Talk:Al-Muhamashīn

Untitled
A group of Ethiopian soldiers who formed a ruling class over their conquered Yemeni subjects cannot degenerate to "slaves or servants" after the occupation ended. That is illogical and a racist assumption that the natural place of blacks is as slaves to other races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.27.46 (talk • contribs)
 * The article doesn't say that this assumption is actually true, but it is logical that it is popular among non-Akhdam Yemenis as it serves to justify the discrimination of Akhdam people. Béka (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Source content
User:Middayexpress - I have reverted your strange removal of sourced content. They were summaries from peer reviewed journal articles and other WP:RS publications. They are relevant, due, verifiable and NPOV. Is your issue WP:OWN, or do you have valid concerns? FatimaBhutto (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it was largely redundant and anecdotal, as I explained in my edit summary. For example, you wrote that the Akhdam are low-caste, socially marginalized and live in the slums -- all things which were already noted. Mentioning them again is undue weight and could easily be construed as derogatory. You also added additional redundant material such as the theory that the Akhdam are descended from Ethiopian soldiers (which, incidentally, is not supported by genetics), as well as the meaning of Al-Muhamasheen. You likewise suggested in the lede that some theories hold that the Akhdam are Africans. This is problematic because Africa, like Asia, is and has traditionally been inhabited by populations of diverse origins, as Lehmann notes. Only a specific population(s) in Africa could have been the progenitor of the Akhdam. Their actual genetic characteristics demonstrate this since their high frequencies of the sickle cell trait already rule out a number of African populations, including most Ethiopians. If I were to wager a guess based on the totality of evidence, I'd say the Akhdam are of dual origin: some are probably descended from Nilotic Sudanese soldiers that served in the Ethiopian garrisons in Yemen, while others are autochthonous and related to Veddoid populations, as Lehmann both suggests . Middayexpress (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

, was already noted It's also quite odd you just registered this account yet are now lecturing veteran editors on website policy. Middayexpress (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see some issues with the article as a whole. I am not sure we go around describing people as "Negro features" maybe we have moved away from that type of scholarship. The article is almost exclusively focused on them as downtrodden out caste, it does not in the WP:LEAD even begin to tell me anything meaningful about them. Peer review journals aside let us also remember NPOV is not one source, it is a balance across the article from many diverse sources. --Inayity (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the history. It is User:Middayexpress who a while ago, first extensively added "Negro" and changed African that was in earlier version (see this). Yep NPOV means balance from diverse sources, and that is what I just started doing - some sources I added are in part reviews that refer to numerous other sources, and it is these secondary sources I was trying to rely upon. FatimaBhutto (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood, but that link points to Negrito, not "Negro". The latter is a term that actually you just mentioned. Also, when I made my edits way bak when, I enountered no opposition, and sileneMiddayexpress (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will watch, but the Lead would be a good place to start, we do not have to go over how oppressed they are more than once in the lead. One sentence per theme to summarize the article. --Inayity (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The ref actually says Veddoid so not sure where Negroid even came from.--Inayity (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Inayity, there was no "Negroid" either. At any rate, per WP:BRD, I've reverted the major non-consensus changes by the newly registered account. Each edit will first have to be discussed and then agreed here on the talk page before implementation per WP:CONSENSUS. Middayexpress (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. I registered this account in 2013 and contribute to wikipedia when I find time; you prolly registered a few years earlier. Unless you have WP:OWN issues, you should assume good faith and welcome anyone to edit wikipedia.

Here is the link to alternate version you reverted. You allege, I wrote, "Akhdam are low-caste, socially marginalized and live in the slums -- all things which were already noted." That is a strange allegation, because the phrase "low-caste" is not in that alternate version even once, nor "marginalized" more than once. If your concern is the mention of the slum in two sections, you can constructively delete one, rather than disruptively reverting everything.

On Ethiopian origins, I encourage you to read the sources I added. It is repeatedly mentioned alternate theory out there, in addition to Abyssinian theory (and these are two different theories). Note Lehmann's study is tentatively proposing a hypothesis (WP:PRIMARY), see pages 112-114 of the paper. A wikipedia article should not pick a side but summarize all sides per WP:NPOV.

What are your concerns with Huda Seif, HIV, Related groups, IRIN report summaries I added? Huda Seif is widely cited in scholarly literature on Akhdams, and a reliable source. FatimaBhutto (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks indeed; just stating an observation. You registered this account a few months ago and have since focused exclusively on caste-related topics (mostly Indian ones...). I'm also sorry if you feel the consensus process is a hassle, but this is how the website actually works. At any rate, you certainly did suggest that the Akhdam are low-caste, marginalized and live in slums (e.g. "the social stratification and historical exclusion of Al Akhdams has been referred to as a caste system in Yemen"; "shunning them as untouchables"; "they do the sanitation jobs, and live in the slums of Yemen"), all of which were indeed already noted (e.g. "the Al-Akhdam formed a kind of hereditary caste at the very bottom of Yemeni social strata"; "they have been called lowly, dirty, immoral and untouchables"; "most Al-Akhdam live in segregated slums on the outskirts of Yemen's main urban centers". Huda Seif's disputation of the extent of the efforts to help the Akhdam was also noted; it's the redundant phrase alluding to Yemen's old caste system under which the Al-Akhdam minority had suffered for hundreds of years that was discarded. The HIV rate is okay, but devoting an entire header to it is undue. The "related group" material is not neutral and ironically does eactly what you just complained about i.e. sides with one particular origin theory on the Akhdam. Lastly, the Ethiopian origin theory basically suggests -- wrongly, as genetics and anthropology show -- that the Akhdam are descended from Ethiopian troops who stayed behind after their occupation of Yemen. It and Lehmann's Veddoid theory is are not presented as fact, but as alternate origin theories. The only place where Lehmann is presented without qualification is in anthropology and genetics since these are actual empirical observations rather than hypotheses. The Al-Akhdam really do have unusually high frequencies of the sickle cell trait. Middayexpress (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting my few contributions since last year, and falsely imputing "if you feel the consensus process is a hassle". Such misrepresentation and bullying is unwelcome.
 * The lead should summarize the key aspects of an article. It is inappropriate to call content in the lead as repetition from the main article. See WP:LEAD. Given that many peer reviewed publications mention Al Akdham segregation from mainstream Yemeni society and lack of intermarriage, a summary sentence about this in the lead is WP:DUE. I suggest you add it.
 * If you are okay with HIV etc and sources I had contributed, please include a summary sentence somewhere with those sources. I am okay whether this is with or without a header. FatimaBhutto (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity the ref used has been misused and I have restored what the ref says. THe lede should sum up the article but let us remember that if the article is rubbish and out of balance then the lead will be summing up rubbish also. --Inayity (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an observation, as I wrote. At any rate, I've noted in the lede that Al-Akhdam are socially segregated, and moved the lack of intermarriage and HIV rate material to the history. Middayexpress (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Akhdam. 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/20061105095243/http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-marguerite250404.htm to http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-marguerite250404.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yementimes.com/99/iss01/l%26d.htm

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) 05:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)