Talk:Cushitic-speaking peoples

First comments

Just on a quick note: the second sentence in "History" (The Cushitic speaking ethnic groups were divided into the Northern Cushites (Beja), the Central Cushites (Agaw) and the Eastern Cushites which includes many ethnic groups such as the Oromo, Somali, Afar amongst others) lists present-day peoples, which is an anachronism. Better add something like "contemporary descendants include", or "the ancestral group of the modern X, Y, Z etc."; otherwise, you mix time levels separated by several millenia. –Austronesier (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Somalis, Somalia

2.26.151.114 @Cookiemonster1618: You two have had a bit of a back & forth on whether or not to include a sentence on the name of Somalia. Maybe the Talk page is the place any discussion should continue. Pathawi (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The User's addition of that information should best be placed in the Somalia Wikipedia article and not here since this article is only discussing the Cushitic speaking ethnic groups and not Somalia or the Somali people as a whole. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is about Cushitic ethnic groups and Somalia is the only country in Africa named after a Cushitic ethnic group. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You should add that information to the Somalia Wikipedia page because this Wikipedia page is about Cushitic speaking ethnic groups and the history of the Cushitic peoples not about one Cushitic speaking ethnic group or the origin of the word Somali. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

2.26.151.114, I believe that your claim is correct—that the country Somalia is named after the Somali people & that this is the only such country named after a Cushitic-language-speaking people—but I can't find that information in the article you cite. Can you give a page number (& ideally a paragraph) to help me find it? If it's not there, it really needs a valid citation to be included in Wikipedia. Adding it with a citation in which the claim does not occur is a bigger issue than adding it without a citation at all.

Cookiemonster1618, can you give a Wikipedia guideline that supports that position? I don't follow why info about one particular Cushitic-language-speaking people is not relevant when speaking about Cushitic-language-speaking peoples more generally. We have info specific to Beja people lower in the page. Pathawi (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I also reverted their edit yesterday because they added another source claiming to support their claim when the cited source did not mention it. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You might consider frequently using the citation needed & failed verification templates a little more frequently & deleting a little less. They give people a notice that things need fixing. Pathawi (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks for showing me the links to those two. I'll discuss this further tomorrow if the other users responds to my objections and yours. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Since the user has not responded to our messages and has ignored them I am removing their edit. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Come on, Cookiemonster1618. You know that that's too fast for Wikipedia. That's not even eight hours. It's not unusual for these things to take days. Pathawi (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The two of you are effectively edit-warring. Please hash this out here without making further edits. Pathawi (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pathawi I have explained many times in my edit summaries that @2.26.151.114 edits should be added to the Somalia Wikipedia page as they are best suited for that page and not the Cushitic speaking peoples page since this page only discusses the Cushitic speaking ethnic groups and doesn't specifically discuss one Cushitic ethnicity such as the Somali people. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you've done it many times it's clearly not working. A more sustained engagement in Talk is the way to go. You've reverted three times in twenty-four hours, which is definitionally edit-warring. Talk is the way to handle this. Pathawi (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pathawi where do you see this dicussion heading and who is right here? Have you come to your final conclusion yet? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that this conversation would benefit from slowing down & from splitting up the issues in a clear way. In my (limited!) experience, when conversations look like what I'm seeing below, it tends to be because too many things are being debated together & at least one of the parties involved (usually more than mone) is more interested in winning than in finding a solution that fits Wikipedia's priorities & guidelines. It looks to me like the issues being debated are:

• Is Somalia named after the Somali people? It looks to me like this is being debated in a somewhat incoherent manner. It does indeed seem to me to be the case that Somalia is named after the Somali people, but that there is a further etymology of 'Somali' (not 'Somalia').
• Is the above claim supported by reliable source? It looks to me like the Akou source explicitly says this. I think this should be considered settled.
• Should Cushitic-speaking peoples have mention of Somalia's etymology? This seems to be a substantive issue to work out. Maybe the only one. This should really be debated based on Wikipedia guidelines, & so far that's not happening. A subissue that has not been brought up is: What if it belongs in the article, but not in the lead paragraph?
• What about Djibouti's name coming from a Cushitic word? (But not named after a Cushitic people.)
• What about sub-national regions like Oromia?
• Are Somalis or Oromos the largest Cushitic ethnic group? (This seems to me like a total non-issue: More Oromos, larger Somali region. Done.)

