Talk:Ajuran Sultanate

An Empire not Sultanate
The Ajuuraan Empire is the official name of this state. Why else are the leaders called Emperor of Somalia? Runehelmet (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources?--Yopie (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So Somalia by Susan M. Hassig, Zawiah Abdul Latif say "inland sultanate". Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East say Ajuuraan Kingdom. Somalia a Country Study say Ajuuraan state. --Yopie (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Three sources have been provided, all referring to the Ajuuraan polity as an empire, which it was, as it ruled over multiple historic republics, sultanates and kingdoms, with citizens of various ethnic origins part of the realm. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: All references, but one (Lewis) are without name of author, publisher, etc. This is against WP:CITE and references cannot be verified. Above are three books with links to google books and everybody can verify, that Ajuraan was Sultanate. But reference as "Ufahamu: Volume 17 pg 98" is meaningless. Is Ufahamu name of book, or author? Or reference "Somali Sultanate pg18" (BTW not "Somali Empire"), what is it? Book, webpage or article in some journal?--Yopie (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ufahamu is a respected African journal on the history, society and culture of the African continent, so its not "meaningless", as it was a medium used by many different well-established scholars. From pg 87:

"Meanwhile in the interiverine area of Southern Somalia, between the Juba and Shebelle river (the fertile agricultural area of Somalia), the Hawiyye clan created the Ajuuran empire in the 16 century. - Mohamed Haji Mukhtar, 'The Emergence and Role of Political Parties in the Inter- River Region of Somalia from 1947-1960'"


 * The Somali Sultanate by Somalist scholar Virginia Luling is about the Gobroon Dynasty, a successor state to the Ajuuraan, from Pg 17, she quotes another Somalist scholar(who in his own book also refers to the polity as an empire):

"as Cassanelli has suggested, they were a successor state, who rose to power locally as the Ajuuraan 'empire' crumbled (Cassanelli, 1982: 110-11)."


 * There are also several french sources who refer to the polity as an empire:

Les Ajuuraan auraient contrôlé un vaste empire théocratique dans la Corne de l'Afrique entre le XV et le XVII - Luc Cambrézy - Populations réfugiées: de l'exil au retour - Page 316 


 * and:

le pouvoir absolu qu'exerça Yimaan des Ajuuraan, un clan hawiyye qui, au quinzième siècle, édifia sur les bords du Shabeelle un véritable empire - ''Christian Bader, Les Yibro: Mages somali. Les juifs oubliés de la corne de l'Afrique? pg 97''


 * All of these are reliable and verifiable sources. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, see WP:CITE and repair citations.--Yopie (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue has been fixed, the names of the books/journals, the authors, the years of publication have all been included. I don't know the history between you and Runehelmet, and I really don't care, but I won't allow this article to be hi-jacked by personal vendettas, so if this is the real reason for your reverts and disruptions on the Ajuuraan State, I advise you not to continue in this matter for its very disruptive, and would further highlight that its not wise to wiki-stalk another member the way your doing right now to Runehelmet, its a well-established form of harrassment, see WP:HA. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to article to change name from Ajuran Sultanate to Ajuran Empire. As stated by Somaliweyn10, there are numerous verifiable cited sources that refer to Ajuran as an empire. Somali Strawhat (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation link
Can someone fix the link error. I tried but it will still stay on the top of the page. Thank you. Runehelmet (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Borders
As Lee V. Cassanelli explains : "Ajuraan authority could be said to have extended from Mareeg (the territorial center of the Darandoolle, a segment of the Gurqaate Hawiyya) to Qallaafo (the probable homeland of the Jambelle Hawiyya[...] The state also incorporated groups of riverine cultivators that were settled at various places along the Shabeelle from Qallaafo in the north to Torre in the southeast, near Baraawe. These cultivators probably formed the bulk of the servile labor force that was conscripted to construct the dikes and canals popularly attributed to the Ajuraan period." So the polity's western border is Qallaafo, its northern one is Mareeg, and its southern one is Barawa. Middayexpress (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ajuran not Ajuuraan
Wouldn't the name actual be spelled Ajuran and not Ajuuraan in English? Ajuuraan how it would be spelled using the Somali Latin Alphabet. The Encyclopedia Britannica also conforms this.
