Talk:History of Somaliland

2008

There's some mistakes:

• Bristish Somaliland was reconquered by british troops in march (instead summer)
• First Somaliland president, Tur, don't died a year later from his designation, but in 2003. Egal was elected in 1993 in front of Tur, by a guurti (elders assembly) in Borama.

Please correct it --88.15.51.49 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add also, that the temple of Hatshepsut (Deir al-Bhari) is not in Alexandria, but in Tebas (Luxor). Alexandria don't exist before 330 aC. Please correct it too.--88.15.51.49 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Hargeisa

Is it really possible that the Somali air force killed 50,000 people? That is fire-bombing of Dresden sort of damage. We need an accurate source on this. If this is true then the bombing deserves its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotsapsky (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

the proplems of the elections

there is a big proplem for the coming electoins that comes from the goverment and the other parteise. it has been told that the hob of somaliland is decreesing day after day caused by the poloticians of the country. lasly iam telling to the president to solve this problem as soon as possiple as he can or we will dismiss him soon

the proplems of the elections

there is a big proplem for the coming electoins that comes from the goverment and the other parteise. it has been told that the hob of somaliland is decreesing day after day caused by the poloticians of the country. lasly iam telling to the president to solve this problem as soon as possiple as he can or we will dismiss him soon

Dervish state

We never said that it was not independent. That was not the consencus. It was independent but no recognition(according to you). You can read it again if you want it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runehelmet (talk • contribs)

That still means it was de jure part of British Somaliland. You haven't provided any sources for your edit again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs)

It seems that you don't read well. [1] here is a link to the source I gave you weeks ago. And the quotes too in the previous talk page. And remember the discussion is that it outlived the Scramble, not of it's recognition. I hope you can see the link, because I notice that there is a problem with this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Runehelmet (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your quotes on the previous page failed to convince anyone that the Dervish were treated as an independent state. CMD (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Perphas you fail to realise that it survived it. That it was 'treated as an independent state', was never mentioned by me in this article. You are just again twisting my words. "The Dervish Army was to fight Britain, Ethiopia and Italy for two decades. A Dervish State, built around the expanding Sahiliyya order, would run parts of Somalia with rising and ebbing fortunes. It would endure until the end of World War I, when epidemics of the Royal Air Force decimated the its ranks and population centers. As for Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, the wanted man whom the British called the Mad Mullah, he would himself fall the victim of the great influenza epidemic of 1920." This quote states that it endured until the end of World War I. And the end of the WWI was in the late 1918. And the Scramble took place between 1881 and 1914. And here an other from the previous page;He created a standing army, centralized the judiciary, and conducted international diplomacy. This institutionalization of power, however, made him more vulnerable. In 1920 British aerial bombardments of his forts destroyed the dervishes.- New encyclopedia of Africa. And this one states that they conducted international diplomacy. In the article it's plausible to add that the Dervishes remained de-facto independent throughout the Scramble for Africa. Runehelmet (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What international diplomacy, and was this recognised? It's still not a good idea to use one source to debase many others. CMD (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

