Talk:Isaaq genocide

Article discussion

SUPPORT - As shown in this quote, the Isaaq weren't the only clan involved: "Government atrocities inflicted on the Hawiye were considered comparable in scale to those against the Majeerteen and Isaaq". In addition, very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide, let alone the Isaaq clan solely. Nor is there any cultural, national, racial, religious, etc. differences between them and other clans as they are all ethnic Somalis. [1]. Those differences are what legally defines a genocide.[2]. In addition, the majority of the events already mentioned and those of other clans are current present on the Somali Rebellion article.

After reviewing this users past edits, such as: continuously removing its territorial dispute with neighboring region Puntland in favor of Somaliland (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), changing the map of Somaliland to present it as separate nation (see here, here, and here), removing the disputed Khatumo State (see here), and changing Somalia's map to present its dispute with its Somaliland region as if it had some form of international recognition (see here, here, and here), this article seems to be further WP:PROPAGANDA. Due to the reasons mentioned this article should be deleted. AcidSnow (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This is portion is in response to the creator to this article.

This article is by no means neutral in any form. You have once again left out how the Isaaq weren't the only clan involved: "Government atrocities inflicted on the Hawiye were considered comparable in scale to those against the Majeerteen and Isaaq". As such, it makes little sense to uses the term exclusively for the Isaaq.

In regards to the term "genocide" you have completely missed my point. I never said these events were not notable, rather that there is no uniqueness to what the Isaaq faced in comparison to the Hawiye and Majeerteen, as did another user (see here: [3] and [4]). In fact, I even stated that those events are already partly mentioned on the Somali Rebellion article along with those of other clans. So points Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six are completely irrelevant as they don't mention a "genocide" but rather the events that occurred.

For those that did use the term "genocide", such as AlJazzera (point Eleven) and The Guardian (Point Nine), it wasn't their word choose (hence the quotation marks), but the words of others, such as victim's family members (see here: [5]. Aljazzera never even referred to the events as "genocide" but rather that they were investigating the claim, hence the title "Investigating genocide in Somaliland". In fact, if you had read the Aljazzera article you would have noticed this : "Evidence that victims hailed from the same clan could indicate genocide, rather than mass-murder". Not only is this a criteria of a genocide,[6] but the victims of the Barre government didn't hail from solely one clan but rather numerous other clans.[7] As such, these events completely fail to meet the criteria of a genocide. In fact, the Survival International News (Point Eight) 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.

The only points relevant for this discussion are One, Seven, Ten, and Twelve since they actually do you use the term genocide to describe those events. Interestingly enough, all those sources fail to mention atrocities committed against other clans. In fact, if one carefully reads points such as the Washington Post article (point Ten) and the encyclopedia (point Seven), then they would would have noticed this:

The Washington Post:[8]

"The government's response has been brutal. An aerial bombing campaign devastated large sections of the cities and productive areas in the north. Wells have been poisoned, villages have been burned and Isaaq civilians have been rounded up and executed by government troops. President Barre has also supplied weapons to Ethiopian refugees inside Somalia and to opposition Ethiopian groups to attack Isaaq civilians".

The Enyclopedias:[9]

"Geno/Pol: The group was the target of deliberate, sustained policies aimed at its collective destruction"

Not only does the encyclopedia and the Washington Post fail to provide further evidence, but these are the same events that other clans faced (see here: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]). I have already shown you that the Isaaq weren't the only clan involved multiple times before (see here: [16], [17], and [18]). In addition, members of the Isaaq clan also committed atrocities against other clans during the same period as did other clans, see here: [19] and [20]. Based on the statement made by your points, then all clans faced and participated in a collective genocide. However, as Awale-Abdi points out, multiple sources disagree with the use of the term "genocide", see here: [21]. It's shocking how you would accuse me of "relying on non-Somalis' ignorance of the situation on the ground for information on the maps, yet do exactly that for this by failing to mention other clans, as well as propping up the outlandish notion that the Isaaq are separate "people" form other Somalis.[22]

Although these crimes are truly sad and sickening, they do not constitute a "genocide" as it does not met the legal definition, lacks uniqueness, and nor has there been any form of legal recognition. You have already been informed of this by other users as well (see here: [23], [24], and [25]).

Anyways, your responses to the other points I mentioned are not accurate. For starters, despite captioning the light green portion of this map as the "disputed territory" (see here: [26]), it doesn't not show what portions of the eastern regions that are actually disputed with Puntland per its constitution, see here: [27]. On the other hand, this map presents it as such, see here: [28]. In addition, your attempt, at creating a map that shows actual local control doesn't' accurately reflect it as such, see here: [29]. Nor is your creation of a new Somalia map (see here: [30]) accurate in regards to other wiki articles since the region has no from of international recognition.[31]

As I have already explained to you and other users, this other map also incorrectly designates Somaliland as a separate nation when it is internationally recognized as an autonomous region within Somalia.[32] 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: [33]. Not only has a consensus on this map issue already been established, but the map your desire is by no means is in line with other Wiki articles as you oddly claim them to be (see here: [34]). These are the reasons why I and others cite WP:PROPAGANDA. We can continue these discussions at a latter time since they aren't crucial to this discussion other then me and others citing WP:PROPAGANDA.

In addition, you have presented no legitimate evidence for your claims against me. Comments such as "much of the content the editor initiating this request works on, or is involved in edit wars over, is slanted against certain Somali groups namely the Isaaq" and "It seems to me, and this is unfortunate, that the initiator of the deletion request harbors negative sentiment against Isaaqs" are simply nothing more than WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Nor do I understand why you continue to single me out despite multiple other users disagreeing with you. As such, I politefully recommend that your drop these baseless claims. AcidSnow (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - hyperbole as per o/p. Already more neutrally and contextually discussed elsewhere. Lacks the uniqueness that distinguishes actual genocides, as it's just one of various clan conflicts. Fails genocide on ethnoracial/cultural/national/religious grounds for reasons enumerated above, which are legal prerequisites for genocide per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [35]. Also, sensationalist infobox file flouts MOS:LEADIMAGE. Along with the non-neutral political maps, does appear to be political WP:PROPAGANDA. Soupforone (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Note: I am the author of the Wiki article.

The article describes the systematic, state sponsored campaign conducted by Siad Barre and the Somali state against the Isaaq. It was a specific campaign against a specific target, in this case against Isaaq civillians. The article meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, I was frankly surprised not to find a stand alone article for the subject, given its widespread discussion both academically, officially (by various international organisations) and in international media.

To that point please allow me to quote from various official and academic sources to illustrate my point and prove the article is notable, neutral WP:NPOV, verifiable WP:V and indeed not WP:NOR and thus abides by the principal core content policies of Wikipedia. I hope this will comprehensively clear the issue.

