‑importance

	Somaliland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somaliland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somaliland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomalilandWikipedia:WikiProject SomalilandTemplate:WikiProject SomalilandWikiProject Somaliland
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somalia High‑importance

	Somalia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomaliaWikipedia:WikiProject SomaliaTemplate:WikiProject SomaliaWikiProject Somalia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Hegira to Hijrah اخسجہ (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (@اخسجہ) lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい 12:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Hijrah#Requested move 9 February 2022. اخسجہ (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the intro, for the second paragraph, please add that it is one of the oldest cities on the East African coast. https://www.somtribune.com/2015/10/25/somaliland-notes-the-town-people-of-zeila-in-historical-pictures/ 2600:100C:A203:FD7F:FCC5:744C:531D:8BC0 (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done @2600:100C:A203:FD7F:FCC5:744C:531D:8BC0 Please follow the request guidelines and specify a verbatim copy of the updated text. I am also unsure about this source, it's quite a mess of a webpage. It's completely unclear to whom the quote in question can be attributed. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The historical demographics of zeila is not accurate please include that richard burton documentated in 1856 that Habar Awal inhabit the coast from Siyara to Zeila and also noted down that Garhajis lived in Zeila, "The Habar Awal occupy the coast from Zeila and Siyaaro to the lands bordering upon the Berteri tribe" and "Hitherto our partial intervention between the Habr Awal of Berberah and the Habr Gerhajis of Zayla has been fraught with evils to them, and consequently to us" both quotes from richard burton first footsteps in East africa

Later on in the 19th century philipp paulitschke 1888 documentated that the Habar Awal and Gadabursi live there Permenately as settled traders Source : Harar P.Paulitsckhe, 49 HararAwal (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal: Historical sources, many of which date back over a century, are often vague and should generally be treated as secondary or supplementary references particularly when a reliable, contemporary primary source is available such as the Tim Glawion (2020) source presented in the article detailing the current demographics. In your case, no such contemporary source supports your edit request. Therefore, to accurately represent current demographic information, a recent and verifiable source is required. Alternatively, the historical source may be cited specifically as a historical observation by the author, but it should not be presented as authoritative for present day data which the demographics section is. Hope that helps. Therefore I do not think your edit request would be valid. MustafaO (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

i, I'm Mustafa. I'd like to clarify that my edit refers specifically to the historical demographics of Zeila, not the current population makeup. I believe it is important to distinguish between the two. While recent sources like Tim Glawion (2020) are useful for understanding the city's present-day demographics, they do not capture the full historical context—which is essential for an encyclopedic entry, especially in a city as historically significant as Zeila.

Historical sources—while sometimes imperfect—are indispensable when discussing the long-term development and significance of places like Zeila. It would be a disservice to omit the contributions of historically prominent Somali clans such as the Isaaq (specifically the Habr Awal and Habr Gerhajis), who played a major role in Zeila’s economic and political life during the pre-colonial and colonial periods. Sources like Richard Burton and Philipp Paulitschke clearly document their presence and influence in the town.

I agree that historical sources should not be misused to describe the current demographics. However, I am not suggesting that—they should instead be incorporated into a separate historical context section, or clarified as part of the historical evolution of Zeila’s population. This is a standard approach in many articles where present-day data is presented alongside historical insights to give readers a fuller picture.

In fact, one could argue that understanding Zeila's historical demographics is even more important than the present-day snapshot, especially given the city's former role as a key port and trading hub in the Horn of Africa. A fuller representation, which acknowledges both contemporary and historical sources, would better serve the article’s accuracy and balance. HararAwal (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

Although I appreciate your effort to distinguish between historical and contemporary demographics in the article on Zeila, I would like to remind you about a few of your points with some key considerations rooted in Wikipedia's citation and editing policies.

Firstly, it's important to note that the historical role of figures such as Sharmarke Ali Saleh and the broader context of Zeila’s regional importance during the 19th century are already well represented and properly cited in the article.

However, when it comes to the demographic presence of specific Somali clans such as the Habr Awal in Zeila, there is limited academic evidence explicitly supporting the notion that the Habr Awal historically constituted a stable or substantial resident demographic within Zeila itself.

According to Wikipedia's core content guideline, “Verifiability, not truth”, all content must be attributable to reliable, published sources and not just theoretically plausible, vague or based on interpretations. Furthermore, Wikipedia’s guideline on "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (see [WP\:EXTRAORDINARY](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Extraordinary_claims)) states:

"Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources are likely to be challenged and removed.”

If a claim contradicts the prevailing scholarly consensus or introduces a significant reinterpretation of historical demographics, it needs to be backed by multiple, independent, and high quality academic sources not just one or two historical travelogues that may contain limitations or generalizations common to their time. If you have multiple sources stating the same thing, you could have a stronger case but isolated travelogues that are also vague are not supported by WP:EXTRAORDINARY. MustafaO (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns on the historical demographics of Zeila and the presence of the Habr Awal clan, I appreciate your point about the need for high-quality, multiple, and independent sources, especially when dealing with potentially contested historical claims. I agree that verifiability, not theoretical plausibility, is the standard we must uphold per WP:V and WP:RS.

However, I would like to clarify that the sources I’ve drawn upon—Lieutenant Richard Burton's First Footsteps in East Africa and the Austrian explorer Philipp Paulitschke's Ethnographie Nordost-Afrikas—are both primary contemporaneous accounts from the 19th century that are widely cited in East African historiography and ethnographic studies. While travelogues, by nature, may contain some subjectivity, they still meet the criteria of reliable primary sources when used with proper context, as per WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSUW (Reliable Sources on Unusual Ways).

Both sources explicitly reference the Habr Awal's trading presence, political influence, and residency in Zeila during that period. While the level of their demographic dominance may be debated, the claim of a resident presence is supported by multiple contemporary witnesses and not an extraordinary or fringe assertion. These authors are not unknown or fringe figures, but rather published and referenced in historical scholarship.

Per WP:DUE, including this information does not overstate the case but provides proportionate weight to historically documented accounts. I am not asserting Habr Awal constituted a majority, only that they had a documented presence, which is well within Wikipedia’s scope of inclusion for historical content, especially when presented neutrally.

That said, I’m happy to rephrase the statement to reflect a more cautious tone (e.g., "had a notable presence" or "were among the Somali clans recorded as residing in or trading from Zeila during the 19th century") and to attribute the statement directly to the cited sources. This would satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:ATTRIBUTION.

If you’re open to it, we can also consider adding a small note or inline attribution to clarify the nature of the sources, in the interest of full transparency. HararAwal (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

I appreciate your willingness to rephrase and attribute more cautiously. However, I remain concerned about relying on 19th century travelogues as primary sources (per WP:PRIMARY) and (WP:EXTRAORDINARY) for asserting historical presence without strong corroboration from multiple sources (WP:RS, WP:HISTRS). While these accounts may be cited for attributed claims, Wikipedia places weight on modern, scholarly analysis over travelogue observations.

Having said that said, I’d support a neutrally worded, well attributed mention e.g.,

“European travelers in the 19th century, such as Paulitschke, noted that the Habr Awal were among the Somali clans involved in trade in Zeila” which would respect WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:ATTRIBUTION without overstating. If you are happy to word that then we could add it in the history section. But we have to be mindful of wording. MustafaO (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and your willingness to find a balanced wording that respects Wikipedia’s policies.

I completely agree that relying solely on 19th-century travelogues requires careful attribution and cautious phrasing to comply with WP:PRIMARY and WP:EXTRAORDINARY, as well as the importance of modern scholarly analysis per WP:RS and WP:HISTRS.

With that in mind, I propose the following neutral, well-attributed statement for the history section:

“European travelers in the mid-19th century, such as Richard Burton (1854) and Philipp Paulitschke (1888), noted that the Habr Awal clan were permanently settled and actively engaged in trade in the city of Zeila.”

In particular, I would like to include the specific quote from Philipp Paulitschke, who described the Habr Awal’s established residence in Zeila. Including his direct words will provide clear attribution and strengthen the statement’s reliability.

If you agree, I can draft the exact wording with proper inline citations, ensuring full compliance with WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:ATTRIBUTION.

After all Richard Burton and Philipp Paulitschke are the earliest Primary sources on the demographics on Zeila.

Please let me know your thoughts and thank you for discussing HararAwal (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal

Regarding Paulitschke, the quotation is:

"But Gadabursi and Habr Awal in particular, who achieved modest fortune through happy speculations, settled in the city or live there for at least part of the year as permanent or occasional agents of their wild brothers."(Paulitschke, page 49).

Read it carefully. The phrase "permanent or occasional agents" refers to their economic role as intermediaries or traders, it doesn’t state permanent settlers at all.

Regarding Burton himself, he does not explicitly mention permanent residence either and in his description of the journey from Zayla to the nearest hills, there is no reference to the Habr Awal clan, but the Issa and Gadabursi. His remarks concerning the Habr Awal between Zayla and Siyaro appear in the footnotes rather than in the main body of the text, which raises issues under WP:UNDUE, as undue weight may be given to material not emphasized by the original author.