With international diplomacy they mean with the Ottomans and Germans. And to have international diplomacy you have to be recognised first. But do you deny that they remained independent between 1896-1920?. By the way sorry for the late reaction, internet issues. Runehelmet (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure a great many smaller African kingdoms and tribes 'survived' the scramble. They however are not treated at all in the same way as Liberia or Ethiopia. You've provided a few sources that discuss it as an individual case, but don't discuss its relation to the scramble. It was claimed by Britain, something acknowledged by the other states of the world, so the Dervish state didn't survive well at all. This is probably why it's not really mentioned in many history books. You'd have to provide sources directly stating that the state survived the scramble for inclusion to be considered. CMD (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And is it not possible to add that? That the Dervishes survived it, but not treated the same? This is not a general article like the Scramble for Africa page, it is here possible to add that they survived it, as a de-facto independent state throughout the Scramble. Runehelmet (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's quite irrelevant to the article. We note that the movement began in 1899, and that it was crushed in 1920. More detail about this movement would be useful, but simply claiming the state survived the scramble without a large backing of sources wouldn't be Due. CMD (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is relevant. The Dervish state was present in the modern day Somaliland. And I would add more info, but if people are only reverting it is quite difficult to do that. Runehelmet (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to insert information you know to be objectionable, try proposing a change for discussion on the talkpage, with the text you want to change/add, and specific quotes from the sources backing up your text. CMD (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All the quotes I gave were simply refused. And more and more was asked, while I fulfilled my burden. And I discussed the matters, as you know. I only see the same responds. Runehelmet (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything else to say here that had not already been mooted (among more participants) at Talk:Ethiopia#Dervish State? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I just suggested to add more info about the Dervish State, as the State focussed in present day Somaliland. Runehelmet (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The present day Somaliland, was claimed during the Scramble by the British and the Somali Dervishes. I don't see a problem with that. And it's better to use the talk page for small things, instead of reverting. Runehelmet (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if reverted, one should discuss here before editing again. This means discuss, not just post an opinion and go. Get an agreement. Propose a specific change. "This is the current text". "It should be changed to this". I back it up with "this quote" from "this source". CMD (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the 'Somaliland claimed by..'. What was the problem there? You reverted it only for that sentence. Well were is your opinion? I gave mine no reaction. And still I dont see your opinion about it. You could change the disputed line only not the whole article. Runehelmet (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That was an example, not the only reason. You've been previously informed that the burden lies on you to obtain consensus for your changes here on the talkpage. If you propose a change here, we can discuss it. Until you actually do what I explicitly told you to do in my previous note, this discussion won't go anywhere, as there's been nothing laid forward for discussion. Also, if you could indent your statements with colons so that they are one more than the previous comment, it will be easier for us and others to follow this conversation. Thanks, CMD (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What are the other so called reasons? I added more general information. You reverted it partial. Please tell me what your problem is. I proposed a specific change, you accepted it. Saying that I must add more general information. I added more general information. Now you claim that there were more reasons for your revert. Put those reasons in a list. You can discuss only when you are ready to share your opinion not hiding in a long irrelevant reaction. Runehelmet (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You removed a {{Citation needed}} even though you provided no citation. Your addition of medieval was unnecessary. You made several other completely unexplained changes. The detail to the Dervish state seemed Undue.

I didn't accept any specific change, as you never made one. Please point to where you have proposed a change in a way that showed any acknowledgement whatsoever of the advice I gave you above. CMD (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I proposed: "And is it not possible to add that? That the Dervishes survived it, but not treated the same?". You answered with; "...More detail about this movement would be useful, but simply claiming the state survived the scramble without a large backing of sources wouldn't be Due". So you are trying to say now that it's impossible to add info about the Dervish State? And I provided a citation from the book, Jihad in the Arabian sea. And the 'other completely unexplained' eddits, was an expension in the section that discuss the Dervish State. And where is the list of the others reasons? If you want a solution, then tell me exactly at what line, sentence and word you see a problem. Then we can proceed towards a solution. Runehelmet (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed the multiple times I've asked for specific text proposed here on the talkpage, with quotes from the sources here backing up the text you have proposed here. CMD (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not a watchdog. If you dislike it fine, your opinion. But the info I added are not in contrast with the Wiki guideline and they are backed up with reliable and independent sources. Runehelmet (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's in contrast with WP:CONSENSUS, so do not continue adding it. Consensus was against you at Talk:Ethiopia#Dervish State. You need to use WP:Dispute resolution, not to continue unilaterally warring your edits in. CMD (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a whole other case. This does not discuss about it's independency and recognition. Did you read the part about the Dervish State? Runehelmet (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"he created the Dervish State, an early 20th century state that resisted against the British, Italians, French and Ethiopians. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire in four military expeditions, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region.. As a result of its fame in the Middle East and Europe, the Dervish State was recognized as an ally by the Ottoman Empire and the German Empire. The State succeeded to outlive the Scramble for Africa and remained throughout Word War I the only independent muslim power in Africa." This is the disputed part. Now tell me what in here is in contrast with the 'concensus'. And at the first place, what do you think the concensus was? Runehelmet (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read what you've shown here. You've given no quote from the Encyclopedia of African history (the author of which is?), and the Jihad book doesn't mention the scramble for Africa, alliances, ‎fame, or that it was the only independent muslim power in Africa. CMD (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the sources for the other statements were used in the other talk page. I'll add them:"He created a standing army, centralized the judiciary, and conducted international diplomacy. This institutionalization of power, however, made him more vulnerable. In 1920 British aerial bombardments of his forts destroyed the dervishes."- New encyclopedia of Africa Volume 2. This mention the Scramble for Africa and it's diplomacy. And they were the only muslim power in Africa, as all other muslim countries in Africa were under control by the British or French. And we are talking about a pre-World War II Africa. And the 'fame' part. Due the fact they established a short living state and fought against the Italians, British, Ethiopian and French, they conducted diplomacy as mentioned before. Runehelmet (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That source notes that he had an army, a judiciary, and conducted some diplomacy until 1920. That's all we could say from that, it doesn't mention the Italians, French, or Ethiopians, or that four military expeditions resulted in forcing the British to the coast. Your assertion that they were the only muslim power needs a source. I doubt the British and French were in complete control of many of their huge territories. You can't say fame without a source either. CMD (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The expeditions are mentioned here. "(..)The Dervish Army was to fight Britain, Ethiopia, and Italy for two decades." -Jihad in the Arabian Sea, Chapter 2. Here are the participants mentioned. And again about the fame. They had diplomacy because they were noticed by anti-imperialistic men. And the German Empire and the Turks were not a big fan of imperialism. --> "Apart from Kirsch's services, the extent of Turko-German support received by the Dervishes has not yet been fully elucidated although it seems to have been rather nominal."- A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa. Just in case if you wanted to ask for a source that. Germany sended mechanics to the Dervishes to built up their army. And Emil Kirsch was one of them. "The advent of World War I gave a new dimension to the conflict in that both Turkish and German efforts were made to take advantage of the situation in Somalia — a German armourer called Kirsch was sent to help Mohamed at his to help Mohamed at his newly-built fortress at Taleh, and this man's efforts greatly improved the Dervish repair of captured firearms." -The betrayal of the Somalis. Runehelmet (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Another wikipedia article is not a good source, better one needed. If information came from the Jihad book, it needs to be cited from the Jihad book. Now we can source the Germans gave the Dervish nominal help in the First World War. CMD (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's not then you can delete that page. As you state it's not a good source. And I meant the source in the article. Please dont say that I have to give that source. You can look in the article for yourself and you can see it. Runehelmet (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Luckily they had a google books preview for that. For future reference, you can't assume text is supported by a reference unless you've seen the reference yourself. Anyway, that supports that there were four expeditions, the last of which (1904) was a victory for the British, but an indecisive one. It also notes they pulled back to the coast in 1909. CMD (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You agree with the proposal now? Runehelmet (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not your old one. It didn't have enough sources and misrepresented those it included. I'd be happy to draft my own from the sources given here though. CMD (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Give me quotes from my text that is 'misrepresented' and the corresponding source from wich I misrepresented. And I gave enough sources(but not together with the given text, I'll add them to it)Runehelmet (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"As a result of its fame in the Middle East and Europe, the Dervish State was recognized as an ally by the Ottoman Empire and the German Empire. The State succeeded to outlive the Scramble for Africa and remained throughout Word War I the only independent muslim power in Africa" sourced to Jihad in the Arabian Sea, which doesn't mention alliances, the Scramble, or that it was the only independent muslim power. CMD (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I'll add the source I gave you in this talk page in the text. So you can neglect the fact that it is supported by that single source. Runehelmet (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

