Talk:Somaliland

Administrative divisions

I removed a table in which Somaliland was said to have 'States'. It hasn't, and the table had no references or footnotes to prove otherwise. Somaliland has Regions and Districts. See Article 109.1 of the constitution, which reads: "The territory of the Republic of Somaliland shall consist of regions, and each region shall be divided into districts." Of course there's "Khatumo State" and their was once an initiative to create "Awdal state" but these are breakaway tentatives that do not form part of Somalilands' formal administrative structure. As an example of the creation of a District (Gudmo Biyo-cas in Sanaag Region) in I refer to Presidential Decree "XEER MADAXWEYNE Lr: 399/052014" of 21 May 2014 published in the Somaliland Republic Official Gazette of May 2014, page 169, here. If someone shows me a similar source or reference referring to the creation of 'States' in Somaliland, then of course I'd be happy to see the table returned in the article. Loranchet (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

June

The article doesn't mention British Somaliland becoming independent on 26 June 1960, let alone does it mention the supposed "State of Somaliland. It does, however, mention that British Somaliland became independent "during the summer of 1960". Hence -> 1st July 1960. So I am encouraging you Hadraa to do a self-revert. AcidSnow (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) if you are blind thay is your proplem the article which mention British Somaliland becoming independent on 26 June 1960 is the neywork times....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't say that. But the rest of it does seems to have been taken off Wikipedia. If you took the time to actually research this subject you would know that it's highly inaccurate. AcidSnow (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2015‎

IT HURTS TO BE TRUE DOESNT IT NAH.........Somaliland Marks Independence After 73 Years of British Rule — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 01:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What? Also, please see Talk:British Somaliland. AcidSnow (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of edit waring please see the discussion on there. AcidSnow (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2015

It's already been established that there never was a "State of Somaliland". AcidSnow (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also can you please stop shouting at me. AcidSnow (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Independence of Somaliland on 25 June, 1960

Its Fact that Somaliand gained Independence from the Britsh rule on 25 June, 1960 which is five days 5 DAYS before the independence of the Trust Territory of Somaliland which was ruled by Italy and the UN ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) AcidSnow use the talk page and has i said there are two diffrent soures on the matter of the independance of Somaliland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 02:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Actual Reliable Sources

1_https://books.google.se/books?id=t1xKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=Somaliland+is+granted+independence+by+British+government&source=bl&ots=9wPwvhw70t&sig=tEzDd83wSGu0TZ7qcg0-zccID2s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vdwIVaC-CNjiasXUguAP&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Somaliland%20is%20granted%20independence%20by%20British%20government&f=false.

2_http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/somaliland-granted-independence-british-government.

plus http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F00E1DA123EEF3ABC4E51DFB066838B679EDE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 02:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the state of Somaliland (former British Somaliland) with the present-day Somaliland enclave. The state of Somaliland was the former British Somaliland protectorate in the five-day transition period when the British authorities on 26 June 1960 granted British Somaliland independence to form a union with the Trust Territory of Somaliland (former Italian Somaliland). This scheduled union between the two Somalilands (the former British Somaliland and the Trust Territory of Somaliland) took place on July 1, 1960, forming the Somali Republic (Somalia). For this reason, this latter date is also Somalia's Independence Day. On the other hand, the present-day Somaliland enclave was established on May 18, 1991, after Somali National Movement leaders declared a new territory in northwestern Somalia. For this reason, this latter date is also when the Somaliland government celebrates the enclave's establishment. From the U.S. government's Code of Federal Regulations, Proclamation 3772 (1964): "the Somali Republic came into existence on July 1, 1960, by the union of the former Italian Trust Territory of Somaliland and the former British Somaliland" [1]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

hi Middayexpress iam not confusing the state of somaliland which by the way was and is not (former British Somaliland) because it was a free country that lived for five days had an election in may of 1960 and had a constitution and a government and a police and military force and was duly recognized as a sovereign entity by 35 nations or countries before voluntarily joining (the former UN Trust Territory of Somalia that was a former Italian colony) and establishing the (Somali Republic ) in July 1960 . and the present-day Somaliland self declared country was established on May 18, 1991 on the grounds of the former state of Somaliland which was real.thanks and cheers hope to see you tonight . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hadraa. There's no question that British Somaliland was granted independence on June 26, 1960. However, the territory was granted independence specifically to unite with the Trust Territory of Somaliland, and after prior consultations between representatives from both territories. This is why the parliament unanimously approved the union of the two territories only 24 hours later ("Representatives of British Somaliland and the Trust Territory of Somalia met in April and agreed on a merger of the two territories in an independent republic. British Somaliland was granted independence on 26 June 1960, and the merger received unanimous approval by the legislature on the following day." [2]). The union itself was effectuated five days later, on July 1, 1960, thereby establishing the Somali Republic (Somalia). Middayexpress (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Middayexpress the things you are saying is true but it all happened after 1 july try and understand me i gave clear statments by two driffrent scholars who all simply say that after the independence of the former British Somaliland it was called the State of Somaliland . if what you say is true why did the UN and 35 countries recognized her incloudind IsraelHe cited Israel was the first state to recognize Somaliland in 1960 when it received its independence from Great Britain. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to find any British source for June 26, let alone independence. The British has already concluded in 1949 (11 years earlier) that all the Somalilands would form one nation. More importantly, the claims of 34 nations and "State of Somaliland" all come after 1991. So we can a guess why the suddenly appear after. AcidSnow (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadraa, parliament approved the union of the two territories on June 27, not July 1. That was only around 24 hours after British Somaliland was granted independence. There doesn't appear to be any official legislation confirming that 35 countries recognized a sovereign State of Somaliland. It wouldn't really make sense if they did since the Somali representatives from both sides had already agreed beforehand in February and then again in April on an early union of the two territories ("Fresh elections, for a new legislative council, were held in February 1960, with all parties in favour of early independence and the unification of all Somali territories" [3]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL, that UNPO article is from SomalilandPress. Israel coundt give a rats tail about British Somaliland. More importantly, it's a historical fact that nobody recgonized this supposed "State of Somaliland". AcidSnow (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The UNPO is the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, an advocacy group. Middayexpress (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is itself as well lol. Also, it's was agreed even as far back as 1949 (conference between Italy, Britain, and France on the date of Somalia) when the British proposed that they should have control of all the Somalilands and then let then form one nation. AcidSnow (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

read this

"TWENTY ONE YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE WITHOUT RECOGNITION":REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND "On June 26, 1960, Somalilandgained independence from the British. At that time, she was recognised immediately by 35

countries “including the five permanent members of the Security Council” before she decided

to form a union with the south 5 days later (Jhazbhay, 2003; Nur, 2011:4)."

— TAHEERA MAARIF Durham University, School of Government and International Affairs, Graduate Student.Research Interests: African Studies, African Diaspora Studies, and African, [[4]]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What? As you looking for the Italian parliament or something else? AcidSnow (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Iqbal Jhazbhay is a separatist advocate as well [5]. As I wrote, there indeed doesn't appear to be any official legislation confirming that 35 countries recognized a sovereign State of Somaliland. Middayexpress (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

then are Peter J. Schraeder and Alison K. Eggers are they separatist advocate to,,, Hadraa (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who they are, actually. "Official legislation" means actual legislation from some government entity. To this end, the U.S. government's Code of Federal Regulations, Proclamation 3772 (1964) notes that "the Somali Republic came into existence on July 1, 1960, by the union of the former Italian Trust Territory of Somaliland and the former British Somaliland" [[6]]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

the somali Republic not the State of Somaliland. answer the newyork artical. and they are fair scholars.Hadraa (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That piece is on the independence of British Somaliland (which as you know was often shortend to "Somaliland", and was just one of the various "Somalilands"), not the "State of Somaliland". This is also a legal matter, so actual legislation is required to substantiate it. Middayexpress (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

answer on talk state of somaliland page cant jump all day from two diffrent talk pages,Hadraa (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, good idea. Middayexpress (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Map