 * Ajuran is the anglicized spelling. However, it's more commonly known as the Ajuran/Ajuuraan/Ajuraan Sultanate. Middayexpress (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. AcidSnow (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, I have decided to reopen this discussion after going through refs to use on this article. You are right that its often known as either the Ajuran/Ajuuraan/Ajuraan Sultanate, but the "Ajuran Sultanate" is used far more than the rest of them and is also the more common name. I plan on moving the article to that name soon, but if you have anything to say please do so. I have also already removed the second "e" in "Garen" as it is not used anywhere. AcidSnow (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes sense as that's the commonname. Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, but I was unable to use the Move Button so I manually moved the article. How should be do the lead sentence? AcidSnow (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Terrible name change, the most common name in the majority of the sources is "Ajuuraan" which follows the double vowel conventions of the Somali language. As someone who literally built this page from scratch I can only shake my head at these changes. Pity, this was a good article. --90.201.6.198 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Ajuran Sultanate" actually appears to be the WP:Commonname. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What are your methods to determine that Midday? The number of results for each spelling? None of the primary sources (that this entire article is based on) use that spelling, namely Cassanelli and Virginia Luling. There is always a double u (Ajuuran) or a double a (Ajuraan). I find the removal of 'state' in favor of 'sultanate' also problematic because it diminishes what the Ajuuraans had accomplished once upon a time in Africa; a rare highly centralized empire.
 * I'm actually not that particular about the spelling of "Ajuran". But since you asked, the most common spelling is "Ajuran Sultanate", followed by "Ajuuraan Sultanate" and then "Ajuraan Sultanate". It's the "Sultanate" part that is more important imho, and Lee V. Cassanelli describes the polity as such. That said, the Ajuraan Sultanate wasn't actually more centralized than the larger Somali sultanates, such as the Adal Sultanate, the Majeerteen Sultanate and Sultanate of Hobyo. Like them, it possessed the organs and trappings of an integrated modern state, including a functioning bureaucracy, a hereditary nobility, titled aristocrats, a state flag, as well as a professional army. Similarly, it too engaged in taxation, so it kept written records. There were basically two main differences between the Ajuuraan Sultanate and the other polities. It engaged in hydraulic construction, whereas the other Sultanates did not for the most part. For their part, the other Sultanates' had more developed foreign relations than the Ajuuraan polity did, including the signing of actual treaties. Apart from this, the Ajuuraan Sultanate was a fairly standard medieval period Somali sultanate. Middayexpress (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sequin coin not Sequin
The link under an image of sequin coins points to the Sequin page. Shouldn't it point to Sequin_(coin) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.207.212.39 (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

When did it begin/end and numerous of translations
Middayexpress, do you mind assist me in improve this article? Though there are citations for most sections there are certain ones and major sentences that don't have any. There are also citations that only list the authors name and not the book. Most of all there is no solid foundation as to when this sultanate began and ended an thatt there are cmore than 3 spellings of the name of the sultanate. AcidSnow (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Lee V. Cassanelli asserts that by tradition, the Ajuraan are held to have entered the inter-river area in southern Somalia between 16 to 20 generations ago. So that would be around 4.8 to 6 centuries ago. They are also associated with an early macro-Somali group called the Madanle, who like the Ajuraan constructed a number of waterworks in the region. Middayexpress (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That does not really answer any of my questions, but ok. AcidSnow (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible wrong data in the table of imports/exports
I suspect that some cells of imports and exports have been inverted for some countries. I corrected some of them (Ming China, Vietnamese Lê Empire, and some African empires). I suggest a full re-check of the whole table because imports/exports may be inverted for others countries too. To whom it may concern, Please feel free to check my edit and the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max.kit (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ajuran Sultanate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607173848/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=7810 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=7810

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sofala and Maldives
Content about Mogadishu’s control and sphere of influence over Sofala and the Maldives have been removed as that content would fit the earlier Sultanate better as it lost Sofala to Kilwa long before the Ajuran were a major power in the region. The editor, Shahasu, that added this specific content in 2019 is no longer with us, but if there is anyone else that wants to challenge this move, please state your case below. GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Time period for map description
The description of the map in the infobox says 'The Ajuran Sultanate in the 13th century' yet on the map the Portuguese empire is present in modern day Kenya despite Vasco de Gama only first reaching and conquering the area in 1498/1500. Also the map shows the Adal Sultanate existing in the 1200s despite it not getting founded until 1415.