But no source has noted it an ally, or that it was famous, or that it was the only independent muslim power. CMD (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you like to have a circle like discussion. Please read the text above (again). But to spare your time: "The advent of World War I gave a new dimension to the conflict in that both Turkish and German efforts were made to take advantage of the situation in Somalia — a German armourer called Kirsch was sent to help Mohamed at his to help Mohamed at his newly-built fortress at Taleh, and this man's efforts greatly improved the Dervish repair of captured firearms." "the extent of Turko-German support received by the Dervishes has not yet been fully elucidated although it seems to have been rather nominal." Why would two states help a small nation wich was fighting a world power? Due their efforts they were noticed by the Turks and Germans and aided them. The fame part is just a synonym. Some times we don't need to source everything. Like 1+1=2. It's just a fact. We know that the British and French took whole North-Africa(Italy took Libya) and Central/West Africa too. It's not my burden to give you a source that Africa was colinized by them. It's a single interpretation: If the British did not control Somaliland throughout the WWI, while the other 'nations' were colinized then you can know that it was the only state that ruled without the British, French and/or Italians in their back. Runehelmet (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Fame" is an extremely WP:Peacocky synonym that shouldn't be used without very good sourcing. Fame is not a fact, it's an opinion. Furthermore, we can't stretch the fact the Germans sent minor technical aid to help someone fight a country that the Germans were also at war with to say they had an alliance. That would be very WP:Original research. CMD (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Germany and the British Empire were not engaged in a war before the first World War. The 'Dervish' State was established well 18 years before WWI. The Germans also recognized the lands that were recaptered by the Dervishes.- Historical dictionary of Ethiopia. And the Turks also recognized them as a souvereign state. Calling Mohammed Hassan the Emir of Somalia.-A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa. And it's a causality, due their war against a world power, they were admired by the Muslim world. "Sheikh Muhammad, however, such was the popular support for his movement at this time, managed to persuade the Habar Yunis to depose their clan-head appointing in his stead one more favourable to the cause."-A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa. This quote shows us explicit that he and his war was popular. Runehelmet (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The German engineer was only sent after the beginning of the war. Are those quotes from the books you're citing? I can't tell. That quote shows us he had some local support, so we could write that, but it still doesn't mean we can write fame. Your insistence that fame must go in rather detracts from the credibility you're trying to write neutrally. CMD (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against the rewriting of the fame part. It was a interpretation of someone else. He was famed in the Horn of Africa region and in the Sufi communities across the world. And was noticed(not famed) in Europe(notably England, Italy and Germany) and supported by the Ottoman regime, for his anti-imperialism. That is a better way to write. Runehelmet (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So can we have quotes about the German and Ottoman alliances? CMD (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I already gave you quotes about the aid of the Germans and Turks. Runehelmet (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

