Talk:Awdal

Awdal demographics

User:Dabaqabad

Hi,

If you wish to add further references to the demographics section please do so without removing the existing sources which unequivocally state Gadabuursi make up the overwhelming majority in Awdal without justification. Secondly the source you quoted states the Dir (Gadabursi and Ciise) clan live in Sool, so there is an issue with its accuracy. Thirdly, the source you used also states Gadabursi live in Gabiley and have frequent land disputes with the Isaaq there. So in the interest of fairness, if you wish to add your source here, I will reciprocate and add it in Wajaale and Gabiley pages, which I'm sure you won't have an issue with. Rest assured, I have numerous sources for Gabiley and Wajaale, so I wont have a problem adding them all. I look forward to your response.

Regards, Wadamarow (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad

Just to follow up from earlier, as per the Wikipedia guidelines, you would need to add several sources to change the demographics, as Gadabursi being the majority clan in Awdal Region is an established and well known view. While Isaaq presence in "Eastern Awdal" isn't, so please add several sources if you wish to justify this claim and override our existing demographics section. Regards https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

Wadamarow (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wadamarow:,

According to my source Isaaqs reside in eastern Awdal. Awdal is overwhelmingly Gadabursi, that is not disputed at all. Wikipedia guidelines don't state how many sources you need before you add something on Wikipedia. I attempted to remove the blockquotes since too many quotes are against Wikipedia guidelines however I did deleted some sources by accident.

The source also does not state that the Gadabursi inhabit territory in Gabiley or Wajaale, but rather mentions a land dispute. Land ownership does not equal the presence of a clan. Wikipedia is not a place where tit-for-tat is practiced.

I will add my source back and decrease the amount of blockquotes to 3; two for Gadabuursi's presence and one for Isaaq. Hopefully that should be enough.

Many thanks, Dabaqabad (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

As I have stated above, according to Wikipedia guidelines you must bring several sources to override an established fact, in this case Isaaq living in Eastern Awdal. You have provided only once source, which also states Dir live in Sool, which also weakens the reliability of your claim. I also am not aware of any rule which states there are fixed number of block quotes, in any case you're unjustifiably removing sources. As for your Gabiley point, your source isn't the only one which states Gadabursi live in Gabiley I have a dozen sources here are just a small selection I have listed.

1.Dostal, Walter (2005). Shattering Tradition: Custom, Law and the Individual in the Muslim Mediterranean. p. 296.: 2.Countries That Aren't Really Countries, page 22. 3.Cahiers d'études africaines - Volume 37, Page 360: 4. Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Somalia: Information on the situation of Gadabursi clan members in Gebileh in, north west of Somaliland, 1 May 1994, SOM17272.E. 5. https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6acef58.html

So I won't have to rely on your source, I have my own. I will revert the edits you have removed and until you can bring a significant number of sources which state Isaaq presence in Eastern Awdal please do not tamper with this page again. The Wikipedia guidelines are crystal clear regarding this point. Regards. Wadamarow (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad Wadamarow (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad Hi, I have removed your edits and restored the previous version due to the fact that it's an exceptional claim not backed by multiple sources. While your other Lughaya source made no reference to Isaaq inhabiting that region, you attributed something which the source did not state. Please remain professional and do not tamper with sources as this goes against Wikipedia rules and regulations. Regards, Wadamarow (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My source is very reliable as it was commissioned by the UNICEF. I will add more sources too to back this up. None of the sources you mentioned claim Gadabuursi inhabit the Gabiley area natively. I do not dispute the fact Gadabuursi dominate the Awdal region, I'm merely adding the presence of another clan in the region's eastern periphery. Filling a section with blockquotes is against Wikipedia guidelines per WP:QUOTEFARM.

"So I won't have to rely on your source, I have my own. I will revert the edits you have removed and until you can bring a significant number of sources which state Isaaq presence in Eastern Awdal please do not tamper with this page again"

You do not own the page, neither do I, so I suggest you desist from threatening me. You cannot tell a fellow Wikipedian not to improve a page. You need to assume good faith per Wikipedia guidelines and stop reverting without a reason. This is not a zero sum game. I have the right to add sourced content to any page. I have not tampered with any sources, stop accusing me of something I haven't done. Dabaqabad (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad

I'll remind you once again, the Wikipedia guidelines state you must bring multiple sources to override an established fact. You have only one source which suggests Isaaq live in Eastern Awdal, please follow the guidelines. Your source also claims Dir live in Sool, which as any person who has even the most basic knowledge of Somaliland region demographics knows is completely false. Secondly you have also created a fake reference, the source does not state Isaaq live in Lughaya yet you have added it. Tampering with references is against Wikipedia guidelines, I assumed you were editing in good faith until I saw you tampering with references. I also never threatened you, please refrain from accusations and dramatic language, I'm merely reminding you about the rules and regulations of Wikipedia which you are in violation of. You're absolutely right neither of us own this page or any other page for that matter, but we have a duty to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Tampering with references and not using multiple sources to override exceptional claims fall outside of the regulations. I will restore the previous version until you can satisfy the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, Regards. Wadamarow (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad I'm also not sure you've read my Gabiley references, all of them explicitly state Gadabursi inhabit Gabiley district and even the town. Your qualifier of "natively" inhabiting Gabiley makes no sense here and they are more numerous and detailed than your non existant Lughaya source. Regards, Wadamarow (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad Just to clear up which rule you're in violation. The guidelines state;

Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

You must add a number of sources if you wish to include Isaaq living in Awdal in the demographics section. Simply adding one sourve ( which includes errors) and anothered tampered sources won't be enough to justify an edit in the demographics section. Thanks Wadamarow (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Sool is not relevant in this discussion. My source clearly states Isaaqs are present in eastern Awdal, which I added accordingly. I did fix the Lughaya issue and replaced it with Baki district (not the town itself) given that it's the eastern most district of Awdal that borders Saaxil. I have not tampered with any reference, while you're deleting mine. That doesn't sound like assuming good faith, especially with your language ("tamper" as if I'm vandalising the page). Stop accusing me and assume good faith. Your argument does not apply to this situation either as that is for mainstream topics like medicine, history or politics. Not applicable at all nor is it related to this.

I did add another source just now that backed up this as well. Until you can give me a legitimate reason to revert my edit I will restore that version, which is in accordance with WP:QUOTEFARM unlike your version.

As for Gabiley, this has been discussed before where a consensus has been reached. You'll need to establish a new consensus if you want to add your claims to Gabiley, which are dubious at best. talk page here.

I also want to remind you that you have reached your third revert for today. Per WP:3RR you cannot revert more than three times every 24 hours. Just a a friendly reminder :)

Many thanks, Dabaqabad (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wadamarow:,

I reworded the sentence since I read through the source and no district in particular is mentioned. Thought I'd just let you know. Let me know if you're okay with the new wording.

