Talk:Najashi

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Ethiopia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Can anyone get that image under control? It's the only one that didn't fit to the screen (I guess that's 250px???). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I think I've figured it out. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 03:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

Please see the History of the article Ashama ibn-Abjar, which is now a redirection. An IP (whose entire edit history is a series of very odd vandalisms or strange moves in many articles of Ethiopian History) deleted most of the content of said article. Then it substituted it with a direct copy of this article.

Flash forward a few months and User:Crazy Horse 1876 turns the article into a redirection to this one since it was an exact copy. All of this to my judgment amounted to an extremely irregular article fusion--Plank (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, a lot of the material your added isn't actually about Ahmar and at least one of the main articles doesn't even mention him. If you think a CIA agent Paul B. Henze is a reliable source, we might be able to use him as a source for Armah being the same as Ashama ibn Abjar' but he isn't a historian, so I can't see him as a source for history. Maybe you can find a more reliable source. Meanwhile it is strictly against policy to restore unsourced material without a source. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done with the article Ashama ibn abjar? As of right now, the redirection makes no sense--Plank (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. -- llywrch (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coins?

Uh, can someone tell me the relevance of this addition to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.63.43 (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess

Originally, there were two separate articles, one on Ashama ibn-Abjar, a ruler of Aksum who in Muslim tradition sheltered a number of followers of Muhammed who had fled persecution in Mecca; a second was about Armah, another ruler of Aksum who was the last known to have issued coins. However, over the years, due to incompetent & tendentious editing, followed by well-meaning but uninformed editing, these articles suffered contamination & confusion, & ended up being merged into the current article.

If no one does this before me, as soon as I overcome my disgust -- & find the time -- I will untangle this cluster & recover the two articles. And try not to engage in personal attacks on the parties responsible, no matter how much they deserve vilification. -- llywrch (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-created the Armah article, & removed all the details about Armah form this article. Now to update that article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: I think maybe Armah and Najashi were two different rulers. But how can we determine his government? The most recent revision, and which has not changed, is that Najashi ruled from 614 to 630/31 but the exact date of Armah's reign is not known. Remembering in the article List of Kings of Axum the names Gersem, Najashi and Armah (and maybe Sahama too) are in the same time period, or nearby. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 23:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worse still, the names Najashi, Aṣhama, Armah, and Sahama are identified as one and the same king, who protected Muslims during the first emigration. In my opinion, apart from overhauling articles, we also have to agree on appropriate naming standards. Maybe @Apaugasma: is also interested? ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 23:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fazoffic: When I wrote the above, I was more confident than I should have been. Since then, I've read more about the coinage & archaeology of Aksum & found that the order -- & identities -- of those kings is far more uncertain & debated than one might suppose. For instance, in Munro-Hays book (1991) on Aksum, the kings of Aksum after Kaleb are Alla Amida -- Wazena -- W'ZB -- Ioel/Joel -- Harar -- Israel -- Gersem -- Armah. In Wolfgang Hahn/Vincent West's Sylloge (2016) the order is Alla Amida (identified with Armah & Alla Miruis) -- Ella Gabaaz (identified with WZN) -- Israel -- Gersem -- Ioel/Joel -- Hathasas/Hataz. (Najashi & Aṣhama do not correspond with any coin-issuing king. And I have no idea -- or remember -- where the name "Sahama" came from.) The latest work on Aksumite coins is W. Hahn & R. Keck Münzgeschichte der Akßumitenkönige in der Spätantike (2020), which I have yet to obtain a copy. (I found a copy online, but including shipping it would cost $113.)

Trying to sort the evidence & theories into articles is a challenge that requires more time & resources -- & probably cleverness -- than I currently have. Many articles needing work (or creating) are reaching the point that the casual efforts they have received up to now is not sufficient. And which is vulnerable to individuals pushing their own versions of "truth" because the facts are not easily found & reliably sourced. -- llywrch (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Fazoffic's ping: I do not have a great interest nor any expertise at all in this subject, and to be honest I do not have the time anymore to work on Wikipedia beyond the stuff I really know well. Looks to me though like llywrch, in whom I have great trust, has been doing a fine job, if only of finding out how difficult this subject is.

I agree that Wikipedia is full of articles on exceedingly complex subjects that, because they are so far above the pay grade of the average Wikipedia editor, function as mere punching bags for ignorant editors who mainly –or only– come here to push some point of view.

This is the nature of Wikipedia. It will only change when Wikipedia becomes radically more open to academics. This in my opinion must involve the verification of academic credentials (see WP:CRED; even Wikipedia:Credentials matter is a serious understatement) and a totally new Wikipedia-culture where social capital flows from academic subject expertise, not from being an admin or from the GA/FA type of peer review which comes 100% from Wikipedia editors who are potentially –and often effectively– just as ignorant as the next editor.

I believe this change will happen some day. I personally have decided to stay away from Wikipedia as much as I can until it does. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]