The source of the image is based on The Shaping of Somali Society: Reconstructing the History of a Pastoral People, 1600-1900, by Lee V. Cassanelli so the map could be from the late 16th century as the Adal Sultanate collapsed in 1577 after the Oromo Migrations.

Unfortunately the user who uploaded this image, WanderingGeeljire, has retired from Wikipedia, would anyone know the proper time period for this map? Thank you John Fifty (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ajuran resistance from Portuguese colonisation
@Javaext How many battles were there? Did the Portuguese never attempt to occupy Ajuran? Jinsicad (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Javext Are you going through the sources? Jinsicad (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Vasco Da Gama considered Ajuran “Moors” there’s a source in article about him. @Javext Jinsicad (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Aside from the Ottomans whom the Portuguese called "Rumes", they described every Muslim as "Moor". Javext (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jinsicad There are many Portuguese raids/sacks/punitive expeditions against Ajuran towns. No the Portuguese did not attempt to occupy Ajuran as they were not focused on land but rather on trade routes and sea control. The first source you showed is false and it can easily be proven. The punitive expedition in question only has 1 primary source, which was João de Sepulveda's account, published in Documents on the Portuguese in Mozambique and Central Africa, Volume III (1540-1560) which states:
 * "Sire,
 * 1-In the past year I wrote telling Your Higness how, on the coast of Malindi, things were going in regard to your service, after the stir caused by the foists of the Rumes [Turks] that came there and also because there was a strong belief that there was comng that year a great fleet of them to take these fortresses and punish all our friends. My going, sire, was forced upon me because, had I not gone, all the said coast would have risen in their favour, and its Moors believe that the captain of Sofala is so as far as Cape Guardafui and, for this reason, I was asked for help by our friends who are greatly afraid of the said Rumes and that their people were very sure they would come and said that no help could go from these fortresses and that it would be as well to make them understand that they had to make ready and, knowing that I could go in great safety and that it was required for our good name and the future security of these fortresses, I went and took in my company one hundred men.
 * 2-Item, at the end of August I arrived in Malindi where the coming of the Rumes was regarded as very certain because they had strongly affirmed it and a foist [light-galley] of their company was in Mogadishu. In the said Malindi I took two foists that I found there with coir and, with the four I had and some zambuks and Moors from said Malindi who wanted to go with me, it seemed well to go to the said Mogadishu, which is two hundred leagues from there and the last place of the Moors along the said coast and very famous among them and where there was great certainty as to the coming of the Rumes with whom they were very friendly, and where I arrived one morning out at sea and went ashore forthwith and took the said foist that was there aground and I destroyed the city and did them great damage and injury.
 * 3-Item, I went six leagues further to a bay and a good anchorage for small ships and it is the main stepping place sough by all the ships that come from Arabia and the Straits and there I remained some days, until there came some naos [tradeships] from whom I learned for certain tha the Rumes were not coming that year and, since it was already November and the beginning of the easterlies, I returned to said Mogadishu and made peace with their king and came by way of Brava where I went ashore and destroyed and burnt the place and caused them much damage and killed some Moors, all of which they well deserved due to the friendship and alliance they had with the Rumes, to whom they had delivered three or four Portugals when they were there and, after being well punished, I made peace with them and came away settling the coast in our friendship as far as Malindi where I found a message from Martim Afonso de Sousa, the governor, who was wintering in Mozambique, writing me that he had a great shortage of supplies and cables, all of which I sent in the greatest abundance possible."