Many thanks, Dabaqabad (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wadamarow: You're in violation of WP:3RR. Do a self revert and please stop removing sourced content. Dabaqabad (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad The Sool edit is relevant to this discussion since your source claims Dir (Gadabursi and Ciise) live there. If you believe Dir live in Sool, accept it on record that we live there. Your source states Isaaq live in Eastern Awdal, you will need to bring numerous sources to prove your claim as per the Wikipedia guidelines. A consensus has been reached on the Awdal demographics and until you bring a significant number of sources and can exceptionally beyond reasonable doubt prove Isaaq live in Awdal I will revert it to the previous version. I'm glad you were in violation of the rules by tampering with the source and claiming it stated Isaaq live in Lughaya when it didn't. It also doesn't state you live in Baki, therefore I will keep the previous version. The source you are using does not qualify as an exceptional claim. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings. Thanks, Wadamarow (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wadamarow: Again, you have broken WP:3RR and are in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. Please do a self revert. Per Wikipedia guidelines:

"Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly"

I brought up two reliable sources that you keep removing. There is no consensus at the moment regarding the article, I checked it's talk page and there's nothing there. Again Sool is irrelevant to this discussion, stop rejecting reliable sources. Both the British Somaliland census as well as the other source confirm an Isaaq presence in eastern Awdal. Dabaqabad (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad I'm once again reminding you, the Wikipedia guidelines state you must bring numerous sources to make an exceptional claim. You haven't done so. Since we cannot come to an agreement we should let a 3rd party mediate our dispute, there is absolutely no use going back and forth. You only have one source and the fact that you keep refusing to answer my Sool question proves to me you don't accept the accuracy of the source you are using. If you accept its accuracy just answer this simple question, does the Dir clan as stated in your source live in the Sool region? I await your answer and hope to resolve our issue through a 3rd party. Many thanks, Wadamarow (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I brought two sources and I'm ready to bring more however you keep preventing me from doing so with your edit warring and lack of cooperation. If you don't agree with what a source says that's entirely up to you, however, this is an encyclopedia, a neutral ground. I will have to file a report for this as I don't think you're interested in a serious dialogue given your edit warring and bending of the rules. Dabaqabad (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

You have only brought 1 source, while the second does not state what you're claiming it does. You're again refusing to answer basic questions and engage in basic dialogue, I have asked you repeatedly to let a 3rd party mediate yet you refuse and make bogus complaints against me. I will once again ask you, does the Dir clan as stated in your source live in the Sool region? If you answer no you have just compromised the accuracy of your source, and your refusal to answer tells me you know this is the case. I left that for the 3rd party who will mediate between us and can see you're not acting in good faith here. Regards Wadamarow (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, User:Dabaqabad

I just wanted to add some further comments regarding my objection to the source used by you and context around procedural claims.

The source used is titled Beyond Fragility: A Conflict and Education Analysis of the Somali Context. The source makes a number of factually incorrect claims which I will highlight below.

On page 158, in table 15 the report states that the city of Berbera is located in the Awdal Region. This is demonstrably false, according to the Somaliland government which is the ruling entity, Berbera is part of the Sahil region. This is also confirmed by numerous academic, NGO and other credible governmental sources listed under the Berbera city Wikipedia entry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbera

On the same page and also in table 15, the report then goes on to state that the district of Gabiley falls under the Awdal Region. This is again false, Gabiley district is part of the Maroodi Jeex region. This is again backed up by sources from the Somaliland government and other credible 3rd parties. The sources can be found under the Gabiley city Wikipedia entry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabiley Based on the facts established above, claiming Isaaq live in "Eastern Awdal" would be false since Eastern Awdal here is considered as Gabiley district by the report. This sums up my objection with this highly inaccurate source. When I pointed out my contention above you appealed to authority and claimed the report was co-authored by UNICEF therefore must be correct. I hope you can see the fallacious reasoning your argument is built on.

Therefore, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, given the factual and demonstrable inaccuracy of the source, I suggested you should bring another. As Wikipedia editors we have a responsibility to use accurate sources and uphold the integrity of the pages we edit.

I also reminded you of the Wikipedia guidelines.

Per WP:Exceptional, WP: Extraordinary and WP:Ecree, your content would require multiple mainstream sources to offset the 5 that have been on the page that doesn't factor or mention the point in which you are advancing. Given the factual inaccuracies of the report I've listed above, you have not satisfied the Wikipedia guidelines

The second source you used is listed here. https://www.faoswalim.org/resources/Land/General_Survey_Somaliland_Protectorate_1944-1950.pdf

The report does not state Isaaq inhabit Eastern Awdal, when this report was commissioned in 1950 the Awdal Region did not exist in its current form, so not only are you adding sources which do not state what you claim, you are tampering with the source. Because the term "Eastern Awdal" is not mentioned in this 100+ page report about the British protectorate. I hope that once again clears up my objections, and in future please be careful of tampering with sources as that's a major violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

Regards.

Wadamarow (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Wildly inaccurate figures

Please undo the following revision because it gives population figures that are not believable. Does the region really have as many people as China?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awdal&diff=next&oldid=716450935 2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:750E:CEC9:2759:1972 (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks IP! --Hemantha (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: Thank you for changing it back and then fixing that ref. 2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:3161:5743:507:874B (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Government

Awdul has 13 seats in the Somaliland parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.222.51 (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Population

@Wadamarow: I saw your edit. I wrote the population as 576,543 based on source, but you reverted. Please tell me the reason for this. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Freetrashbox: This was an accident on my part, I was reverting unsourced vandalism from other editors on this page. Wadamarow (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the description. However, vandalism is not a good expression. Remember that your discussion partner is not trying to vandalize, but is also trying to improve Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Freetrashbox (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion to sort out all the contentious changes that have been made the last few months

Please keep the discussion civilised as WP:CT/HORN applies here
The first change
The first contentious edit was this edit on 3 September by Abdihakimper (which was reverted by MustafaO, readded by Abdihakimper and reverted by Achmad Rachmani) where they changed the total area number in the infobox from 16294 to 21,374, which itself was a revert of this this edit by Siirski from December 2021 that changed the number added in this edit by Thricecube in November 2015.
My take on this
From what I can see, there hasn't been a reliable source for this in the article. From what I can find on the web, 21374 seems to be the right number. Google Search: Awdal area size 21374/Awdal area size 16294
The second change
The second contentious edit was this edit by Abdihakimper (which was reverted by Achmad Rachmani)
My take on this
The edit was clearly disruptive and should have been reverted.
The third change
The third contentious change were Abdihakimper's edits between 18 and 30 October which changed some infobox details (some of which are still in the article). They added a reference called the Population Estimation Survey 2019, which I can nowhere find it exists. The later edits were partially reverted by MustafaO, which then spiralled into an edit war between the two.
My take on this
There's no indication that the source exists, which is why I would revert all the changes as unsourced.
The fourth change
On 31 October Hawkers994 added a sentence in this edit, which was reverted by MustafaO, which was followed by an edit war with 24 edits each in a day. Later MustafaO added some references to disprove Hawkers addition.
My take on this
The source clearly exists (and has been requested here) Which makes Mustafa's edits look like a WP:OFFLINE problem. He's argued that WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies here. The references he added in his edit all basically say that "Habar Awal isn't a Main Sub-clan in Awdal". I'd say leave it in the article until someone has confirmed that his reference is accurate (or isn't). This honestly doesn't sound like that big an issue to leave in the article until it has been confirmed.
Pinging: @Abdihakimper, @MustafaO, @Hawkers994, @Thricecube, @Siirski, @Achmad Rachmani, @ScottishFinnishRadish
PS: Abdihakimper has been indefinitly page-blocked for their edits. Nobody (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

1AmNobody24 thanks for clearing things up finally, as I’ve stated before the source does indeed exist and has been verified by yourself, as to why the other user is denying its existence cannot be understood. understandably there are many communities in this region and each shall be mentioned in the article with sources. Hawkers994 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to find yourself a useful source of information about Awdal. You are not contributing to Wikipedia, only commenting on the sources people have found. If you are giving your opinion from a neutral point of view, it still has value, but as we can see from your editorial history, your attitude is always Somaliland-biased. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually i found this source from the same book he has himself used many times, you yourselves have been involved in numerous edit wars and most of your edits are unproductive to be honest. Hawkers994 (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That can be seen by looking at each other's edit history. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Also for the last change. Using Google books you can find this. Nobody (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

For some reason the search function doesnt work for me. However moving beyond this issue, one of the best ways to confirm the accuracy of a reference is to corroborate it with other citations and references.