Do you have any sources explicitly referencing the Habr Awal as permanent settlers in Zeila as the Paulitschke citation goes against WP:VERIFIABILITY? MustafaO (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mustafa,

Thanks for your response and for quoting Paulitschke — great work.

You're right that we must approach primary sources with caution per WP:PRIMARY, and I appreciate your close reading. However, I would like to clarify a few points in line with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE:

== 1. Paulitschke’s Wording Does Imply Physical Residence ==

The phrase:

: "settled in the city or live there for at least part of the year as permanent or occasional agents"

does not exclude physical residency. On the contrary, the word "settled" clearly implies that some members of the Habr Awal and Gadabursi did establish residence in Zeila. Paulitschke explicitly distinguishes between full settlement and part-year presence — both of which reflect forms of habitation. That alone warrants inclusion of this material, in attributed form, particularly because Paulitschke is a widely cited 19th-century ethnographer in Somali historiography.

The “agents” clause refers to their economic function — it does not negate their residential status. Individuals acting as “permanent or occasional agents” could and did still live in the city, either year-round or seasonally. This still qualifies as settlement, and we can reflect that nuance with neutral language.

== 2. WP:VERIFIABILITY Does Not Require “Permanent Settler” Terminology ==

Under WP:V, we do not need sources to use the exact phrase "permanent settler" to justify inclusion. The statement "settled in the city" from a reliable, historically significant source is a clear indication of residence. Wikipedia encourages summarizing reliably sourced material in a neutral tone, as long as it does not involve original synthesis. The following sentence, for example, is fully compliant with policy:

: "According to Philipp Paulitschke (1888), some members of the Habr Awal and Gadabursi clans had settled in Zeila or lived there seasonally, often acting as commercial agents."

This version respects attribution and avoids undue interpretation.

== 3. Burton and WP:UNDUE ==

Regarding Richard Burton, although his reference to the Habr Awal appears in a footnote, it is still valid and citable per WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. Footnotes in 19th-century works — especially travelogues and ethnographies — often contain key anthropological observations. As long as we attribute properly and don’t give it disproportionate emphasis, we are within policy.

Burton writes:

: "The Habr Awal occupy the seaboard from Zayla to Siyaro, and extend from the coast to the Marar Prairie." – First Footsteps in East Africa, p. 28

This description shows a recognized territorial and economic presence along the Zeila coast. While "occupy" may not precisely mean urban residence, it certainly implies continuous access, control, and proximity — all of which support inclusion when carefully worded and attributed.

== Conclusion ==

While I fully agree that “settled” does not imply urban dominance, it still meets the threshold of residency. Paulitschke’s reference to settlement, along with Burton’s acknowledgment of coastal occupation, together provide strong, properly sourced grounds for inclusion.

Here is a possible middle-ground, NPOV-compliant sentence:

: "According to 19th-century accounts such as Philipp Paulitschke (1888) and Richard Burton (1856), some members of the Habr Awal and Gadabursi clans settled in Zeila or lived there seasonally, acting as trade agents for their nomadic kin and occupying the coastal strip from Zeila to Siyaro."

Let me know if this strikes a fair balance — I’m happy to refine further if needed. HararAwal (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal

Ok lets see if we can reach a compromise. Begore that. A few key clarifications are in order:

1. Paulitschke Does Not Indicate Permanent Settlement.

While Paulitschke mentions that some individuals "settled in the city or live there for at least part of the year as permanent or occasional agents," this clearly distinguishes economic presence from residential permanence. The term "agents" reflects a commercial function, and “permanent” in this context is referring to agency and not residence or settlement. Interpreting this as a claim of permanent residency for entire clans risks original synthesis per WP:SYN and goes beyond what the source says.

2. Per WP:V, verifiability requires that material be faithfully represented. Saying the clans "settled" in Zeila may be technically accurate for some individuals, but overgeneralizing this to imply widespread or permanent urban settlement is WP:UNDUE. The more neutral and policy aligned phrasing would be:

"According to 19th-century accounts such as Philipp Paulitschke (1888) and Richard Burton (1856), some members of the Gadabursi and Habr Awal clans settled in Zeila or lived there seasonally, acting as trade agents for their nomadic kin."

This phrasing is appropriately attributed, avoids overreach, and reflects what the sources actually say.

3. The Zeila-to-Siyaro Claim is WP:UNDUE ==

Burton’s mention that the Habr Awal “occupy the seaboard from Zayla to Siyaro” reflects territorial range, not urban residency. It is like saying the Jack lives between Washington and New York. This doesn't imply residency in either Washington or New York. Including this line in the context of Zeila’s settlement history risks giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to a passing footnote that does not speak directly to habitation or settlement in Zeila itself. It can mislead readers into assuming a level of urban presence not supported by the source.

This would be a fair edit that is not OVERKILL:

Hi Mustafa,

Thanks for your insights to this topic, I believe we are getting towards a fair common ground, I agree it's important we get this right, especially with historical sources like Paulitschke and Burton.

== 1. Paulitschke’s Language Does Suggest Forms of Residency ==

While you're right to point out the importance of avoiding overinterpretation, I would respectfully clarify that Paulitschke’s wording:

"settled in the city or live there for at least part of the year as permanent or occasional agents"

(Philipp Paulitschke, Ethnographie Nordost-Afrikas, 1888, p. 49)

does in fact support inclusion — when carefully phrased. The term “settled” directly implies physical habitation, while “live there for at least part of the year” explicitly describes seasonal residence. The phrase “permanent or occasional agents” describes economic roles, but it does not preclude residential presence. If anything, it reinforces that some individuals lived in Zeila in varying capacities. So long as we don’t claim mass or permanent settlement of entire clans, it’s reasonable to reflect this nuance with proper attribution.

== 2. On Verifiability and WP:DUE ==

Per WP:V, we are not required to prove absolute or permanent residency to mention historical presence — especially when sources like Paulitschke and Burton provide direct wording on habitation or territorial control. A sentence such as:

"According to 19th-century accounts such as Philipp Paulitschke (1888) and Richard Burton (1856), some members of the Habr Awal and Gadabursi clans settled in Zeila or lived there seasonally, acting as trade agents for their nomadic kin."

is a fair and policy-compliant reflection of what the sources say. It is attributed, neutral, and avoids synthesis.

== 3. Burton’s Quote Remains Valid and Should Be Included ==

While it's true Burton’s mention appears in a footnote, footnotes in 19th-century ethnographies often contain significant anthropological observations. Wikipedia’s WP:UNDUE policy does not forbid citing such material — it only requires that we not give it disproportionate weight. Including a short, sourced mention is fully valid.

Here is what Burton writes:

“The Habr Awal occupy the seaboard from Zayla to Siyaro, and extend from the coast to the Marar Prairie.”

(First Footsteps in East Africa, 1856, p. 28)

This demonstrates a clear territorial and coastal presence. While it may not confirm urban residence in Zeila itself, it certainly indicates proximity and geographic control. Including this in the Zeila section — with proper phrasing and attribution — is reasonable.

== 4. A Balanced Wording Proposal ==

To reflect all of the above in line with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:DUE, I suggest:

Let me know if this version strikes a fair balance , happy to tweak further in the spirit of consensus.

Thanks! HararAwal (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal

I believe we may be going in circles and I'm afraid we will not br able to reach some form of conclusion. While I appreciate the effort to frame Paulitschke and Burton within policy, your interpretation continues to stretch WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:DUE beyond acceptable limits.

To be clear:

“Between Zeila and Siyaro” does not equate to settlement in Zeila which is what you are trying to push, nor does it imply urban habitation. WP:OR prohibits us from making that interpretive leap.

Paulitschke’s phrase regarding seasonal or occasional presence is not a definitive claim of residence, it states permanent agents, not residents. Ive repeated this quite a few times. WP:DUE requires that such attributions be framed in proportion to their weight across the literature — and this one is notably limited in scope and context.

Repetition of a claim does not improve its standing under policy. We've now discussed this at length, and there’s no new evidence being presented — just rewordings of the same point.

In the spirit of constructive resolution, I suggest taking this to a Third Opinion (WP:3O). If disagreement persists, a formal path such as Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (WP:DRN) or Arbitration Committee (WP:ARB) may be appropriate. That way, we can get wider community input and potentially arrive at a lasting consensus. Let me know if you wish for us to open an Arbitration discussion and then other parties can make a decision. MustafaO (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mustafa,

It seems like we have a misunderstanding. To put things better into scope, I will be using how the Issa were depicted in the Demographics section as a guide.

First, I want to clarify that I am not interpreting Burton’s quote (“the Habr Awal occupy the seaboard from Zayla to Siyaro”) as a statement of urban settlement in Zeila. I am simply citing it at face value - a geographically descriptive note about the territorial presence of the Habr Awal along the coast, including Zeila. This is not an interpretive leap, nor does it violate WP:OR. It is a verbatim citation from a reliable historical source.

