Talk:Avalites

Hoax concerns

Escorban-Han (talk · contribs), you've tried two speedy deletion requests and now a prod, citing a possible hoax - you've used the exact same terms incidentally as another user did on Liban sultanate for this prod. You've also been tagging and checking on other articles created by Rashicy (talk · contribs). If you have a concern that there is a long term pattern of hoaxing by this user, please gather the evidence and raise it on relevant talkpages and perhaps at WP:ANI. At least I'd expect to see your concerns laid out on this talk page. Avalites does appear in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, and in academic works like this that discuss the Periplus. If you are concerned that hoax material is being added to these mentions, or that there is WP:OR or similar, please set it out, ideally at WP:AFD. If there is evidence of hoaxing, or well-intentioned but poor quality use of sources, this is something we need to look at in detail. It's not really enough to use edit summaries, or speedy/prods for something that needs this level of consideration. Please also set it out in your own words, rather than copy and pasting from someone else's rationale at a different article. We need to know the specific concerns with this page. Spokoyni (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC),

Hi Spokoyni thank you for the notice.

Yeah i have shown in one instance how one of his pages are real hoaxes, for example one page creation he take a single mention of House_of_Galluweger in a 1 single random fiction romance novel and proceeds to make a page around as if it real and list academic sources that have nothing to do with it. Please have look Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/House_of_Galluweger#House_of_Galluweger. The user more or less does this on every page it creates.

Avalite(Not plural) is a port city mentioned in the Periplus. But nothing more is mentioned about that port city in other academic works or in the perpilus other than it being a port city in Northern Somalia, the trade with the Greco-romans and it possible corrisponding to modern day Zeila . The rest is just hoax material being added to those mentions.

Is there a way for me to gather the hoax concerns to one place? or bring attention to this user or trend? & Where should i take this? Escorban-Han (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A starting point here would be to look at the sources that the user has listed here and examine them, showing how they do not support what is written in the article. If you can establish a trend like this over a number of articles, then this can be taken to appropriate noticeboards for consideration. For example - "Periplus mentions that Avalites was the first port in the Barbar region, followed by Malao, Mundus and Mosylon" is referenced here, where I can read that "After about four thousand stadia, for those sailing eastward along the same coast, there are other Berber market-towns, known as the 'far-side' ports; lying at intervals one after the other, without harbors but having roadsteads where ships can anchor and lie in good weather. The first is called Avalites; to this place the voyage from Arabia to the far-side coast is the shortest." And it goes on to mention Malao, Mundus and Mosylon. So the reference here supports what's written in the article, and hence if you were challenging this article as a hoax, you would need to be able to cast doubt on these sources, or their interpretation. I note that despite your statement, the Periplus translation there does use 'Avalites'. I'd also be wary about deciding that because there isn't much detail or historical record of something, or that these references are hard to access, that that means references to it must be fake. Also, deletion might not be the best option, where as you say, there is a referenced and historical basis. It would be more appropriate to remove material that is not supported by sources. Spokoyni (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have looked through all the sources, so it's not a guess work on my part. If thats the impression i making. I can certaintly take out the material i think its not supported.

For example "However, early Arab historians disagree with Periplus and note that Avalites wasn’t located in Barbaria but in Assab, in the (Kingdom of Axum)" Is not mentioned in the sources. The same goes for the Political structure section, the pictures etc.

Escorban-Han (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced edits

Hi @Shahanshax

Your assessment of my edit is incorrect and dismisses a properly sourced contribution without sufficient justification. I have added sourced, unrepeated content that introduces a modern scholarly interpretation of the Avalitae, rather than duplicating what is already stated from classical sources such as the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea or Claudius Ptolemy. My addition draws specifically on Richard Francis Burton, who explicitly links the Avalitae to the Habr Awal through a synthesis of classical and later sources. This is not redundant; it is an interpretive perspective that belongs in a section discussing inhabitants or later identifications of the group. Removing it outright ignores the value of including notable scholarly viewpoints, which is a core principle of Wikipedia.

Your objection based on distinctions between “Barbaria,” “Barbarica,” and Bilad al-Barbar does not invalidate the edit, because the wording and linkage reflect Burton’s own analysis, not original research on my part and is only referenced in the quote which contains information relevant to this article

Furthermore He draws on accounts from figures such as Ibn Battuta and Ludovico di Varthema to argue for continuity in the population of the region, and my contribution simply represents that published interpretation. Dismissing it as “not relevant” overlooks the fact that the section is precisely where such historiographical identifications should be included. If there are concerns about weight or phrasing, they should be addressed constructively, not by removing sourced material entirely :)

More importantly, you removed this sourced content without first opening a discussion on the talk page, while simultaneously accusing me of not following Wikipedia process. That is inconsistent. If you believe an edit is problematic, the correct approach is to raise the issue and seek consensus, not to revert sourced, non-duplicative material unilaterally. I would ask that you create a topic on the discussion page before removing such contributions in the future so that this can be properly reviewed.

Finally, regarding your use of “northwest Somalia,” this is incorrect. Across Wikipedia, the general consensus in many related articles is to refer to the region as Somaliland, reflecting common usage in reliable sources. Replacing that with “northwest Somalia” without discussion introduces inconsistency and appears to be a point-of-view change rather than a neutral editorial decision. If terminology is to be standardized, that should be done through consensus, not unilateral edits.

Please avoid removing sourced edits as this against wikipedia policy and refrain from engaging in edit wars

HararAwalV2 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwalV2 please check your talk page. Shahanshax (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HararAwalV2, u added "He notes that Camoens’ reference to the 'Barbarica Region' corresponds to the Somali coast." What the Inhabitants section primarily focuses on is the people of Avalites, not this. This seems to have nothing to do with, or does not belong in this section. Shahanshax (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Page number needed

Hi @HararAwalV2, I have concerns about a statement in the article, particularly in the "Inhabitants" section, which is supported by a source lacking a specific page number. I was unable to verify that the cited source actually supports the claim. Per Wikipedia’s verifiability policy, content should be supported by reliable, verifiable citations. If a precise reference cannot be provided, the statement may need to be revised or removed. I propose either adding a page-specific citation or removing the sentence if it cannot be verified. Malik sayn (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Malik, please could you be mpre specific to which claim in the inhabitants section? There is many so I have no idea which one you inquiring about, so please copy and paste the text below, thanks. HararAwalV2 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)