Talk:Mohamoud Ali Shire

Name

I think this page is a typo - it should probably be Mohamed Ali Shire. However I do not know whether to move it or delete it Trampled 14:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where are those dates from? They look very dubious to me, so I'm going to add a reference tag. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sultan Mahmoud Ali Shire was around 18-20 years old in 1908. How can he have been reining in 1897.

This entire page is questionable and I could confidently state at least the bulk of it is inaccurate and the rest made up. For instance Mahmoud Ali Shire was not even a full Somali . XKeyse (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

XKeyse, can you please expand on your remarks, particularly your comment regarding him not being fully Somali? Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohamoud Ali Shire. 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/20150402121754/http://wardheernews.com/articles/may/20_Garaad to http://wardheernews.com/articles/may/20_Garaad

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

All unsourced claims were removed, please stop reinstating unsourced content, or content with questionable sources (self-published or user-generated sources, travel guides..etc). Only restore with citation from reliable sources per WP:RS --Kzl55 (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

1922 letter snippet

A snippet from the first 1922 letter that the Sultan Mohamoud Ali Shire wrote to the colonial Governor of Seychelles, in which Shire asks to be released from politic exile, appears in two different translations in separate works by Athol Thomas [1] and Uma Kothari [2].

Thomas-- "As my Master, Excellency, listen to my poor voice and let me return home. I shall be happy to see my country under the protectorate of the English people, I ask no more to be considered as a Sultan, all my firearms and ammunition shall be for the English. I will be satisfied to be the most humble servant of the English nation; what I most desire is the pleasure to be amongst my family, my children and wife, and that is my only dream. Pardon I am asking, I promise to be obedient and respectful towards the English people, I would not like any more to be a Sultan, what I should like is to be under the orders of an Englishman. I swear to what I have stated above, I swear and swear again to it."

Kothari-- "As my Master, Excellency listen to my poor voice and let me return home. ’Pardon’ I am asking, I promise to be obedient and respectful towards English people, I would not like any more to be Sultan, what I should like is to be under the orders of Englishmen."

Both authors describe the letter snippet as exaggeration on the Sultan Shire's part (Kothari writes-- "in these letters, 'wilfulness, exaggeration and overstatement' (Said, 1993) were characteristics of being in exile and constituted covert strategies of resistance"). This quoted passage has also apparently only been republished in these two works, albeit in different translations. Therefore, the passage, at least when presented in highlighted quote format, appears to contravene WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"), WP:PROPORTION ("an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject"), and WP:QUOTE ("where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject"). Anyway, I've asked for a Third Opinion on this. Soupforone (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Firstly please stop adding unsourced content to the article, none of the sources you are citing in the following edits mention a Warsangali 'Sultanate' [3], [4], [5].

The letter does not appear in two different translations, the Kothari source seems to be an abbreviated version of the same letter presented in the Thomas source in full. The letter contextualises the return of Shire, and is relevant as it was "the first of many letters" he wrote requesting his release (Thomas, p.148 [6]). It is presented exactly in the same neutral block quote format as cited source. There are no exceptional claims being made here, the letter was written by Shire himself --Kzl55 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This talkpage post is for the 1922 letter excerpt. Please do not mix it up with other things. The Thomas and Kothari translations are not identical. There is nothing to suggest that Kothari's translation was simply abbreviated since no independent publication claims this nor does he utilize ellipses to indicate any quote shortening. Furthermore, Kothari employs inverted commas around the word 'Pardon', as though to suggest that this is a non-literal or figurative rendering. He alludes to "English people" generally rather than to "the English people" like Thomas does. Thomas also speaks of "an Englishman" in the singular, whereas Kothari writes "Englishmen" in the plural. There is an enormous difference between exaggerating that one should like to be under the orders of an individual compared to under the orders of millions of people. These are not equivalent translations, and there are phrases that actually contradict each other. It is therefore not at all certain what exactly the Sultan originally wrote. Also because the Thomas and Kothari works appear to be the only publications that have republished this 1922 letter. Soupforone (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I am only bringing up your repeated addition/restoration of unsourced content to this article seeing as you did not respond to the request on this talk page, under its own heading [7], to do so.