(Please note, emphasis mine):

Selection of references of the Isaaq Genocide in official reports:

1- Report commissioned by the United Nations, comprised of the findings of a human rights investigator recruited by the United Nations to find out if crimes of international jurisdiction (i.e. war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide had been perpetrated in Somaliland.

Based on the totality of evidence collected in Somaliland and elsewhere both during and after his mission, the consultant firmly believes that the crime of genocide was conceived, planned and perpetrated by the Somali Government against the Isaaq people of northern Somalia between 1987 and 1989. .

— Chris Mburu, Past human rights abuses in Somalia : report of a preliminary study conducted for the United Nations (OHCHR/UNDP-Somalia)

2- Report by the Africa Watch Committee, a branch of Human Rights Watch:

* The government has been at war with the Isaaks since 1981, after the creation of the SNM. Apparently suspecting every Isaak of supporting the SNM, the government unleashed a reign of terror and lawlessness in northern Somalia.

• 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. On the claim of looking for SNM fighters and weapons, systemic house-to-house searches were carried out and thousands were shot in their homes. Residential areas were targets of artillery shelling; a substantial number of people died as their homes collapsed on them.

• Africa Watch's estimate of the number of people killed by government forces, shot point blank, or killed as a result of arial bombardment and artillery shelling and war related wounds, is in the vicinity of 50,000-60,000. (pages. 9,10)
  — Africa Watch, Reference

3- World Bank:

Isaaq grievances deepened over the course of the 1980s, when the Barre regime placed the northwest under military control and used the military administration to crack down on the Isaaq and dispossess them of their businesses. The civil war mounted by the SNM began in May 1988 and produced catastrophe. Government forces committed atrocities against civilians (an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 Somalis died, mostly members of the Isaaq clan, which was the core support for the SNM); aerial bombardments leveled the city of Hargeysa [the second largest city in Somalia]; and 400,000 Somalis were forced to flee across the Ethiopian border as refugees, while another 400,000 were internally displaced.. (page. 10)

— World Bank, Link

Selection of references of the Isaaq Genocide in academic works:

4-

Following its defeat by Ethiopia in 1978, the Somali government of Siad Barre became discredited. The Somali National Movement headed armed opposition, with core support among the Isaaq clan family of north-west Somalia. In May 1988 the SNM nearly captured Hargaisa, the main city of the north-west, and another town, Burao. Siad Barre responded by reportedly declaring that the Isaaq should be wiped out. His son-in-law and commander of the operation, Gen. Mohamed Said Hersi Morgan, reportedly answered that the order couldn't be fulfilled because there were too many of them to kill. This is the closest case of attempted extermination of a group in north-east Africa, thwarted by the intrinsic difficulty of carrying out such a task when faced with fierced armed resistance and the ability of the population to flee across a nearby border.

The city of Hargaisa was destroyed [second largest city in Somalia] in the government's counter-attack. (No other city in contemporary Africa has suffered comparable destruction.) Tens of thousands of people were killed. Virtually the entire populations of Hargaisa and other towns fled the country. The livelihoods of the people of north-west Somalia were all but destroyed by looting, the collapse of markets, the destruction of infrastructure, and the dissemination of landmines which meant that camel herds were unable to move safely to many areas of pasture.

Testimonies from the war are extraordinarily harrowing, comparable in the intensity of fear and violance to the depths of the Rwanda genocide..

— Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses, The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies

Further academic sources below, I understand I have quoted at length above so I will try to keep the rest as brief as possible, full citation and links where possible are added:

5-

In January 1986, the Morgan Report was issued, the work of General Mohamed Sidi Hersi "Morgan", Siad Barre's son-in-law of Majerteen background [and commander of operation as mentioned above]. Officially it was a top secret report on "implemented and recommended measures" for a "final solution" to Somalia's "Isaaq problem". Morgan writes that the Isaaq and their supporters must be "subjected to a campaign of obliteration" in order to prevent them "rais[ing] their heads again." .

— Nicholas A. Robins, Adam Jones, Genocides by the Oppressed: Subaltern Genocide in Theory and Practice

6-

In a wave of terror that followed the initial military assault, the Somali Armed Forces engaged in a "systematic pattern" of attacks against unarmed Isaaq villages, as well as summarily executing an unknown number of suspected SNM supporters. Despite the devastation of the north that bordered on genocide, the Siad regime ultimately was unable to stop the advance of guerrilla armies on the capital of Mogadishu, especially after USC guerilla forces stepped up their attacks in the central region of the country. .

— Lowell Barrington, After Independence : Making and Protecting the Nation in Postcolonial and Postcommunist States p.125

7- Furthermore, in the Encyclopedia of Genocide, edited by genocide scholar Israel Charny (executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem ), the only named group from Somalia in two published tables in that book are the Isaaq.

First table is titled "Minorities Victimized by Discrimination, Ethnic Warfare, Repression, and Genocide 1980-1997" only lists the Isaaqs from Somalia. In fact, they are one of only three named groups from Africa that are designated 'Geno/Pol' in that table. The other two groups designated 'Geno/Pol' in that table are the Tutsi of Rwanda for the period of 1993-1994 (you can read on Rwandan genocide here, and from the Sudan (now South Sudan) the Dinka, Nuba and Shilluk.

The description of Geno/Pol at the bottom of the table states (emphasis mine):

Geno/Pol: The group was the target of deliberate, sustained policies aimed at its collective destruction. (p.270)

The second table which covers earlier genocides than 1980 (that the previous table covered), under the heading "Indigenous Populations, Genocide of" and is titled "Some Cases of Genocides of indigenous Peoples", again has only one group mentioned from Somalia, the Isaaq. (p.350)

Selection of references of the Isaaq Genocide in reputable international media

Below I am presenting coverage by international media as close to the dates of the Isaaq Genocide as possible, this is to confirm that it was a notable incident and discussed widely in the international media at the time as it was taking place.

8- This issue of Reporting by Survival International News, dated 1988 is especially valuable because it records the reporting on the genocide, by international media, in doing so it gives an idea of how the genocide was reported at the time, early on the campaign against the Isaaq:

Since May, government repression of the Isaaq has escalated into something like genocide. Though the Somali government which is armed by the USA in exchange for the use of the strategic port of Berbera has succeeded in sealing off the north to outside observers, account are filtering out that tell of mass bombing of civilians areas and summer execution and imprisonment of non-combatants. Estimates are being given of 10,000 or even 20,000 dead. The capital of the northern region, Hargeisa, is reported to be heavily bombed, with unburied corpses lying in the streets. Villages have been strafed by air-craft. Isaaq living in the south of the country are being rounded up and imprisoned. Meanwhile, refugees, most of whom are Isaaq are pouring across the border into Ethiopian territory; by end of August 1988 there were at least 250,000 in Ethiopia.