Hey guys the 7 shaped map is obviosly misleading, I have never seen something like that before. This is the somaliland official page it must show Somaliland territory and where it locates in the world. I think we should stop vandalising even if we have political differences. Thanks. Dandaawi (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all misleading, even the slightest. AcidSnow (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is not then who controls borama erigavo and lasanod ? The 7 shaped map is pure propaganda by Pro somalia it only exists here no where else.Dandaawi (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Pro Somalia"? Not even the slightest. Somaliland is officialy an at autonomous region within Somalia. Similar maps are done all across the word so I am not sure what on earth you're talking about. Btw, please kindly stop going against consensus. AcidSnow (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The the 7 shaped map is your "own work" You created it last month , i got that info from its descrption. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Somaliland#/media/File:Map_of_Somaliland_within_Somalia.png . All i see is you against the world. i see no consnsus. You did not even answer my question if awdal sool and sanaag regions are all disputed who controls each of their provincial capitals (borama,erigavo and lasanod)  ? Socondly this particular page is for the Republic of Somaliland which is a break away republic who is not controlled by the federal state of Somalia. You dont have to use Somalia map on here. Even puntland state who is a unionist government have no such kind of map clearly showing the 7 shaped map of somalia. I wouldnt end up here if the map is not misleading. Please and please let it go. You could do many good things instead of bringing too many vandalism here. Thank you.Dandaawi (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Puntland already has a similar map to this and the same can be said about Jubbaland, so I am not sure what your talking. Though, I will update the rest of these maps to confirm with some form of standard for Somali maps. And yes, there already is a consensus in which Howicus, CambridgeBayWeather, and Rsrikanth05 can all confirm. Although ethnic Somalis control these places, you don't seen to understand "disputes" since both (or in cases where they is more) don't need to have ground troops there. More importantly, this is exactly what is done for various other places: South Ossetia, Transnistria, Abkhazia, etc. While you're at please stop with these WP:PERSONALATTACKS as you risk being blocked. AcidSnow (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No it does not here is how Puntlandmap looks like (unless you change) and all the other places you mentioned have no close up maps showing the countries they broke away ONLY. like the one you made for Somaliland republic (look right down). by the way I see none of the above usernames input. Actually There was some other comments under this "map" section against your your desire but its gone i cant see may be its deleted by the site adminstrators. I did not attack you personally i just mentioned that you are defending a map you uploaded last month. As the discription of the image suggests. I did not created the original map it was created in 2007 so i have no personal agenda. Your map is very very biased and far from the reality its not based on somaliland terrritorial claims not even the land Somaliland controls. Its clan based map. Unlike puntland Somaliland is break away state why cant we use its own map instead of bringing massive Somalia map. Is this Somalia or Somaliland page ? Dandaawi (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You did make numerous attacks against me, such as accusing me of engaging in "too many vandalism here", that I am adding my own "personal preference", that I am "misleading" and using "propaganda", that my actions are "very very biased and far from the reality" and are "clan based", that I am a "Pro-Somalia", etc. But I must say that the oddest one is this one: "All i see is you against the world". Especially considering the fact that the whole world considered it nothing other than Somalia. Nonetheless, everyone here can see your actions here so there's no need to deny it. Oddly enough, you continued to make attacks against me while denying that you made any? I can safely say that was not a good idea. As such, I will warn you again from making PERSONALATTACKS as you risk being blocked. Anyways, these "some other comments" were made by a notoriously disruptive user whose opinions mean nothing here. More importantly, the users that I mentioned above did give their inputs: CambridgeBayWeather (see here: [7]), Howicus (see here: [8]), and Rsrikanth05 (see here: [9]). So why deny it since it seems quite odd to continue to do so at this point. AcidSnow (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow Can we agree to use the above map. Which highlights both the disputed area and the location of somaliland in the world ? ??Puntland have the same marked disputed area Dandaawi (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The "above map" refers to File:LocationSomaliland3.png originally posted on my talk page. Vsmith (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope and there are also three other users. The map you suggest doesn't show the disputed area of Somaliland, just the territories that it claims. As for Puntland, it's disputed area are with Somaliland, hence why it's shown as such. Also, please read what I wrote above. AcidSnow (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean THIS map (top right)

does not show the disputed territory between puntland and Somaliland ??? Come on man put that wanlweyn attitude down,. I am trying to settle down this minor issue. Seriously . Can we agree something or we call mediators as usual when Somalis fight over nothing ! . Having that blue image hanging there (right down) will only bring more new concerned citizens because its totaly biased and designed to over shadow Somaliland existence.Which is very obvious to every neutral user. . Puntland have the exact marked dusputed area as you can see there (right in the middle) .

which is very different than yours (right down)

even the BBC have Similar map for the disputed territory in its Somaliland country profile [[10]] why cant we use the above map if not the original one ? Dandaawi (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see it now. My apologize since I never noticed it till now. Anyways, please stop with these personal attacks. "wanlweyn attitude ", really? Especially in the eyes of an admin (that being Vsmith). BTW, I never stated my ethnicity so I am not sure what you're talking about. AcidSnow (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You are avoiding my key points arent you  ? . Can we agree Something ? . I prefer if we can make a compromise instead of bringing some other mediators who may not know any thing about Somali political Situation. If you are not Somali i honestly appreciate your contribution to other non controversial Somali wiki pages. Its my last request, we dont have to keep typing. Ramadan kareem. Dandaawi (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to avoid anything. AcidSnow (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

A third opinion has been requested about the map. Exactly what is the issue about the map? I see that one editor supports the map and one editor dislikes the map, but it isn't clear what the issue is. I would suggest re-reading the civility policy, and clarifying what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well for starters, Somaliland is an autonomous region within Somalia. However, it's administration "desires" it's own independence from Somalia. Nonetheless, it's internationally recognized as an autonomous region within Somalia. Anyways, it's regional claims are disputed with that of Puntland and Awdalland. These regions are Sanaag and Sool, and Awdal respectively. Although they dispute these specific regions they recognize Somalilands claims to Woqooyi Galbeed and Togdheer. The map I created reflects exactly that. This is exactly what is done for various other places: South Ossetia, Transnistria, Abkhazia, etc. My design is very similar to that of the Autonomous communities of Spain, i.e Andalusia. More impotently, there was already a consensus established with three other users. These individuals being: CambridgeBayWeather (see here: [11]), Howicus (see here: [12]), and Rsrikanth05 (see here: [13]). Oddly enough, Dandaawi denies it's existence: "All i see is you against the world. i see no consnsus".

What Dandaawi appears to desires is a map that doesn't include Somalia at all (despite Somaliland being a region within the nation). The map they also request doesn't even show the dispute with Awdalland. There might be other things that they desire as well, so you should ask them. AcidSnow (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The question is whats awdalland and where do they control ? Bring evidences that the So called awdalland exists on the ground as an adminstration challenging Somaliland rule in awdal. . The disputed area between Somaliland and puntland is already marked on the above two little maps. its also a well documented issue as we can see here on bbc Somaliland profile [[14]]. The reason i am against your map is is.