 * Another source stating that the Portuguese met their objective with the punitive expedition:
 * "Sepulveda returned to Mogadishu and concluded a peace with its sultan. He set out again on his way and landed at Barawa, which he burned and destroyed. He also slew some of the Moors. The city had received the two Turkish fustas from Aden as allies with open arms and had handed three or four Portuguese over to them. After he had roundly punished its inhabitants, Sepulveda concluded a peace also with this city, thus bringing the coast as far as Melinde back under control."
 * With both of these sources we can conclude that the purpose of this expedition was to punish the cities of Ajuran due to their cooperation with the "Rumes" which were the Ottomans and that it was successful from the Portuguese perspective.
 * The second source does not say that Ajuran successfully resisted "Portuguese colonisation" but rather says that some of the Portuguese raids were won by ottoman/ajuran and others won by the Portuguese, therefore saying that "Ajuran Empire successfully resisted Portuguese incursions from the east" would imply that they won all of them. It also states that the Portuguese sacked Ajuran towns many times, which could go against the narrative that the Ajuran sultanate resisted their incursions.
 * And then for the last source, for some reason you put it twice and It says nothing about the topic in question.
 * Also, please do not change the part where I put that Barawa was also forced to sign peace with the Portuguese. It was referring to the sack that happened in 1542, not in 1507 and so what you wrote (in bad english) is wrong. Javext (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you removing the sources? It’s from official sources printed in black and white. The Portuguese are the reason for the 50 million black Africans in Brazil today. There is a reason nobody speaks your language in Somalia today unlike Mozambique. Jinsicad (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you had read what i stated you would realise that you are wrong. No the Portuguese did not try to conquer the Ajuran Sultanate. The Portuguese were not a land based empire during the 16th century but rather they focused on controlling trade routes and oceans. Your limited knowledge makes me believe you don't know what you are talking about. Quit the disruptive/biased editing. Javext (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re edit warring. Do you know what incursion means?https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/incursion
 * The Portuguese waged wars, read the sources properly. They had no business in Africa let alone the Somali coast. Jinsicad (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m referring to the Somali-Portuguese page. Jinsicad (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your logic makes no sense. Obviously I know what incursion means and in my first response I already explained it all. Would you elaborate further, "They had no business in Africa let alone the Somali coast"? Javext (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not in India either. Read the sources. The Portuguese sailed all the way from Europe to destroy cities in Somalia. How is that not incursions? Jinsicad (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Who is talking about India? Who said the Portuguese didn't do incursions into Somalia? Did you even read my first reply?
 * I literally read the sources you provided and debunked them already. In all of your replies so far you disregard what I say and state new things that have nothing to do with the topic. Javext (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What did you debunk exactly? I added minimum 5 academic sources. The Turkish source you said was inaccurate and complained about yesterday was removed yesterday. Jinsicad (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What did you debunk exactly? I added minimum 5 academic sources. The Turkish source you said was inaccurate and complained about yesterday was removed yesterday. Jinsicad (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jinsicad Either you are purposefully ignoring my reply in THIS talk page or you just haven't read it. Javext (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The large piece of text you pasted on the talk page is incoherent. All I have done now is refer to the Somali-Portuguese page as “incursion”. Why would you want to dispute the Somali-Portuguese conflict page when there’s a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to the topic? Jinsicad (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No it's not "incoherent". I don't mean to offend your english abilities but clearly did not understand the point of the text or what we even are talking about. The "Somali-Portuguese conflicts" page is not an "incursion" but rather a series of conflicts between somali sultanates and Portugal. By writing in THIS page that the "Ajuran Empire successfully resisted Portuguese incursions from the east" would imply that they won all incursions made by the Portuguese, which is obviously false and none of the sources you provided demonstrate that. I am not claiming that they didn't have a conflict with each other, if that's what you understood. Can we reach a consensus to remove that part of the text? Javext (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My English is fine. You’re interpreting the text wrongly. It says they successfully resisted attacks, it means they weren’t completely overtaken, even though they lost many battles. They were not converted to Christianity unlike other countries the Portuguese conquered. Socotra for example. Jinsicad (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Quit saying the Portuguese wanted to "comepletely" conquer the Ajuran Sultanate or even convert them to Christianity as it was not the case. Like i said previously, the Portuguese only wanted to control the seas and trade routes as you can read in the sources displayed.