None which show recognition of any kind. CMD (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It does... Here is an other:"With the not-disinterested support of the Turkish and German Consuls in Ethiopia, the new Emperor conceived the aim of creating a vast Muslim Empire in NE Africa. To this end he entered into relations with Sayyid Muhammad, supplying him with financial aid and arms, and arranged for a German mechanic called Emil Kirsch to join the Dervishes and work for them as an armourer at their new head quarters at Taleh where a formidable ring of fortresses had been built by Yemeni masons. Before his pathetically unsuccessful bid for freedom from his exacting masters, Kirsch served the Dervishes well."-A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa page 78. In 1917, the Italian Administration of Somalia intercepted a document from the Turkish government which assured the Sayyid of support and named him Emir of the Somali nation.-A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa, page 78-79. Runehelmet (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm now thinking that you just won't accept it. Everytime you ask for more quotes, while I gave it to you already. You have no idea that I use these before, yet you say 'Ok, but now I want that'. These quotes shows us that there was a military, financial and political support from the Germans and Turks. What do we name that? Hmm.. an Alliance perhaps? Runehelmet (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those quotes mention recognition before the war, and both show only some limited support during it. The only possible recognition is the Turks letter, which wasn't an official statement, and clearly had no tangible result. Support isn't an alliance. You need to stop taking some statements and extending them beyond what they mean. It's heavy WP:synthesis. You are free, as always, to try WP:3O, or WP:Dispute resolution if you feel this won't progress. CMD (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you are making wrong statements from the given quotes. And from where do you get the idea from 'limited' support?. An alliance, in political sense; is supporting an other state for both advantages. What do you think an Alliance is? You expect that the Anglo-Dervish War is a world news? You make an elephant from a fly, like the Dutch people say. I use the exact meaning of the given sources. I dont twist them to my own advantage, that is you opinion not a fact. Runehelmet (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

An alliance is a formal military relationship. Limited support is from "Apart from Kirsch's services, the extent of Turko-German support received by the Dervishes has not yet been fully elucidated although it seems to have been rather nominal." - A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa. You haven't used the exact meaning of sources, you've taken some nominal military aid and a few letters to be military alliances and state recognition. That's taking an elephant from a fly. I want to present the fly as a fly. CMD (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right; a formal military relationship(except for the fact that an alliance could be financial or merely symbolic). But I did not said it was military only. It was Also a political one, as the Turks recognized the 'Mad Mullah' as the Emir of the Somali nation. There was a military support. The German engineer, the weapons supplied from the Ottoman Empire. An Alliance does not to be great, like the Anglo-French and US-Israel. The state lived short, so it could not evolved to a higher level. It was not clear why they helped the Somalis, that is the meaning of the quote you just posted. Runehelmet (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nominal: being such in name only; so-called; putative. They offered token gestures. That's what the quote means.