All of these references that speak on the subject do not mention that the Habar Awal/Isaaq inhabit the Awdal Region:

These are purely references speaking about the inhabitants of Awdal:

1. Ambroso, G (2002). Pastoral society and transnational refugees:population movements in Somaliland and eastern Ethiopia 1988 - 2000 [[]]

2. Samatar, Abdi I. (2001) "Somali Reconstruction and Local Initiative: Amoud University," Bildhaan: An International Journal of Somali Studies: Vol. 1, Article 9 - [[]]

3. Battera, Federico (2005). "Chapter 9: The Collapse of the State and the Resurgence of Customary Law in Northern Somalia". Shattering Tradition: Custom, Law and the Individual in the Muslim Mediterranean - [[]]

4. UN (1999) Somaliland: Update to SML26165.E of 14 February 1997[[]]

5. Renders, Marleen; Terlinden, Ulf. "Chapter 9: Negotiating Statehood in a Hybrid Political Order: The Case of Somaliland". In Tobias Hagmann; Didier Péclard (eds.). Negotiating Statehood: Dynamics of Power and Domination in Africa - [[]]

6. Consider Somaliland

7. Negotiating Statehood

8. [[1]]

9. [[2]]

10. [[3]]

11. Countries That Aren't Really Countries - [[4]]

12. Society, Security, Sovereignty and the State in Somalia

13. [[5]]

All these citations mention the inhabitants and do not include the content mentioned by the other user. Therefore it is WP:EXTRAORDINARY and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. That one source which is an E-book doesn't qualify for the content. If the user can qualify his content with additional citations then that would put an end to this discussion. But it seems like clawing onto one source to gasp at something not even tentative is flagrant and vandal like.

Also I would like to add that it should be imperative to discuss how the actual content he claims it states does or does not conform with the information added into the page. Like User:Freetrashbox mentioned earlier, the user has a motivation to amplify certain communities in the Somaliland related topics even with flimsy citations. Just a look at some of his edits can be easily seen to push certain narratives.

MustafaO (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC) MustafaO (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean “For some reason the search function doesnt work for me.” When 1AmNobody24 posted the direct book quote link HERE are you lying again.?

Here are some of the absurd things you said about the book which you’ve never read in these discussions which you even used yourself many times .

—” Does it even show anything when you open it? Exactly. It's fraudulent”

-” Having a look at the citation is enough. It doesn't even work”

You even asked the Admins to “

-“Please have a look at the citation.”

And when they did and confirmed it was correct here you are still confused.

then you lied again and said

“ I scoured for the content inside the book which is partially available and couldn't find anything inside the book using the search function in the link regarding the content he added on the Awdal page.”

and when @1AmNobody24 posted the direct book quote HERE and verified it you’re once again diverting to something else Hawkers994 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a convenient way to completely ignore a very lengthy post. It's an online E-book and therefore isnt accessible for everyone mind you. If it is accessible for some users then bringing the entire subject matter and content in the citation for discussion is the reasonable approach.

Having said that, it still has many problems. Amongst those is that it is an exceptional claim that contradicts multiple sources that speak about the subject. Every book, journal, resource that speaks about the subject matter does NOT include the Habr Awal as a clan that inhabits Awdal Region. I already cited many sources in this discussion which are more recent citations post 2000s where the single source you use is an old 90s source.

They all state the Habar Awal only live in Waqooyi Galbeed which is know as Maroodi Jeex:

"Main sub-clan(s) Habr Awal, Region(s): Waqooyi Galbeed, Main districts: Gabiley, Hargeisa, Berbera".[[]]

I'll add another for good measure (2012) that states the ONLY minority clans that live in Awdal are the Ciise and Gabooye. Check yourself.[[]]

I added 13 similar references already. All of the other citations mention the same thing. You need to bring more citations as what you are pushing goes against multiple sources and the fact that you've been pushing this hard shows that m your post is politically motivated at worse. Also given your editing history it doesn't surprise me.

MustafaO (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC) MustafaO (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to add in addition to my previous answer, the citations I just added which are numerous speak about the Awdal Region and it's inhabitants and not even one mentions the Habar Awal/Isaaq. So this applies:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

This includes: "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"

Additional citations would be a start if the content that is being pushed is true. The content being pushed seems like an act of extreme stretching at best and a possibly specifically motivated edit at worst.

MustafaO (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

@1AmNobody24

The closest thing we got to an agreement was when the other editor said: "I will be exploring more sources before the expiration date of the protective edit in the article ends"

My proposal since the beginning of the discussion has been very fair which is to remove the content until until multiple explicit sources that state Habr Awal/Isaaq inhabit Awdal is found per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Given what has been mentioned so far, he should be advised to do the research and come back once he finds the suitable sources WP:RELIABILITY. This is a lifeline, it's not a penalisation that I'm calling for. If he feels so strongly about it how difficult should it be to find online, he should relish for the opportunity? I found many of my own sources that I used in minutes.

The burden of proof is on him to bring the sources. Until then the content shouldn't remain. That's not only for this specific page but for any other page on Wikipedia.

MustafaO (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

@1AmNobody24 There is no need to remove cited source from the article, User:MustafaO first denied it didn’t exist, and when he has been proven wrong, he said to bring another source, and when the second source was brought you said it’s not acceptable because it’s written in somali, even though there are somali sources used on the actual Awdal article. My proposal was to explore more sources before the expiration date of the protective edit is lifted. Once then it can be re worded or stay permanently while other sources are explored until then it should stay.

Hawkers994 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If an old citation contradicts multiple sources then per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:RELIABILITY, multiple sources are needed. The content remaining is WP:UNDUE. The significant coverage on the page does not correspond with the quality of citation used given it contradicts multiple sources.

You are quite confident of the veracity of the information you put up, therefore you should have no problem finding the citations and sources. It shouldn't matter to you whether or not the content remains because according to you the content is absolutely correct. In that case please go and get multiple sources which mention of Habar Awal in Awdal in no uncertain terms similar to the citations I bought.

MustafaO (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There are other demographic communities that are also mentioned in the article with just one source like the dir and isse, even thought i have provided 2 sources for mine, original one, and the other which was as recent as 2016 which you deny both. Keep in mind that WP:IMPARTIAL says “Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.” Which is exactly what the UN study confirmed and was backed by the 2nd source. Hawkers994 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it's about time for an WP:RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

Could you please add and attach this discussion to the RFC. So that we dont have to rewrite all of the points made here?

MustafaO (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Your source #1 talks about Main Districts of the clans, it doens't say that they are only in those districts. Source #2 I don't find anything about demographics of Awdal in it. Got a page number for me? Same for #3. Source #4 says "With the exception of two sparsely-inhabited pockets of Ciise and Issaq, the Gadabuursi clan dominates Awdal region". Since it doesn't go into details, it's possible that with Issaq it could also mean it's Sub-Clans. #5 Says "It is primarily inhabited by the three sub-clans of the Gadabursi", with a note saying "There is only a small minority of Ciisse and a few other minorities, such as the Gaboye, but discussing their role would go beyond the scope of this paper." So it's also possible here that they're a part of the 'few other minorities'. Nobody (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, User:1AmNobody24 and I respect that completely, but in that case clear citations of "Habr Awal" inhabits the Awdal Region in no uncertain terms should be used and easily cited since that is the content being given significant due on the page. The content on the page is clearly overkill in that case if we were to deduce possibilities and hypothesis based on whether they may or may not constitute a demographic based on inference that doesn't mention them in addition to this one old citation. I imagine the endless possibilities and unending issues that can result.

Regarding the citations:

1. The same citation states the Gadabursi clan inhabits an area 'partly' indicating their minority status. The fact that Habar Awal aren't included even as a minority in Awdal by the author is significant.

2. I will get another source, I added many in a rush. Please verify and see the others aswell.

3. This is the correct citation and link to the book: [[6]] Please type in "Awdal is mainly inhabited by the Gadabuursi confederation of clans" and the it will come up on Google Books. It is easily verifiable.