 * The Ajuran sultanate suffered from many Portuguese incursions and their cities were sacked multiple times throughout the 16th century, which shows they didn't "successfully resist" them. Javext (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They never fell under Portuguese rule ever though that’s the point. They did lose some battles but they never lost the war. That’s how they resisted the incursions. Even economically by siding with the Ottoman Empire they were independent. Jinsicad (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Portuguese did not try to conquer them, how many times will I have to say this? How many more sources will you want? What war are you referring to? This is about incursions not economies nor a full-scale war. Javext (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They didn’t try to conquer? What else did they do in East Africa for centuries? The Portuguese were fully engaged in military and economic warfare. The trade routes you’re referring to was Muslim trade networks and not European Christian at all. I’ve added plenty of sources. The Portuguese were not able to conquer the Horn only Swahili coast and further down. It’s not as if they never they tried. We have the evidence. Jinsicad (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Portuguese never tried to conquer the Horn of Africa and nowhere in your sources it states that, you are just creating stuff. I already notice you changing your argument in this debate and trying to change topic every time you respond. You simply disregarded the sources I already provided stating the Portuguese only wanted to control the Indian Ocean and the trade routes and not entire land masses as their manpower was very low to do that so they implemented this strategy.
 * Now for your sources, none state what you claim. None say that the Portuguese "were not able to conquer the Horn" or "There is a reason nobody speaks your language in Somalia today unlike Mozambique" -You are clearly trying to pass the narrative that Portugal wanted to conquer Somalia/Ajuran.
 * Unless you can show me a reliable secondary source stating that the Portuguese wanted to take full control/conquer Ajuran was a whole, that narrative cannot be accepted and needs to be removed as soon as possible to avoid further confusion. Javext (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Don’t you understand English? It says they resisted Portuguese incursions from the east. The intro is in clear cut English? It doesn’t say “they defeated the Portuguese in each battle!”Every source in the article supports the fact that Portugal waged wars against Ajuran but weren’t able to conquer them. Jinsicad (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I literally read them all and none say that Portugal wasn't able to "conquer Ajuran" as a whole. Please quote the phrases and I'll be happy to see them.
 * Second point, why do you keep ignoring my statements and jumping to new arguments? Javext (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This source is one of many used in the article. It literally uses the words “successfully resisted” aswell. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ncKxEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT25&dq=Portuguese+conquer+Mogadishu&hl=sv&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju6OvE7IuFAxXPU0EAHRJ4CGwQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=Portuguese%20Mogadishu&f=false Jinsicad (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * More context would be nice, however you started by claiming it was the entirety of the Ajuran sultanate and now you show a source that talks about a single city. (Which disproves what you said)
 * My statement was, and read it carefully to avoid another mistake:
 * "I literally read them all and none say that Portugal wasn't able to "conquer Ajuran" as a whole. Please quote the phrases and I'll be happy to see them." Javext (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mogadishu was the most prominent city in the country though. The Portuguese knew this. Jinsicad (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It even says how the Portuguese were limited to Mozambique after the Omani expedition in Zanzibar Jinsicad (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So you just proved my point. Arguing with you from this point forward will just be useless. Like I knew it was going to happen, once again you cannot provide/quote a source that states the Portuguese wanted to conquer Ajuran and couldn't. Mogadishu being the most prominent city means nothing regarding what you claimed earlier and once again I notice another shift in topic.