— Survival International News, publication

9- The Guardian (1989) and (1993)

... and ground bombardment of all major Isaaq towns and villages in the north in what was described as an act of 'genocide' (The Guardian 1989). This savage attack 'was seen, probably rightly, as an attack on the whole of the Isaaq people.... (page 243)

The number of deaths has been estimated at around 100,000 in the northern towns (The Guardian 1993). Up to 50,000 people are believed to have lost their lives in the capital city, Hargeisa, as a result of summary executions, arial bombardments and ground attacks carried out by government troops (Bake 1993). (page 244)

— Adebayo Adedeji, Comprehending and Mastering African Conflicts: The Search for Sustainable Peace and Good Governance

10- The Washington Post (1990):

In Somalia, the Isaaq clan is the target of government genocide. The Isaaq-based Somali National Movement (SNM), an insurgency group headquartered in Ethiopia for years, invaded Somalia in mid-1988 and now controls a large part of the north.

The government's response has been brutal. An aerial bombing campaign devastated large sections of the cities and productive areas in the north. Wells have been poisoned, villages have been burned and Isaaq civilians have been rounded up and executed by government troops. President Barre has also supplied weapons to Ethiopian refugees inside Somalia and to opposition Ethiopian groups to attack Isaaq civilians. Africa Watch estimates that 50,000 Somali citizens have been killed during the past year and a half, the majority being Isaaq civilians. Link

11a- Aljazeera Article titled:

Investigating genocide in Somaliland

As many as 200,000 people were buried in mass graves in the 1980s under Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre.

— Aljazeera, Reference

11b- A documentary first aired on Aljazeera on the subject:

People and Power meets a community coming to terms with the horrors of the past and joins forces with a group of forensic investigators and human rights activists attempting to bring an alleged war criminal, Yusuf Abdi Ali, also known as Colonel Tukeh, to account. Link to video.

12- Genocide Watch:

For the purposes of this Mass Atrocities Alert, Genocide Watch sees the following warning signs of genocide and atrocities being committed against the civilian population of Somalia:

Prior unpunished genocidal massacres, such as those perpetrated by the Barre regime, primarily against the Isaaq clan, in the late 1980s. Source

The plethora of discussions on the subject attest to its notability. This is an important subject that features prominently in the scholarship about the civil war in the former Somali state and specifically pertaining to the period between 1988-1990. There are many more reports and academic works and documentaries that deal with the subject of Isaaq genocide, the list above is a small sample.

I hope one can now clearly see the claim by the initiator of this deletion request that very few individuals classify these events as whole as genocide is incorrect. I cite the specific use of the word genocide in the United Nations' commissioned report (above, point 1), also used academically by Bloxham and Dirk Moses (The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, point 4, above), by Barrington (point 6, if loosely), in the Encyclopedia of Genocide, notably as the single case from Somalia included and one of three from all of Africa (see point 7 please), and in reputable international media, like Survival International (point 8), by both The Guardian (point 9), and The Washington Post (point 10) as well as the title of an Aljazeera article (point 11a) as well as a documentary (point 11b) and finally on Genocide Watch (point 12).

Thus I conclude that the use of the word genocide is appropriate for the page.

The above demonstrates that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and I hope, like me, you see that it is suitable for a stand-alone article WP:GNG.

I also hope the use of 'people' in relation to Isaaq is fair. Similar usage of 'Isaaq People' is found in both the UN report (point 1) and in 'Comprehending and Mastering African Conflicts: The Search for Sustainable Peace and Good Governance' (point 9), I can provide further academic examples if needed.

Please note that the initiator of this deletion request has been waging an ongoing edit war both on the subject article of this request and other pages too. They have been the one causing vandalism in their deletion of this article (via redirection) see here. This is very disruptive and I have mentioned that much to them in the notes of my edits. The article is well sourced, notable and neutral, there is absolutely no merit to blanking it by putting a redirection on. That is vandalism.

This request for deletion does not make sense. It seems to me, and this is unfortunate, that the initiator of the deletion request harbors negative sentiment against Isaaqs. There is no other reason to request deletion of a well sourced article that deals with such an important subject. So important in fact that the air-bombardment and use of military force against civilians in Hargeisa it is the subject of a war monument erected in the middle of the capital city of Somaliland, Hargeisa, the same city that was levelled by the Somali army and airforce. The arial bombardment of Hargeisa by the Somali Airforce is a very painful and recent memory to many survivors of the genocide and their families. I hope the quotes above conveys the sheer scale of this atrocity.

As for what has been said about my other edits, I am very happy to discuss my edits in the specific articles' talk pages. On their claims of my editing of the dispute page of Somaliland and Puntland. I have updated the article to reflect the realities on the ground as of end of 2016 and beginning of 2017. The page was outdated. The facts are that Somaliland controls every single capital of all the regions it claims. I will be more than happy to provide evidece for this, the editor is relying on non-Somalis' ignorance of the situation on the ground, or perhaps a better way to phrase it is the lack of English language reputable sources the report on the issue.

It is true that there are opposing organisations under names like SSC (now defunct) and Khaatumo (very little support from locals, almost no resources), but these organisation exist in name only and are far from being governments and/or real actors on the ground. In fact, Khatumo itself acknowledges that Somaliland controls the capital of Sool region, I can provide video recordings of the president of this organisation, mr. Ali Galaydh himself admitting that they have no control over these territories. Furthermore, Somaliland is currently in talks with Khaatumo, again, in these talks the leaders of Khaatumo admit Somaliland's control of the capital of Sool region (Laascanood).

Puntland's claim is in name only too, this may not have been the case prior to 2007, but it is now. I am happy to provide extensive evidence in the talk page of that article.

As for the changing of Somalia map. That too is to reflect the realities on the ground, and it is in line with precedent set by other Wikipedia articles. Please see the landing maps of Morocco, India, Pakistan and many other countries where the landing map clearly indicates parts that the country claims but does not control. I tried to keep it to the same neutral colours used in the maps of aforementioned countries, light green and dark green. I am happy to discuss this in detail in that article's talk page.