4 and 5. Regarding this, that is all the more need for clear citations. If the content on the page is important enough to the point that it will be given even an entire sentence, then using one old citation and inferring possible hypothesis from other citations that do not mention them by name at all, I feel is WP:UNDUE. My contention is clear, if the content should stand it should have at least a few, maybe 2 citations at the least? I think that would be fair considering they're not mentioned by name in the plethora of sources I provided speaking about the subject. Also I added many other citations from No. 6 onwards. If there was a mistake in any citation I will look to it. As for No.2 I will look into it.

MustafaO (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:1AmNobody24

1. "While the Isaaq were at war with eachother, governance in Awdal developed independently. Upon Egal's accession to power, the Gadabursi elders agreed to have Awdal's governance structures insert themselves into Somaliland's." Source: [[7]]

Note: The Habar Awal are a subclan of the wider Isaaq clan. Governance in Awdal was not connected in anyway to the Isaaq as the region was considered foreign before being integrated into Somaliland.

2. "Next to the three subclans of the Gadabursi, a small minority of Ciisse inhabits Awdal." Source: [[8]]

3. "The referendum, marred by irregularities, was also rejected in some parts of the Awdal Region of the Gadabursi clan." Source: [[9]]

4. "Gadabursi being the major descent group in the Awdal region." Source: [[10]]

5. "The Isaaq are concentrated primarily in the regions of Maroodi Jeex, Sanaag, Gabiley, Togdheer and Saaxil. The Gadabuursi inhabit the west, pre-dominantly in Awdal, the Zeila district of Salal and parts of Gabiley." Source: [[11]]

Note that the Gadabursi are considered to inhabit parts of Gabiley yet the Isaaq and Habar Awal in particular arent given the same status in Awdal even as a minority.

6. "Awdal (Gadabuursi - nine members), Burao (Isaq - nine members), Hargeisa (Isaq - nine members)." Source: [[12]]

Note: These seats are for native clans. The Habar Awal which is part of the Isaaq clan is not included in local politics in Awdal as they are not considered an inhabitant of the region. This was the model based on clan demographics in Somaliland.

7. "The higher level of capacity in Awdal can be attributed to the relatively homogeneous clan identity in the province, which also facilitated collective decision making in councils of elders. Furthermore, the locally dominant Gadabursi clan developed a particular 'Shared Mental Model' that positioned it as a broker between rivaling interests among the Issaq, the majority clan of Somaliland." Source: [[13]]

None of the sources I provided mention that the Habar Awal (Isaaq) live in Awdal even as a minority clan. Where the same sources give credence and mention of minority clans in the regions and districts of Somaliland. That is what would validate giving significant due. My contention is that there should be at least some, maybe 2 citations(?) that clearly state the Habr Awal (Isaaq) inhabiting Awdal in no uncertain terms. Otherwise one old citation or inference or possibilities that is not mentioned in the absolute majority of citations is undue. Also I would strongly encourage research. If I'm wrong then the whole Internet is available. It isn't a subject matter that is hidden in journals or books or online accessibility. Quick research would suffice to put this to an end.

MustafaO (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Having edited this page over the past week as well as previously since I joined Wiki in 2021, I'd also like to add my two cents on this.

Firstly, I agree with both MustafaO and Freetrashbox that Hawkers994 has shown partisan bias not just by his actions on this page but also other pages when the topic concerns Somaliland. The main point of contention here is the reference in question which claims Habar Awal inhabit the Awdal Region. I don't think this reference should be on the page for several reasons, first the source is from 1997 and it makes the claim that ″Though they have relatively little historical presence in the region, the Isaaq are playing a growing role in two areas of Awdal.″ Since this piece was published there are several other sources which MustafaO listed that either contradict or make no reference to Habar Awal nor Isaaq presence in Awdal published between the years of 1998 to 2012. Secondly, the other clan which lives in Awdal the Issa, are mentioned not just in the standalone reference here [[14]] but are also corroborated by several other sources.

Taking these two points into account, I agree with MustafaO that it does not make sense to include the reference on the page, particularly since it's being directly contradicted in the next sentence. As editors we should keep in mind readers want to be informed when browsing these articles, they should not be confused by a conflicting minority view when the bulk of scholarship on this topic suggests the Isaaq do not inhabit the region. Wadamarow (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point it looks like the best option is to agree that the source should be removed since it seems inaccurate (Guess even an United Nations Development Office can screw up). Then the only question left about this part would be: @Hawkers994 Do you agree with removing the part about the Habar Awal until a better source is found? Nobody (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:1AmNobody24 why should a cited source from the UN be removed because 1 individual doesn’t agree with it, Once again changing the subject from theres no presence to who is the majority in the region. We are not discussing who is the majority in the region as evident from the article itself. We are discussing the presence of certain communities in this region, which sources have clearly showed, and indicated that these communities are present. Inhabiting towns and villages along the eastern coast of awdal such as lughaya where the Habr awal live and even had an MP representing them a while back [[15]] the source in the book further states that “ “habar awal has been in conflict with the gadabursi over land rights. The second area of isaaq concerns in Awdal has been along the coast in Luqaya districts; there isaaq traders and pastoralists have established greater presence “ keep in mind pastoralists are land based who have farms and land and are not nomadic. Hawkers994 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You're still depending on one old citation that goes against multiple sources and you want significant coverage on the page based on that. That is WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia states WP:EXCEPTIONAL is due in such circumstances meaning additional citations. But given your previous history it doesn't surprise me. Your entire edit history is based on a narrow political view.

MustafaO (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994 we aren't talking about the majority. We are talking about the fact that there seems to be no reliable sources to back up your claim. If you have other reliable sources to back it up post them. That part with the MP is irrelevant, one person doesn't represent a noteworthy demographic. Also stop calling it a book, it's a case study and appearantly not a reliable one. Nobody (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

He used a random website in another language to make a point. Despite it not being true, I have the citation and bought it already to show that all members of the cabinet representing the region all came from one community. I already provided it. It's almost absurd. But that's the whole point, it's supposed to be clutching at straws. It's all the hallmarks of a vandal edit, use a flimsy citation to maximize coverage/content significantly.

MustafaO (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

But its used in the actual Awdal article by other editors as source unless you’re saying everything from that source should be deleted since it’s apparently not reliable Hawkers994 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I already answered this. That one source was used as a corroborative source that adds weight to the other sources. It isn't used as a primary isolated and lone reference which is what you want to use it for. I'm all in favour of not using it at all. It is precisely WP:NOTRS

Yes, if we get rid of it, it doesn't change any of the original content in the article because there is multiple corroborative sources that show the actual demographics. If you get rid of it, nothing changes. However you used that old source as a primary sole reference with the intention to give significant coverage on the Awdal page even though it isn't corroborated elsewhere. That is the hallmark of a vandal edit.

MustafaO (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:1AmNobody24 He will definitely not agree given how much he has been edit warring on the page and using this one citation to give undue significant coverage to a politically motivated edit. However regarding his argument that the same source is used elsewhere in the page is not a sound argument. Reason being that source is used only as a corroborative additional citation to other citations that state the same thing. It isn't a fringe or isolated reference giving undue weight. If we get rid of it, there is still a plethora of citations that can be used. Whereas he is using the citation primarily and cannot back it up with additional citations. The difference is clear.

MustafaO (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:1AmNobody24

I don't think there is any justification in allowing that content to remain. It is clearly an attempt to force through an edit with significant coverage on the page based on a contradictory and unreliable citation that goes against multiple sources and citations. Fringe opinions only confuse and do not inform.