As for the difference between the two versions, the Kothari excerpt is comprised of two sentences, both of which appear in full in the Thomas source, and in the same order. The only difference between the two, barring minor punctuation/spelling (e.g. the English people/English people), is the exclusion of parts of the letter in the Kothari source, which is understandable given that the Kothri source is a 10 page paper, whereas the Thomas source is a published book. I think it is clear one is an abbreviated version of the other. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It can perhaps be argued that the 'Pardon' in inverted commas and the "English people"/"the English people" wordings comprise minor differences in punctuation or spelling. However, this obviously cannot be claimed for the Thomas translation's "I would not like any more to be a Sultan, what I should like is to be under the orders of an Englishman" and the Kothari translation's "I would not like any more to be Sultan, what I should like is to be under the orders of Englishmen". There is an enormous difference in meaning between an Englishman and Englishmen - on the orders of millions of people. Furthermore, MOS:ELLIPSIS recommends to "use an ellipsis if material is omitted in the course of a quotation". Kothari, though, does not use any ellipses to indicate that he has omitted material between the quoted phrases that begin "As my Master" and "Pardon I am asking". Hence, it is unclear just what exactly the Sultan wrote in his original 1922 letter. Soupforone (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

To say "There is an enormous difference in meaning between an Englishman and Englishmen - on the orders of millions of people" is hyperbolic. In the context of this letter, the difference between "to be under the orders of an Englishman" and "to be under the orders of Englishmen" is minor and does not affect the meaning of the letter, as it was addressed to the colonial authorities. It is not clear exactly why you are citing MOS:ELLIPSIS, it is not reasonable to expect authors operating outside of Wikipedia to adhere to this site's policy. --Kzl55 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

In my opinion, if we removed the letter snippet entirely and instead paraphrased it, it wouldn't be a substantial loss. I don't believe it's necessary to include this quote in the first place, paraphrasing would accomplish the same goal. However, if we must include the quote, I think we should include the whole thing, no exclusions or trims. Soupforone, like Kzl55 said, there is absolutely nothing exceptional about this passage considering it was written by the subject himself. Also, I don't think it matters whether one source is an abbreviation of another or not. If they are both reliable, then they are both valid. Sro23 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sro23, thank you for the Third Opinion. Quoting the letter snippet is indeed not necessary here, and paraphrasing it instead does accomplish the same goal. As to the difference between the "an Englishman" and "Englishmen" wordings, this nuance can perhaps be better understood if one were to replace the "under the orders of" prefacing phrase with "married to". The sentence would then go from pertaining to a monogamous marriage to pertaining to a polygamous one ("married to an Englishman" / "married to Englishmen"). Anyway, paraphrasing seems like a great, neutral comprise. Is this wording okay-- "In the first such hyperbolic letter, sent in 1922, Shire pleaded to the Governor of the Seychelles to allow him to return to his family. Shire emphasised that he simply wanted to rejoin his wife and children, and asserted that he did not wish to be Sultan. He swore that he had disavowed his earlier political beliefs, and promised to recognise the authority of the British government." Soupforone (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sro23 stated their opinion that paraphrasing would not be a substantial loss, but they also added that if we must include the quote, we should include the whole thing. I think going with the full quote serves the article better by giving more context to the section considering the letter was written by Shire himself--Kzl55 (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sro23 and Kzl55 to keep the letter intact. The Kothari source provided makes a point to state that writing letters to colonial authorities formed a major part of the response by those exiled (including Shire) to the experience of being in exile:

“As is evident from the amount of correspondence archived in the colonial office records, exiles were prodigious letter writers. In part this was a strategy for dealing with resentments, loss and separation. While many exiles turned to writing to occupy their days and record their experiences, those in Seychelles were not composing autobiographies or novels but were communicating through letters home to family and compatriots and, most frequently, to the Colonial Government responsible for their exile”

As well, the Kothari sources mentions that it was also one of the activities that took up a big portion of their time:

"the perceived injustice of their exile and the deep frustration of not knowing when they would be repatriated or indeed what they would have to do to make possible their return meant that many exiles spent inordinate lengths of time composing letters to the Governor requesting they be returned to their homeland"

As mentioned by Kzl55, the letter was one of many letters Shire wrote, so it is relevant to keep a letter in a section dealing with his exile experience. Koodbuur (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sro23, you indicated above that it's not necessary to include the quote and that paraphrasing would accomplish the same goal. Does this paraphrasing capture the gist of it?-- "In the first such hyperbolic letter, sent in 1922, Shire pleaded to the Governor of the Seychelles to allow him to return to his family. Shire emphasised that he simply wanted to rejoin his wife and children, and asserted that he did not wish to be Sultan. He swore that he had disavowed his earlier political beliefs, and promised to recognise the authority of the British government." Soupforone (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Soupforone: Yes, that sounds fine. Sro23 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the Koodbuur's comment above provides additional reasons for the quote to stay intact. In terms of the context it provides for the section and considering it was written by the subject himself. It is both relevant, and quoted from a reliable source. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sro23, cool. I would first like to access the colonial documentation for the original letter so as to link to it in the external links. Soupforone (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)