1. you marked Awdal (western Somaliland] as disputed area. Bring valid evidence that "awdalland" exits as an adminstration like Somaliland ?
2. you fabricated the dispute area between Somaliland and puntland because you marked all Sool and Sanaag as a disputed area although puntland claims the eastern parts of those regions ONLY according to article 3 of puntland state constitution [[15]]
3. the map is different than any other Break away state map in wikipedia . Its close up image that shows only somalia regions. Somaliland location must be visible on the world map.
4. you used blue colors (Somalia flag color) to over shadow Somaliland existense. Why cant we use that map right on top if you dont have an agenda ? Dandaawi (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your points 3 and 4 seem at least somewhat valid. It should be no problem to change the shading to red or green or any other color. That being said, I think it's a stretch to say that the shading of the map implies pro-Somilia bias. Since it really doesn't matter, it shouldn't be a problem to change it either. I do think it would be best to show the situation within the continent. However, the maps above that show better context also make it hard to see the actual region in question. I'd suggest an inset be made for the newer map, similar to those above. The newer map is much easier to read, in my opinion. I can't comment on the first two points, that seems like more of an actual content dispute, whereas the others can be easily resolved. SemanticMantis (talF) 21:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

there are about 7 or more de facto/ break away states  in the world none of them have such a close up map showing the country they seceded from only , why Somaliland is different ? .  If puntland (the rival unionist federal state of somalia). Have that map (look right in the middle) why Somaliland cant have the top red one ?  Both maps shows the exact disputed area. Why do we need this new map ? user AcidSnow never explained any thing before he replaced the older map  He just did, like wiki is his own blog.  In addition to that he must prove that the Socalled Awdalland exists as an actual authority  against Somaliland rule over Awdal province. Dandaawi (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Awdalland does exist as its own disputed territory. Although the state has done little work since 2009, it is nonetheless a disputed territory. More importantly, I didn't fabricate anything since Puntland claims on its own site that it claims all of Sanaag and Sool without giving any distinction, see here: [16]. In fact, Puntland actually claims all of Sool in its own constitution as well, see here: [17]. Nevertheless, I have updated the map to specific represent the constitution. I also added a map for the location of Somalia and Somaliland in as well. In addtion, I also plan to fix Puntlands map which is something I haven't gone around to. Anyways, kindly stop with the false accusations as they only speak negatively of you. As for the colors, I already explained this before that the specific color doesn't matter. In fact, the color Blue is none existent in the Spanish Flag but its nonetheless used in the Autonomous communities of Spain, i.e Andalusia. AcidSnow (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. I have finally got around to fixing the maps of other regional states. These including Puntland, Jubbaland, and the South West State. AcidSnow (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for communicating ! I dont understand why you changed puntland map adding an other non practical dispute in nothern mudug region of puntland. Its does not change the reality that there are only two functioning states in the north.Puntland and Somaliland (federal vs defacto) and one practically disputed area between them. The rest of other disputed spots you marked in both states are unknown. its crazy if we change every Somali diaspora or qabil dream into reality. Whats awdalland ? Where do they control ? Are they state like puntland or unionist Somalilanders in exile . Bring evidences. If we cant find any evidence please lets use the old puntland map you changed moment ago and the red Somaliland map that still appears over there. Also keep in mind that Somaliland is different than Puntland.Somaliland is seeking international recognition so itS map should be similar to that of other break away defacto states. We can use double Maps close up and zoom out. like these two examples .[18][19] BUT FIRST BRING EVIDENCE THAT AWDALLAND IS AN ACTUAL AUTHORITY AGAINST SOMALILAND RULE IN AWDAL. So we can solve the western portion of the map you marked as disputed. Remember Exile unionist organizations does not count when it comes territorial disputes. every state have exile organisations against their policy. Ethiopia for example have dozens of diaspora anti TPLF ethincs and clans. I am not here to personally attack you or your country but i beleive informal reconciliation is more effective than formal. I demand fairness nothing more Dandaawi (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI. I have removed the WP:3O request as there are now multiple editors engaged here. The issue also appears to have been resolved. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Sanaag dispute area (eastern Somaliland) agreed after he fixed his map
2. Awdal dispute area (western Somaliland) False awdalland is an invented fictitious actor it does not exist As an Authority.
3. Somaliland Map zoom out view Not solved , But i accept TWO MAP SOLUTION if he first correct the accuracy of his map. Awdal region is not disputed Dandaawi (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

We can continue this discussion once you learn not to attack others. Other than that, if you still want to discuss the two maps "solution" then it's best of you return. AcidSnow (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I already made my points clear. I demand fairness nothing more nothing less, i am not interested any form of fruitless quarrel. i suggested multiple solutions including

1. Using the official Somaliland Map only
2. Using the above (top) map showing the disputed eastern Sool and Sanaag regions between Puntland and Somaliland
3. Two map solution Plus you should bring any reliable evidences supporting your map that Awdalland exists as a functioning state against Somaliland rule in western Awdal region.

Can we agree any of the above? Dandaawi (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but none of your ideas would work. See Awdalland for a start if your interested in learning about it. More importantly, cold you stop breaking consensus? Four users have already stated that they disagree with the map yet you continue to defy that and deny its existence? If not, then you risk being blocked. AcidSnow (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment by Dandaawi. The map that shows the disputed areas in a different colour is preferable to the block red (I think ex British Somaliland) map, and honestly, whatever one's views on the political status of Somaliland, it has been very closely associated with the 1960-91 Somalia for a very long time, so the "7" shaped map does offer greater recognition for those who are not Somalia experts. I am very tempted however to parcel out equal blocks for anyone who keeps edit warring on this page - sort it out here on the talkpage, that's what it's here for. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Buckshot06, I greatly appreciate it. There was already a solution made but he has nonetheless ignored it. If you didn't notice in the request he made for you, he doesn't seem to mind making personal attacks against users. It seem that he too will get away with this as well. AcidSnow (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Acid i already suggested 'two map solution' which means i have nothing against the 7 shaped map if its showing the exact disputed area between Somaliland and puntland only. What you did is you marked Awdal as a disputed area , take a look at the west/left side of the map

The question is , is it true that awdal is disputed? What is awdalland and where do they control? If you cant prove then fix the map so we can use it As a second image. User Buckshot06 (talk) If you compare Somaliland's BBC Country profile [[20]] against Acid's map you can see that he marked undisputed regions as disputed without bringing any evidence Dandaawi (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out having two maps makes little sense. Nonetheless, an consensus has already been established in regards to the map issue. AcidSnow (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The currect Somaliland map is wrong because the real map of somali federal states indcluding somaliland is on this report "Map of Somalia: Federal Member State and Interim Regional Administrations -" (PDF). page 3.Chatham House. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Please fix the current map of Somaliland to exclude the disputed area with Puntland because it is not fair to give disputed area to somaliland. At least highlight the disputed area on the map. Libanguled (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have already highlighted your concern in the map above. AcidSnow (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

next time just Google Somaliland map and see what you will find.somaliland not somlia .Bysomalilander (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually there is a strong consensus for the previous map. The present map also doesn't show the disputed area between Puntland and Somaliland but rather what is thought to be controlled by the two regions. It also incorrectly designates Somaliland as a separate nation when it is internationally recognized as an autonomous region within Somalia.[21] This isn't how it is illustrated with other regions, such as: South Ossetia, Transnistria, Abkhazia, etc. As I previously shown, this map present it accordingly along with all the other issues: [22]. AcidSnow (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The situation on the ground in 2017 is reflected on this most recent edit I am making. Somaliland is in full control in Awdal, Sool and Sanaag. Please respect the rules. (Kzl55 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Somaliland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chr.up.ac.za/hr_docs/countries/docs/charterfeb04.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120326070002/http://www.mfa.gov.et/The_Ministry/Ethiopia_Mission_Abroad.php to http://www.mfa.gov.et/The_Ministry/Ethiopia_Mission_Abroad.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141106080924/http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=2146 to http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=2146
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.somaliweyn.com/pages/news/Aug_12/Somalia_Constitution_English_FOR_WEB.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129044314/http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm/page=363&year=2010 to http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm/page=363&year=2010
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110130180830/http://www.thisisafricaonline.com:80/feature_button.php?id=20 to http://www.thisisafricaonline.com/feature_button.php?id=20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111227100203/http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=1687 to http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=1687

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC

Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Map that violates Neutral point of view rule

The Somaliland map that was not showing the disputed areas violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because it is not showing the disputed areas on the map. Somaliland has territorial deputes with Puntland.

Somaliland (orthographic projection)

These sources below all show the map of the disputed territories.