Due to the above reasons, I hope you can see that the article is notable, neutral WP:NPOV,verifiable WP:V and not WP:NOR and thus abides by the principal core content policies of Wikipedia. I do not understand why it is marked for deletion, that is wrong and disrespectful to the victims of the genocide. I have noticed that much of the content the editor initiating this request works on, or is involved in edit wars over, are slanted against certain Somali groups namely the Isaaq, as is the case for this bizarre delete request, that much is clear. Kzl55 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

SUPPORT - I'm sorry but I'm going to have to agree with Acidsnow and Soupforone for the following reasons:

(1) The page might give off the impression that the Isaaq clan was somehow "special" during this period in Somalia's recent history which is not the case:

"Barre's elite unit, the Red Berets (Duub Cas), and the paramilitary unit called the Victory Pioneers carried out systematic terror against the Majeerteen, Hawiye, and Isaaq clans.[31] The Red Berets systematically smashed water reservoirs to deny water to the Majeerteen and Isaaq clans and their herds. More than 2,000 members of the Majeerteen clan died of thirst, and an estimated 5,000 Isaaq were killed by the government. Members of the Victory Pioneers also raped large numbers of Majeerteen and Isaaq women, and more than 300,000 Isaaq members fled to Ethiopia." (quoted from Siad's own page)

"As an arid country inhabited by simple farmers and nomads, much of Somalia’s society is clan-based. Its politics under Barre reflected that. Barre was a member of the Darod clan, and in the 1970s after he got Somalia involved in a disastrous war, another clan called the Majeerteen decided to try to get rid of him. Barre cracked down with a paramilitary group called the Red Berets. Their weapon against the Majerteen was environmental: they destroyed the reservoirs their people depended on in the arid region where they lived. In 1979, thousands of them died of thirst." - link

"In other words, the Barre regime could be responsible for a genocide of the Isaaq and Majerteen clans if sufficient evidence to this effect exists, regardless of the fact that it may also have been seeking to quell civil unrest simultaneously."-link

"The widespread unrest in the army led to the April 9, 1978 coup attempt. Although its leader, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed was Umar Mahamud (Majerten subclan), the core group came from various clans including Hawiye and Isaq. However the state repression focused on the Majerten, because from the onset, Siyad Barre had been wary of this clan's potential threat. He had antagonized the Majerten while for the Italians in the 1950s, when many radical nationalists came from that clan." - link

Other clans suffered atrocities, were targeted by the government and there were even "extermination" measures of sorts enacted against them, the Isaaq clan was not unique in all this. Barre and his regime were simply acting like a dictatorial regime normally does when there is insurrection in their midst rather than despising Isaaqs simply for being Isaaqs and seeking to annihilate every last one of them as a result. Instead, Barre and his regime were simply reacting cruelly to the formation of the "Somali National Movement" (SNM) which,like other Somali rebel militias of the civil-war period, had its "base" in a particular clan (in this case; the Isaaq clan) whom Barre associated with the militia and ordered attacks against as a result.

Unless this page is edited to be about "genocide" among several clans (i.e. with a title such as "Genocide of Somali clans" or something along those lines); it should not be kept, in my opinion. Again, because the Isaaq are not truly unique in this. However, a page with the edited title I mentioned would be totally redundant (as is this "Isaaq Genocide" page) for reasons Acidsnow mentioned since pages like the "Somali Rebellion" page (see here) do mention the atrocities suffered by various Somali clans during this period in recent Somali history. The creator of this page would be better served simply adding text and sources to pages such as the "Somali rebellion" page and leaving it at that (in fact, I welcome adding text to those pages that argues what the Isaaq suffered was a "genocide"). I see no reason why the Isaaq clan in particular deserves some sort of page of its own unless other clans are also to be given a similar page which is unnecessary for reasons mentioned prior.

(2) Acidsnow and Soupforone have a point about the somewhat hyperbolic nature of the article's subject and the fact that the creator's editing history (as pointed out by Acidsnow) seems to point to a bias toward pro-"Somaliland" politics (which often requires fostering & nurturing grievances toward "Somalia") and this thus presents a possible case of WP:PROPAGANDA.

There are sources which ultimately do not entertain the idea that what happened to the Isaaq clan (or even the Majeerteen clan) was truly classifiable as "genocide" (see here, for instance) and just adopting this title outright because some sources imply or lean towards the opposite makes this article, in my opinion, act against WP:NEUTRAL-POINT-OF-VIEW as it outright picks a side. A better set-up for it not to seem like a propaganda page would've been for it to be titled "Atrocities enacted against the Isaaq during the Somali Civil-War" and then have a section where both "pro-genocide labeling" and "anti-genocide labeling" sources are shared whilst, if possible, sharing why both sides are for or against the labeling. But this is totally pointless as stated earlier as this can just be more shortly done in pages like the "Somali Rebellion" page.

(3) This does, partly, smell like a WP:NO-ORIGINAL-RESEARCH breach as well. The page creator's sources look as though they're just being used to weave a narrative that Isaaqs were perhaps specially gencodided when many (not all) of the page creator's sources do is point out the obvious which is that Isaaqs were targeted, the government was at war with them and that they (the Isaaqs) suffered greatly-:

2- "The government has been at war with the Isaaks since 1981, after the creation of the SNM. Apparently suspecting every Isaak of supporting the SNM, the government unleashed a reign of terror and lawlessness in northern Somalia."

3- "Government forces committed atrocities against civilians (an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 Somalis died, mostly members of the Isaaq clan, which was the core support for the SNM); aerial bombardments leveled the city of Hargeysa [the second largest city in Somalia](page. 10)"

6- "In a wave of terror that followed the initial military assault, the Somali Armed Forces engaged in a "systematic pattern" of attacks against unarmed Isaaq villages, as well as summarily executing an unknown number of suspected SNM supporters. Despite the devastation of the north that bordered on genocide, the Siad regime ultimately was unable to stop the advance of guerrilla armies on the capital of Mogadishu, especially after USC guerilla forces stepped up their attacks in the central region of the country. ."

^ (keyword being "bordered" rather than the source outright stating this was definitely genocide)

7- "7- Furthermore, in the Encyclopedia of Genocide, edited by genocide scholar Israel Charny (executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem ), the only named group from Somalia in two published tables in that book are the Isaaq."

^ (This means nothing and is bordering on "Original Research". Other Somali groups suffered comparable atrocities by both state and non-state actors; them not being mentioned does not place the Isaaq clan's terrible suffering ahead of theirs as the only one that was supposedly truly genocidal in nature.)

8- "Since May, government repression of the Isaaq has escalated into something like genocide..."

^ (Emphasis on the word "like". Nevertheless, this then just goes on to describe atrocities the clan suffered like other sources do.)