All we have evidence of is an embattled and about to fall wartime government sending a private letter promising support and declaring the Mullah an Emir. While notable, it does not constitute a political alliance at all. CMD (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what a political alliance is? If the Turks declared him an Emir, they give him political recognition. You are calling the Ottoman Empire embattled and going to fall while others say it fell due civil unrest(namely Arabs). Because they were going to fall apart(in 1917 the Ottomans were not losing at all, Civil War in Russia gave the Turks more breathing space in the first place), they just gave him that letter as a desperate attempt? That is a wrong 'Synthesis', as you put the synthesis a lot in this ongoing discussion. Runehelmet (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A private note is the most precarious type of recognition possible, and doesn't count anything at all in international diplomacy. They were embattled, they'd been in three years of war. They sent a note to the leader of a rebellion against a state they were at war with. There's nothing particularly special about this at all. CMD (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is talking about a special relation? Yes they had common enemies, but what do men do when they have a common enemy? Making an alliance. Do you have a problem with the word alliance? Runehelmet (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's unsupported by any source you've provided. CMD (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Pardon to interject, but what exactly seems to be the issue here gentlemen? More specifically, what is the sentence/phrase in the wiki page that's the bone of contention? Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's all about this part:"he created the Dervish State, an early 20th century state that resisted against the British, Italians, French and Ethiopians. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire in four military expeditions, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region.[1]. As a result of its fame in the Middle East and Europe, the Dervish State was recognized as an ally by the Ottoman Empire and the German Empire. The State succeeded to outlive the Scramble for Africa and remained throughout Word War I the only independent muslim power in Africa". Runehelmet (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Discussion above is mostly about sourcing for it. CMD (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"With the not-disinterested support of the Turkish and German Consuls in Ethiopia, the new Emperor conceived the aim of creating a vast Muslim Empire in NE Africa. To this end he entered into relations with Sayyid Muhammad, supplying him with financial aid and arms, and arranged for a German mechanic called Emil Kirsch to join the Dervishes and work for them as an armourer at their new head quarters at Taleh where a formidable ring of fortresses had been built by Yemeni masons. Before his pathetically unsuccessful bid for freedom from his exacting masters, Kirsch served the Dervishes well."-A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa page 78. "In 1917, the Italian Administration of Somalia intercepted a document from the Turkish government which assured the Sayyid of support and named him Emir of the Somali nation."-A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa, page 78-79. The Germans gave military support by sending mechanics, Kirsch is one of them. The Turks gave more a political one, by recognizing Mohamemd Hassan as the legitimate ruler of Somalia, calling him the Emir of the Somali nation. Runehelmet (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific part of that paragraph that's the problem or is it the whole thing? I ask because it's common knowledge that the Dervish State repeatedly defeated the British army until Britain began employing aerial bombardment, and to decisive effect. We actually have several articles on the expeditions (e.g. 1920 conflict between British forces and the Dervish State). Is it the Ottoman and German Empire part? Or the assertion that it outlived the Scramble for Africa? Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We agreed that there were five expeditions and it outlived the Scramble for Africa. But the disputed part is now about the relation with Germany and Turkey. CMD, thinks that there was no special relation between them, saying that there is no source. I say it's an alliance, backing this up with the source I gave above your post. Runehelmet (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Runehelmet has managed to provide sources for most of the information, although the implications of the sources and his paragraph are different, so it definitely needs to be rewritten. There's no source for the Scramble for Africa. While the Dervishes held out till 1920, they did so in territory which Europeans had carved up and formally divided between themselves. They did not 'survive' in the sense of Ethiopia and Liberia, and functioning and recognised states which preserved actual and legal independence. CMD (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now you'r jumping to other subjects, let's keep our eyes on one direction. We can discuss about that issue after we have closed this one: The alliance. Runehelmet (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see how the assertion that the Dervish State was the "only independent muslim power in Africa" could be perhaps viewed as contentious based on that quote. A better phrasing I think would maybe go something like "As a result of its successes against the British, the Dervish State received political support from the Ottoman Empire and military assistance from the German Empire. The Turks also named Hassan Emir of the Somali nation." Are there any other relevant quotes? Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean with the relevant sources that support your rewritten text? Runehelmet (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't jumping subjects, just clarifying we hadn't agreed on the Scramble text. Midday's wording is much better. Runehelment, in regards to your quote from A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa, which Emperor is being discussed? CMD (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposed phrase above is based on the quoted material you just produced; so it's already in a sense referenced. Again based on that quoted paragraph, I think an even better phrasing would perhaps read something like "As a result of its successes against the British, the Dervish State received military support from the German Empire. The Turks also recognized Hassan as the legitimate ruler of Somalia, referring to him as the Emir of the Somali nation." Are there any other relevant quotes I should know about that support the "only independent muslim power in Africa" part? Or am I overlooking something? Middayexpress (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no need for the exact word; Scramble, in that time(early 20th century), that event was not called a 'scramble' in that era, but colonization and competition between European powers. And the Dervish war was part of the scramble. And you gave me no chance to rewrite, I had to gave sources and explanations continuously. The new Emperor was Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Runehelmet (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

@Midday: Is it correct to say "As a result of its successes against the British"? The sources don't say why the Germans sent aid. I also don't think sending an engineer is equivalent to what would be implied by "Military support".