If we look at how the Issa are described in the article:

“The Issa subclan of the Dir are especially well represented in the wider Zeila District.”

“The southern rural areas [of Zeila District] are almost universally inhabited by the Ciise clan...”These are territorial or district-level associations, not claims of urban residence. This shows that clan presence in a general area is already accepted in the article without needing strict proof of residence. So referencing the Habr Awal’s occupation of a stretch from Zeila to Siyaro (per Burton) is consistent and proportionate — especially when no claim of settlement is being made.

Regarding Paulitschke, even if we interpret “permanent agents” narrowly, it still supports the fact that some Habr Awal individuals maintained ongoing commercial activity in Zeila. That is verifiable and relevant, even if modest in scope — and worth including alongside similarly limited claims made about other groups.

Suggested addition for neutrality and balance:

According to 19th-century accounts, some members of the Habr Awal clan maintained a commercial presence in Zeila as trade agents (Paulitschke, 1888). Richard Burton (1856) noted that the Habr Awal “occupy the seaboard from Zayla to Siyaro.”

This phrasing is sourced, attributed, avoids synthesis or undue weight, and reflects the way the Issa are presented in the article.

Let me know your thoughts. HararAwal (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. However, the comparison with the Issa doesn’t hold. Their presence in the Zeila District is supported by multiple reliable sources, both historical and modern, confirming long term residence. In contrast, the Burton quote is a single, vague footnote referencing a territorial range not settlement and is not corroborated by any other source nor repeated by the same author when describing his travels in Zeila, as he doesnt mention the Habr Awal even once. Including it as is risks giving undue weight (per WP:UNDUE) and borders on original research (WP:OR).

Regarding Paulitschke, I’m fine with including mention of Habr Awal traders as long as it’s clearly limited to commerce, not settlement. Your earlier framing was pushing permanence which your own source doesn’t support.

If you can provide additional reliable sources to back these claims, that’s perfect. Otherwise, expanding based on these isolated references may not meet WP:V. If this remains unresolved, we may need to seek outside input or formal dispute resolution. There is no point of back and forth. Bring explicit references otherwise we can get arbitration, currently there are over 4 sources in the article that mention both the Issa and Gadabuursi and there were much more removed due to OVERKILL. This article has gone through years of vandalism and therefore requires a good number of sources. MustafaO (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mustafa,

Apologies for the lengthy responses but such an important topic deserves such:

Thanks for the clarification. Just to be clear — I never compared the Habr Awal to the Issa in terms of demographic weight, and that was not the point of reference. The Issa example was mentioned strictly to highlight how presence and association with Zeila were interpreted in the article — i.e., the Issa were referenced as part of the wider Zeila district and not exclusively based on direct urban settlement.

I agree with your revised framing of the Paulitschke statement and am happy to proceed on that part — my only remaining concern is ensuring that Burton’s statement is accurately represented and not dismissed based on a mischaracterisation.

You claimed:

“The Burton quote is a single, vague footnote referencing a territorial range not settlement and is not corroborated by any other source nor repeated by the same author when describing his travels in Zeila.”

This is factually inaccurate. Burton does in fact mention the Habr Awal during his stay in Zeila:

“During my short stay at Zayla, six or seven murders were committed close to the walls: the Abban brought news, a few hours before our departure, that two Eesas had been slaughtered by the Habr Awal.”

— First Footsteps in East Africa, Ch. IIThis is a direct, primary source account of the Habr Awal being present and active in Zeila, during Burton’s own stay there. Your claim that the Habr Awal were not mentioned when describing his time in Zeila is therefore demonstrably false. This isn’t interpretation — it’s a literal statement from the source text.

In addition to that, Burton also writes:

“Awal, the cadet, established himself and his descendants upon the lowlands from Berberah to Zayla.”

— First Footsteps in East Africa, Ch. IXThis directly describes the territorial range of the Habr Awal as including Zayla, and not just as a vague periphery. You previously referred to this quote as a “single vague footnote,” but in reality, it’s part of a broader narrative Burton gives about clan distributions — and it's paired with the explicit mention of their violent encounter with the Issa just outside Zeila’s walls. It’s clear from both references that Burton did not exclude the Habr Awal from the Zeila context, and that is all I am requesting be acknowledged through inclusion of the actual quotes — without synthesis or extrapolation.

Lastly, I want to clarify that I’m not trying to make Zeila “about” the Habr Awal, that’s not my intention. My concern is simply with ensuring fair and proportional representation. Two of the most significant firsthand primary sources from the 1800s - and importantly, sources that predate most later literature and would have been the only major references available for much of that century — explicitly mention the Habr Awal in relation to Zeila and its district. These are not vague passing remarks but concrete references from well-known contemporary observers.

I fully acknowledge and respect that the Gadabuursi and Issa deserve prominent coverage, as they are clearly integral to the region’s historical and demographic landscape. However, given that even the Garhajis are mentioned, it seems only fair and consistent that the Habr Awal — who are also referenced by early, two primary high-weight sources — be accurately and proportionally included in the historical record.

Here is a clearer passage which is up for zero interpretation:

According to 19th-century accounts by Philipp Paulitschke (1888) and Richard Burton (1856), both the Gadabursi and Habr Awal clans were present in Zeila, either as residents or seasonal traders acting on behalf of their nomadic kin. Burton explicitly described the Gadabursi as “inhabiting the lands immediately to the east and southeast of Harar, and extending their domain to the neighbourhood of Zayla,” and likewise stated that the Habr Awal had “established [themselves] and [their] descendants upon the lowlands from Berberah to Zayla,”

If this wording is still not satisfactory, then I agree it would be best to seek outside input through a Third Opinion or another appropriate dispute resolution process.

Thanks 80.43.250.16 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal

This is your suggested edit with some modifications to make it DUE. Tell me if you're happy with this to add in the history section along with the Garhajis, but we will have to stick to the wording of the sources:

"According to 19th-century accounts by Philipp Paulitschke (1888) and Richard Burton (1856), both the Gadabursi and Habr Awal clans were present in Zeila, as permanent or occasional agents acting on behalf of their nomadic kin. Burton explicitly described the Gadabursi as inhabiting the lands immediately to the east and southeast of Harar, and extending their domain to the neighbourhood of Zayla, and likewise stated that the Habr Awal were present along the seaboard ranging between Zayla and Siyaro, primarily in the coastal towns of Bulhar and Berbera.”

I added Berbera and Bulhar because the same footnote states: "The Habr Awal are divided into a multitude of clans: of these I shall specify only the principal, the subject of the maritime Somal being already familiar to our countrymen. The Esa Musa inhabit part of the mountains south of Berberah. The Mikahil tenant the lowlands on the coast from Berberah to Siyaro. Two large clans, the Ayyal Yunis and the Ayyal Ahmed, have established themselves in Berberah and at Bulhar"

I worded it in a way that removes any possibility of WP:UNDUE. If you're happy with this edit we can proceed and add it. MustafaO (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mustafa,

Thanks for sharing the revised draft - I’m happy with the edits and the inclusion of Berbera and Bulhar for clarity and completeness. The wording stays faithful to the original sources, and the framing works well for the DUE history section.

Thank you for you coperativeness I believe this is a good middle grounds for all parties,

Feel free to go ahead and include it.

Best Regards HararAwal (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I’d also suggest that it might be better to present this information in chronological order throughouts the section, for example starting with Burton (1856) followed by Paulitschke (1888), to maintain historical flow and make it easier for readers to follow the development over time.

Let me know what you think HararAwal (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal

That is fine, I will also mention it in chronological order as you suggested. I will add the edit today and then when it’s done I will message you here. If you are happy with it then that is fine and if you wish us to edit further we can also do that together.

Please have a look at the article in the history section. I think adding it in the section of Haji Shermarke would be good. Let me know if that is ok. MustafaO (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal,

Thanks - that sounds great. Regarding placement, this fits better under the Demographics section, since it focuses on historical clan presence and patterns rather than Shermarke’s activities. It helps give context to who lived where, which is more demographic than political. Also note that Sharmarke was enemies with Habar awal so it wouldn't make sense on that part too.

Happy to look at it together once you’ve added it.

Thanks HararAwal (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

Usually the demographics section is only for current inhabitants, whether town level or district level. If it is a historical description, as this is, it can only be added in the history section which is what that tab is created for. It doesn't have to be under Haji Shermarke but the demographics section in every town in the Somali project Wikipedia only details current inhabitants. MustafaO (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MustafaO

Thats understandable, Im guessing the demographic section needs changing as the majority of it is historical sources. I'm fine with it being in the history section, Keep me updated please

Many thanks HararAwal (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

Usually, a historical source is fine to use so long as it reflects continuity up until present day hence the earlier point.