MustafaO (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

there is no reason why this edit should be deleted as it’s clearly documented by the UN, also other editors who currently aren't present should be given time to expressed their views on this matter from wider community. You will also need to differentiate between a vandal edit and a backed edit with source. One opinion doesn’t change the facts on the ground, confusing with who is present and who is majority in the region is not the topic. There are numerous even some unnamed communities in the region. Hawkers994 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Any other editor who disagrees can simply bring the additional references and edit the page. That is what the encyclopedia is for. This isn't a show of hands. If you or any other editor have any contention bring clear and explicit sources. It shouldn't be so difficult if you feel like it should receive significant and noteworthy coverage on the page. But you're clutching at straws and trying to forcefully push your edit mainly because you are fully aware that what you want to cite contradicts multiple sources that speak on the issue. Habr Awal in Awdal should not be difficult to research if you feel this strongly. Go and do the research. There is plenty of material online and in libraries. Ohh and just to mention, just because the UN sponsored any research report doesn't necessarily mean it's always correct. Can you even bring 2 sources to corroborate your content?

MustafaO (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Its actually for you to contact who ever did the study and refute it, you have their details in-fact you should get in touch with them and find out the reason behind them reporting this report. As gadabursi only settle in the western parts of Awdal and not in areas of Awdal mentioned. Pushing an edit without source is thats forceful, but you yourself used this same report in the article which you now claim is incorrect, which you used only the parts that suit you while saying other sections are wrong Hawkers994 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems you don't have any other source and want to stretch out the discussion to cover up for it.

Im not interested in taking this beyond it's due course. In fact I think it should absolutely not ever have reached this far. You need to read this WP:RSUW:

"Corroboration— Do the conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight

This is especially the case when you provide a a standalone citation or reference that is contradicted by multiple mainstream sources. The onus is on you. Please bring the sources. Even just 2. Your argument regarding why that same source is being used elsewhere is not my issue. My understanding is that it is used as corroborative evidence and not as a primary standalone evidence, meaning that even if we decide as editors to get rid of it completely it will not impact the content as it is cemented and supplemented with multiple sources. However, your usage of it is as a primary and lone source to push significant coverage on the page is WP:UNDUE. I'd be glad to get rid of it. It's an old source that contradicts multiple sources. I don't think it should even be used.

MustafaO (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:EXTRAORDINARY states “ accounts written by people who are directly involved.” This source report was carried out by the UN who were directly on the ground when this report to be done. I’ve also posted another link which highlights the link of this community to Awdal region, when you say its an old source it’s actually recent from 2017, it seems you have now just resorted to saying it’s an all source. Hawkers994 (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Have a read:

"Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources".

And

"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

You want to use a citation that contradicts multiple sources. I've requested countless times for you to produce corroborative evidence but you cannot because you want to push a vandal edit. Which other link did you post? If you meant that ridiculous tabloid state run newspaper in another language then you must be kidding? Surely?

Read this: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources and Wikipedia:Perennial sources

"State-associated or state-controlled news organisations, especially state media in countries with low press freedom, such as the Chinese press agency Xinhua, the North Korean Korean Central News Agency and Press TV in Iran. They may be propaganda organisations. RT, formerly known as Russia Today, and other Russian government-funded sources like Sputnik News have also been described as propaganda outlets for the government."

Please go and bring credible sources. Don't insult the integrity of the community by attempting to pass off a foreign language tabloid piece as a citation for Wikipedia in English. I wonder what you would do if editors asked you to use Google translate. It doesn't surprise me that you would given your history of politically motivated edits. Go and read WP:PUS. As for the source that you've been pushing, it's from 90's [[16]].

MustafaO (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks and personalized commentary. Discuss the content, not the editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok will do, he has also been doing quite similar. But I digress you're absolutely right. Thanks for the reminder.

MustafaO (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994 Its actually for you to contact who ever did the study and refute it, you have their details in-fact you should get in touch with them and find out the reason behind them reporting this report. That's wrong. WP:BURDEN says: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". I'm asking you if you can follow these policies and provide multiple high-quality sources. Nobody (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure! I've already shared two different sources with you, and will further explore additional ones. . One of them is directly from the UN, who have boots on the ground, and the other is a reliable source based in the region. The article mentions Dir and Isse as well in the demographics section, but only cites one source for their demographics. I mean, who says Wikipedia has a set number of sources needed to clarify something? And who gets to decide that limit anyway? Personally, I trust the United Nations and the other source because they have high-quality data directly from the region in question. Hawkers994 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

So in other words, you have no other sources? That's an elongated way of just saying the same thing over and over again. You're still talking about that same citation since you began engaging in this dialogue.

Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources".

Any content that contradicts the majority of sources gets significant coverage on a page IF it can provide multiple sources. It is part of Wikipedia's dedication to WP:RELIABILITY

You have up until this point ONLY used one source which is old (1997) which contradicts all other more recent and reliable sources. Keeping that on the page is WP:UNDUE

Read: "Recognition by other reliable sources— A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it."

Also: "Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight MustafaO (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I already told you in this edit why those two sources don't work.
I mean, who says Wikipedia has a set number of sources needed to clarify something? Wikipedias policies says that here.
Personally, I trust the United Nations and the other source because they have high-quality data directly from the region in question. A 25 year old case study is not high-quality data. And even if you trust the United Nations, that is no proof it it's 25 year old case study is reliable. Proof is that; There are multiple sources published in reliable peer-reviewed journals that don't mention the Habar Awal when talking about or mentioning the demographic in Awdal. Nobody (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

the other source is from 2016 which is recent, as Wiki NPOV says “ our job as editors, is simply to summarise what reliable sources say” which is exactly what i did. It also states “ representing fairly proportionately as far as possible without territorial bias.“ I have already stated in my earlier reply that more sources will be explored but to disregard by two sources is unfair treatment I believe. there is also the fact that other communities in the demographic section like the dir and isse are mentioned using only 1 source. So what makes this community different than the others who are also mentioned with one source. Hawkers994 (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Which other source? The only source you provided is the old 1997 citation which contradicts multiple sources. You did not provide any other source. I say that knowing full well that you passed off a Somali language opinionated tabloid deprecated paper.

Read this: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources and Wikipedia:Perennial sources

"Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances."

I can also provide Facebook posts or tabloid newspapers. But that would be an absurd thing to do.

I did some quick research. A rudimentary search on Google gave me all these results:

1. "Awdal, Gadabursi traditional territory, was geographically isolated, squeezed between Djibouti, Ethiopia and Isaaq-dominated territories." [[17]]

2. "Awdal region , populated by Dir clans : the Gadabursi and ` Cisa , is credited as being the most stable region in Somaliland . This is mainly due to peacekeeping efforts on the part of the Gadabursi clan who dominate this region". [[18]]

3. "Awdal strongly benefitted from the relative homogeneity of the clan structure. The relative strength of the traditional institutions allowed for the formation of a Gadabursi guurti, a council of twenty-one elders." [[19]]

4. "Next to the three sub-clans of the Gadabursi , a small minority of Ciisse inhabits Awdal , whose main clan territory is located in Djibouti and Ethiopia." [[20]]

It literally took me 5 minutes to get this information online. The internet has all the information you need. If you want to get significant coverage then find multiple sources that state explicitly that the Habar Awal inhabit Awdal. It shouldn't be too difficult as I found this array of multiple sources and information very easily. However pushing an edit that is unsubstantiated using an old citation that contradicts the huge plethora of sources I provided is WP:UNDUE. Because it is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, please provide multiple sources. I literally just added these in the last few minutes.

