Template talk:History of Somalia

This template 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 articles

History

This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles

Egypt Eyalet

The Ottomans most certainly did rule over Zeila, Berbera and other coastal and interior Somali cites. These cites were also run by separate Ottoman/Turkish Governors.[1][2][3][4][5] Not just that, but there were also Ottoman/Turkish garrison stationed in them as well.[6][7][8][9] This not "undue weight" in any way as you claim this to be. AcidSnow (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I expected none of your sources go back further than claims/incidents of the mid-1800s. Zeila and Berbera were part of Ifat and Adal for most of their golden ages. After the Adal-Abyssinian wars, the cities went through a period of decline and sought protection from the Ottomans in Yemen and modern Saudi Arabia - both Ottoman provinces with actual identifiable Pashas and Turkish garrisons - against roaming Portuguese fleets. In that entire period not a single "Turkish" governor ruled those Somali cities, instead it were either Somali or Afar governors practicing local rule for the most part unless there was regional friction. In all of your sources however the leaders from the latter two ethnic groups along with their soldiers and mercenaries have been dubbed "Turkish". A historical error to say the least, not just in terms of culture, phenotype but also clear genetics since neither group is Turkish in origin or were known in those specific centuries as "Turks".

The Cambridge History of Africa - Volume 5 - Page 57 on ZEILA:

The second most important port in the area was Zeila, the main outlet for the trade of the small city-state and region of Harar, as well as of Shoa and the Galla and Sidamo territories of the southwest. It had a permanent population of Somali, Afar and Arabs, ruled by an emir that acknowledged the sherif of Mecca as his overlord. Thus it was nominally incorporated into the Ottoman Empire but the bond was teneous.

The Cambridge History of Africa (same page) on BERBERA:

Though it had no permanent population, Berbera was the scene of a very important annual fair where caravans from the interior met Arab and Indian merchants. The surrounding Somali tribes controlled the place, and any Ottoman claim must be regarded as extremely shadowy.

Typing "Turkish Garrison" with "Zeila" in google is all well and good, but there is actually no evidence of a permanent garrison comparable to the historic provinces of the Ottoman Empire where actual direct rule was practiced. We have no Pasha or permanent Turkish garrison ruling Zeila or Berbera, like the Pasha of Massawa. The inclusion of these sporadic episodes into the template of an entire country's history is clearly undue weight considering these cities at the time of nominal rule had significantly declined in prosperity and their populations did not number more than 3000 at best out of a Somali population of two million. More importantly the particular article you have added ("Egypt Eyalet) as an entity did not hold sway over Zeila until the 1870s, and only for a brief 10 years. Similarly their attempts at holding Berbera in the 1830s and 50s faced continuous local opposition and an actual presence was not achieved until the 1870s, again for a brief 10 years.

The Cambridge History of Africa - Volume 5 - Page 86:

The first Egyptian attempt to obtain a foothold south of Massawa was a landing at Berbera in 1821. Local opposition forced the Egyptians to withdraw. In the 1830s Zeila came under Muhammad Ali together with the coast of Yemen but there was no occupation or Egyptian administration of the port.

This justifies my protest at including these short episodes into a country history template when it did not influence all the important factors that make up the identity of the country, be it the clan-system, the language, the culture, the faith, unlike the other political entities part of the template. The majority of these episodes were "claims" made from far away rather than direct rule. (the Ottomans could not convince the British that these cities were theirs and the latter engaged in treaties with the chiefs of those cities).

Its undue weight to place this brief situation in the same league as the actual Somali dominated/native dynasties such as the Ifat Sultanate, the Kingdom of Adal, the Sultanate of Mogadishu, the Ajuuraan Empire, the Geledi Sultanate as well as the early 20th century Somali states and sultanates, who directly held sway over multiple dozen Somali cities, towns, villages, ports, caravan routes, beachlands, jungles, rivers, mountainous regions, and could confidently be considered to have impacted the entire country's history.

You will not find me removing the Italian and British periods either because they for an actual considerable time did hold sway over the majority of the country and left behind a legacy, good or bad, that is visible to any student or scholar following the Somali Studies platform. See the history of China template as an example of actual relevant history being given their due place as opposed to brief episodes such as the Boxer Rebellion or the Japanese occupation.

Its for that reason that I have once again removed that article from the history template. --90.207.208.40 (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Width

I see no reason why this shouldn't use the default width. using the default avoids issues with stacked infoboxes/sidebars in the same article having differing widths. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok User:Frietjes, but the default width on the other temp-format is more narrow. Is there any way to change the width so that it is in line with the default width on the other temp, while avoiding the stacked infoboxes/sidebars? Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

seems like both template:region history and template:sidebar use the same default? Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It appears that both templates have an adjustable width parameter. The latter temp doesn't seem to indicate the default size, while the former temp has it at 22em. Given this, would there be any stacked infoboxes/sidebars issues if the width size parameter were adjusted? Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to change module:sidebar and module:infobox to use something other than 22em, feel free to suggest it on the respective talk pages. note that template:region history is just a frontend that passes parameters to template:sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I was referring to template:sidebar's own size parameter. It's alright, though; I see the width can be adjusted using just that parameter [10]. It's now at 20em. Middayexpress (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

again "I see no reason why this shouldn't use the default width. using the default avoids issues with stacked infoboxes/sidebars in the same article having differing widths." I believe your response was "Ok". if you want to change the default to something other than 22em, feel free to suggest it on the respective talk pages for module:sidebar and module:infobox. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's "ok" as in "understood". At any rate, I've had a look at some of the other templates and this parameter width seems standard, so I guess it's alright. Middayexpress (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]