I will add both the Burton and then Paulitschke references showing the Habr Awal as an important part of the history of Zeila. I will do it by this evening and then alert you here. If you then are ok with the edit we will close the discussion. MustafaO (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi mustafa

That sounds good, all fine on my side of things , thank you for cooperating and being reasonable, I look forward to your changes, HararAwal (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal

This is what I added in the History section, chronologically around the time of British Somaliland, have a look at the main article:

"According to 19th century accounts by Richard Burton (1856) and Philipp Paulitschke (1888), both the Gadabuursi and Habr Awal clans were present in Zeila, as permanent or occasional agents acting on behalf of their nomadic kin. Burton explicitly described the Gadabuursi as inhabiting the lands immediately to the east and northeast of Harar, and extending their domain to the neighbourhood of Zayla. The Habr Awal clan were present along the seaboard ranging between Zayla and Siyaro, primarily in the coastal towns of Bulhar and Berbera."

Made sure that the everything is correct in relation to Due weight. Hope this is satisfactory. MustafaO (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MustafaO

That looks great ! however my only concern is that it is under British Somaliland as the Richard burton visited zeila predating British Somaliland and Philipp Paulitschk visited in 1885 which also predates British Somaliland. So Apologies you were correct earlier in putting this under Hajji sharmarke ( Pre colonial Era)

Other than that this is perfect and thanks again HararAwal (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Ps The footnote for Philipp Paulitschke is missing you've put richard burton twice HararAwal (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

Ok I added it in the first entry to Haji Shermarke. Yes, I noticed, I will fix the Paulitschke reference in a moment. MustafaO (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

Fixed the citation. MustafaO (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Already done So... this appears to have been addressed, yes? I'll be closing out the edit request now. If it is not addressed, I'd request a new request be made in a new section for readability. Please note that edit requests which have active discussion should remain in a answered=yes state as volunteers are looking for immediately actionable requests. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Misleading passage with misleading citations

The claim that “Zeila falls within the traditional territory of the ancient Somali Dir clan” is problematic for several reasons.

1. Lack of reliable sourcing

The statement is presented as a historical fact, yet none of the cited references actually verify Zeila as the “traditional territory” of the Dir clan in antiquity. According to Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability, material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by reliable sources. In this case, the claim appears to go beyond what the cited works state, effectively constituting original research.

2. First documented presence of Issa and Gadabuursi

It is true that the Issa and Gadabuursi, both of whom are subclans of the Dir family, are closely associated with Zeila. However, their presence in the town and wider district is first attested in primary accounts from the 19th century onwards. Travellers, colonial administrators, and contemporary Somali oral histories from this period provide some of the earliest first-hand documentation of their settlement and political activity in Zeila. Earlier historical sources do not clearly establish their presence in the town Therefore unless theres evidence that before the 19th century Zeila was a Dir settlement this statement is not proven.

3. Misleading implication of historical continuity

By linking the claim of Zeila being a “traditional territory of the Dir” with the current demographics (Issa and Gadabuursi inhabitants), the statement gives undue weight to an assumption of timeless continuity. This wording risks misleading readers into believing that the Dir have always inhabited Zeila in an unbroken line from antiquity to the present, which is not supported by the sources provided.

4. Redundancy with the demographics section

The second part of the sentence - that the town and wider district are inhabited by the Issa and Gadabuursi -simply repeats information and citations already covered in the Demographics section of the article. As per Wikipedia’s guideline on summary style, such duplication is unnecessary and can be consolidated to avoid giving the claim undue prominence.

HararAwal (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal

I don't think your assertion will get you anywhere if I'm being honest. Almost all of those sources meet the criteria for verifiability.

There is no condition or stipulation that the two clans are NOT native since continuity is at least somewhat assumed if they live there currently. If that is not the case you could always bring evidence to show other communities who lived there before the 19th century.

Zeila therefore falls within the traditional territory of the communities mentioned. Whether or not they were there pre or post 19th century is not relevant.

You are more than welcome to raise it as a 3rd opinion or take it to a discussion board. I dont think you will get very far though. MustafaO (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MustafaO,

The current article does not clearly differentiate between the demographics of the town of Zeila itself and those of the wider district, plains, and surrounding environment. Several primary sources stress that the Issa were nomadic pastoralists who did not dwell permanently within walled towns. For example, one account explicitly states:

“The Essah people are nominally Mussulmen, they do not dwell in cities, neither have they any walled towns, but wander about from place to place, whereon they can find pasture for their flocks and herds, in which they are said to be very rich.”

This demonstrates a clear inconsistency: the same sources used to claim Issa settlement in Zeila also affirm that they lived outside of towns, moving according to pastoral needs.

Furthermore, numerous primary accounts and scholarly studies describe Zeila as a multi-ethnic port town, shaped by centuries of trade across the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Its inhabitants historically included Arabs, Persians, Somalis, Afars, and Ethiopians, making it a cosmopolitan settlement rather than one dominated by a single clan. To attribute Zeila exclusively as a “Dir city” is therefore misleading and does not reflect the broader historical record.

In addition, several academic works link Zeila to the Harlas, an extinct or assimilated Ethio-Semitic-speaking people who once inhabited the region. Scholars such as Enrico Cerulli and others on medieval Ethiopian history note that the Harlas were associated with urban settlements in the Horn of Africa, including Zeila, before their decline and absorption into surrounding Somali and Oromo populations. This further undermines attempts to retroactively frame Zeila as exclusively belonging to one lineage or clan, as the town’s demographic history was far more diverse.

So unfortunately to ignore the substantial body of academic research and primary evidence would be both inaccurate and unfair, as it would misrepresent the complex, multi-ethnic history of Zeila. HararAwal (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

You are absolutely right that historically this town was a multi ethnic town.

That can be, and is currently, reflected in the history section within the article. Every and any source showing the historical inhabitants of the town and those who have contributed to it's history should be mentioned. However the demographics today is a different issue whatsoever that is highlighted separately. Most towns in the Somali Wikipedia space reflects mainly on the current demographics and it is natural for their mention to be highlighted more than other communities for obvious reasons. The Zeila article is no exception.

Do you wish for the historical Dir appellation to be removed and replaced with current? If that is your contention then we can agree. MustafaO (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@MustafaO

Hi there!

I personally think that the Dir sentence should be kept to discuss the modern demographics of the town as mentioned in other articles regarding towns in Somaliland or Somalia. It still lingers on today and has not been abandoned so regarding it as multi-ethnic in the medieval period when it is currently inhabited may mislead readers.

However it is well known, we shouldn't rely on solely on primary sources as it could lead to WP:OR. Replayerr (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Replayerr

Good observation to which I completely agree. Current demographics should be the primary focus. Overstating medieval inhabitants outside of what is now currently within the article is disproportionate emphasis (WP:UNDUE). There would have to be some sort of consensus to justify any additional weight given to historical appelations outside of the history section within the article. Until then, the discussion may aswell be closed. MustafaO (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Replayerr @MustafaO

I want to raise an issue with the use of the term “traditional” in the sentence what it implies to the readers:

Zeila falls in the traditional territory of the ancient Somali Dir clan. The town of Zeila and the wider Zeila District is inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family.

The word traditional here is misleading to readers. It implies an unbroken, historical continuity of Dir settlement in Zeila stretching back into the past. However, this is not supported by the sources. In fact, the earliest accounts that specifically mention Somali demographics in Zeila — those from the early 1800s — explicitly note the presence of the Habar Awal, alongside other groups. This clearly demonstrates that Zeila’s demographics were not exclusively Dir in earlier times.

Because of this, describing Zeila as “traditional” Dir territory is inaccurate and introduces undue weight (see WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV). The term suggests a historical claim of ownership that is not borne out in the scholarly or primary record.

It is important to note that the first explicit mention of the Issa in Zeila only appears as recent as the 1800s. Earlier accounts of the town make no reference to them as inhabitants, nor do they describe Zeila as “Dir territory.” In fact, the earliest European observers explicitly mention other Somali groups, such as the Habar Awal, who occupied the coastal stretch from Zeila to Berbera, alongside references to Zeila’s historically multi-ethnic character. This evidence directly contradicts the idea that Zeila lay within an “ancient Dir territory.”

Because of this, the use of the word “traditional” in the current sentence is misleading. It assumes continuity of settlement that is not borne out by the available evidence. In reality, the historical record shows that Zeila was a cosmopolitan port, inhabited at different times by Arabs, Persians, Afars, Somalis, and others. Several scholars (e.g. Cerulli) also associate Zeila with the Harlas, an extinct Ethio-Semitic–speaking people, prior to their assimilation into surrounding populations. This further undermines the notion of a single, unbroken “traditional” clan ownership of the town.

Therefore, describing Zeila as “traditional Dir territory” is factually and contextually incorrect. The more accurate phrasing would be to describe the current demographics, i.e.:

“Today, Zeila and the wider district are predominantly inhabited by Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family.”