1. Somaliland deputed areas map http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/somalia.html
2. Somalidland deputed areas map http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14115069
3. Somaliland deputed areas map "Map of Somalia: Federal Member State and Interim Regional Administrations -" (PDF). page 3.Chatham House. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Location of Somaliland (red) in Somalia (blue & gray) Disputed territory (light blue)

Guled2016 (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't violation of "Neutral point of view", the issue is the map was used while it is in a unfinished state. See the topic @ the Map workshop. The map was uploaded as a starting point so another editor with more time would have a starting point to add the additional details and make corrections. I added the east disputed area, but again, as I state in the thread @ the map workshop, the map is in a unfinished form. Offnfopt^(talk) 16:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Now it seems the currect map shows the disputed areas and it is neutral map because it shows disputed areas. Guled2016 (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A concensus was already established in regards to the map. However, I have already highlighted your concern. AcidSnow (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the map back to version before the recent disputes. I do not find a strong consensus above. Anyway, I would prefer to use the new map which shows the lack of Somaliland control in the East. CMD (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Somaliland does not control the deputed regions. There is a fighting this week in the disputed region of Sanaag. http://www.janes.com/article/62427/cross-border-fighting-and-inter-clan-conflicts-in-somalia-s-puntland-unlikely-to-disrupt-ports-but-will-interrupt-oil-exploration... http://allafrica.com/stories/201607181290.html... http://www.criticalthreats.org/gulf-aden-security-review/gulf-aden-security-review-july-21-2016 Guled2016 (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's even further East than our map suggests. Okay, I will put in the Orthographic with the dispute then. CMD (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The whole area of Sanag and Sool is in constantly in a general flux of control. The Somaliland government will regularly launch offensives near election time, so as to control the maximum area possible when its elections are held. Generally local militias will slowly regain some areas subsequent to the elections. These militia groups in the area switch allegiances regularly. There was an offensive launched by the Somaliland government earlier this year against Khatumo State aligned forces in Sanag and Sool, with most of the pro Khatumo forces being routed without much fighting taking place. The last report I have seen in regards to Buhoodle, was that it was seized by an unaligned warlord [[23]].XavierGreen (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see this reply: [24]. AcidSnow (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016

Acidlikeb (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No request. Editor blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrative Regions of Somaliland

Hello, can you explain why my edit was removed Bysomalilander? - AlaskaLava,18:00, 9 January 2017

Can you explain why change pages with reliable sourcesBysomalilander (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Bysomalilander, yes I can, but you didn't even take the time to check my sources.

1. The following regions are taken from "Micheal Walls: State Formation in Somaliland: Bringing Deliberation to Institutionalism" from 2011, page 193 [25]

2. Political study on Somaliland in 2015 by the International Crisis Group in Belgium, Somaliland: The Strains of Success from 2015 [26]. Page 18

3. Last but not least, ActionAID, an humanitarian organization currently active in Somaliland. [27] and I quote "ActionAid International Somaliland (AAIS) supports poor and marginalised communities in three of six Somaliland region"

Those are the sources. I reviewed your source, it was a press statement, nothing came to pass of it. Also the link from Garowe Online is broken in Regions of Somaliland , so unless you have a link for that statement, it can't be proven reliable.

AlaskaLava,18:15, 9 January 2017

back at you from the same source you used just now [28], just look what it says Marodijex region (Gabiley and Hargeysa),Togdheer region (Owdwyne and Burco),Sanaag region (Ceel Afwyn and Ceerigaabo), so what is different. and about the first source he is talking about the establishment of Somaliland and what it went through to be what it is today, and says in 2007 in page 139. and about the press statement it was done by en elected president called Dahir Riyale Kahin and he can do what he chooses to do he is elected.oh about the source here is one from hiiran which i used [[29]] (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Bysomalilander, It's simple those are districts of regions. In the Wikipedia article and image they are claimed as regions. This is obviously false. You provide a press statement from Hiraan.com from 2008 as evidence, while I provided evidence from 2 political studies on Somaliland. 1 From Micheall Walls who himself lived in Somaliland. His source is from 2011 and the Brussels Crisis Group, who published their work at 2015 and ActionAID currently active in Somaliland. All of which show 6 regions of Somaliland. AlaskaLava,18:25, 9 January 2017

i dont to agree with what Dahir Riyale Kahin did because he based it on clan but that does not change the fact berbera,gabily,Owdwyne,zaila,buhodle,etc didn't suddenly come from nowhere and they have their own Provincial Councils and no longer fallow Hargiesa or Burco or Borama ,and about [30]. Page 18 it shows berbera as a region despite you know that it was part of Maroodi Jeex so it ok for berbera to be a region but not the rest ,by the way they play a football tournament every year based on Dahir Riyale Kahins regions. Bysomalilander (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Football matcn? That's not how Wikipedia works. Also Somaliland is divided in 6 administrative regions. Provide some evidence on you administrative boundaries of the regions of Somaliland please. AlaskaLava,19:25, 9 January 2017

read before you write try and read before you write if you cant and need help explaining tell me and i will help like now this is the source for the 10nth time http://www.hiiraan.com/news2/2008/Mar/somaliland_president_creates_new_regions_and_districts.aspx Bysomalilander (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The press information is not enough. Especially for African countries. For example, there were press information about the president decree on creation of new governorate in Egypt – decree might be passed but governorates weren’t finally created. So, this press information is not confirmed what happened after the presidential degree – whether this degree come in force and new regions were created or, like in some other cases in Africa, the degree wasn’t finalized. The other sources are necessary. Aotearoa (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

I would like to help out with this dispute and provide a third opinion, but I'm not clear as to what the disagreement is. As someone who knows nothing about Somalia, and even less about Somaliland, can you help me understand what's going on? Bradv 21:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bradv, Somaliland is a breakaway region of Somalia that declared independence in 1991, but since hasn't gained international recognition.

That aside, the dispute is simply about the "Administrative Regions of Somaliland"

For a long time the Somaliland article featured the following regions and image below, but evidence for them was never provided:

Regions of Somaliland

Key	Region	Capital	Area km2	Population density km2
1	Salal	Zeila	n/a	n/a
2	Awdal	Borama	n/a	n/a
3	Gabiley	Gabiley	n/a	n/a
4	Maroodi Jeex	Hargeisa	n/a	n/a
5	Sahil	Berbera	n/a	n/a
6	Oodweyne	Oodweyne	n/a	n/a
7	Togdheer	Burao	n/a	n/a
8	Ayn	Buuhoodle	n/a	n/a
9	Sarar	Aynabo	n/a	n/a
10	Sool	Las Anod	n/a	n/a
11	Sanaag	Erigavo	n/a	n/a
12	Maakhir	Badhan	n/a	n/a
13	Haysimo	Taleh	n/a	n/a
14	Hawd	Baligubadle	n/a	n/a

Bysomalilander in his defense provides a press statement from 2008 [[31]]

In my defense I provide several researches on Somaliland and claim the country is divided in 6 regions:

1. The following regions are taken from "Micheal Walls: State Formation in Somaliland: Bringing Deliberation to Institutionalism" from 2011, page 193 [32]

2. Political study on Somaliland in 2015 by the International Crisis Group in Belgium, Somaliland: The Strains of Success from 2015 [33]. Page 18

3. ActionAID, an humanitarian organization currently active in Somaliland. [34] and I quote "ActionAid International Somaliland (AAIS) supports poor and marginalized communities in three of six Somaliland region"

4. INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS: SOMALILAND ASSESSMENT IN SAHIL, TOGDHEER AND SANAAAG REGIONS OF NORTH WEST SOMALIA AUGUST 2009, Pages 1,2,3 [35] and I quote"Somaliland has 6 regions: Maroodi Jeex, Awdal, Sanaag, Sool, Togdheer and Saxil"

Administrative Regions of Somaliland

Key	Region	Capital	Area km2	Population density km2
1	Awdal	Borama	n/a	n/a
2	Saahil	Berbera	n/a	n/a
3	Maroodi Jeeh	Hargeisa	n/a	n/a
4	Toghdeer	Bur'o	n/a	n/a
5	Sanaag	'Erigabo	n/a	n/a
6	Sool	Las'anod	n/a	n/a

AlaskaLava (talk • contribs) 22:51, January 10, 2017

Thank you for the explanation. It sounds to me like this may be an issue over sourcing, but I'd love to hear from Bysomalilander as well. Bradv 23:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

in the late 1950 when the English left Somaliland it was made of two regions which united with the 6 Italian Somalia regions in July 1 1960, which makes it 8 regions, and it stayed that way until the middle of the 1980s when then the late dictator of Somalia Siad Barre decided to turn the old 8 regions into 18 new regions [36] , on clan basis which the old Somalia Republic maps are made of and my colleague insist on using despite him knowing things have changed since then .