I think this is basically already clear in the above, but to be super-explicit: I think the only issue of substance is whether or not the assertion that Somalia is named after Somalis is relevant, & perhaps whether or not it's relevant for the lead paragraph. I think that a productive conversation would come from thinking about what Wikipedia guidelines have to say about whether or not it belongs. Pathawi (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The claims addded by the user are not relevant to this wikipedia article because:

1) This wikipedia article is talking about all of Cushitic speaking ethnic groups and includes their names and where they are located as well as the history of the Cushitic peoples and their languages, not the etymology of the word Somali or what the name Somalia means.

2) Somalia does not mean 'Land of the Somali people' as is seen by the etymology of the word 'So Maal' which means to milk.

3) The claims added by the user should be added to the etymology or history sub sections of the Somali people wikipedia page, as the cited articles although not specifically mentioning that Somalia is named after a Cushitic tribe or means 'Land of the Somali people', mentions that it is derived from a word from a Cushitic language. In other words Somalia is derived from a word of Cushitic origin.

4) The User's claims are not supported by the sources they cited.

I highly agree that the user's claims should not be added to this wikipedia article because of these 4 main reasons. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd ditch numbers 2 & 4: I think the IP user's claim is explicitly supported by the Akou source, in which I see: 'Somalia was a nation named after the Somali people, created by joining the colonies of British and Italian Somaliland.' Your #1 seems to me like the issue that the two of you should actually be discussing. Pathawi (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardless it should not be added to this article because this wikipedia article discusses all of the Cushitic speaking ethnic groups and where they are located, and not one Cushitic ethnicity such as the Somali people. It's also not relevant as this article should discuss the etymology of the root word Cushitic and where it is derived and not Somali, as Somalis are just one Cushitic ethnic group. It also doesn't give mentions to all of the other Cushitic speaking ethnic groups and what words they use in their languages to refer to the countries they live in. This user should add their claims to the Somali people or Somalia wikipedia pages under the headings of etymology or history and not here, since this wikipedia article discusses the history of all the Cushitic speaking peoples and not Somalis. Somalia is also not the only country to be named after a Cushitic word. Djibouti is also named or derived from a Cushitic word of origin. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Somalis have without a doubt become one of the most infamous Cushitic ethnic groups. Check the list and see whether Agaw people for example are as known as Somalis. I really believe Somalis should be mentioned in the lead paragraph since Somalia is a Cushitic country. Ethiopia is not homogeneous like Somalia is clearly 2.26.151.114 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Djibouti is also a majority Cushitic country with Cushitic ethnciities (Afar & Somali) making over half of the population. This article discusses the Cushitic peoples and where they are located, it does not discuss what the word Somalia means or how Somalis is named after a Cushitic language. Your claims should be added to the Somalia people page or Somalia because you are discussing a specific country and the origins of it's name. This article is not specifically discussing only the Somali people or the etymology of the world Somali. The Somali people page has an etymology and history sub section, where this kind of information should be added. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pathawi Have you come to a final conclusion? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is speaking of Cushitic ethnic groups and Somalia is the only country named after a Cushitic ethnic group. Ethiopia means burned face and the country hosts the most Cushitic ethnic groups in Africa. Somalia is very unique in this regard 2.26.151.114 (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If that it is the case than by that logic the Slavic peoples page there should be a section describing how Poland is named after a Slavic speaking people the Poles. This is a Cushitic peoples page and is talking about the Cushitic speaking peoples and their histories not sbout the Somalis or Somalia. The information you also claim is not cited in the source you cited. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s the main point. Slavic ethnic groups have their own countries whilst Cushitic ethnic groups don’t. Somalis are the only cushitic people with their own country recognised by the United Nations. Oromo and Afar are both classed under Ethiopian or Eritrean nationality 2.26.151.114 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not the main point, the main point is that you don't see on the Slavs Wikipedia page that Poland is named after a Slavic speaking ethnic group the Poles. The information you also entered is not shown on the cited sources you cited and talks about who the Somali people are without specific mention that Somalia is derived from the word 'So Maal'. The information you entered is not shown on the sources you cited, and is not relevant to this Wikipedia page as it is only discussing the Cushitic speaking peoples. You should add this information in the Somalia Wikipedia page. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice how anlmost every Slavic ethnic group have their own countries with their own capital cities and languages. Somalia is literally the only country out of all Cushitic groups to have a country dedicated. The source states that the nation of Somalia was named after the Somali ethnic group. The former Yugoslavia is akin to Ethiopia in this regard 2.26.151.114 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The information you added is not relevant to this wikipedia page because this is discussing all of the Cushitic speaking peoples and doesn't specifically discuss the Somali people or their origins. The information you added should best be placed in the Somalia wikipedia page. Both sources you also cited don't specifically mention that Somalia is named after the word 'So Maal' and just talk about who the Somali people are. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Somalis are geographically the largest Cushitic ethnic group. The article is speaking of where Cushitic people inhabit? Somalia is the only country where a Cushitic speaking people form the nucleus of the country’s population. This is also true genetically. Haplogroup E-M215 is concentrated the highest in Somalia 2.26.151.114 (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The article discusses the names of the different Cushitic ethnic groups and mentions that they are located in Egypt, Sudan, the Horn of Africa, and East Africa (Kenya and Tanzania). Somalia is a specific country located in the Horn of Africa. Also no the largest Cushitic ethnicity in this region are the Oromo who number more than 40 million. Also the article doesn't give mention to the genetic background of Somalis. Also how does the genetic dna of the modern Somali population overlap with the claims you added to this wikipedia article?. The information you added should be placed in the Somalia article page because it is best suited for that article, and given that Somalis aren't the only Cushitic ethnicity and given that Somalis also inhabit other countries such as Djibouti where they also form a majority, it wouldn't make sense to mention that Somalia is the only country named after a Cushitic speaking ethnicity. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Djibouti is also named after a Cushitic word, yet it isn't discussed how it is named after a word from a Cushitic tribe (Afar). Anyways the information you added is not relevant to this article as it is only discussing the names of the Cushitic ethnic groups and where they inhabit, not the Somali people or what the country Somalia is named after. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Djibouti is not named after a Cushitic ethnic group, they don’t even have a Cushitic language as an official language. Arabic and French are the main languages there. Oromo are not geographically the largest Cushitic ethnic group either. Somalis inhabit almost a million km2 compared to Oromia which make up a 1/3 of Somali inhabited territory 2.26.151.114 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Djibouti is derived from a word from a Cushitic language. 'SO Maal' is a Cushitic word. If your not aware of this i suggest you go and see the etymology of the word Djibouti from the Djibouti Wikipedia article. Also no, official languages recognized by governments have nothing to do with the etymology of country names, and yes Oromo are the largest ethnic group in this region as nearly every source on the internet shows this, if your not aware of this you should check out the Oromo people Wikipedia page. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear. There is no ethnic group called “Djiboutian” the country is inhabited by different Cushitic ethnic groups and their official languages are not Cushitic either, Arabic and French are not Cushitic languages. Somalia is a real country and not a region inside of Ethiopia unlike Oromia. If you combine Somali Region with Somalia you’ll have 1,000,000km2 inhabited by a single Cushitic ethnic group; the Somalis. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Djibouti is known as 'Jabuuti' in the Somali language, and derives from the Afar word for plate ('Gabouti'). This is a word from a Cushitic language. 'So Maal' is also a word derived from a Cushitic language Somali. Recent estimates have the Oromo comprising 45,000,000 people. So where is the line drawn in this if your claims have already been debunked?. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