This would fairly represent the modern demographic reality while leaving the complex and multi-ethnic history of the town to the history section, in line with WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEAD. HararAwal (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @HararAwal

I will forward this point to @Replayerr aswell. Do you agree with removing the historical appellation and replacing it with current or today when referring to present demographics? MustafaO (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Zeila is currently considered apart of contiguous territories inhabited by both sub-clans and traditionally where some of their leaders resided. I would use the word "Currently" instead. Replayerr (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@MustafaOThe term "traditional" should not be removed as there are a multitude of sources that can be cited regarding this. Replayerr (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

According to Mel Gibson, the traditional home of the Issa was at Zeila., I personally am of the view that @HararAwal's sources regarding the Issa clan are fringe regarding how they are strictly pastoralist.

US governmental papers discuss how the Issa's leader is democratically elected by 40 elders and taken to Zeila for immediate coronation.

Replayerr (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I’d be very interested in reading the sources that state Zeila was a “traditional Dir town,” so please do share those. The difficulty with using “traditionally” in relation to Issa and Zeila is that the very pre-colonial accounts you’ve cited actually undermine that interpretation. For example, the same 19th-century source you referenced explicitly states that the Issa “do not dwell in cities, neither have they any walled towns, but wander about from place to place, whereon they can find pasture for their flocks and herds.” In other words, the Issa were described as nomadic pastoralists whose settlements lay outside towns like Zeila, rather than within them.

Other explorers, such as Richard Burton and subsequent British observers, also make note of the Issa attacking or plundering Zeila — for example, during Sharmarke’s blockade in 1855 when Issa somalis were sent to assault the town - which again suggests they were external raiders rather than established urban inhabitants. This is why the citation you’ve used needs to be contextualized more carefully in the article.

For these reasons, I believe “currently” is a more accurate term than “traditionally.” It reflects the modern demographic reality of Issa and Gadabuursi communities in the Zeila district without projecting that situation back onto earlier centuries, where the evidence points to a very different pattern. A clear distinction also needs to be maintained between Zeila town itself and the wider surrounding district — something already recognized in the article zeila district article. HararAwal (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Authors such as Phillip Briggs in his works regarding Somaliland mention that the Issa clan have historical links to Zayla which strengthens Mel Gibson's position. We should not rely on original research by extensively utilising a single primary source from the 19th century.

Please refer to WP:OR where Wiki editors are instructed to primarily use secondary sources instead. Replayerr (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Replayerr

There has been no original research done, i'm quoting historic academic work and not adding any other interpreration, I find that this is not the first time you have accused me so please assume good faith WP:FAITH

Secondly your edit in Zeila where you described the coast as Essahi also had this quoted in it

“The Essah people, though nominally Mussulmen, dwell not in cities nor behind walls, but wander as pastoral nomads, ever in search of pasture for their flocks and herds—wherein their wealth is said to lie.”

There is no original work he it clearly states that Eesah did not dwell in the city towns- Zeila and were nomadic people therefore extra clarity will be needed in your edit.

Also the article you sited does not state that Zeila is traditional Dir territory, rather it states that Issa have historical links which is not the same thing, If i am looking at the wrong passage please may you give the quote that supports your claim?

Essentially there are many academic work that attribute zeila to being a multicultural town than an traditional 'Dir clan territory', as you mentioned "Authors" I would love to read that work as I am open to learning about the rest and to continue learning about the history of the town, HararAwal (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

In addition, Philip Paulitschke’s account of Zeila describes the Gadabuursi as being settled in the city and working as merchants. There are also sources from Aden that reference merchants along the Zeila–Berbera coast, including the Gadabuursi.

If you are aware of comparable sources that specifically mention the Issa in this similar context to gadbuursi that'll will be better used than the source you displayed previously, as well as reliable works that clearly state Zeila was traditional Dir territory, I would be very happy to review them and leave the matter here if clear academic work has been provided HararAwal (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal We can format the sentence specifying the links the Issa clan has with their historical links to the town if needed to. I.M Lewis also refers to the Issa crowning their heads in Zeila.

We can reach consensus

Today, Zeila and the wider district are predominantly inhabited by Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family. The Issa have historical links to Zeila and considered their traditonal home. Replayerr (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal

The term traditional can be appropriately applied when referring to any historically continuous population, provided it is not used to describe recent arrivals. The article’s history section already acknowledges Zeila’s character as a multi ethnic town with a diverse population throughout its past. So I don't understand the contention with the word given the populations currently living there have been there for well over a century at the very least.

@Replayerr I think this is a problem of terminologies and definitions. If we can establish the meaning could be used to a population who live there now and have so for the past century then we can close this and if there is any other issue the said user can request a 3rd opinion or raise it with arbitration. MustafaO (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MustafaO @Replayerr

I agree that the underlying issue here is largely about terminologies and definitions. However, the passage as currently phrased suggests that Zeila is exclusively Dir territory. If you believe that this is not the implication, I am happy to work with you to edit and clarify the statement to reflect the other historical inhabitants of the city, or a change in wording for traditional.

As it stands, the phrasing is inaccurate. While the Dir clan family, has longstanding ties to the region, Zeila has historically been a multicultural and multi tribal trading hub, home to multiple Somali and non-Somali populations. Presenting it as solely “traditional Dir territory” overstates the exclusivity of their claim and does not fully reflect the town’s complex historical composition. Therefore using the term traditional in this context risks implying exclusivity that is not supported by the historical record.

On top of that none of the sources provided for that passage has used the term "traditional territory"

This original edit to the article has been incorporated many years ago and it also seems that this mistake is done in the main Dir article that states Zeila as an Dir City which is also historically incorrect with incorrect citations too.

Regarding continuity, it is also important to differentiate this from the Zeila District article, as this article focuses on the city of Zeila. One source already cited confirms the Essa presence in the town; however, the same source also clarifies that the Essa were bedouins and did not dwell in cities. Another example is that during the blockade in 1855, Issa Somali were sent to Zeila to plunder and burn it down. Additionally, the Habar Awal were documented in the early 1800s as occupying the area from Berbera up to Zeila. Therefore this demonstrate that continuity does not apply to the city of Zeila, given its complex historical demographic history.

If consensus cannot be reached on this point, it may be appropriate to escalate the discussion to a neutral third party, such as requesting a third opinion or seeking input through Wikipedia’s dispute resolution mechanisms. This ensures that the issue can be resolved efficiently, following WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR, rather than prolonging back-and-forth debate. HararAwal (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwal

In regards to the Habr Awal, the geographer refers to the coastal area known as the Guban. Can you find more sources that mention their direct inhabitance of the city or it may mislead readers and deemed fringe by other editors?

The Issa Somali were utilised as mercenaries and hired to fight for the Debne-Weima against the Mudaito Afars in the works of Krapf and Isenburg. This was quite common in the 18th-19th centuries, actors in the blockade had stoked tensions to provoke certain Issa to siege the town.

British parliamentary papers discuss how the Gadabursi and Essa tribes were traders in the town along with other groups and also the natives of the city.

@MustafaO

I think the sentence should be formatted as.

Zeila currently falls in the traditional territory of the a̶n̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶ Somali Dir clan. The town of Zeila and the wider Zeila District is inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family.

Zeila has historical links to the Issa clan as mentioned by the authors I have previously cited and was used as a site for the coronation of their rulers.

Replayerr (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

A source from 1810 on trade in Zeyla and the clans engaging in it. Habar Awal are actually mentioned as insignificant. What’s your thoughts on this? https://books.google.com/books?id=QzGKBkUTLrkC&pg=PR70&dq=Somauli+coffee+hurrur&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7gOPUqLCSAxVLWUEAHfJjBUIQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false @HararAwal ~2026-64911-1 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Replayerr Thank you for your suggestion. I agree with your suggestion for the edit. Let's ask @HararAwal. How do you feel about this edit:

"Zeila currently falls in the traditional territory of the Somali Dir clan. The town of Zeila and the wider Zeila District is inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family."

It acknowledges the demographics as currently and does not imply they are recent arrivals by keeping the word traditional or native. I think this is fair and a good compromise. If we're happy with this, we can move on with the edit. MustafaO (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your statement and I see how minority populations that went extinct in Zeila while the Issa and Gadabursi have still inhabited the town up to this date. Replayerr (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MustafaO @Replayerr

The problem here is that Zeila is not solely the “traditional territory of the Dir clans” as stated. This is historically incorrect if you fail to mention the other groups who also lived in the city. Many academic studies have discussed the presence of other inhabitants such as the Harla, and there is a broad consensus that they lived there. Such a statement would be more appropriate in the Dir/Issa/Gadabuursi pages rather than the Zeila page, as phrasing it this way essentially gives Zeila to one group exclusively, which is inaccurate. By mentioning only the Dir, the text implies that they were the sole inhabitants and reduces others to minorities, which is far from the truth.