-and yes; other Somali clans, like the Majeerteen, were targeted, the government was at war with them and they suffered greatly. And, as even one of my own sources points out, it can possibly be argued that a "genocide" of sorts was enacted against other clans such as the Majeerteen as well. None of this, however, outright proves a "genocide" but really just that a dictatorial regime was enacting extreme violence against people it believed were rising up against it. Only sources that outright claim genocide are relevant, frankly. The ones that merely highlight atrocities are just being used to push the genocide viewpoint when they don't explicitly claim this was genocide, so this does partly look like Original-Research meant to support a certain viewpoint the page creator holds. Though this point among my 3 points, in my humble opinion, is the least pressing and relevant.

_______

At any rate, another source even points out that things like "genocide", perhaps more appropriately termed "clan cleansing" as per the source, were arguably enacted against several clans by both state and non-state actors. So why are Isaaq clan members getting a page and not the others? Why is there not a page on the "clan cleansing" enacted against Darods in Mogadishu by militias during this same period in recent history? I say simply because such pages would be redundant (as well as misleading in acting as though one clan's suffering was of unique importance within this trouble period) and would only help serve the political agendas of "clanist" types within the Somali Peninsula. The atrocities suffered by various clans can be outlined in the "Somali Rebellion" or even "Somali Civil-War" page (or both) but anything more than that, in my humble opinion, is unnecessary.

So yes, I support deleting this article. --Awale-Abdi (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This article should be kept - I am sorry but what you have written does not constitute a rebuttal of my post. You are trying to pass off your opinion as a fact, whereas I have presented a well sourced argument. My position is supported by the results of a United Nations's investigation and the majority of scholarly work dealing with the subject (please see below). It is also widely covered and reported on in international media as I have presented above.

There is no need to obfuscate the issue, the argument you are bringing is that the Isaaq Genocide is not notable or worthy of getting its own article just because others may have also suffered under the brutal dictatorship of Siad Barre. Your ignoring of 11 named and reputable sources makes any discussion of the subject very difficult. Let me be clear, I in no way deny that minorities and other groups may have suffered under the Siad Barre regime, however, and I stress this, the attack on the Isaaq was specific on them as a group, the Majeerteen that you mentioned belong to the same group as Siad Barre namely the Darod, whereas Isaaq are an entirely different group. A number of the sources you have provided failed to make this distinction clear, I will elaborate further down.

But before we continue, your constant mention of the attack on other groups, such as the Majerteen is not valid here, not only because of the difference in the dynamics of the relationship between Siad Barre and his fellow Darod the Majerteen vs Isaaq, a separate stand alone group, but you are clearly ignoring difference in sheer scale of the brutality and suffering in the government's dealing with Majerteen in comparison to the "near annihilation" of the Isaaq [here]. What you and AcidSnow are arguing attempting to compare the case of Isaaq and that of Majerteen is not new, and has been put to rest in academic circles. This issue is discussed in academic and scholarship literature when comparing the two cases, allow me to quote Lidwien Kapteijns, the African historian focusing on Somalia and translator of historical and cultural Somali texts:

Collective clan-based violence against civilians always represents a violation of human rights. However, when its goal is to exterminate and expel large numbers of people based on their group identity alone, it becomes clan cleansing. No one has suggested this term for the collective brutalization of the people of Mudug [read Majerteen]. However, for the Northwest [read Isaaq], this and even stronger terms (such as genocide) are regularly used. The scale and character of the collective clan-based violence committed against Isaaq civilians - who, although they were not the only civilians brutalized by the government, were especially targeted - suggest that this dimension of state-violence in the Northwest indeed amounts to clan cleansing.

— Lidwien Kapteijns, Clan Cleansing in Somalia: The Ruinous Legacy of 1991 p.87

The fact is that the vast majority of scholars make a clear distinction between Siad Barre's brutality in dealing with various groups and the specific targeting of Isaaq civilians, and as noted above the widespread use of the term 'genocide' (even if that particular author chose clan-cleansing) when describing the Isaaq situation is not up for debate. This is not to belittle the brutality shown against the Majerteen, but the distinction both in scale and nature of the attack as well as the resulting civilian deaths warrant the use of genocide in talking about Isaaq, that is the point of the article. If you have sources that argue a similar case for the Majerteen then by all means cite the sources and open a separate entry for Majerteen. However the Isaaq Genocide page, for the reasons discussed both in my posts and the multitude of sources provided should stand separately.

I just wanted to deal with your use of Majerteen as a comparable case early in my posts because this is the meat of the argument that all three members present, that the Isaaq case is not unique. This is in disagreement with all of the sources I have presented including official reports by the United Nations (that explicitly mentions the term genocide) and Human Rights Watch as well as the many well respected sources I have presented above.

As for the points you have raised:

(1a) I will start by reminding you that WP:NOTSOURCE, you can not just use a Wikipedia entry as a source to support your argument. I looked at the Wikipedia page you linked to and both links to the source [here] and [here] are dead. This does not aid the discussion in anyway. Whether or not the Majeerteen suffered under Siad Barre is not the issue. Please refer to the quote and discussion on the Majerteen above.

Let me finally remind you that the Majeerteen belong to the same group as Siad Barre, whereas the Isaaq are a totally separate group. Are you disputing this?

If you accept it then I am guessing you are trying to argue that the Isaaq Genocide is not notable because the Majeerteen suffered as well, thus the Isaaq are not unique in suffering. That is not a valid point either. In the scholarly quote above, the author describes the attacks on Majerteen as 'brutalization' and followed that by stating how this term and even genocide are regularly used to describe the violence against Isaaq people, one does not negate the other.

Our discussion here pertains to the attack on Isaaq people as a distinct group, whether or not other groups suffered is beside the point. I can list you many dictators that committed atrocities against some groups and genocides against others if you like, it does not render the attack 'not genocide' just because other groups were attacked to a lesser extent.

If you feel that the Majeerteen have suffered a genocide specific to them as a group with the aims of total obliteration, and have sources to back that up including United Nation investigation reports, Human Rights Watch reports, academic scholarly work and world wide media coverage, all expressly naming Majeerteen and genocide then I invite you to start that article. If that satisfies you I hope you rescind your support for the deletion of this article.

(1b) In your second quote: "Barre was a member of the Darod clan, and in the 1970s after he got Somalia involved in a disastrous war, another clan called the Majeerteen decided to try to get rid of him."

That is factually incorrect WP:AD verging on the misleading (on part of the author, not yourself). Barre was a member of the Darod clan, Majeerteen are not another clan, as they too are members of the Darod clan. The Isaaq however are indeed entirely different. Do you dispute any of this?