“Djibouti” is not an ethnic group? It used to be part of French Somaliland. Oromo don’t have their own country called Oromia. Somalia is a real country 2.26.151.114 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Oromo number 45 million people and Somalis number 26 million. Oromo greatly outnumber Somalis worldwide. Djibouti is derived from a Cushitic word from a Cushitic language (Afar) and is used in the Afar and Somali languages. We are not discussing official languages promoted by governments, we are discussing how Somalia is not the only country to be derived from a Cushitic word and that Djibouti is also derived from a Cushitic word. Combing regions doesn't make the Somali population large nor increases it. All sources cited on Wikipedia agree that Oromo are the largest cushitic ethnicity even if they don't have their own country. If your not aware of this I suggest you see the Oromo people page and how many Oromo live in Ethiopia verses how many Somali people live in Somalia as well as their worldwide populations. Somalia is not the only country to be derived from a Cushitic word. Djibouti is also named after a Cushitic word. This has nothing to do with official languages, because if that were the case you would have added earlier that 'Somalia is the only country to be named after a Cushitic language and has a Cushitic language as it's official language'. But you never added that nor was it supported by the sources you cited. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Somalia is derived from a Cushitic ethnic group, not just a Cushitic word. There is no ethnic group called “Djiboutian” and Oromo don’t have their own nation. Oromo fall under Ethiopian identity. Somalia is an official country and member of African Union. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

the words soo and maal, which together mean "go and milk". This doesn't seem to mean 'Land of the Somali people' like 'Poland' or Thailand. So no, Somalia is not named after a Cushitic ethnic group or people. Oromo are the largest Cushitic ethnicity in this region by population. Your arguments have been debunked. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You haven’t debunked anything. Somali is an actual ethnic group. Somalia literally means the land of Somalis. The sources are in black and white text. You’re contradicting yourself. Oromia is not a country unlike Somalia. It should not be so difficult to understand. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you cite where the word Somalia means 'Land of the Somali people'. On cited sources in Wikipedia it shows that the etymology of the word Somalia is derived from the words soo and maal, which together mean "go and milk and it literally shows that ethnic Somalis themselves agree with this, (northern Somalis imply it refers to go and milk in regards to the camel's milk, southern Somalis use the transliteration "sa' maal" which refers to cow's milk.). So from conclusions from this it can be agreed that Somalia does not mean 'Land of the Somali people' and that the Somali people do not agree that their country name means that either. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

[1]

Are you seriously suggesting that Somalia was not named after the Somali people? After everything we’ve discussed? It’s a suffix. Many countries use it such as Bulgaria. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, the only real issue of substance is relevance. I've pitched a couple times that the two of you should be looking to the Guidelines. That hasn't happened, & it occurs to me that maybe you aren't familiar with the guidelines. We have a template with links relating to relevance and scope. This might be a good place to start. You also might think toward how to build consensus, rather than how to win. Is there a solution other than include or remove? What about including it later in the article? What about creating a section on entities that represent Cushitic-language-speaking peoples? If you're going back & repeating the same points, it may be time to seek outside opinions: Consider your WP:3O options. Pathawi (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There is already a sub section under this article with the list of all the Cushitic speaking ethnic groups. The article's main purpose was to discuss the Cushitic speaking ethnic groups and where they are located. How is the etymology of the word Somalia relevant to this article at all, when the article is dicssuing the Cushitic speaking ethnic groups and where they inhabit? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm kind of amazed that you're still not referring to Guidelines, essays, anything, & I don't know what to make of it. Pathawi (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Content must be about the subject of the article. If any content is relevant to other, existing, articles, the content should be moved into those articles. As refernced by Wikipedia's relevance policy, the content that was added to this wikipedia article by @2.26.151.114 is not relevant to this article as I have explained many times, because this article is talking about the Cushitic peoples and where they live, not about how Somalia is the only country named after a Cushitic people. That content should be added to the Somalia Wikipedia article. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm with @Cookiemonster1618 here, except for the executional part (revert, revert, revert, revert...disucss only when pinged). The relevant guideline is WP:ONUS. Not everything that is correct and supported by reliable sources can be added at any place. To add this QI trivia ("Did you know, Somalia is named after the Cushitic-speaking Somalis?") here is IMO a bit of a stretch. The lede should contain only facts directly related to the Cushitic-speaking peoples themselves (figures, geographical scope etc.), but not about indirectly related concepts where an indivdual Cushitic-speaking group is merely eponymous. –Austronesier (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