Your point about “minority populations” other than Dir is also false. There is no evidence proving that Afars, other Somalis, and Arabs lived in the city merely as minorities; rather, they were present in significant numbers and in some cases equal proportions. Many sources indicate that Somalis were in fact few in number in Zeila. The Austrian traveller Philipp Paulitschke wrote that Yemenis were the majority of the population, making any suggestion that Dir were the dominant group deeply problematic and unsupported. Similarly, I.M. Lewis noted that Zeila had a mixed population of Arabs, Afars, and Somalis. Philip Briggs, whom you have also quoted, described Zeila in the 1300s as a cosmopolitan town made up of Somalis, Afars, Arabs, and others.

Your claim that Zeila was majority Dir, with Afars, Arabs, and other Somalis only as minorities, is therefore baseless and has no historical or academic foundation.

Regarding the source you have provided, it does not state that Zeila was “traditional Dir territory.” It merely notes that the Issa were present in town in the 1870s, which is very different from suggesting permanent urban settlement. In fact, other sources clarify that the Issa did not live within the city walls.

The main issue here is that academic works overwhelmingly portray Zeila as a multi-ethnic settlement. Describing it solely as the “traditional ancient Dir territory” suggests exclusivity, which reflects the framing of the Dir clan page but not the scholarly record on Zeila itself. A more accurate description would either remove the word “traditional” or clarify that Zeila historically had a multi-ethnic character - Afar, Arab, Harla, Yemeni, Somali, etc. - as consistently depicted in the academic literature.

If this is still a problem I am more than happy to raise this further. HararAwal (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

If traditional territory is removed and we leave the current inhabitants as the present demographic, is your contention regarding that issue resolved? What the town used to look like 200 years ago is only relevant in the history section. That’s why the history section exists. MustafaO (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Removing or replacing the term “traditional” would indeed address the issue, since it avoids implications of any historical claims that is not supported by the broader evidence. I agree that anything related to the historical demographics of Zeila should be placed in the history section, where it can be properly contextualized. HararAwal (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

I removed that section completely and now it mentions the current inhabitants. I did this in order to reach a compromise. Have a look and if that is fine we will close this discussion. MustafaO (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal @MustafaO, Zeila is considered the traditional home of the Issa clan and they have historical links to the town. Zeila being the site where their Ughaz is coronated.

The town of Zeila and the wider Zeila District is inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Zeila is regarded as the traditional home of the Issa clan, with historical ties to the town, and it serves as the site where their Ughaz is coronated.

I will be happy with the edit if this latter part is specified, I have included 3 citations supporting this from Richard Gibson, Phillip Briggs and I.M Lewis. Replayerr (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal In regards to the source provided, it explicitly mentions that the NATIVES of the city were the Eesah and Gudabirsi Somal, suggesting inhabitance of the town along with other groups. The notion that the Essah did not reside in fortified towns is a fringe source. The capital of Essah country was Jaldessa. Replayerr (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Replayerr Those 3 sources/citations are also absolutely fine to use. I don't see it as any issue. I think its a fair compromise. There could also be added the fact that many of the Ughazes of the Gadabursi were born in Zayla aswell such as Ughaz Nur and Ughaz 'Elmi Warfa [] and that Zayla was where both clans signed treaties with the French and the British []. You could also, as part of the spirit of compromise, just add these in the historical section and leave the current section as is? Having said that, your citations are absolutely fine to use. MustafaO (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Replayerr

Just saw the edits, their perfectly good. Thanks MustafaO (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Replayerr

I'll break down each source and why it invalidates your own claims, please read this carefully so we avoid going in circles

Firstly not one of your sources state that Zeila is an exclusive traditional Dir territory and that's what the passage is implying, Secondly the very source you used (IM lewis) quoted Zeila as a cosmopolitan city which automatically negates your claim as an exclusive Traditional 'Dir territory'. The second source you stated (Philip Briggs) also stated that Zeila was an cosmopolitan city therefore that also invalidates your claim. I am finding myself repeating the same points over and over again. Lastly your source Richard Gibson (2008) states that Zeila was an traditional home for Issa however it still does not validate the claim of the original passage which gave Zeila an exclusive' Dir territory'.

Your previous statement that everyone else other than the Dir tribe of somalis being minorities was hugely inaccurate and supported by no claims, I have gave numerous strong academic studies and numerous first hand primary accounts that support mine and negates yours.

In fairness, @MustafaOmost recent edit is fair as it highlights the most important point — the current demographics. However, the use of words such as “traditional” is problematic, as it implies a continuous historical association that is not supported by the sources. Unless it is clarified as referring to Zeila’s traditional multicultural heritage as a cosmopolitan city, it risks misleading readers.

As of now I am currently content with the recent edit and feel this is a good conclusion HararAwal (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @HararAwal

@MustafaO has stated that the three citations provided are fine to use. I have not stated that it's exclusively Dir territory in the latest consensus agreement.

The town of Zeila and the wider Zeila District is inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family. Zeila is regarded as the traditional home of the Issa clan, with historical ties to the town, and it serves as the site where their Ughaz is coronated.[15][16][17]

This statement does not claim it to be exclusively Dir territory but stresses the historical importance of the town in Issa culture. It does not mislead readers in that regard. I am not going in circles and would like for you again to assume good faith from fellow editors as seen in WP:AGF.

With additional citations provided by @MustafaO (if possible, please do share the source regarding the heads of the Gadabursi being born in Zeila).

Zayla was considered the seat of the Gadabursi Sultanate and the site where the French and British treaties were signed. Replayerr (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Replayerr

This is the source []

Pages 247-248 for Ugas Nuur was born in Zayla and was considered the seat of the Sultanate.

This is the same source []

Page 113 shows Elmi Warfa as crowned in Zeila.

This is another direct source to the PDF: []

I dont know if the source link connects when you click it. Just clear the search engine and you can find it easily by tying the names (Ugas Nuur and Ilmi Roble Warfa), if there are any issues. Regarding the treaties. This is the Gadabursi treaty with the French in Zeila [], the Gadabursi treaty with the British in Zeila [] and this is the Issa treaty with the French [] MustafaO (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @

MustafaO

Replayerr

I am not sure why there is such a strong push to include historical claims about Zeila’s “traditional” association with only one demographic in the opening section of the article. By highlighting only the Issa — and omitting other groups that have historically lived in the town — the passage implies exclusivity that is not supported by the historical record. This is problematic, because the article is about the

port town of Zeila

, not about any single tribe or clan. Adding what is essentially a tribal watermark into the lead introduces bias.

What we need instead is a balanced, historically accurate, and present-focused summary. I would therefore suggest something along the following lines:

The town of Zeila and the wider Zeila District is inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family. Historically, Zeila was a cosmopolitan port town with a mixed population, while in the present day it retains strong ties to these Dir subclans. It also holds cultural importance as the site where the Issa Ughaz is traditionally coronated.

This wording acknowledges current demographics while also recognising Zeila’s long history as a cosmopolitan settlement. Over the centuries the city’s population has included Arabs, Afar, Yemenis, Persians, Somalis, and others — a fact well documented in academic literature and travellers’ accounts.There is absolutely no reason to reject my inclusion UNLESS you want to revert this passage to describe current state of demographics. Highlighting only the Issa as having “traditional” ties, without mentioning the broader multi-ethnic makeup that persisted from at least the 14th through to the 19th centuries, risks misleading readers.

I would also point out that the inclusion of where the Issa Ughaz is crowned is questionable in relevance as the original passage prior to @MustafaO was discussing the historical and present demographic state of the city .(Also If I am not mistaken, One of the source state that @Replayerr gave states coronation takes place between Zeila and Djibouti, rather than exclusively in Zeila.) Regardless, I do not see how this detail is directly relevant to the passage under discussion.

Moreover, the very sources you have cited further emphasise Zeila’s multicultural and multiracial character: “Zeyla was a multicultural and multiracial city occupied by Somalis, Afars, Gallas, Arabs and Muawlidhs.” By focusing narrowly on one subclan, the lead gives undue weight to a single group while neglecting the wider historical reality.

There is nothing inaccurate in the addition I proposed earlier; it is consistent with multiple academic works. The only context in which that addition might be removed is if the lead is meant to describe only the current state of the town — which does not appear to be your intention. If the goal is to cover historical aspects, then the language must be balanced and contextualised, with further detail left to the History section.

Additionally, we should remember that the lead section is meant to be a concise, neutral summary of the topic, not a space for contested historical claims or clan-level narratives. Details about traditional associations, coronations, or treaties rightly belong in the History or Culture sections, where they can be given full context and balance. Keeping the lead clear of such disputed or one-sided claims ensures compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD, and prevents it from reading like an endorsement of one perspective over others.

In short:

The lead must not give undue weight to one group (WP:UNDUE).
Historical claims should be properly contextualised (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE).
If Zeila is to be described as “traditional” for anyone, it should be framed as a traditional cosmopolitan port (including the Dir subclans alongside the many other groups who lived there), rather than indirectly implying it is solely the traditional home of one clan.