But what happened since ? A lot for first Somalilnd decided to leave the union [37] and no control so ever has been done by any Somali government official from the south ,their president the Somalia federal president cant even make a visit to the capital Hargeisa. now on to my beloved Somaliland which left all the crap of Somalia s sickness from piracy ,al shabab , Amison soliders, UN mandates etc behind and have been working hard for the last 26 years to build a home for its sons and daughters different from the south , and our late president Dahir Riyale Kahins based on the mandate of winning the 2002 elections came up with the formation of additional new six new regions and districts in 2008.

Rank	New Regions	Capital	Annexed: region
1	Gabiley	Gabiley	Hargeysa region
2	Badhan	Badhan	Sanag region
3	Buhoodle	Buhoodle	Togdheer region
4	Salal	Zeila	Awdal region
5	Sarar	Ainabo	Sool region
6	Odweyne	Odweyne	Togdheer region

[38][39] so we have the 5 old regions plus the new 6 it makes 11 regions of Somaliland ,

but why did the late president Dahir Riyale Kahin come up with these new regions , it was for electoral voices and he was seeking an other term in office in 2010 (and the regions came up in 2008) but didn't win by the way Somalilands Voting system is done as Plurality/majority systems where the winner takes all like in the states .

so what do we find.

That things have changed since Siad barre s Era and now if you try to read any Somali map there will be states popping up in front of you instead of regions like Hirshabelle state, Jubbaland state ..etc and the regions in those states have changed dramatically if you just google Puntland State of Somalia and take a look at its regions and what do you make of it here [40] on wikimedia.org and do the same for the remaining states of Somalia that's why i will stay with the sourced Presidential decree/press which knows the place more then anyone else even if i don't agree with it.here is the an other map that came up in 2010 after the presidential order [41] .Bysomalilander (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

oh to my fellow in this argument i say stop lying and i quote you when you write:(For a long time the Somaliland article featured the following regions and image below, but evidence for them was never provided:) but if you look at the Regions of Somaliland Difference between revisions you or someone else said the same thing and when i proved you or the some else wrong and came with a source you or the some one else went quite for a while look here [42].Bysomalilander (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As I have found the administrative division of Somaliland is defined by the act of parliament. The Regions and Districts Law no. 23 of 2002 (Xeerka Gobollada Iyo Degmooyinka: Xeer Lr. 23/2002) with the amendment of 2007 (http://www.somalilandlaw.com/Xeerka_Gobollada_iyo_Degmooyinka_2007.htm) lists 6 regions. So changes in this administrative division may be done by an act of parliament not presidential order. If there are no information about further changes of the Law 23/2002, this law is still in force and Somaliland is de jure divided into six regions. Aotearoa (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Aotearoa the six regions existed, but a number of years ago they were further divided into 14 regions. So the information you found out, and what AlaskaLava is arguing is not untrue, but its dated. There was a time when Somaliland had these six regions. Before that Somaliland was comprised of five regions, and before that still it was only two regions as Bysomalilander stated. Today there are 14 regions in total. If you look at this document, published by the Somaliland's ministry of national planning and development in 2015 you will see confirmation of Bysomalilander statement:

The country is divided into fourteen regions, namely, Awdal, Maroodi-jeeh, Saahil, Togdheer, Sanaag, Sool, Gabilay, Salal, Oodweine, Saraar, Buhoodle, Hawd, Badhan and Xaysimo. These are sub-divided into 86 districts. Link.

Hope that solves it, many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Contested assertions

Soupforone please explain what the 'contested assertions' you keep referring to may be [43], and by whom are they contested? Kzl55 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mohamed Haji Ingiriis and Chris Mullin's assertion that the government clampdown against the Somali National Movement was an "Isaaq genocide" or "Hargeisa holocaust". Those are contested assertions so they should be not be stated in Wikipedia's voice per WP:WIKIVOICE. Also, the toponym on the Silk Road map is clearly labeled Somalia [44]. Soupforone (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And who are they contested by?

These assertions are not contested by reliable sources. As per a United Nations investigation [45], or per academic sources [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], or even reputable international media [56]. Kzl55 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Those links claim that the government clampdown was against a clan, not that assertions to that effect are uncontested; many more assert that the government clampdown was against a rebel group whose membership primarily hailed from that clan (ex. [57]). This can be quantified through Google Ngrams, which indicates that both terms have little scholarly currency (zero Ngrams) compared to Somali National Movement [58]. Soupforone (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You keep making claims that the genocide is contested without providing any evidence. The links above are a small selection of examples of the discussion of Isaaq genocide in reliable sources as per WP:GNG, more can be provided if needed. Reliable sources confirm the government targeted Isaaq people, there is no contest there in scholarly output. You keep conflating the Somali National Movement which was a group and the systematic government-sanctioned killing of Isaaq civilians, this is false because the government killed Isaaq civilians in places where there was no SNM presence (like Berbera, Erigavo, Mogadishu and others). When a United Nations investigation concludes that a genocide was "conceived, planned and perpetrated by the Somali Government against the Isaaq people" [59], and most reliable sources discussing the subject also confirm as much, coupled with coverage by reputable international news outlets, then you really can not claim it is contested.

The same source you are quoting (International Crisis Group) had this to say about the subject (emphasis mine):

Successful assaults by the SNM against Hargeysa and Bur’o were answered with indiscriminate bombardment, deliberate targeting of Isaaq civilians and mass executions, which cost over 50,000 lives and prompted an exodus of over half a million refugees to Ethiopia and internal displacement of a similar number. Hargeysa, the Northern capital was about 90 per cent destroyed and Bur’o 70 per cent. The government’s simultaneous practice of repopulating Isaaq communities with refugees from other clans was analogous to ethnic cleansing, and there were widespread and credible reports of war crimes. Although the Barre government also targeted other rebel groups and their supporters at different times between 1978 and 1991, no other Somali community faced such sustained and intense state-sponsored violence. [60]

And: "Evidence of war crimes in Somaliland has been documented by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and a forensic team from Physicians for Human Rights, as well as the Somaliland War Crimes Commission." Kzl55 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not indicate that "genocide is contested". What I wrote is that although those links claim that the government clampdown was against a clan, many more assert that the government clampdown was against a rebel group whose membership primarily hailed from that clan. That paper above (which is not the one I linked to) explains the apparent situation-- "Between 1983 and 1988, the government responded to the SNM threat with reprisals against civilians... successful assaults by the SNM against Hargeysa and Bur’o were answered with indiscriminate bombardment... although the Barre government also targeted other rebel groups and their supporters at different times between 1978 and 1991, no other Somali community faced such sustained and intense state-sponsored violence". Ergo, the SNM rebel group attacked the army, the army then indiscriminately bombarded the SNM's central cities, and this caused many civilian casualities. The paper also points out elsewhere that the SNM itself committed abuses against civilians-- in "a report commissioned by the U.S. State Department... Gersony also assigns the SNM responsibility for a number of abuses" [61]. As per WP:Wikivoice, the text should therefore be neutral and not favor any of these contested assertions. Soupforone (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you are not claiming the genocide is contested, then what exactly are you claiming to be contested?

The government was fighting against the SNM, the government also committed war crimes against Isaaq as people, killing Isaaq civilians as evidenced by the UN report and the significant coverage in reliable sources, including genocide scholarship.

In Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide, Isaaq are listed under 'Genocides of Indigenous Peoples in the Twentieth Century [62].