MustafaO (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If the 2016 source you mean is this, then i can tell you that it is clearly just a news report that, from what i can tell, doesn't talk about the Habar Awal at all. There is also no indication that it's reliable. Nobody (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The recent 2016 source is the well known East African news outlet which reports on the current issues of that particular region of the world. What it shows is the representation of the Habr awal community Leader chosen by the people of Awdal as their representative. In this part of the world representation is chosen by communities otherwise they wouldn’t have representation in the local government of that region if they didn't exist there which is what this source confirms. So as my earlier reply stated im open to more sources being explored until the protectice edit on the article date expires. Hawkers994 (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

All the news report says is that the Elected person is from the Habar awal clan. It doesn't talk about a Habar awal community in Awdal. If you're arguing that the election of someone from the Habar awal clan means that there has to be a noteworthy community, then i tell you that counts as Original research and is not allowed. The policy (WP:NOR) says: To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. The directly supported part is not met my your source. Nobody (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As you said “the election of someone from the Habar awal clan means that there has to be a noteworthy community” thats how it is in this part of the world as representation comes from community clan vote, which is why bigger and more numerous communities have a higher number of MPs in a region. But that doesn’t take away the fact that other communities also have the representation and live in the region. Question is how can an MP get elected in a clan-based society without the votes of his clan in a region where you say they do not live. Hawkers994 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying your thinking is wrong, but it doesn't work that way on the english Wikipedia. The No original research policy was specifically made for situations like these. To make it clear that we only include what the source says and only that, and anything that can only be assumed based on the source (even if it makes sense) needs to be either sourced with a different reliable source or removed from an article. Nobody (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve already said in my earlier replies that I will be exploring more sources before the expiration date of the protective edit in the article ends, the current edit doesn’t need to be removed as its facts , and as WP:NOR says “it's not something you thought up” which is true as i didn’t thought this up myself from it comes from well known news reporters and organisations. Hawkers994 (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

NOR acutally says because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable which this is clearly not. Please don't try to misrepresent policies. Nobody (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong, Its true i didn’t thought this up and its verifiable it’s just that biased editors choose to oversee sources that they themselves use when it suits them. So you can see my point from the beginning of my earlier reply which I have now started a few times. Hawkers994 (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

User:1AmNobody24

Apparently it's an op-ed apparently written by someone who is a politician in another language. It's the equivalent of me writing a op piece on a tabloid paper and using that as a citation in a foreign language Wikipedia source. It's so absurb.

Another thing I would like to add, there is no evidence on any book, journal or legitimate citation anywhere regarding this MP. I was just researching all citations speaking on the 2012 municipal elections in Somaliland and not ONE source mentions this information by the user. In fact the only source that mentions clan communities mention that 10 councillors were Gadabursi and 3 were Issa in the Lughaya district elections:

[[21]]

So the only actual source available online contradicts completely the tabloid paper quoted by the user. I think the matter should be put to rest.

MustafaO (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There are alot of somali based sources used in many articles unless you’re saying every single article with somali website news should be deleted then thats another case . Here are examples used across articles in Wikipedia with Somali news websites, [[22]] used in the khatumo state article [[23]] then there is [[24]] also used in the same article. I can show hundreds of Somali websites that are used as sources in Wikipedia. This is the reason why the source that I have used which was recently from 2016 is the same as all the other articles. Hawkers994 (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Another editor used a faulty citation therefore I should also use a faulty citation is not really a rationale argument. Per: WP:RSDEPRECATED:

"Any source that fails the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." It didn't take me long to find a legitimate source that discredited the tabloid. It also violates WP:RELIABILITY. Just because there are pages that use sources which aren't reliable doesn't justify you doing the same.

MustafaO (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong again , Somali news website is even used in the Awdal article itself as a source if you haven’t checked [[25]] simply because it’s news based in that region of the world, used in hundreds, if not thousands of articles in Wikipedia. Like I’ve said before when is convenient for you, it’s okay to use it but when other editors use it say they its incorrect . Hawkers994 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You're just throwing curveballs. Instead of only thinking about a rebuttal give some time to think about how you respond and formulate a response to what is being discussed. When did I ever say that it is ok to use a Somali website or any other whatever? You need to read up on WP:OR. Your interpretation is Original Research because your content isn't due significant coverage for a poor citation and you want to use a non citation to force an edit. That doesn't justify you or anyone else using it. Whether it is used in the Awdal page or elsewhere makes little difference. Thus far you have only shown one old source which goes against multiple mainstream sources. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Take some time out and do some research and if you find them bring it here so it can be discussed. As for how it stands now, nothing you bought warrants any mention on the page. It is WP:UNDUE.

MustafaO (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

User:1AmNobody24

I think the discussion is becoming circular. The other user is repeating the exact same argument since his first contribution and hasn't really contributed into bringing any other reliable sources. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:RELIABILITY and ethos of the encyclopedia it is only reasonable to remove it until multiple sources explicitly stating the Habar Awal/Isaaq inhabit Awdal is bought. I think it should be concluded here otherwise it's just a circular discussion. Per WP:RSUW

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight

MustafaO (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You’re changing the discussion again as you cannot respond to why is somali news articles are used as source in the Awdal page by other editors that are in your favour have not been mentioned or questioned before, and why you’re denying others labelling them unreliable.? Also WO:BIASED shows “That one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference.” You don’t get to pick and choose which is preferable as you are an editor. You need to have an unbiased attitude when it comes to other editors sources regardless just because you’re biased towards a certain community. Hawkers994 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I really don't understand anything you're saying. Which editors used a Somali news article in my favour? All the sources I've ever used in Wikipedia has been in English. That can easily be verified. I can't speak on behalf of any other editor.

Also your excerpt on BIASED doesn't make sense. Maybe requote it.

MustafaO (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Another lie. In the article several communities like the isse and Dir are mentioned using just one source [26] did you even question why communities like the isse and dir have just one source .? Also in discussion above, I have posted extra two sources [27] aswell as this a documented UN report.

And also why did you yourself post somali source on the Awdal article and now you are denying the use of Somali sources which is on the article here [28] Hawkers994 (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. As Freetrashbox said below in the discussion, this is a difficult question with clearly strong opinions on both sides. While there are some sources on both sides (the most convincing being the UN reports), there is also outdated sourcing, non secondary sources and Original research arguments here. When in doubt, we should rely on reliable sources; the main concern here is that there's not enough to specifically decide whether Habr Awal/Isaaq should be included. While it was close, I think this still lands at a no consensus.

Other than waiting for a few more months to see if more reliable sources can be found, I personally found the suggestion by S Marshall the clearest; just noting the most recent population could be a way out of WP:SYNTH. Though for that, future discussions will have to be structured different than the current Yes/No.

Soni (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should the Habr Awal/Isaaq clan be mentioned as a part of the population of Awdal? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

There is extensive discussion about this in the section above of any participants care to read the background of the dispute. I ask that any involved editors refrain from engaging in back and forth, and make the summary of their position and reasoning concise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding my position, I've made it very clear in the extensive discussion above.

So I will attempt to summarise my points to make it very clear and concise. I believe the content that states the Habr Awal making up part of the population of Awdal should be removed for a few reasons:

1. There is only one old citation that is being used to push the content which is itself ambiguous. This citation (1997) is contradicted by over 13 citations I've provided. A few I shall mention here:

Source 1: This citation does NOT mention Habr Awal as one of the clans that make up the population of Awdal:

"[[]] "Main sub-clan(s) Habr Awal, Region(s): Waqooyi Galbeed, Main districts: Gabiley, Hargeisa, Berbera. Main sub-clan(s) Gadabursi, Region(s): Awdal, Main districts: Borama, Baki, part. Gabiley, Zeila, Lughaya.

Source 2:[[]] This citation (2012) states the ONLY minority clans that live in Awdal are the Ciise and Gabooye.

Source 3:[[]] Please type in "Awdal is mainly inhabited by the Gadabuursi confederation of clans" and the it will come up on Google Books. It has no mention of the Isaaq/Habr Awal.

Source 4: [[]] "Awdal region , populated by Dir clans : the Gadabursi and ` Cisa , is credited as being the most stable region in Somaliland . This is mainly due to peacekeeping efforts on the part of the Gadabursi clan who dominate this region." Again no mention of Habr Awal/Isaaq.