I question the use of this webpage as a source, especially as the author, who by his own admission on his About page is focused on the history of climate change and fiction [here]. Nevertheless he seems to be discussing an entirely different issue concerning the Majeerteen and the destruction of their reservoirs. This has nothing to do with the subject of Isaaq Genocide. I have discussed this at length above. Again I am not denying that other groups may have suffered a heavy handed approach and brutalization by the Siad Barre regime, I am however pointing out that the Isaaq people were especially targeted as the sources I have linked to above clearly confirmed. I am also discussing the sheer scale of the Isaaq Genocide with some figures pointing out 50,000-60,000 civilian deaths [here], some report 100,000 [here] whilst the locals are reporting upwards of 200,000 civilian deaths [here], on the other hand the numbers in the sources you are providing about Majerteen point to 2000 civilians dying of thirst here. Please note I do not belittle that number in any way, I am just pointing the difference in scale, and the specific targeting of Isaaq with the express use of the term 'genocide'. We are not talking about combatants, these deaths were all civilian population belonging to a specific group, namely the Isaaq. I hope this point is clear.

(1c) Your third quote is from Read Contra, I have not heard of them before so looked up their About page, which states that they are 'a network of students and communities around the world dedicated to telling stories that are too bold for tomorrow's paper'. Not to discredit them out of some misinformed sense of elitism but I hope when you are discussing an important topic like the deletion of an article about a genocide (even if you yourself do not accept the term), civilian targeting and arial bombardment and consequent complete destruction of the second largest city in Somalia [link] to choose more reputable academic papers or otherwise sources. Nevertheless your source seem in agreement with my post above:

• They label the war of SNM rightly as 'Somaliland Liberation war':

The complex history of the region of the world loosely defined as Somalia is terrifically embodied in the moment of the 1987-1991 Somaliland Liberation war and also presents a fascinating academic exercise in international human rights legal analysis.

(But that is beside the point, I accept).

• They mention the mass grave sites which the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology team [here] have been excavating of Isaaq victims (the only group mentioned in the discussion of excavation) in your article:

up to 100,000 people are estimated to have lost their lives in the greater Hargeisa area [read Isaaq] as a result of responsive summary executions and aerial bombardments carried out by Barre troops

Note that this is your article I am quoting from above, (no mention of Majeerteen or other groups when discussing excavation or the especially large numbers like 100,000 civilian deaths)

• The findings of that Peruvian Forensic Anthropology in that particular area (Gabiley) of the bodies of at least 20 young Isaaq men who 'had been taken to a hill ridge outside of the town and executed on orders of a notoriously sadistic Barre colonel, Yusuf Abdi Ali (nicknamed "Tukeh")' just for suspicion of their membership of SNM.

Yusuf Abdi Ali, as well as other members of the Siad Barre's regime and collaborators in the campaign against the Isaaq are subject of television CBS News reporting [here] and [here]

Other mentions of the work conducted by the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology team mentioned in your article in relation to Somaliland and the excavation of bodies of Isaaq victims includes:

The EPAF document:

Somaliland was a part of the former Republic of Somalia. For 21 years until his fall, the regime of Mohammed Siad Barre carried out massacres against the people of Somaliland. About 60,000 civilians were killed, thousands were victims of enforced disappearance, and 500,000 individuals were displaced before the declaration of

independence, in 1991. [link]

And some of the press coverage following the excavation of the team is found:

Skeletons uncovered in mass graves in Somalia

One last point about that particular source of yours (Read Contra article), it repeats the same mistake of assuming Majeerteen being a different group to Siad Barre, your sources says ... the Barre government response, carried out by loyal Ogadeni clan militias, against opposition movements led by members of two other major Somali clans, the Majerteen and Isaaq, in the north.

Again, let me emphasis, Siad Barre and Majeerteen belong to the same clan, namely Darod, where as Isaaq is a stand alone clan. Two of your sources so far have made this basic mistake, this is why I urge you to use more established scholarly work and avoid web only articles written by non experts.

Furthermore, the author of the article you are quoting from only mentions the Majeerteen in passing, the discussions of the mass grave sites, excavated bodies of victims, 100,000 deaths, the support of legal director of the Center for Justice and Accountability Kathy Roberts [as reported by CNN], all relate to the Isaaq people's case and not at all about the Majeerteen people, do you dispute this?

And finally, as you accepted, the author agrees that the Barre regime could be responsible for a genocide of the Isaaq and Majeerteen. I emphasise he clearly states the reasons behind his acceptance of Isaaq Genocide in terms of the death toll and scale of clamaity, but did not discuss why he included the Majeerteen or the level to which the government brutalised them.

(1d) You fourth quote comes from published notes of a seminar by a peace foundation affiliated with a university [here]. I question its validity in this discussion as a seminar and notes compiled from it are not equivalent to scholarly discussions and output. Again I express my objection to your sources, ranging from webpages of fiction authors to student articles and now seminar notes, especially when you are asking for the deletion of a well sourced article supported by findings from a United Nations' investigation, Human Rights Watch report, published academic works, United States law precedent and ruling and international media coverage. It shows, with all due respects, that you are clutching at straws in your argument, as it lacks reputable sourcing which explains why you are trying to refute aforementioned sources with seminar notes and quotations from various unrelated web sources.

As for the quote itself, first of all let me complete it for you:

The widespread unrest in the army led to the April 9, 1978 coup attempt. Although its leader, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed was Umar Mahamud, the core group came from various clans including Hawiye and Isaq. However the state repression focused on the Majerten,[7] because from the onset, Siyad Barre had been wary of this clan’s potential threat. He had antagonized the Majerten while working for the Italians in the 1950s, when many radical nationalists came from that clan. The SYL candidate to succeed President Shermarke, assassinated on October 15, 1969, Haji Muse Boqor, belonged to the same sub-clan and many Majerten felt that the top job was stolen from them. Although the original military junta included two Majerten members, Siyad made sure to leave out of the SRC the most prominent colonels belonging to that clan.

This relates to an entirely different episode (1978, where the Isaaq Genocide took place a decade later). And as you can discern from the completed quote above, there were rivalries and competing interests between Siad Barre and the Majeerteen at the time with the SYL candidate being a member of the clan. This is in no way related to the Isaaq Genocide, moreover, I stated above that both Siad Barre and the Majerteen belong to the same clan, this source of yours supports my statement above with the emphasis on Majerteen being a sub-clan rather than a clan, your other sources failed to make this clear and wrote about Majerteen as a seperate clan to Siad Barre's Darod. The framing and context of the discussion when the quote is involving the Majerteen takes a political tone in my opinion when the quote is seen in full. Nevertheless, as I have stated many times, if you feel the brutalization of the Majerteen warrants its own page, and have the sources to document this I am happy for you to start your own page for the Majeerteen.