As usual, I agree with @Austronesier in everything he says. LandLing 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop removing the content. Just by following the edit summary one will find out how you firstly tried debunking the statement: Somalia was named after Somalis. You’ve changed your standpoint now to “it’s not relevant”? 2.26.151.114 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

2.26.151.114, Cookiemonster1618 (talk · contribs) took this position from the beginning, though the argument between you two has often been unclear. It's been three days since the last comment on this topic, and three editors have weighed in with the same opinion: That the sentence you want to include does not belong. You have made other edits during that time but have not replied here. I think Cookiemonster1618 was reasonable in thinking that you had dropped the issue. Pathawi (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

He said in the beginning that the sources were not good enough until the Akou source was embedded to the article. Then he said it was not relevant enough. Please go through the edit summary and check. He’s changing standpoints. The Wikipedia:Notability policy supports the statement. It’s obvious Somalis are the only Cushitic ethnic group with a country of their own. Not to be rude but I sense Anti-Somali sentiment. @Austronesier said Somalis are merely eponymous to Somalia. Why else would the whole Horn of Africa, where most Cushitic peoples actually are, be called the Somali Peninsula if the statement was untrue or “not relevant” enough? 2.26.151.114 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. I think it's pretty unlikely that there's any anti-Somali sentiment involved here. It is true that Cookiemonster1618 was at one point incorrect in saying that your claim was unsourced, but you should also recall that your initial source did not include the information for which you were citing it: Cookiemonster1618 wasn't just making that up—there was legitimate cause for confusion. Cookiemonster1618 has also been making the relevance argument for days: It's their first comment in this Talk page discussion, & it occurs in their edit comments before that. A person can oppose an edit for multiple reasons.

If you want to keep discussing this, I think a useful direction might look like this: Cookiemonster1618 claims that the statement about Somalia being named after Somalis does not belong based on two statements in the essay Relevance emerges: 'Content must be about the subject of the article.' 'If any content is relevant to other, existing, articles, the content should be moved into those articles.' Austronesier notes the official policy Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: 'The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.' Austronesier says that Somalia's being named after Somalis is only indirectly related to the topics of the article.

You suggest that the statement meets the Notability criterion. I don't think this actually works: Notability is about whether or not a particular subject warrants its own article—not about whether a particular claims belongs in an article.

I have a hard time figuring out what should be done, in large part because I don't think this article should exist in the first place. It's hard for me to figure out what's relevant or not as there are awfully few resources about 'Cushitic-speaking peoples' as a whole. (Plenty on individual Cushitic peoples. Plenty on Cushitic languages. But a language does not imply a people.) I have tried to suggest above directions that might serve both interests: Inclusion in a later section, or a new section focused on entities that represent Cushitic language-speakijng peoples. Maybe neither of these is a viable path forward. Certainly, a return to edit-warring or ad hominem accusations are not going to be viable paths forward. Pathawi (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ve just changed the other definitions for Horn of Africa in the article to Somali Peninsula it’s either way 2.26.151.114 (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're doing. You really just can't force your way on Wikipedia. I've just requested that the page receive a degree of protection. That will probably be granted. At that point, as an IP editor, you will no longer be able to edit the page. Someone will revert the edit because you haven't met WP:ONUS on this Talk page, & what you're doing will be understood as disruptive editing. When there's a conflict on Wikipedia, the only way to get things done is to talk it thru. Pathawi (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