Source 5: [[]]"The Isaaq are concentrated primarily in the regions of Maroodi Jeex, Sanaag, Gabiley, Togdheer and Saaxil. The Gadabuursi inhabit the west, pre-dominantly in Awdal, the Zeila district of Salal and parts of Gabiley." Note that the Gadabursi are considered to inhabit parts of Gabiley yet the Isaaq and Habar Awal in particular arent given the same status in Awdal even as a minority.

There are a plethora of sources in the extensive discussion that would be too much to provide here.

2. My contention is that there should be at least some, maybe 2 citations(?) that clearly state the Habr Awal (Isaaq) inhabiting Awdal in no uncertain terms for this content to be legitimate per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. As it states: Important claims require exceptional sources. Especially if it contradicts multiple sources.

3. Giving significant and any coverage to content on the page is WP:UNDUE due to an old citation that is contradicting multiple sources.

4. The old sole citation used to push this significant coverage isn't collaborated with any other citations and contradicts all existing ones, violating WP:RSUW. Per: "Corroboration— Do the conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable." Also: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." So far he has only produced one old citation (1997) which contradicts multiple sources that are more recent (post 2000s and 2010s).

5. If the content should remain then it should be supported by multiple sources because what is currently on the page is solitary and contradicts every source that speaks on the issue.

6. It is part of Wikipedia's dedication to WP:RELIABILITY that it shouldn't be allowed to remain per "Recognition by other reliable sources— A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it." Also: "Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation." The source being used is old and is not supported or corroborated by any other newer source.

7. I don't believe it should have reached this far and given everything I've just mentioned and in the previous extensive discussion, it should be removed until multiple explicit sources are found that support the content.

MustafaO (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC) MustafaO (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ll also summarise the points I’ve made on the previous discussion regarding this topic. Firstly, the source used is from 1997 and since it was published there are several other papers which User:MustafaO listed that either contradict or make no reference to Habar Awal/Isaaq presence in Awdal. Just from a stylistic point of view, the claim that Isaaq/Habar Awal inhabit Awdal is directly contradicted in the next sentence on the page as it stands. As editors we should keep in mind readers want to be informed when browsing these articles, they should not be confused by a conflicting minority view when the bulk of scholarship on this topic suggests the Isaaq do not inhabit the region.

Furthermore, to keep the claim that Isaaq/Habar Awal inhabit Awdal would imply the overwhelming majority of researchers on this topic made a grave oversight in the last two and a half decades by failing to accurately identify the demographics of the region. That most definitely falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL which has not been satisfied by just using a single source when the prevailing view here is that the Isaaq/Habar Awal do NOT inhabit Awdal. Wadamarow (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Awdal is a region that is home to multiple communities, as emphasised in the article. It is crucial to mention all the communities residing in this region, regardless of their population size. The fact that the United Nations themselves have acknowledged this in their report HERE serves as a strong testament to the presence of these communities in Awdal. While the article also mentions several other communities with just one source i have presented numerous sources that unequivocally affirm the existence of this community and their habitation in the region in our previous discussions. While WP:IMPARTIAL states “Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.” which is what the United Nations report clearly does, Therefore, keeping this short I firmly support keeping this information in the article.Hawkers994 (talk)

If you have presented numerous sources in other articles, please do the same in this article.--Freetrashbox (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You clearly have not read the previous above discussion if you did, you would be aware of all the sources that have been mentioned and also keep in mind this is RFC so I suggest you go back to the previous discussion above and read Hawkers994 (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

He is right. You did not present 'numerous' sources. You only presented one old citation (1997) which contradicts all other more recent sources [[]] and one tabloid newspaper in another language that doesn't even mention the word Habr Awal or Isaaq living in Awdal at all [[]], all one needs to do is run it through Google translate to see that it is a deprecated source that is being pushed with the hope that nobody would notice because it is in another language. It falls well below Wikipedia's standards of reliability Wikipedia:RS. Having said that, allow uninvolved editors to take charge and look for themselves.

MustafaO (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC) MustafaO (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Another lie. In the article several communities like the isse and dir are mentioned using just one source [29] did you even question why communities like the isse and dir have just one source .? Also in discussion above, I have posted extra two sources [30] aswell as this a documented UN report.

And also why did you yourself post somali source on the Awdal article and now you are denying the use of Somali sources which is on the article here [31] Hawkers994 (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You’ve also said “ it doesn't even mention the word Habr Awal or Isaaq living in Awdal “ if you didn’t know it mentions “Sacad muse” which is a Sub clan of Habr Awal. You will need to extend your knowledge of the several different communities that live in this region. Hawkers994 (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there are 3 sources in the article that mention the Ciise as a minority community, all on the page just not all in the same area of the article:

[[]]

[[]]

[[]]

Regarding what you provided, the citation you used is old and the other is deprecated, a tabloid op-ed in another language. Falls well below Wikipedia's standards of reliability and doesn't even mention Habr Awal as a population in Awdal.

MustafaO (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC) MustafaO (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Habar awal is mentioned numerous times in the source, even the exact wording from the source say “A third clan with a presence in Awdal is the Isaaq, particularly the Haber-Awal sub-clan.”

It then goes on further to say to say “the Isaaq are playing a growing role in two areas of Awdal. One is the agricultural border area of Dilla/Gabileey, where the Jibril Abuukar sub-clan of the Haber-Awal” how can you refute that with that is exactly how was written in the source. HERE

WP:EXTRAORDINARY states “ accounts written by people who are directly involved.” This source report was carried out by the UN who were directly on the ground when this report to be done. I’ve also posted another link which highlights the link of this community to Awdal region, when you say its an old source it’s actually recent from 2016. Hawkers994 (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I have read the points above and agree that the mention of the "Habar Awal" presence in the Awdal region should be retained as shown in sources, including a UN produced one. Thanks Jacob300 (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Yes it should. The ICWA published a UN map of the area and it clearly shows Habar Awal territory in Awdal (see page 2, link). Older historic maps of the region also show the Habar Awal presence in Awdal (example, Dongarita on the map is Dagarita located on the coast of Awdal). Kzl55 (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit: Another important source to consider here is John A. Hunt's A General Survey of British Somaliland Protectorate, this is the most extensive survey done on the ground in the region's history as no other census was conducted prior or since (1975 census not withstanding as the results were never published). Page 162 shows a list of home wells of the Habar Awal clan, this denotes the native territory of the clan and explicitly mentions Qabri-Bahar as a home well of the Jibril Abokor subclan of Habar Awal. Since Qabri-Bahar is inside Awdal region (see here), then reference to Habar Awal presence in Awdal should be kept. I think this case is pretty straightforward. Best -- Kzl55 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Page 2 shows the Habr Awal outside of the borders of Awdal in Waqooyi Galbeed. The regional border outline is clearly seen on the map you provided.

  MustafaO (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Map clearly shows (HERE parts of Awdal marked under Habar Awal territory. infact it even goes to show they are present beyond Dongarita to the outer western parts of Awdal. Hawkers994 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly, it shows Habr Awal marked clearly between Bulhar and Berbera. Both towns are in Sahil region and not in Awdal. Anyone can click and see.

  Secondly, editors who flooded here from the Somaliland project couldn't find any legitimate source so they want to use a random map sketch? It's absurd.

  For arguments sake, would it be legitimate to use this map to show Gadabursi inhabit western Berbera and Saaxil and edit the Sahil region? [[32]]

  You see how anyone can do the same? Find sources showing Isaaq inhabiting Awdal otherwise this is just a waste of time.