In Gendercide and Genocide:

"Survivors of genocide, that is, people belonging to the group targeted for genocide. In Somalia this was the Issaq, in Rwanda the Tutsi, in Burundi the Hutu." [63].

In Genocides by the Oppressed:

"The assumption that genocide's victims belong to a less powerful group also needs to be destabilized. Is it not curious that minorities such as the Isaaq in Somali, Tutsi in Rwanda, or Jews in Nazi Germany, even when they were objectively rather subdued and politically marginalized, still seemed to so threatening to genocidal perpetrators that exterminating them seemed the only "solution"?" [64].

In Genocide, war crimes and the West:

"By 1988, the regime had committed a well-documented and genocidal 'ethnic cleansing' of large areas of Somalia" [65].

I am afraid reliable sources are very clear on the subject. The government attacked Isaaq civilians in locations where there was no SNM activity: "By all accounts, Berbera suffered some of the worst abuses of the war, even though the SNM never attacked Berbera. Victims in Berbera were killed in an extremely brutal fashion: most had their throats slit, then were shot." [66]. Again, you are conflating the two issues for no reason. Kzl55 (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, please try and keep your comments short and succinct. Anyway, I didn't indicate that there were no civilian casualties, or that some of the army attacks did not occur in areas where there was no rebel activity. What I wrote is that per WP:WIKIVOICE, "Hargeisa holocaust" and "Isaaq genocide" cannot be written in Wikipedia's voice because most of the scholarly canon indicates that the army's primary target was not a city population or clan per se, but rather a rebel group with a base in that city and clan. That includes the link above ("in every town, including Berbera, Borama, Sheikh and Erigavo which the SNM did not attack, Isaak men who the government feared would assist an SNM attack, especially members of the armed forces, businessmen, civil servants and elders, were arrested... Apparently frustrated by their efforts to defeat the SNM in direct combat, the army turned its firepower, including its air force and artillery, against the civilian population, causing predictably high casualties."). This is clear from Google Ngrams. The phrasing on the clampdown must therefore prioritize the SNM and be attributed to Ingriis and Mullin rather than presented in Wikipedia's voice. Soupforone (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You keep making claims without providing any evidence. You also keep conflating the SNM (as a group) and the state-sponsored killing of Isaaq civilians which is a significant and notable event as per most reliable sources as cited above and WP:GNG, this is not contested by any reliable source, if you have any reliable sources contesting it please cite them. This is why it needs its own section separate from the SNM. The government attacked and killed nomads because they were Isaaq first, the alleged SNM connection was the Barre regime's excuse for targeting Isaaq civilians: "The existence of the SNM has provided a pretext for President Barre and his military deputies in the north to wage a war against peaceful citizens and to enable them to consolidate their control of the country by terrorizing anyone who is suspected of not being wholeheartedly pro-government"[67].

Also you keep referring to it as a clampdown when genocide scholarship refers to it as a genocide as per sources above.

@Cordless Larry:, any thoughts on this? Kzl55 (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"Hargeisa holocaust" doesn't seem to be a widely used term, so I would avoid that. As for "genocide", Ingiriis refers to the killings as a "forgotten genocide", which suggests that not many other authors use the term. However, there do appear to be quite a few sources that do use it, including this by noted expert Alex de Waal. Perhaps this should be put to an RfC? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The de Waal link is very useful, especially due to his expertise on the region, good find!

I think part of the problem is the inconsistent romanisation of the word Isaaq. De Waal for instance, writes it in Somali (as in Isaaq), so does the Chris Mburu in the UN investigation report [68], and Gregory Stanton [69], Lidwien Kaptenjins [70], Ingiriis [71], and Bahcheli [72]. But Israel Charny lists the name as Isaak [[73]], and so does Adam Jones [74]. There is also the use of Issaq, examples including The Guardian (Thousands of Somalis hit by genocide raids, Jan 7, 1989), Gendercide and Genocide [75], as well as HRW testimony [76] and the Genocide Prevention Advisory Netweork [77] . I have also seen the name written as Isak and Isaac. Kzl55 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:Wikivoice, the text should be neutral and not favor any of the sides and editors should Avoid stating opinions as facts., As Soupforone mentioned i think that point is valid, and any change from present text will be of lack NPOV. Somajeeste (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting that any possible change from the current wording would be non-neutral is hardly constructive, Somajeeste. There are problems with the current wording. For example "Mohamed Haji Ingiriis and Chris Mullin suggest that the clampdown by the Barre regime against the Hargeisa-based Somali National Movement targeted the Isaaq clan, to which most members of the SNM belonged. They therefore refer to the clampdown as the Isaaq genocide or Hargeisa holocaust" suggests that only Ingiriis and Mullin label the events genocide, whereas many other sources do (as evidenced by this discussion). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry in regards to the term "genocide" For those that did use the term "genocide", such as AlJazzera and Mohamed Haji Ingiriis "Forgotten Genocide", if you look how they use it it shows that wasn't their word choose (hence the quotation marks), but the words of others, such as victim's family members (see here: [78]. Aljazzera never even make reference to the incidents as "genocide" but rather that they were looking into the claim, hence the title "Investigating genocide in Somaliland". in addition, if you had read the Aljazzera article you would have noticed this : "Evidence that victims addressed from the same clan could indicate genocide, rather than mass-murder". Not only is this a criteria of a genocide,[79] overall the victims of the Barre government didn't hail from solely one clan but rather numerous other clans.[80] As such, these events completely fail to meet the criteria of a genocide. In fact, the Survival International News refers to these events "something like genocide" rather then "it was a genocide". Nor does it provide any form of information on how these events would conclude to meet such a criteria. I said previously these events were not notable, rather that to what the Isaaq faced in comparison to the other clans, In fact, I even stated that those events are already partly mentioned on the Somali Rebellion article along with those of other clans. totally unrelated as they don't mention a "genocide" but rather the events that occurred. Somajeeste (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the full Ingiriis article, Somajeeste? He states "The genocidal campaign in Northwest Somalia (present-day Somaliland), in the Isaaq-dominated territory of former British Somaliland, popularly known in public discourses as the 'Hargeisa Holocaust', matches what René Lemarchand calls a 'forgotten genocide'. The legacies of this genocidal campaign suggest distinctive horizontal and vertical consequences that led to a position of secession in Somaliland. Without the marginalization of the Isaaq clan and subjecting them to genocide, the Somaliland secession would not have received much support from the masses... In Somalia, the genocide perpetrated by the state resulted in clan conflicts...", etc. It is clear that he considers it a genocide. On the "these events completely fail to meet the criteria of a genocide" point, that's not for us to decide. We go with what the sources say. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

the subject is not of one mind. Using "Genocide" leans toward victims position,This does not mean that the other ones are invalid, and I think We should read about the subject before we make a decision. If we use the word and call it "Mass Murder" it would be better. Because we have two credible sources on this subject. (and others if not one of them are quote marking on "genocide") , also merging the article to Somali rebellion could work, using "genocide" narrative is one-sided . Allowing that the original article certainly needs a complete reworking, and without even approaching the fact that there are certainly distinctions between mass murder and genocicde than you are making it out.Somajeeste (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, just so you know, the entirety of the above post by Somajeeste is lifted, almost word for word, from posts by other editors, especially the nominator of the first AfD [81]. Try searching for:

For those that did use the term "genocide"

it wasn't their word choose

Not only is this a criteria of a genocide

the victims of the Barre government didn't hail from solely one clan but rather numerous other clans.

Nor does it provide any form of information on how these events would conclude to meet such a criteria.