HararAwal (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

The Dir historical appelation was already removed from the initial section and only left current inhabitants. Any mention of Zeila’s multicultural or multicultural ethnic past belongs in the history section within the article. This also includes current inhabitants who may have any historical points worthy of mention. We've mentioned this many times. If there are acceptable references/citations, there is no issue using them within the history section. MustafaO (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@MustafaO

I agree and this is where we initally found the compromise however, @Replayerr suggested the following:

Which will then bring us back to square 1 all over again, I am happy with your recent editing and believe that is the way forward. HararAwal (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok @HararAwal lets try and get a compromise here for all sides.

@Replayerr, if the word traditional or historical is causing this much controversy, can the point be made without using it and still have those important contributions added to the article? The history section implies the historical and traditional element already. I think the fixation is on those particular words. If that is the only issue, then maybe it's worth the compromise? The body of citations you provided are more than enough, including the ones I sent earlier. My proposed solution: Add the citations along with the content and as a part of a proposed compromise maybe not use the words causing controversy. Lets see if we can all come to a compromise.MustafaO (talk) MustafaO (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@MustafaO

The citation explicitly mentions that the Issa consider Zeila their traditional home and I.M Lewis mentioned their Ughaz is coronated in Zeila. The problem with @HararAwal’s statement is that this does not mean the Issa has exclusive rights but discusses the importance of the town in their culture. The section being in dispute is the current inhabitants.

I honestly do not mind raising it with admins for a final decision.

You can mention how it was a historically cosmopolitan city but omitting the relations the current inhabitants have will not be accepted.

I will create a new edit and see if it can be agreed upon. If not, we can raise the issue for arbitration . Replayerr (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Replayerr

That’s fine, I’m actually in full agreement with your citations. In that case, my suggestion would be to seek a third opinion (3O) as a method of dispute resolution. MustafaO (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I will need @HararAwal‘s sources regarding it being a cosmopolitan city to be added but I think @MustafaO and our agreement regarding the current inhabitants relationship of the town will also be included. Replayerr (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@MustafaO @Replayerr

Thank you for clarifying. I think we are broadly in agreement that the wording should not imply exclusivity. What I think is being overlooked is that by mentioning only the Issa you are indirectly giving exclusivity towards a sub-clan of Somalis.

My concern remains with how the phrasing currently reads. While the citation you mention notes that the Issa consider Zeila their traditional home, it is equally important to acknowledge that the same academic literature (I.M. Lewis, Paulitschke, Enrico Cerulli, Philip Briggs, etc.) consistently characterises Zeila as a cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic town across history, inhabited by Somalis (including Issa and Gadabuursi), Arabs, Afar, and others.

The issue is not with recognising the Issa’s cultural connection — which is well-established and can be mentioned — but with how it is currently weighted in the opening. By placing emphasis only on Issa “traditional” ties, the text risks implying a special or exclusive status that is not supported by the broader historical record. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:DUEWEIGHT, the lead should provide a balanced overview without elevating one group above the others.

To your point about “current inhabitants”: yes, absolutely, those should be reflected. But that is different from attaching “traditional” claims to one group in the opening sentence. I would suggest something like:

“The town of Zeila and the wider district is today inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family. Historically, Zeila was a cosmopolitan port inhabited by Somalis, Arabs, Afar, Yemenis, and others, and it remains of cultural significance to the Issa as the site of their Ughaz coronation.”

The original passage was discussing demographics, however to compromise we could allow the Ughaz coronation to remain despite it being irrelevant to the original passage. Zeila, for the absolute majority of its history, was a cosmopolitan town and this is agreed upon by the vast majority of academic consensus.

In contrast, the earlier statement from @Replayerr was: “I acknowledge your point, and it is evident that while a number of minority communities in Zeila have historically declined or disappeared, the Issa and Gadabuursi have maintained a continuous presence in the town into the present day.”

This framing is extremely problematic as it has little to no academic backing. The risk here is that we end up repeating the same exclusionary narrative that existed in earlier versions of the article before the inclusion of wider demographics. If this passage talks about the historical demographics of the city but fails to mention all the other groups which made Zeila a cosmopolitan centre, then it is incomplete and misleading.

Now, looking at @Replayerr proposed passage:

“The town of Zeila and the wider Zeila District are currently inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family. The Issa regard Zeila as their traditional home, with historic ties to the town, and it serves as the site where their Ughaz is coronated. Zeila has also been associated with the Gadabuursi Ughazate, functioning as a political center where French and British treaties were signed with Gadabuursi leaders.”

This is the page for Zeila, not the page for the Issa or Gadabuursi. That information belongs in their respective history/clan articles, not here. Including treaty details in the demographics passage is irrelevant and unnecessarily forces in clan-specific content. So, in the spirit of compromise I will offer this phrasing:

Please remember the original passage was meant to discuss the demographics of the town, Including the Ughaz/Ughazate is irrelevant to the original passage and should be placed in an separate section/ paragraph This wording acknowledges the current demographics (your concern), and Zeila’s cosmopolitan heritage (the wider academic consensus). It avoids implying exclusivity, satisfies neutrality, and leaves the detailed histories of clans for their own pages, where they are most appropriate.

I am ready to raise this further if necessary so that we can reach a fair and inclusive conclusion. HararAwal (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal If you've got credible sources supporting the pre-existing cosmopolitanism of Zeila, share them so they may be included. That would help the page for WP:V and WP:RS.

At the moment, the sources consulted from the articles are:

Somaliland: With the Overland Route from Addis Ababa Via Eastern Ethiopia (Phillip Briggs, p. 28) — states that the Issa subclan has strong historical links with Zeila and the Adal Sultanate.

African Liberation Movements: Contemporary Struggles Against White Minority Rule (p. 303) — states that Britain established treaties with the Issa, whose traditional home was Zeila.

A Pastoral Democracy by I.M. Lewis (p. 211) — notes that the Issa crown their head at Zeila.

Your first concern was the paper once opined Zeila was "traditional Dir territory," which I agree wasn't justified. But the sources mentioned above conclusively locate Zeila as a traditional Issa residence, and this cannot just be discounted for fear of WP:V and WP:RS. Further reliable sources you happen to have can and need to be added. What we already have from the literature cannot be discounted.

Overall, the new edit actually serves WP:UNDUE. The edit properly incorporates the Gadabuursi as well, by reference to Historical Dictionary of Somalia (Mukhtar, p. 248), which records Zeila as the center of the Gadabuursi Ughazate wherein treaties were ratified with the European nations. This provides support for both Issa and Gadabuursi cultural significance, consistent with WP:NPOV.

The current formulation:

“The town of Zeila and the wider Zeila District is currently inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family. The Issa regard Zeila as their traditional home, having historic ties to the town, serving as the site where their Ughaz is coronated. It was also viewed as the seat of the Gadabuursi Ughazate, where the French and British signed treaties with them.”

This is supported by a number of independent reliable sources, adheres to WP:DUE, and does not lean one way or the other. If more reliable sources exist as concerns Zeila's cosmopolitanism over the ages, by all means these also need to be added however in their corresponding section, not by supplanting well-sourced information.

My earlier statement in regards to “I acknowledge your point, and it is evident that while a number of minority communities in Zeila have historically declined or disappeared, the Issa and Gadabuursi have maintained a continuous presence in the town into the present day.” is backed by I.M Lewis below.

In A Pastoral Democracy by I.M. Lewis (p. 20) – "As Ethiopia’s main sea-port, Jibuti prospered and Zeila‘ declined. What was left from earlier times of the distinctive amalgam of Arab, ‘Afar, and Somali culture known as Seylaawiya gradually disappeared. Many of Zeila‘s former urban population—the Reer Seyla‘—settled in Ethiopia and others moved to Jibuti. Thus the tenuous thread of urban Zeila‘ culture which had survived from the tenth century was severed and the British Protectorate lost a cosmopolitan and flourishing port which might have been as important as Mogadishu is to Somalia."

@HararAwal As I said before, this is not the final rendition of the passage, if you have sources regarding it's cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic nature before, by all means you can add it. However you must refrain from WP:OR by giving your own interpretations. Replayerr (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Replayerr @MustafaO

First of all Zeila being a cosmopolitan city is unfortunately not up for debate as this is the agreed academic consensus on Somali history, If you have a look at my most recent edit you could see all these sources that imply so I refrained from adding others due to overkill,; The statement you've made was ;

“I acknowledge your point, and it is evident that while a number of minority communities in Zeila have historically declined or disappeared, the Issa and Gadabuursi have maintained a continuous presence in the town into the present day.”

None of the sources you've displayed implied in anyway that this is the case and you are still yet to prove so or even retract your harmful statement.

Secondly this is the 3rd time the source and author you have used in your defence has negated your own claims. IM Lewis in the same quote that you used says

"Thus the tenuous thread of urban Zeila‘ culture which had survived from the tenth century was severed and the British Protectorate lost a cosmopolitan and flourishing port which might have been as important as Mogadishu is to Somalia."