@Runehelmet: Okay, we'll drop Scramble, and just say it survived from 1899-1920? CMD (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Dervish Army was to fight Britain, Ethiopia and Italy for two decades. A Dervish State, built around the expanding Sahiliyya order, would run parts of Somalia with rising and ebbing fortunes. It would endure until the end of World War I, when epidemics of the Royal Air Force decimated the its ranks and population centers. As for Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, the wanted man whom the British called the Mad Mullah, he would himself fall the victim of the great influenza epidemic of 1920." -Jihad in the Arabian sea. This quotes tells us that it endured until the end of WWI. And in the pre-WWI era, all of the Islamic states in Africa were under European rule. Thus making the Dervish State the only Muslim power on the African continent. Runehelmet (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

But what do we call the time between 1899-1920? The scramble for Africa. Runehelmet (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

CMD: Rune's quote says "the Dervish State received political support from the Ottoman Empire and military assistance from the German Empire", so that's where the reference to "military support" comes from. It would probably read even better if we change it to "military support in the form of mechanics" or, alternatively, "mechanical support". I agree that the first part of the phrase isn't supported though, so let's drop it.

Rune: Ok, I see what you mean now. Perhaps the "only independent Muslim power in Africa" bit could be changed to "the Dervish State lasted until the end of the First World War" or something like that? Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be specified that the Germans sent an engineer to help the Mullah. It's a short article, we've tons of space. CMD (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rune's quote alludes to several mechanics: "The Germans gave military support by sending mechanics." Kirsch appears to have been one of them. Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rune says that, but no source presented here has mentioned anyone besides Kirsch, as far as I can see. CMD (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. That part of his post was apparently not part of the quote. It's very confusing since there are no quotation marks, so it's hard to tell what's what. Middayexpress (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By seeing Mohammed Hassan as the legitimate ruler of Somalia is obvious a sign of political support. And by builing up fortresses is also a sign of military aid, with these fortresses they had a good defensive point in the war against the British. But I don't see the problem with the "only independent Muslim power in Africa" part. It's not to praise the Dervish State and give it a 'faked' legacy. If they outlived the scramble era, while other muslim powers fell, we can make a conclusion that it was the only muslim power in Africa pre-WWI and during the WWI. I admit it sounds biased, but it's a neutral fact. Runehelmet (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We can state too that the Germans helped to built fortresses."(..)and arranged for a German mechanic called Emil Kirsch to join the Dervishes and work for them as an armourer at their new head quarters at Taleh where a formidable ring of fortresses had been built by Yemeni masons."-A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa page 78. Runehelmet (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

? That quote says the fortresses were built by Yemenis, not Germans or the German Empire. CMD (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My dear friend, the Yemenis worked as labourers. The Germans gave the orders to built one. Read the quote again, but more slowly. Runehelmet (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And the Yemenis had no souvereign government. They were ruled by the British. Why would the British help their own enemy? Runehelmet (talk)

Read it, nothing about orders. I assume the Yemenis were working for the Mullah. CMD (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but who gave the order for the constructions of the fortresses? Give me a quote wich states that the Yemenis did it alone? We can add the Yemenis then to the list. But not as acting body of a government, but as labourers. Runehelmet (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mullah ordered it? Who has suggested adding Yemenis to the list? CMD (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking about the Germans who ordered Kirsch to help them. And if you think that the Yemenis helped too, then why not? Runehelmet (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rune, could you add quotation marks around the passages that are quotes so that there's no confusion? Middayexpress (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

@Rune: The quote you gave notes that the fortresses had been built by the time Kirsch even got there. The point is there's been no source presented showing Germany did anything more than send a mechanic. If you have one, please provide it. CMD (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Made the citations bold, so it will be more clear. Runehelmet (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quote:"the new Emperor conceived the aim of creating a vast Muslim Empire in NE Africa. To this end he entered into relations with Sayyid Muhammad, supplying him with financial aid and arms"-A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa page 78. It seems here that the Germans gave financal aid too. Runehelmet (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont want to be rude, but I gave this quote earlier. So you are not paying 100% attention? Runehelmet (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to keep track of a conversation which keeps going in random directions and where the quotes were muddled in with everything else. What year did he send the money and arms? CMD (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the bold text. The "Emperor" that is alluded to appears to actually be Iyasu V/Lij Iyasu, who was Ethiopian Emperor at the time and quite close with Muhammad Abdullah Hassan. However, the extent of German relations with the Dervishes was apparently greater than simply sending Kirsch: "Germany promised to recognize any territorial conquests made by Ethiopia or the Mad Mullah" [2]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright it seems we are heading towards a good direction. So is this version better?:"he created the Dervish State, an early 20th century state that resisted against the British, Italians, French and Ethiopians. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire in four military expeditions, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region. As a result of its successes against the British, the Dervish State received political support from the Ottoman Empire and military assistance from the German Empire. The Turks also named Hassan Emir of the Somali nation. The German Empire promised to recognize any territorial conquest made by the Dervish State. The State succeeded to endure the Scramble for Africa and remained throughout Word War I the only independent muslim power in Africa. The State fell in 1920, when the British bombed the Dervish capital Taleex." Runehelmet (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No. That makes is sound like it was the Dervish who launched the expeditions rather than the British, and we don't know that the Dervishes forced the British to retreat, only that they did. We don't know why the Dervishes received support, and "political support" and "military assistance" are too general and imply the wrong things, especially as we describe the exact political support later. The chronological order is terrible, with everything after the second sentence taking place in the framework of the First World War, which isn't mentioned in this to the second last sentence. We don't have a source about the Scramble for Africa or that it was the only independent Muslim power. CMD (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a source for the Scramble for Africa and independent Muslim power bits, but we do for the Turkish political support and German military assistance. Per that quote above, you should also try and incorporate a mention of the new Ethiopian Emperor Lij Iyasu's relations with Hassan in the way of financial and military assistance (weapons). This is significant as it constitutes a break from the policies of his predecessor -- Iyasu was apparently on friendly terms with Hassan and his Dervishes and "conceived the aim of creating a vast Muslim Empire in NE Africa". Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We should be as specific as the sources were. CMD (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I though I already explained about the Scramble part. It endured it until the End of WWI. And that era is called the Scramble for Africa. As it endured until the end of WWI, other Islamic nations in Africa were already colonized. The Dervish Army was to fight Britain, Ethiopia and Italy for two decades. A Dervish State, built around the expanding Sahiliyya order, would run parts of Somalia with rising and ebbing fortunes. It would endure until the end of World War I, when epidemics of the Royal Air Force decimated the its ranks and population centers."-Jihad in the Arabian Sea.