I even stated that those events are already partly mentioned on the

they don't mention a "genocide" but rather the events that occurred

The same can be said about the current ongoing AfD, lifted from the previous discussion almost in its entirety. This is in addition of their history of disruptive editing and vandalism in Somaliland related pages as outlined in the comment [82]. Kzl55 (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a closer look into this. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55, that's not it since those spellings also have zero Google Ngrams [83]. Soupforone (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not what? It's clear that quite a lot of sources do use the term genocide. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I propose adding the following quote to the article, from the de Waal et al. source, which I think clarifies the relationship between actions agaist the SNM and the broader campaign quite effectively: What began as a counterinsurgency against the Somali National Movement rebels and their sympathizers, and escalated into genocidal onslaught against the Isaaq clan family, turned into the disintegration of both government and rebellion and the replacement of institutionalized armed forces with fragmented clan-based militia. The genocidal campaign ended in anarchy, and the state collapse that followed bred further genocidal campaigns by some of the militia groups that then seized power at a local level. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That is almost satisfactory. However, it should be written in prose since it doesn't explain why the army began targeting the civilian areas. Two sentences from the other links I quoted above, amalgamated with that passage, is therefore workable-- "The government counterinsurgency against the Somali National Movement rebels and their sympathizers escalated as the army responded to successful SNM raids in Hargeysa and Bur'o with indiscriminate bombardment. Isaaq individuals in urban areas, including locales which the SNM did not attack, were targeted under the belief that they might abet the rebels; particularly soldiers, businessmen, civil servants and elders. Consequently, Mohamed Haji Ingiriis, Chris Mullin and Alex de Waal refer to this targeting of Isaaq clan members as a genocide." Soupforone (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we include the quote unchanged as it makes the distinction between counterinsurgency against the SNM (as a group, including their sympathisers) and what later became a "genocidal onslaught against the Isaaq" as a "clan family" very clear.

The point raised by Cordless Larry still stands, there are many more reliable sources that refer to the Barre government actions as genocide than just Ingiriis, Mullin and de Waal. I suggest "the targeting of Isaaq as a clan by the Barre government would later be referred to as genocide by a United Nations report." which is less about opinion and more about a fact that a senior human rights advisor conducted an investigation, saw the mass graves, and came to this conclusion. And then perhaps mention the genocide as cited in scholarship. Kzl55 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

De Waal indicates that the counterinsurgency escalated into a clan onslaught; he doesn't suggest that they are discrete, but rather the opposite. Anyway, please proffer the exact phrasing you think works. Soupforone (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the Isaaq genocide should have its own section, where a link is provided to the main article as exampled by [84]. There is already an article on the subject so a summary section linked to the detailed Isaaq genocide article should be appropriate.

In the section I suggest starting with the de Waal quote, its very succinct and it makes a clear distinction between the government campaign against SNM as a group (this includes their sympathiser) and the genocidal campaign against the Isaaq. This would be followed by information from [85] on the scale of attacks, number of deaths, destruction of cities and perhaps end with "A United Nations investigation concluded that the Barre regime's killing of Isaaq civilians was a genocide, and that the crime of genocide was "conceived, planned and perpetrated by the Somali government against the Isaaq people". Many scholars including genocide scholars such as Israel Charny, Adam Jones and others have called the government attacks a genocide.

Also the description on the map needs changed to include Somaliland. The toponym on the Silk Road map is labelled Somalia, but this is an article on Somaliland and as such Somaliland should be included. Kzl55 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, De Waal does not imply that the government counterinsurgency against the SNM was unrelated to its clampdown in Isaaq areas, nor does the UN. He indicates elsewhere that "the SNM was overwhelmingly drawn from members of the Isaaq clan of north-western Somalia" [86]. The genocide claim must therefore be discussed in its proper context, within the Somali National Movement clampdown. Also, captions must accurately and neutrally represent file contents per WP:OI. Since the Silk Road map is labeled Somalia (a broad territory), that is what the caption should indicate per that policy. Soupforone (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No one said the government attacks on the SNM were totally 'unrelated' to the wholesale killing of Isaaq people. The quote is clear in saying that "What began as a counterinsurgency against the Somali National Movement rebels and their sympathizers, and escalated into genocidal onslaught against the Isaaq clan family...", the distinction between the campaign against SNM and their sympathisers as a group and the genocidal killing of Isaaq civilians based on their Isaaq identity is clear. Some link the start of rebellion with other events, like the Somali defeat in the Ethio-Somali war, the subjects are still treated separately as per WP:GNG. There is also the fact that there is a detailed article discussing the Isaaq genocide so a separate section with a summary is appropriate.

As for the caption, as I have stated before, the article is on Somaliland, it is appropriate to have Somaliland in the description. Perhaps we need to create a new version of the Silk Road map for use in this article with a clear Somaliland label. Kzl55 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

De Waal writes in his main work on the clampdown that-- "The SNM at the time comprised 3000 men, and they decided not to go quietly, but instead to storm their home towns. The fighting force was shattered in those battles - losing as much as 40 per cent of its men - and Siyad unleashed a reign of terror in the north-west, destroying the cities and forcing most of the population to flee" [87]. Ergo, per de Waal the government clampdown against the SNM and the destruction of civilian areas are inextricably tied since the SNM occupied those areas and the army pursued them there. As to the Silk Road map, it indicates Somalia because the Silk Road pertains to the territory as a whole, not just Somaliland. A neutral workaround this would be to caption the actual ancient city-states (Malao, Avalites...). Soupforone (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, no one is saying the government attack on the SNM is unrelated to the genocide. There was a progression from the government targeting SNM and their sympathisers to the government attacking any Isaaq based on their clan identity as Isaaq. This is a significant shift, and it is a significant event in the region's history. Isaaq genocide as a topic also has a detailed article so for the benefit of the reader, a summary section separate from the SNM is entirely appropriate. As for the Silk Road map, as I have stated above, the article is about Somaliland, an indication of Somaliland in the description is entirely appropriate, if it is not possible on the current map then there should be no issues with creating a new version to be used on this page with the Somaliland labelled, this has little to do with neutrality/bias and more with clarity. Kzl55 (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

De Waal indicates that the government escalated rather than shifted its existing SNM counterinsurgency. He explains this lucidly elsewhere [88]-- "The most serious rebellion was in the north, former British Somaliland, where the Somali National Movement (SNM) began guerrilla attacks in 1980 and briefly captured the two main towns in 1988. In a vicious scorched-earth counterattack, the government destroyed the cities and drove most of the population (principally Isaak) into exile in Ethiopia." Ergo, per de Waal, the government onslaught that he is alluding to was actually a scorched-earth counterattack of the SNM, with the dominant local clan in the leveled urban areas most affected by it. Somali National Movement is therefore a more contextually neutral header for the counterinsurgency, including the resulting civilian casualties. As to the map on the ancient Silk Road, the caption should be neutral and not insinuate anything on modern geopolitics. This other Silk Road map is a neutral compromise since it uses the ancient toponyms [89]. Soupforone (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We are going in circles here. For the fourth time, no one here said the government attack on the SNM is unrelated to the genocide, but there was a significant shift from attacking SNM and its sympathisers only to attacking and killing Isaaqs based on their identity as Isaaq. The genocide is a significant event in the history of the country and seeing as it has its own article, it needs a summary section on the Somaliland page. Any thoughts on this @Cordless Larry:, @Ms Sarah Welch:?