I hate to dwell on this point, as I believe it does not relate to Isaaq Genocide and the only reason the Majerteen are brought up in this discussion is to dilute the sheer scale of suffering of the Isaaq people, but allow me again to quote from your source, this is the seminar notes, starting from the same page (14):

After describing the aforementioned attack on the Majerteen, the author says:"This was the first "war against his people" launched by Siyad Barre, years before the near annihilation of the Isaaq in the North, and the first time in modern Somali history when the state intervened in the bush not to quell inter-clan warfare but to fuel it.

I stress this again, these are your own sources I am quoting. Please note the mention of 'near annihilation of the Isaaq in the North'[read genocide], the author did not use similar language in describing the attack on Majerteen. This is your own source that you have quoted, now with that in mind, would it satisfy you if the article is titled 'the near annihilation of the Isaaq' as opposed to Isaaq Genocide?

Your following quote deals with he 1960s and 1970s, almost two decades and a decade respectively before the Isaaq Genocide.

I would like to point out that I find it very interesting that your quote cuts off one line above the following:

"By bombing Hargeisa and Burao [read Isaaq cities], indiscriminately killing civilians (15 to 20,000), including columns of displaced people fleeing the combat zone.

Was it just a coincidence that your quote was abruptly cut off just before this line? This smacks of lack of WP:NPOV. Again I am confident the facts, evidence and scholarly output supports my article staying, I would humbly request you rescind your support for the deletion.

The article in question is about a specific event, that is the Isaaq Genocide. I have shown the usage of the term at all levels. I do not dispute nor deny that the Siad Barre regime committed acts of brutalisation against other people, all I am saying is that the targeting of Isaaq was specific and with the aim of total obliteration to Isaaq as a group. To that effect, the article argues, with clearly laid out evidence, that the Isaaq people specifically suffered a targeted campaign with the aim of total obliteration (see my previous post under main request here please). That alone constitutes a stand alone article, provided it is well sourced and abides by Wikipedia's policy of notability, neutrality and verifiability. This article accomplishes all of that. It is presented in a clear manner with all the facts and supporting evidence clearly laid out.

Your argument boils down to the fact that the Siad Barre regime was a dictatorship and that other groups may have also suffered. You fail to prove that the government campaign did not target Isaaq as a group. All the sources you have provided thus far are not of the calibre (either in official or scholar credentials) needed in a request for the deletion of an article.

Remember that the United Nations investigation concluded:

Based on the totality of evidence collected in Somaliland and elsewhere both during and after his mission, the consultant firmly believes that the crime of genocide was conceived, planned and perpetrated by the Somali Government against the Isaaq people of northern Somalia between 1987 and 1989.

This is not said about any other group, not the Majerteen or any others, if you have any reports by UN investigators dealing with other groups I would love to have a look myself. There are no UN reports on any other group concluding with acceptance of a genocide taking place other than the case above with the Isaaq. No widely circulated scholarly work nor anywhere as much coverage in international media as the case with Isaaq. Again this is not said to belittle the suffering of any group, including the Majerteen.

I believe no further evidence is required, but I have provided many more, as outlined above.

For all of the above I can only say that the suggestion for the amalgamation of all subjects related to Somali Government atrocities under one heading is ridiculous to say the least. If you have enough support for other groups to warrant their own page I welcome you to start one. The evidence presented here clearly shows that the Isaaq Genocide as specific to Isaaq is worthy of its own article as it satisfies WP:GNG:

• Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, thus no original research is needed to extract content. This includes United Nation's report, one that specifically uses the term 'genocide', HRW report, many academic and scholarly works, coverage in international media both in print and film.

• Reliable and neutral sources for all claims is provided.
• Secondary sources are provided.
• And they are independent of the subject.

While I do not dispute that other groups may have suffered under the oppressive regime of Siad Barre, based on my reading and the evidence provided above I can not think of any that would actually satisfy all of Wikipedias notability requirements, other than the Isaaq and perhaps some minorities. Do you have any reports by the UN, describing the Majerteen case as a genocide?

As for your rather insulting suggestion that the Isaaq Genocide should be tucked away within the Somali Rebellion page, I would like to invite you to make a similar suggestion to other groups that faced similar calamities, absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention there is quite a bit of self-contradiction when you say "(in fact, I welcome adding text to those pages that argues what the Isaaq suffered was a "genocide"", if you are happy to accept a smaller version tucked away within a different article with text about the Isaaq Genocide, then you should be happy for it to have its own article, but somehow you dont.

You are implying that the sources I have provided and your sources have equal weight in an academic discussion. You have provided these sources to argue the deletion:

• A Wikipedia article WP:NOTSOURCE.
• An article written on the page of an author who writes about the history of climate change and also about science-fiction.
• A student web publication.
• Notes from a Seminar by World Peace Foundation.

(This is said with all due respect to the individual sources, I am just highlighting that they should not be used in this argument).

Where as I presented:

• A report by the United Nations (that used the term genocide). [here]
• A report by Africa Watch, a branch of Human Rights Watch. [here]
• A report by the World Bank. [here]
• A selection of academic and scholarly work on the subject. (I am happy to provide more). [here], [here], [here], [here] and [here].
• An example of wide circulation in international media including The Guardian, The Washington Post and Aljazeera.

With all due respect I do not think you have an argument. You can not win by simply denying the event, or attempting to dilute it by including the possible suffering of others with the claim that it is not unique enough to be a genocide!

(3) You can not use WP:NOR here. The sources were listed for two reason:

• As evidence that the Somali State was specifically targeting Isaaq as a group.
• To show examples of the use of the term genocide in scholarly work and in international media as well as official organisations like the United Nations. I never said or implied that every source I list will use the term genocide. That is quite a nice straw man you built there.

As for your total dismissal of of the body of work of noted genocide scholar Israel Charny (executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem), this is just inexcusable. I would like to point out that Israel Charny was working with almost 100 experts of the subject from many countries. Calling it original research is absolutely ridiculous. To quote you the book's description:

The Encyclopedia of Genocide is the first reference work to chart the full extent of this horrific subject with objectivity and authority. The Nazi Holocaust; the genocides in Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia; and the eradication of indigenous peoples around the world are all covered in A–Z entries, written by almost 100 experts from many countries. [link]

You said:

(This means nothing and is bordering on "Original Research". Other Somali groups suffered comparable atrocities by both state and non-state actors; them not being mentioned does not place the Isaaq clan's terrible suffering ahead of theirs as the only one that was supposedly truly genocidal in nature.)