 * The Omani part also has nothing to do with Ajuran and during that time period the Portuguese were in no position to launch attacks but rather they were defending themselves alone against the Dutch and other Muslim countries.
 * Have we reached a consensus? Javext (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re contradicting yourself. Your stand is that the Ajurans didn’t successfully resist Portuguese incursions. It’s not making sense. The whole article is filled with academic sources confirming every sentence in the article. It’s verified. You’re not removing Somali-Portuguese conflicts from the Ajuran article. There’s no way. Jinsicad (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If anything we should let a moderator decide whether to remove Somali-Portuguese conflicts or if it should stay. Jinsicad (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Sucessfully resisting Portuguese incursions" means that they defeated Portuguese incursions which is not true and you will not find that anywhere.
 * I did not say I want to remove Somali-Portuguese conflicts from this page, on the contrary. There is literally a topic in this article called "Ajuran-Portuguese battles" and I'm happy it's there. The Part i want to remove is the "sucessfully resisted Portuguese incursions."
 * Go ahead and request a reliable third opinion from an administrator if you wish to. Javext (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * “Successfully resisting” does not mean Ajuran won the war or they beat the Portuguese. It just means they stood their ground. Surely numerous of cities were destroyed and sacked but still there was resistance. That’s the whole point. They defended themselves from Portuguese onslaughts. That’s all it means. Nothing else. Jinsicad (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unlike Kilwa Sultanate or Melindi for that matter Jinsicad (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Defended themselves" while their cities were systematically sacked and destroyed by the Portuguese.
 * I see that this argument is going nowhere so I suggest, like you already said, to get a third opinion from an administrator. Javext (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that Mogadishu, Merca and the other cities were all kept intact. Even Barawa that was ransacked did not get conquered to the same extent as Kilwa. The Ottomans were there as allies for Ajuran and later the Omanis took over Zanzibar, forcing the Portuguese to retire in Mozambique. Jinsicad (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Omanis have nothing to do with this, once again a shift in topic. I could re-use my arguments again but to be honest I'm quite tired now and I've understood that no matter what I say you reject it and try to change topics. Please request a third opinion from an Administrator. Javext (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just made the request for a third opinion. Jinsicad (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Summary request
If you could each provide a  brief  summary of your position, that would likely be helpful for whoever responds to this third opinion request. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Basically,in the intro it states that the Ajurans “successfully resisted Portuguese incursions from the east”. That’s what the whole argument is about. Just the bit where it says “successfully”. Jinsicad (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And whair is your opinion on the dispute of whether or not "successfully" should be included? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely don’t believe it’s false since there are multiple academic sources confirming that Ajuran were able to resist the Portuguese from destroying Ajuran. For example the Kilwa sultanate were overtaken unlike Ajuran.
 * There is a section in the article in more detail about the Portuguese incursions in East Africa Jinsicad (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And you could you provide the best source(s) here which support this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These sources are from the article. A few of them use the exact words; “successfully resisted Portuguese incursions”   Jinsicad (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. I'm not able to look into this deeply, but it looks good on the surface.
 * @Javext, do you have any objections to what has been presented here?
 * - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @IOHANNVSVERVS Hello and yes I do have many objections.
 * First off, @Jinsicad started by saying that the debate is only about the word "successfully" which is not the case and proves that he constantly changes topics and that is very noticable throughout the entire debate. His phrase: "Just the bit where it says “successfully”. Clearly a lie, the debate is about: "the Ajuran Empire successfully resisted Portuguese incursions from the east".
 * I will now debunk his sources,
 * The first source, only states that Mogadishu was not under Portuguese control, which means little regarding the topic. It wasn't even the capital city.
 * The second source has historical mistakes, which might or not be on purpose as the book was written by a Somali and it seems to be made to "glorify" Somali history. It could mean nothing but take a look at this.