How are my edits disruptive? Like I said earlier, I sensed the Anti-Somali sentiment. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia. Imagine the whole region which consists of 4 separate countries is literally called the Somali Peninsula and I’m still being told Somalis and Somalia are not relevant to the article? 2.26.151.114 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier Do not remove cited information. The Wikipedia:Notability policy supports the statement. There are more than 30 Cushitic ethnic groups listed in the article. The Somali population make up around 45% of the all Cushitic people with more than 25 million inhabitants despite only accounting for 3% of all groups added together, almost 3 dozen ethnic groups. The country of Somalia was named after Somalis. The whole Horn of Africa was even named the Somali Peninsula. Look it up. Somalis are one of the biggest ethnic groups on the African continent. For context see map below

https://www.reddit.com/r/Maps/comments/i9ngpp/map_of_ethnicities_in_africa_oc/ 2.26.151.114 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Ponder these etymologies: Ethiopia means “burned face”[2][3] and Sudan means “country of blacks”.[4][5] 2.26.151.114 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree with the relevance of the sentence in question to the article generally (more below). In fact, I think it's hard to determine relevance. However, WP:N is decidedly not relevant: It deals with whether or not a topic merits an article, not whether or not a particular piece of information ought to appear in an article. It is not about this. Further, that information is cited & verifiable is not sufficient to justify its inclusion: WP:ONUS. Thinking about what content belongs in an article, more appropriate guidelines are WP:SUMMARY & WP:DUE. I think it's pretty clear that this sentence does not belong in the WP:LEAD: Part of the MOS guideline for lead sections reads: 'Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.' It is unclear to me what else in the text of the article this connects to. If it belongs at all in the article (again: I don't know), it belongs lower down in a relevant section. No relevant section yet exists.

(It is of course difficult to determine which relevant sections should exist because there are not reliable sources about "Cushitic-speaking peoples". I think this calls attention to the reason that this page should not exist in the first place. Nevertheless, this is where we can talk abotu relevance: Not notability.) Pathawi (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There are three countries where Cushitic peoples predominantly are found. Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia. The etymological meaning of these countries I have compared, Sudan(country of blacks) and Ethiopia(burnt face). Somalia means country of Somalis.[6] The sources are clear cut. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dispute about that. It's not clear how that's relevant to anything in the preceding comment, however. Pathawi (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m baffled. I don’t know what to say about this. This is so shameful. Pure hypocrisy. This is why people don’t take Wikipedia serious. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You took Wikipedia seriously enough until you were blocked. You engaged in behaviour that consistently gets people blocked despite multiple warnings. You could have engaged the consensus-building process, but instead chose edit-warring & implausible accusations. Another outcome was possible. Pathawi (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to make it clear this absolutely has nothing to do with Anti Somali sentiment. Your edits are not relevant to this article because this page is talking about the Cushitic peoples and where they inhabit. Just because Somalis are one of those peoples, does not mean you get to add information about the etymology of the country Somalia and who or what it is named after, especially considering how this Wikipedia article is talking about all of the Cushitic speaking ethnic groups and not just one like the Somalis. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It is only one sentence and it’s very much factual and also relevant to the article. Somalis are one of the biggest Cushitic ethnic groups, so much so that Somalia, a UN member state was named after them. Oromo and Afar who are the second biggest ethnic groups are considered Ethiopian. Let’s say for example if Oromia was a separate country from Ethiopia, surely there wouldn’t have been an issue? I hope you understand. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Religion: Waaqeffanna, Waaqism, Waaq