"he created the Dervish State, an early 20th century state that resisted against the British, Italians, French and Ethiopians. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire in four military expeditions, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region. As a result of its successes against the British, the Dervish State received political support from the Ottoman Empire and military assistance from the German Empire. The Turks also named Hassan Emir of the Somali nation. The German Empire promised to recognize any territorial conquest made by the Dervish State. The Dervishes reveived also aid from the new Ethiopian Emperor, Lij Iyasu, who converted to Islam. He had broken the policies of his predecessors by aiding the Somali Dervishes. Lij Iyasu was apparently on friendly terms with Hassan and his Dervishes and conceived the aim of creating a vast Muslim Empire in NE Africa. The State succeeded to endure the Scramble for Africa and remained throughout Word War I the only independent muslim power in Africa. The State fell in 1920, when the British bombed the Dervish capital Taleex." (the added text is in bold)Runehelmet (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Dervish state hadn't even begun at the start of the Scramble for Africa, so let's not pretend it somehow resisted Europeans from start to finish. The area where the Dervishes existed was considered as colonised as most of Africa, and you've provided no sources or evidence there weren't some similar cases out there somewhere. Also, if the Ethiopian Emperor became Islamic, surely that instantly revokes the idea that the Dervish state was the only Muslim country? The rest of the text has the same problems I pointed out last time. CMD (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the paragraph above except again for the independent Muslim power and Scramble for Africa parts. Why not just be specific and state when exactly the State ceased to exist and why? The assertion that Lij Iyasu had "broken the policies of his predecessors" is also better phrased "broken with the policies of his predecessors". Middayexpress (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright let's try this one:he created the Dervish State, an early 20th century state that resisted against the British, Italians, French and Ethiopians. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire in four military expeditions, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region. As a result of its successes against the British, the Dervish State received political support from the Ottoman Empire and military assistance from the German Empire. The Turks also named Hassan Emir of the Somali nation. The German Empire promised to recognize any territorial conquest made by the Dervish State. The Dervishes reveived also aid from the new Ethiopian Emperor, Lij Iyasu, who converted to Islam. He had broken with the policies of his predecessors by aiding the Somali Dervishes. Lij Iyasu was apparently on friendly terms with Hassan and his Dervishes and conceived the aim of creating a vast Muslim Empire in NE Africa. The State fell in 1920 when the British bombed the Dervish capital of Taleex." But where do you see a problem with the 'only independent muslim power' part?

@CMD: I don't see any part in the text that let you think that the Dervishes fought them from the year of 1881? And if a head of state adhert a religion, then it does not mean that his faith is also the state religion, that is quite a weak argument. Runehelmet (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks okay now. Middayexpress (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll add that part now in the article. Runehelmet (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should wait for CMD to respond. Middayexpress (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I already added it. Runehelmet (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

@Runehelmet. The scramble started in 1881. Surviving something generally implies being in it from start to finish. @Midday, I listed quite a few problems before, which haven't received a response. Runehelmet still is clearly not writing from sources, and hasn't changed the structure of his suggestion at all throughout this discussion. Here's a rather egregious problem: There hasn't been a single mention of the French in any sources so far, yet it's in the first proposed sentence.