 * -In the book it states: "The Ajuran Imamate, also defended its territory from the Portuguese incursion that initially burned and looted Barava under the command of Tristão da Cunha." This is indeed a "glorified" version of what happened in reality. It is referring to the Battle of Barawa, which was a Portuguese victory. The Portuguese sacked the city and then left because they were satisfied, not because they were expelled. That's all, as you can see in these sources:
 * -Another historical mistake in the book, most likely another glorified narrative of what really happened: "Nonetheless, the Portuguese did not abandon the plan of conquering Mogadishu, and several decades after their earlier attempt, [The "earlier attempt" never happened by the way and I will explain later.] they sent a punitive expedition under the command of João de Sepulveda, who also failed to conquer Mogadishu."
 * The punitive expedition in question only has 1 primary source, which was João de Sepulveda's account, published in Documents on the Portuguese in Mozambique and Central Africa, Volume III (1540-1560) which states:
 * "Sire,
 * 1-In the past year I wrote telling Your Higness how, on the coast of Malindi, things were going in regard to your service, after the stir caused by the foists of the Rumes [Turks] that came there and also because there was a strong belief that there was comng that year a great fleet of them to take these fortresses and punish all our friends. My going, sire, was forced upon me because, had I not gone, all the said coast would have risen in their favour, and its Moors believe that the captain of Sofala is so as far as Cape Guardafui and, for this reason, I was asked for help by our friends who are greatly afraid of the said Rumes and that their people were very sure they would come and said that no help could go from these fortresses and that it would be as well to make them understand that they had to make ready and, knowing that I could go in great safety and that it was required for our good name and the future security of these fortresses, I went and took in my company one hundred men.
 * 2-Item, at the end of August I arrived in Malindi where the coming of the Rumes was regarded as very certain because they had strongly affirmed it and a foist [light-galley] of their company was in Mogadishu. In the said Malindi I took two foists that I found there with coir and, with the four I had and some zambuks and Moors from said Malindi who wanted to go with me, it seemed well to go to the said Mogadishu, which is two hundred leagues from there and the last place of the Moors along the said coast and very famous among them and where there was great certainty as to the coming of the Rumes with whom they were very friendly, and where I arrived one morning out at sea and went ashore forthwith and took the said foist that was there aground and I destroyed the city and did them great damage and injury.
 * 3-Item, I went six leagues further to a bay and a good anchorage for small ships and it is the main stepping place sough by all the ships that come from Arabia and the Straits and there I remained some days, until there came some naos [tradeships] from whom I learned for certain tha the Rumes were not coming that year and, since it was already November and the beginning of the easterlies, I returned to said Mogadishu and made peace with their king and came by way of Brava where I went ashore and destroyed and burnt the place and caused them much damage and killed some Moors, all of which they well deserved due to the friendship and alliance they had with the Rumes, to whom they had delivered three or four Portugals when they were there and, after being well punished, I made peace with them and came away settling the coast in our friendship as far as Malindi where I found a message from Martim Afonso de Sousa, the governor, who was wintering in Mozambique, writing me that he had a great shortage of supplies and cables, all of which I sent in the greatest abundance possible."
 * Another source stating that the Portuguese met their objective with the punitive expedition and also sacked Barawa:
 * "Sepulveda returned to Mogadishu and concluded a peace with its sultan. He set out again on his way and landed at Barawa, which he burned and destroyed. He also slew some of the Moors. The city had received the two Turkish fustas from Aden as allies with open arms and had handed three or four Portuguese over to them. After he had roundly punished its inhabitants, Sepulveda concluded a peace also with this city, thus bringing the coast as far as Melinde back under control."
 * With both of these sources we can conclude that the purpose of this expedition was to punish the cities of Ajuran due to their cooperation with the Ottomans and that it was successful from the Portuguese perspective.
 * The third source states that Tristão da Cunha failed to take Mogadishu in 1507, which misleads people into thinking he attacked it and failed. While it is true that he planned to sack Mogadishu after having sacked Barawa, he did not attack Mogadishu. Before even arriving close to Mogadishu he listened to the advice of his second in command, Afonso de Albuquerque and opted to conquer Socotra instead.