For some time, the infobox for this article has listed Waaqeffanna—an indigenous Oromo minority religion—as one of the religions practiced by Cushitic language-speaking people. There have been a series of edits and reverts over the past day: In this edit I modified 'Traditional religion(s): (Waaqeffanna)' to just read Waaqeffanna. Waaq.professor (talk · contribs) then edited this to 'Traditional religion(s): (Waaqeffanna)'. I reverted this edit. 148.252.147.156 (talk · contribs) then replaced Waaqeffanna with Waaqism, linking to Waaq. I reverted this as Waaq is a deity, Waaqeffanna a religion. The IP editor then reverted the reversion with the edit comment 'Waaqism is practiced by more ethnic groups than just Waaqafanna. Rendille and Orma etc'. I have since reverted this. We are now brushing up against edit war territory. Here is my argument: Waaqeffanna is certainly a religion. It is practiced at least principally & possibly exclusively by people who speak a Cushitic language. It should certainly be linked in that Infobox. The article Waaq contains no mention of 'Waaqism'. A shared name for a deity should not suggest a shared religion. The sources at Waaq don't seem to support the notion of 'Waaqism'. If there are reliable sources on Waaqism, I think that the appropriate step forward would be to either: 1) Add them and an appropriate section on Waaqism to Waaq; or, 2) if the sources make Waaqism meet notability criteria, create a Waaqism article. Once this is done, I think it make sense to add Waaq or Waaqism to the infobox section on religion. Pathawi (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Waaq is an archaic term for God. Why just assume Waaqism was never a shared religion among Cushitic people when there is evidence of the contrary? 148.252.147.156 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, it is not our job to to create articles based on assumptions, but entirely based on reliable sources. So, asking your question as above is beside the point. Provide the needed reliable sources that show that Waakism Waaqism is indeed a religion (and it is called by that name), and then none of us needs to assume anything - nobody will stop you from creating a Waakism Waaqism page. As long as you cannot present such sources, such a page is likely to be rejected according to the rules of Wikipedia. LandLing 11:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you stop misspelling the name or are you doing it on purpose? Either way, the article has reliable sources. Check out the page Waaqism 148.252.147.156 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

But the page isn't 'Waaqism': Waaqism is a redirect to Waaq. The latter does indeed have reliable sources, but they're not reliable sources about Waaqism (at least, not as cited): They're reliable sources about Waaq. Even if the sources did attest a Waaqism, that would need to be present in the article to make the link a relevant one. Pathawi (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

ISM means ”the belief of”[7] just like with most other religions. I thought that was given already. The sources do speak of a monotheistic faith followed by various Cushitic groups unlike Waaqeffanna. 148.252.147.156 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Muslims don't refer to their religion as 'Allahism'. Meanwhile, 'Qur'ānism' is actually a minority position within Islam. Further, a shared deity (or deity name) does not make a shared religion: Most Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druzes, Samaritans, & Baha'is would agree that they believe in the same single deity.

I don't think Waaqeffanna is really at issue here. You don't deny it exists. It's a religion followed by speakers of a Cushitic language. The question is purely about Waaqism. If there are sources on it within reliable resources on Waaq, then it may deserve a section in Waaq. If there are reliable sources on Waaqism itself, then it may meet the notability requirement for its own article. At that point, a link to Waaqism would be appropriate.

There may be a third way: My objection isn't to mention of Waaq, but only to positing the existence of Waaqism until it's well sourced. We could add something like Traditional beliefs: See Somali mythology, Waaq. What do you think? Pathawi (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no isms in Islam because it is a full fledged religion hence why Somalis adopted it. That’s the whole point. Waaqism is an archaic proto AfroAsiatic religion and not just mythology. There’s not enough sources. No holy books. Never mind though. We’ll just keep it as it is. 148.252.147.156 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you may have misread what I'm suggesting: I'm not calling 'Waaqism' mythology. I'm proposing linking to two articles: Somali mythology & Waaq. But status quo is fine. Pathawi (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)