Another straw man. Neither myself nor the book claimed that no one else suffered in Somalia. You just made that up. What the book states however, like many of the sources including the UN report, is that the Isaaq Genocide was one of three large scale genocides to take place in Africa within that specific period. This does not negate the fact that other groups in Africa (and Somalia) could have suffered massacres and terrible atrocities. In the same breath, the United Nations investigation concluded with the description of the tragedy that befell the Isaaq people as 'genocide', would you accuse the UN of doing "Original Research" too?

What you are doing is very disruptive.

I see that you are happy to hang up on technicalities in the usage of the word "bordered" in your point (7) or "like" in point (8) but I ask you why are you ignoring the specific use of the term "genocide" by the United Nations report? Or academically by Bloxham and Dirk Moses (point 4), or in the Encyclopedia of Genocide, notably as the only case from Somalia (my point 7) or Survival International (point 8), also both The Guardian (point 9), and The Washington Post (point 10)? Or by Aljazeera (points 11a and 11b)?

Your comment is neither being fair nor is it neutral WP:NPOV.

The last source you linked to is the same Seminar notes we have discussed above. Please see my points about it in my reply above. It is not another source as you have used it above and I have replied to your points. We are going in circles here. If you feel you have enough support in sources and citations to start an article about clan cleansing of the Darod (by a Darod president no less!) then by all means go ahead, I do not object to a well sourced article on the subject.

No one in this discussion disputes that the Isaaq people suffered a calamity of great proportions, they do not deny the numbers ranging from 50,000 up to 200,000 civilian deaths, they do not even oppose writing the argument for genocide as a small header within a different page, they are just opposed to the label genocide attached to an article about the specific targeting of a distinct group by the state which resulted in what many -including a UN investigator- referred to as a genocide.

This makes no sense.

Please also note that this article does not in any way deny that minorities or other groups might have suffered under a brutal dictatorship. My argument is simple, the Isaaq people have suffered a highly targeted campaign on them specifically as a group, I have provided, I hope, enough evidence to illustrate as much and I am happy to provide more. It is unacceptable for the three users to deny the Isaaq Genocide and even go on to request the deletion of its article based on a whim, and just because Siad Barre was a brutal dictator that may have brutalised other groups. My argument is that there was a campaign targeted against a distinct group, the Isaaq, this much is notable WP:N, verifiable WP:RELIABLE and neutral WP:NPOV.

I hope you find this sufficient to keep the article. Kzl55 (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

SUPPORT , because the author of the article is trying to make it seem that the Isaaq clan of Somalis solely were targeted by the regime. This is not the case as illustrated above by the many sources provided, the Hawiye and Majerteen suffered the same fate. Secondly the Isaaq are not a different people or ethnic, but are rather Somalis themselves, so the term genocide would not be fitting for the title in accordance with the Encyclopedia Britannica[36]. Furthermore I believe every form of clan cleansing or massacre should be discussed in 1 page as this article could lead to a Pandora box of different pages discussing the atrocities committed to certain Somali clans. The author in this case is trying to portray the Isaaq as different or more special than other Somalis[37], WP:Propaganda.. Last but not least the Isaaq clan are not victims themselves and a combined SNM+Ethiopian unit has mounted attacks on neighboring clans, leveling their main towns to the ground, killing thousands and causing around 80.000 to flee over the border into Ethiopia and killing hundreds of non-combat civilians in the Sanaag region. [38]. --AlaskaLava - 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note, as I have said many times above, I am not 'trying to make it seem' like anything. The UN report as well as many other sources including a Human Rights Watch report as well as a World Bank report and many academic books as well as world media agree that Isaaq Genocide did indeed take place. The UN report, following an investigation concludes as much, even with the explicit use of the word genocide in the report.

Is the UN also trying to make it seem like the Isaaq were targeted?

Again I make the distinction, the Isaaq were absolutely targeted, I do not think anyone in this page disputes this. Whether other groups (like the Majerteen as stated by the editors above) were also targeted is beside the point of this article. If you accept that the Isaaq were targeted by the state then please rescind your support for the deletion. I did not claim that the Isaaq were the only group that was targeted. Please see my other replies above. I have just stated with enough evidence that:

• The Isaaq were targeted as a distinct group by the state (others may have also been targeted and I have invited them to start a page if they have enough support in citations).
• That the UN report accepts that there was a genocide committed on the Isaaq
• That "terms (such as genocide) are regularly used" in describing the Isaaq Genocide

Do you disagree with any of the above?

If not then I ask you to please rescind your support for the deletion of the article. Articles should not be deleted because we disagree with them. There are many articles that I completely disagree with, but I am happy for them to exist provided they are well sourced, verifiable and neutral in tone.

I disagree with you about the following:

as this article could lead to a Pandora box of different pages discussing the atrocities committed to certain Somali clans

We should not just blanket ban all articles out of fear of opening Pandora's box of different pages discussing alleged atrocities. If there is enough evidence they should be discussed and opened up. If there is enough scholarly support for Majerteen then they too should have a page. Blanket ban on all articles about the subject or forcing of amalgamation is not right, I hope you can see as much.

Last but not least this discussion is specifically about the case for Isaaq Genocide. I will be happy to discuss other events in Somali history elsewhere but focusing on the issue at hand, for now, is very important.

Again I ask you to rethink your stance and read my posts above, I am not in anyway against other people having their own page if they have a case, this includes any group from the region. I think the posts I have made are very clear and the evidence is very sufficient. Please rescind your support for the deletion. Kzl55 (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to admins. I was surprised by the quick succession of posts that support editor AcidSnow in his request to delete this article. I know (from just reading the articles, and by the lack of participation in other discussions) that the population of editors of Somali origin or interested in Somali subjects is not large on Wikipedia, so I checked the activities of editor AcidSnow and found that they have solicited the responses from both editor AlaskaLava [here] and editor Soupforone [here]. As I am new to Wikipedia, and assuming in WP:AGF that this was a normal practice, I went ahead and left a couple of messages for users that have edited Somali pages in the past.

I have just read that this practice is forbidden WP:NOSOLICIT on Wikipedia:

It is considered highly inappropriate to recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they can support your side of a debate in Wikipedia or to instigate group support in a disruptive manner

While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new/experienced editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, to illustrate a point or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged

This is particularly surprising as the editor AcidSnow has been active on Wikipedia since 2013!

Would this be considered Meatpuppetry? Genuine question.

With view of this passage:

Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices, or to introduce any non-verifiable evidences that users have failed too support.

And in light of the soliciting of views mentioned above, I hope the admin looks at the policy related points, I believe I satisfy all of them in the article and in my arguments for keeping the page, rather than simply the number of votes in support of deletion and the assumed consensus based on the three posts above.

I shall delete the messages I left in talk pages now Kzl55 (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)