  MustafaO (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Based on the UN report, the ICWA documents, and even the link from the Digital Library of Illinois, it appears that you have disregarded these sources thus far. It seems that you are struggling to respond adequately, as you have shifted from discussing Awdal to Sahil, which are two distinct regions. However, it is evident from these documents that the Habar awal community is not only present in eastern Awdal but also extends as far as western Awdal. Hawkers994 (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Throughout the entire discussion, this is what was bought by the Somaliland project editors:

  1. One old 1997 citation that contradicts multiple sources.

  2. Op-ed tabloid deprecated source that doesn't mention Habr Awal in Awdal.

  3. Two sketch maps that don't show or mention Habr Awal in Awdal.

  The sources are accessible. Let other editors outside of the Somaliland project see and judge for themselves. No sources mentioning explicitly that the Habr Awal inhabit Awdal has been bought so far. Not one.

  MustafaO (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  You have so far brushed aside numerous sources just because they simply don’t fit your narrative.

  1.UN documented report

  2.Region based news from the ground as recently from 2016

  3.ICWA document on the region

  4.Map from digital library of Illinois stating “The Geographical Journal, V. 11, p. 293. “

  5.Location and name of Habar Awal settlement in Awdal shown on Map.

  Brushing aside all these documents simply because they do not fit into your narrative, is against Wikipedia rules as it WP:IMPARTIAL states “Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions” which is what all these sources clearly show Hawkers994 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, let other editors who are not from the Somaliland project open those sources and judge for themselves whether they mention Habr Awal in Awdal. Fair? No need for the back and forth.

  MustafaO (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  At the beginning of this Rfc User:ScottishFinnishRadish said “any involved editors refrain from engaging in back and forth, and make the summary of their position and reasoning concise.” But rather than adhering to this you replied to every editor, when you could’ve simply just stated the position like everyone else. Hawkers994 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Just wanted to point out two facts regarding the “John A. Hunt's A General Survey of British Somaliland Protectorate” source.

  1. This source is from 1947, almost 80 years old and is contradicted by every study done on Awdal’s demographics this century. And in any case, the Home wells don’t show settlements, it shows where pastoralists retreat to with their livestock during periods of low rainfall. It’s a survey of nomadic clan movement patterns NOT actual permanent settlements.

  2. You claim “this is the most extensive study to date”, yet this point is debunked by the authors themselves. On page 176 [[33]], the authors explicitly state the limitation of their own study is the lack of information they have on the western Somaliland clans. They rely heavily on Cox whose work was published in 1894, a 130 year old study next week, not on actual settlements but on nomadic clan movements.

  “Comparatively little is known by the writer of the western corner of the Protectorate (Esa, Gadabuursi and Habar Awal)”.

  The flimsy sketch maps aren’t legitimate sources. So we’re once again left with the highly dubious UN source, which has been contradicted by more than half a dozen studies published after it. Wadamarow (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  The regional-based source I shared is actually quite recent, dating back to 2016, which was just a mere six years ago. On the other hand, the Awdal article relies on sources from as far back as 1936, as evidenced by this link [34]. So, in both cases, we have sources ranging from centuries ago to the present, effectively covering the entire time period of Habar Awal presence and settlements. It is worth noting that the Gadabursi community was primarily confined to the southwestern region of Awdal, while the Isse community resided in the northwestern section of Awdal and its surrounding areas. On the same page you mentioned it also states “work should be carefully filed at Government Headquarters, to prevent further losses of this valuable type of work,” Hawkers994 (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• As far as the above discussion is concerned, users who rewrite Somalia as Somaliland and users who rewrite Somaliland as Somalia (or Khatumo, Puntland) are simply arguing their own theories against each other, which is not an objective RFC. Third-party comments are required, not just those who are biased towards Somalia or Somaliland. Freetrashbox (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Given that I'm primarily active in editing Somali-related articles and that I have helped contribute to this article numerous times I thought to give my two cents regarding this. With that being said after reading the various arguments that have been made I support the retention of the mention of Habar Awal/Isaaq as one of the clans that inhabit the Awdal region given the numerous reliable sources that have been cited supporting this. Gebagebo (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support After carefully reviewing the arguments presented in this RFC, as well as considering the previous discussion, it has come to my attention that various clans coexist within this region. Among these clans, the Habar Awal community holds a significant presence. It is worth noting that the focus of the argument does not lie in determining which clan constitutes the majority in the region, but rather in acknowledging the clans that are currently present. Therefore, I am in favor of including Habar Awal in the article as proposed.

Madarkis (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Do not Support

I do not support the inclusion of the Habr Awal along with the other editors who did not support it. My reasons are there was excessive discussion and back-and-forth in this thread, making it challenging to collect the sources. However, I did manage to identify all the sources supporting the addition of Habar Awal, although all were compromised upon closer examination.

The sources used were as follows:

[[35]]: This source doesn't mention the Habar Awal as inhabitants of Awdal verbatim but suggests there is trade and grazing between regions which is a common theme amongst many Somali communities.

[[36]]: This source doesn't mention Habar Awal or Awdal at all. It's in Somali, which is acceptable, but lacks information and doesn't contribute to any meaningful discussion. I fail to see how it can be of use.

[[37]]: This source was included without any mention of Habar Awal in Awdal.

[[38]]: Once again, there's no mention of Habar Awal in Awdal. A source brought into this discussion is a map dated 1898, which lacks any reference to Habar Awal in Awdal. I fail to see how this is relevant.

[[39]] : Another utilized source is this 1947 publication, "John A. Hunt's A General Survey of British Somaliland Protectorate," which depends on Cox (1894) and mentions, "Comparatively little is known by the writer of the western corner of the Protectorate (Esa, Gadabuursi, and Habar Awal)," acknowledging its limitations on why it should not be used in addition to it being an extremely old work. Also mentions nothing of Habar Awal in Awdal.

After reviewing it, I cannot endorse the inclusion of the Habar Awal on the page due to the sources not stating the content desired verbatim or even explicitly. A simple look into the sources can determine it.

SuldaanAbz (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I came here to close this, and I've decided to !vote instead. At issue is the question: What's the population of Awdal? Previous versions of this article had 673,263, based on the population estimation survey from 2014 by the UN Population Fund. Although the source was correctly cited, the original host moved it so the link to it got broken, and editors have had trouble finding it. It's here, and the figure is on page 21. We know that of the 673,263 in 2014, there were 233,709 nomadic people and 7,990 internally displaced people.
  Now that we know this, there is no need to decide whether to include or exclude the Habr Awal people. Just put in the figure of 673,263 which comes from the most recent reliable source that exists.—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• This problem is very difficult. First of all, the Habr Awal clan and the other clans are almost identical in race, language, and lifestyle, including religion, making it objectively difficult to distinguish between them. Furthermore, the Somaliland and Somalia governments, as well as the media, do not often publicize the clans of towns, as it is undesirable to do so as it encourages conflict, etc. Furthermore, many Somalis are nomads, and their addresses are not stable. In addition, Somali clans are masculine, but because intermarriage across clans is common, there are many cases where the husband is Habr Awal but the wife is different, and accurate statistics on clans, including women and children, do not exist. In short, the more one tries to seek accurate and reliable sources, the harder it is to obtain clan statistics. While the distribution of clans is essential information for understanding the conflicts that sometimes occur in Somaliland, it can also be a cause of conflict, as this talk page shows. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Reflist
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

Geele02 (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Awdal state of Somali not Somaliland d

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Awdal state of Somali not Sonalind

Awdal state of Somali. Is part federal government, but Somaliland is tribe of Somali call then self government, but Awdal state of Somali is not, and was not part of they tripe. Pleas change thanks Geele02 (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Entire article was plagiarised

64kb of the previous 76kb article was WP:PLAGIARISM from this source. Straight up copy-pasted, it was extremely obvious. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, it was by User:Seemaal3 in 2015. [40] [41] starship.paint (RUN) 14:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)