As for the map it would work, but the one currently on the page is much clearer to read. Adding a Somaliland label to it would work fine for the purposes of this page. Kzl55 (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Somali National Movement would be a suitable heading for a section on the Somali National Movement as an organisation, but not for a section about actions against the Somali National Movement and the attempted genocide that those actions escalated into. Is there at least agreement to include the de Waal et al. quote? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe so, the de Waal quote is very succinct, it would be a good addition to the section. There is also the removal of "Mohamed Haji Ingiriis and Chris Mullin suggest that..." which suggests only they label the events as genocide when many reliable sources did label it a genocide including genocide scholars. Kzl55 (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As to the Silk Road map, its caption must be neutral and consistent with the indicated toponyms. If you disagree with these toponyms, then the other Silk Road map with the ancient toponyms is a neutral compromise. Soupforone (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The map will only have one change, for the purpose of this page, and that is the addition of Somaliland for better clarity within this page. Then Somaliland could be added to the description. Kzl55 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Which classical translation on the Silk Road indicates that it was coterminous with the contemporary Somaliland territory? If none, then that would be original research. The other map has the ancient toponyms. Soupforone (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There was neither Somaliland nor Somalia during the time, seeing as the article is on Somaliland, having Somalia is on the map is not helpful to the reader. Also, Ms Sarah Welch raised a good point on WP:V and WP:RS aspects of the article which I had not considered before. If it is indeed someone's OR it should be removed. Kzl55 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no modern polity existed during that period, so a classically sourced map with the ancient toponyms should be used. Soupforone (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, how about the simpler heading Government clampdown then? The de Waal bit seems alright, but what he actually means by onslaught must be contextualized with his other scorched-earth explanation. Soupforone (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

per WP:ERA "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." to change the trade route to suit Somaliland is inappropriate.Somajeeste (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

1. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kzl55: The above is WP:TLDR, and Soupforone's puzzling remarks about "Ngrams/ancient toponyms" etc are not helpful. I have read only parts of this discussion, and not cross checked the links. The article would be better if it includes a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE of Somali Rebellion article, with links to it and other main articles. Mention all sides, very close what the source(s) are stating (with attributions). This means, the side which calls it genocide of Isaaq people, the side that calls it "war against the SNM" (page 11), and the side which calls it a broader conflict that killed Isaaq, Hawiye, etc. For the first, you can find numerous sources by clicking books and scholar link in the above two Find sources. I like the heading-related and other suggestions of Cordless Larry. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Silk Road map is someone's OR, lacks external source, incorrect. Per WP:V and WP:RS, it does not belong in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

To give you the TLDR version Soupforone opposes having a separate section for Isaaq genocide in the article. Seeing that it is a significant event in Somaliland's history, and already has an article discussing the subject in detail, would having a summary section with links to the main Isaaq genocide article not be appropriate? Also many thanks for the links! Kzl55 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You can certainly include something like {{main article | Somali Rebellion | Isaaq genocide}}; yet, remember this is the main Somaliland article. Perspective and relative balance is important, necessary per WP:NPOV. Neither suppress a tragedy, nor should one tragedy overwhelm the section. Of course, all this must rely and cite reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree on a tragedy not overwhelming the section. I was thinking a summary section seeing as it is an significant event in the history of the country and that there is already a detailed article on it.Kzl55 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55, what I actually oppose is presenting the various sides (including that of the genocide claimants) in Wikipedia's voice. Soupforone (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A significant number of reliable sources call it a genocide and describe Barre's attempt to exterminate Isaaq as genocidal. You have included a very problematic edit when you added "Mohamed Haji Ingiriis and Chris Mullin suggest that..." which insinuates only they label the events as genocide when many reliable sources did label it a genocide including genocide scholars as well as an investigation by the United Nations. What more do you need? You've described the Isaaq genocide article as hyperbolic [90] in the past and voted for the article to be deleted twice, so your stance is clear. It is not exactly clear how having a separate section linking to a main article has anything to do with Wikipedia's voice. Kzl55 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The attribution is per the actual wikivoice policy. Per it, the genocide claim should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice since it is not uncontested. That is why I opted for delete or rename in the second nomination. Soupforone (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You have described it as a hyperbole and voted for deletion twice when the article clearly meets WP:GNG. Also you are yet to explain or provide sources of who is it contested by. We have a United Nations report as well as a significant number of reliable sources describing it as genocide. Kzl55 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I opted for deletion and then deletion or renaming. Anyway, the genocide claim is indeed not uncontested (ex. [91] [92]). The phrasing should therefore not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Soupforone (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

So you actually meant that they were contested by the government that committed the genocide? And that is why you voted to delete it and now object to the use of genocide here? What else would they say? The vast majority of reliable sources agree it was genocide. The United Nations investigated the claim and concluded it was indeed a genocide, and here you are countering that Siad Barre and his government contested the claim. Somali army commanders are on tape plotting to kill civilians, for example here repeating the same points outlined in the report [93] (8 min mark): "kill even the wounded", "destroy water sources and reservoirs", "burn down villages, pillage and kill their residents", "Whoever submits, tell him his medicine is in the ground, and bury him there", "you must eliminate all", "allow no activity, no life" and the infamous line "kill all but the crows". RS include [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] plus many more. @Cordless Larry:, @Ms Sarah Welch:, any opinion on this? Is Soupforone's use of citation in their reply above to force their personal pov appropriate given the many other RSs provided? Kzl55 (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55, it was explained to you above that there are at least three other sides to this (@13:52): the side which calls it genocide of Isaaq people, the side that calls it war against the SNM, and the side which calls it a broader conflict that killed Isaaq, Hawiye, etc. The Google links there indicate that there are between 5,400 and 6,160 total non-mirror results for the one-clan genocide claim. Put into perspective, that is around a third of the 19,300 total non-mirror results for SNM terrorism [104]. And just as some think tanks do categorize the conflict as a one-clan genocide, others like the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium classify the SNM as a terrorist organization [105]. Ergo, the phrasing should be neutral and not presented in Wikipedia's voice. Soupforone (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

These things are not mutually exclusive, though. Even if the SNM is widely considered a terrorist organisation, that doesn't mean that the same sources are denying that an attempted genocide against the Isaaq took place. Generally I agree with the attribution point though, so long as it's not suggested that only one or two authors support the genocide claim. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone please avoid using a strawman in this discussion, this is not helpful at all. No one on this page other than yourself is pushing the 'one-clan' narrative, even the article states that other groups were targeted, the same was repeated in both AfDs. A significant number of reliable sources call the event a genocide, as does the only United Nations investigation on the matter. You are clearly biased since you have voted for the deletion of the article twice despite it meeting all WP:GNG hence being deliberately difficult now that the vote did not go your way and the community decided to keep the article. Also stop using Google numbers in this discussion, WP is not a Google popularity contest. However if you insist, Google returns 38,200 results when you include other forms of writing Isaaq [106]. Your point about SNM and terrorism is off-topic and clearly not thoroughly thought out, one of the results from the first page of your search states: "This, together with a number of other factors resulted in the birth of the Somali National Movement (SNM) a political military liberation movement (April 1981)" [107]. Another (again from the first page) states: "Unlike other parts of Somalia, conflict in the region was averted when the Somali National Movement, the principal opposition group that had led the resistance against the Siyad Barre dictatorship in the region, and Isaq clan leaders purposely reached out to representatives of other clans in Somaliland" [108]. These were two quick finds from the first page of results, there are probably more. Any one of the actors involved in that part of Somali history will have their name appear in search results that may or may not actually involve them, this is why you should never use Google search results numbers as evidence again, it is not helpful at all. Also, even if the SNM was a terrorist organisation, unfounded claim but let us just run it, how does that take away or affect the genocide of Isaaq civilians?

Stop pushing your pov citing it is contested when we have the results of a United Nations investigation as well as genocide scholarship clearly describing the killing of Isaaq by the Somali government as genocide. Kzl55 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, yes, it shouldn't be insinuated that the genocide claim only has two proponents. However, what those numbers do suggest is that the urban conflict is more frequently presented as a war against the SNM than as a one-clan genocide. Actually, if one plugs in one-clan massacre, that too has more non-mirror results than one-clan genocide - around twice as many (11,700 [109]). From this, it would appear the more common appellation for the first side is actually one-clan massacre. Soupforone (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ngrams are scholarly units in Google Ngram, but otherwise those seem to be a helpful suggestions. Soupforone (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone: You misunderstand Ngram. Kzl55: You can avoid confusion and dispute by attributing. For example, "According to scholars Donald Bloxham, Nicholas Robins and the United Nations (...). According to scholars Taisier Ali and Mohamed Ingiriis (....)". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I will most certainly keep that in mind going forward, many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55: Avoid WP:FORUM-y debate with Soupforone or anyone else. Just ask them which sentence is in wikipedia voice. If they identify it, either attribute it as "Some scholars, such as ..., state...", or recompose that statement in another way. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Noted. This will be the last of these types of posts from me. Kzl55 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)