 * The fourth source literally states nothing important, you can check it.
 * The fifth source also proves the success of the Portuguese attack in Barawa. Another important sentence is, "Such raids went on for decades. The Ajuran, with the help of their Ottoman allies, sometimes won, sometimes lost [...]" Which means that even if Ajuran resisted some of the Portuguese incursions, Portugal also won many, therefore putting in the page that "the Ajuran Empire successfully resisted Portuguese incursions from the east" would be controversial to say the least.
 * The sixth source is basically the same as the first, it only states that Mogadishu was not under Portuguese control, which means little regarding the topic. It wasn't even the capital city.
 * The seventh and last doesn't really state anything important, only some stuff about economies really but that has got nothing to do with "incursions".
 * So, with his usage of sources debunked, I would like to say that this took quite some time of research for me and not only that but It also time to write all of this. Thanks to anyone who read it and I hope to reach a consensus. Javext (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My position is very clear, the sentence "the Ajuran Empire successfully resisted Portuguese incursions from the east" is false/misleading. Javext (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I'll be able to resolve this dispute and so I have relisted the third opinion request, which will allow another editor to respond. Thanks to both editors here for the summaries and explanations of their positions. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * All right, thanks for responding, and I apologise if I was disrespectful in any way.
 * @Jinsicad I will change it now then. Javext (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the sources? What makes “fought” different to “resisting” ? Jinsicad (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources clearly stating that they resisted the attacks. @Javext removed them for no reason. Jinsicad (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jinsicad Resisted means they won, which I have already debunked above.
 * @AirshipJungleman29 already gave his third opinion and therefore the topic should be closed. Don't revert my edits or else it's disruptive. Javext (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You’ve been rude to me and I don’t understand why. Do no remove the sources I’m asking politely. Extensive research has been done on the topic. There was no consensus on the edit you just did.Jinsicad (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not been rude, don't act offended for no reason. We requested a third opinion and they agreed with my source analysis and suggested to change it to "fought" instead of "successfully resisted". Javext (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My argument is still valid and the sources have to remain please thank you.  Jinsicad (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ajuran established in the 13th century
@Whoopsawa @Vif12vf There are countless of academic sources in the page regarding the timeline of Ajuran. Do not add unsourced and contradictory claims in the article. 148.252.147.215 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Learn what 'unsourced' means. Do not delete the cited text. Whoopsawa (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re ruining the whole article Thehamid (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are literally erasing massive amounts of text with citations based on nothing. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to delete cited text. It's funny you accuse others of WP:VANDAL when that is what you are engaging in. Whoopsawa (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Leave this page alone. You have no business here. Your sources are not even accessible. You’re adding random links with no credibility. Thehamid (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please be mindful of the tone you use when speaking with other editors. Always WP:Assume Good Faith and be mindful of WP:3RR. Let's agree on a consensus here before we make your suggested edit. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Starting a discussion below to attempt to resolve this matter. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He was claiming earlier it was established in the 16th century. All of a sudden now he’s changed it to the 14th century. He even said they only ruled for 150 years. How does that make sense? Thehamid (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We will go through it and see if it makes sense or not. Until then, undo your last edit on the article as it's a WP:3RR violation which could result in your account getting blocked. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What I had written before your removal was their about rise, not their establishment. This is what written:
 * Cited from this this segment of Migrations, Islam, and politics in Somali Benaadir, 1500-1843 by Lee V. Cassanelli:
 * Cassanelli continues:
 * This is not about when they were established or how long they existed, but when they gained prominence and lost dominance. Whoopsawa (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For everyone's reference, I have submitted a report at the edit warring noticeboard as a result of Thehamid violating WP:3RR Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not about when they were established or how long they existed, but when they gained prominence and lost dominance. Whoopsawa (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For everyone's reference, I have submitted a report at the edit warring noticeboard as a result of Thehamid violating WP:3RR Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Changes by Thehamid
Can you share with us here the relevant sources that validate your claim. Let's go through those sources together and see if it satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)