IM lewis EXPLICITLY says that Zeila is a cosmopolitan town which were the Arab Afar and Somali culture, and goes further on to describe that reer Zeila was an distinct amalgam of Afar, Arab and somali Culture. Please read he sources you give in your defence and you may find many of them invalidate the claims you wish to add onto this page

Now @MustafaO @Replayerr This is the fairest comprise I could think of, If you are to debate this then unfortunately this will be escalated :

"The town of Zeila and the wider district is today inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family. Historically, Zeila was a cosmopolitan port city inhabited by Somali tribes, Afar, Arabs, and Yemenis

The Issa clan regard Zeila as their traditional home, having historic ties to the town, serving as the site where their Ughaz is coronated. It was also viewed as the seat of the Gadabursi Ughazate, where the French and British signed treaties with them."

I have included a small percentage of the academic studies that state Zeilas nature as a cosmopolitan town, now the burden is on you if you are to reject this claim.

My edit of Zeila being cosmopolitan is not an new find nor is it an debate in academic studies, Im sure @MustafaO will understand. Please do not engage in edit wars or make formatting changes without discussion first. Wikipedia guidelines, including Wikipedia:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, emphasize that disputes over content or formatting should be resolved through discussion on the talk page rather than repeated unilateral edits. This ensures the article remains consistent, accurate, and in line with Wikipedia standards HararAwal (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal Find the pages of the sources you want to cite, they aren't properly referenced in the articles and do not mention the pages which back the statement. I will mention the statement below.

"Historically, Zeila was a cosmopolitan port city inhabited by Somali tribes, Afar, Arabs, and Yemenis"

Using the sources but not mentioning the pages specifically may confuse readers and affect the rules of WP:V and WP:RS. Replayerr (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

We have all agreed that any mention of the multi-ethnic or multi-cultural component of the Zeila should be kept in the history section. That's why it exists. Those communities are non existent in Zeila today so it is irrelevant outside of speaking about the history of the town. The discussion moving forward should be concerning whether or not the historical or traditional appellation applies. Nobody is disputing the historical presence of communities in the past. But their context is historical and there is a section for that which already exists. I'm not going to keep repeating this point.

@Replayerr, please revert to your last edit, if that section is not moved to the history section. If this becomes an edit back and forth, we will trigger a 3O. MustafaO (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you find that statement of @HararAwal agreeing with this. Replayerr (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Replayerr

This section here which was added in the initial section by @HararAwal: "Historically, Zeila was a cosmopolitan port city inhabited by Somali tribes, Afar, Arabs, and Yemenis."

Any information on historical or previous demographics such as these should be placed in the history section. Since there is no consensus in sight, I will organise a 3O for later today if this is not resolved. It might be worth reversing the whole edits and replacing the content in the appropriate place since the citations are full of errors because of the last edit. It will need a clean up.MustafaO (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@MustafaO @Replayerr

There is plenty of historical notations on the lead page, especially with new additions of British and Gadbuursi agreement. Therefore since the connotations are already included having a single line which outlines the demographic history needs to be allowed. The lead page talks about empires and previous historical rulership which are not relevant in the present day, we can not pick and choose what historical content we would like to add.

Furthermore I would like to point out that my agreement with Zeila demographics only being present tense only if there are no other historical demographical claims of tribes and affinity towards the city. however the both of you decided you want to include the tribal leaders seats within the same paragraph that discuss demographics.

Therefore I would want a fair representation of all demographics that Inhabited Zeila for the VAST majority of zeila history to be included, please remember this is a page for the Zeila Port town and not a page for tribes.

@Replayerr The sources I have listed are sufficient If you have any problems with Zeila being noted as an Cosmopolitan town please find sources that 1) Refute the great academic work done by the famous historians in the somali space or 2) Find sources that State Zeila was not an cosmopolitan town. We can not pick and choose which sources we would like especially when the vast majority indicate as such

If you still do agree , we need to bring in a 3rd party opinion. HararAwal (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not denying what has been added @HararAwal, I am simply asking you to read the sources you cited and give the pages. You can't just add sources without citing which page exactly backs the statement. Replayerr (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@MustafaO @Replayerr

I've requested a 3rd party opinion for this, we could halt this discussion as it is HararAwal (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

Thank you.

@Replayerr you could find the discussion here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard MustafaO (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Replayerr That's fine, my only suggestion would be, whatever is agreed, to keep the generic outline in the beginning of the article as it is currently: The town of Zeila and the wider Zeila District is inhabited by the Gadabuursi and Issa, both subclans of the Dir clan family, and anything in addition whether related to traditional and/or historical be mentioned in the history section just to keep more of the intricate and important details in that section. MustafaO (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@MustafaO The statements are secondary and more preferable to be in an introductory part of the article as the three citations provided do not specify dates. They simply denote the historical and culture ties to the region as said by the sources. Via WP:NPOV, I will be adding both sub-clans that currently inhabit the town and also add the cosmopolitan part afterwards. Replayerr (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Replayerr

Thank you. Personally I agree with the edits completely, my hunch is @HararAwal will protest it. If that happens, my suggestion would be to find a way to resolve the dispute through 3O or some form of arbitration just incase there is no settlement on the issue and it becomes a non ending back and forth. MustafaO (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Replayerr

i forgot to add ,as of your recent edit I am totally fine with and I agree that is a good middle ground for all parties, There is nothing left from my side nor is there any concerns.

However @MustafaO do you still dispute the comprimise of @Replayerr and Myself? HararAwal (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@MustafaO Can you confirm what your concerns are over the most recent edit ? It seems like me and @Replayerr have a joint agreement HararAwal (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal My issue is we agreed on keeping all communities who lived in Zeila previously would be kept within the history section. Outside of that I have no issue, in fact I was more than happy with not including the historical appelation. Are you happy with the edit as it is now? MustafaO (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

As it stands, I am satisfied with the latest edit. Since the lead section already includes several historical elements, it is only fair that the historical demographics are also reflected alongside them. @Replayerr most recent version is fine for me in substance, though I think it could benefit from some editorial clean-up-specifically in terms of citation placement and paragraph spacing. To improve readability and consistency with Wikipedia style, the references should be placed directly after the relevant statements rather than grouped in a cluttered manner.

other than that Myself and @Replayerr have reached an agreement with the passage HararAwal (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

@Replayerr

I'm perfectly ok with the edit. It's fine. If we are all happy lets end the discussion here. If we are happy you could remove the 3O request. MustafaO (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal @MustafaO I am fine with the current passage and have no problems it discussing the historic and current inhabitants. Replayerr (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@HararAwal

@Replayerr

Fantastic, looks like we are all in agreement. Let's close the discussion. If there are any other issues or potentially controversial edits that may cause disagreement, we can discuss them here. MustafaO (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

References

[1]
Glawion, Tim (2020-01-30). The Security Arena in Africa: Local Order-Making in the Central African Republic, Somaliland, and South Sudan. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-65983-3. Three distinct circles can be distinguished based on the way the security arena is composed in and around Zeila: first, Zeila town, the administrative centre, which is home to many government institutions and where the mostly ethnic Gadabuursi/Samaron inhabitants engage in trading or government service activities; second, Tokhoshi, an artisanal salt mining area eight kilometres west of Zeila, where a mixture of clan and state institutions provide security and two large ethnic groups (Ciise and Gadabuursi/Samaron) live alongside one another; third the southern rural areas, which are almost universally inhabited by the Ciise clan, with its long, rigid culture of self-rule.
[2]
Reclus, Elisée (1886). The Earth and its Inhabitants The Universal Geography Vol. X. North-east Africa (PDF). J.S. Virtue & Co, Limited, 294 City Road. Two routes, often blocked by the inroads of plundering hordes, lead from Harrar to Zeila. One crosses a ridge to the north of the town, thence redescending into the basin of the Awash by the Galdessa Pass and valley, and from this point running towards the sea through Issa territory, which is crossed by a chain of trachytic rocks trending southwards. The other and more direct but more rugged route ascends north-eastwards towards the Darmi Pass, crossing the country of the Gadibursis or Gudabursis. The town of Zeila lies south of a small archipelago of islets and reefs on a point of the coast where it is hemmed in by the Gadibursi tribe. It has two ports, one frequented by boats but impracticable for ships, whilst the other, not far south of the town, although very narrow, is from 26 to 33 feet deep, and affords safe shelter to large craft.
[3]
UN (1999) Somaliland: Update to SML26165.E of 14 February 1997 on the situation in Zeila, including who is controlling it, whether there is fighting in the area, and whether refugees are returning. "The Gadabuursi clan dominates Awdal region. As a result, regional politics in Awdal is almost synonymous with Gadabuursi internal clan affairs." p. 5.
[4]
Ambroso, G (2002). Pastoral society and transnational refugees:population movements in Somaliland and eastern Ethiopia 1988 - 2000 (PDF). p. 5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link).

Related Articles