How's this for a paragraph:

Hassan established the Dervish State, fighting with British, Italian, and Ethiopian forces. The British launched four early expeditions against him, the last one in 1904 ending indecisively. British forces withdrew to the coast in 1909. A camel constabulary the British created to control their territory was destroyed by the Dervishes in 1914. Ethiopian Emperor Iyasu V supplied Hassan with weapons and financial aid. Germany sent Emil Kirsch, a mechanic, to assist the Dervish Forces as an armourer at Taleh from 1916-1917, and promised to recognise any territorial gains by Ethiopia and the Dervishes. The Ottoman Empire sent a letter to Hussan in 1917 assuring him of support and naming him "Emir of the Somali nation". At the height of his power, Hussan led 6000 troops, and by November 1918 the British administration in Somaliland was spending its entire budget on trying to stop Dervish activity. The Dervish state fell in February 1920 after a British campaign led by ariel bombing.

I've added information from this source too. The Jihad and Modern History sources should be formatted like the other two here. Also, we're sure the Emperor mentioned in the Modern History book is Iyasu V right? CMD (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem in the written text. Everything is supported with sources. He fought the French too, but less major as with the British. The Dervish State was foccused in the then called 'British Somaliland'. The French Somaliland(now known as Djibouti) was not his primary target. But he wanted to expell all 'Christian invaders' from his lands. You keep saying we need to reach a consensus, but how do we get one if you keep refusing all given options? And again quote from the rewritten text and tell us what you think is wrong. And you don't need to begin from the beginning to 'survive' something. You can face it in the midst of that event and outlive it. That is the meaning of surviving.Runehelmet (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as can be seen on this talkpage, it's not all supported by sources. Which source says he actually fought the French (we have a source saying the Germans wanted him to, but not that he did)? See this comment for a few problems in the text. As for our debate over the word survive, this is why wikipedia has the WP:Reliable source policy. If a source uses it, it probably can be used. Otherwise we'll just have to disagree on that point. CMD (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it sounds like the Dervishes launched the expeditions. That sentence is written well. I can't handle it if you see something different then the others do. Things well get a lot more easier if you also do some background information. I doubt that you ever heard of a Dervish State before this discussion. The quote states that we don't know why they received help, but they did, that's the point. Chronical order? It's not 'terrible'. The expeditions took place in the first World War. The state fell in 1920. Nothing is wrong with the Chronical order here. The most 'problems' in your eyes are just wrong interpretations of given texts. The British launched the campaign. They were defeated four times. Hassan got help from Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The french issue:"Just after the French, British, Italians and Ethiopians had carved up the Somali nation at the end of the nineteenth century, a fiery Somali fundamentalist sheik who was also the most brilliant poet of his age mounted a jihad against the Christian colonizers wich lasted for 20 years.". -War and ethnicity: global connections and local violence, page 182. [3].Here you can find more of your answers. It states that he fought against the 'Christian' invaders. The French were one of them. So? He fought with the French indirectly. And about the British defeats. Hope this will conclude this ongoing discussion. Runehelmet (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In general much of your paragraph is not written well (and neither are some of your comments, com to that), but I've ignored that to look at the actual content behind the paragraph. If the quotes don't say why they received help, then why does your paragraph say "As a result of its successes against the British, the Dervish State received..."? The support also took place in the First World War, but your paragraph doesn't state that. Fighting the British and Italians does not mean he fought the French indirectly; that's a strange assumption to make indeed. I know the British launched the campaign, but that's not what your text implies. Try this another way. What are the issues with the text I proposed? CMD (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And again you put irrelevant issues. We know they received help in the first place. The successes of the Dervishes noticed them[Germand and Turks], we know that. But we don't know any more reasons. This paragraph is just a small summary of the Dervish State, just in case you didn't know. We don't need to add everything here(in this article). And I did not say that by fighting the British and Italians he fought the French indirectly. Let's see the quote again: "Just after the French, British, Italians and Ethiopians had carved up the Somali nation at the end of the nineteenth century, a fiery Somali fundamentalist sheik who was also the most brilliant poet of his age mounted a jihad against the Christian colonizers wich lasted for 20 years." France took the North Western part of Somalia(Djibouti). He fought against the Christians colonizers, wich includes the French.

It's not necessary to add when they received the support, if we know that the support took place in the conflict. That is logical. Even if I solved all issues(what I already did), you will still decline and come with an other irrelevant and negligible proposal. Runehelmet (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who placed a reason for the support in the text, not me. That quote does not say he fought the French. The Christian colonisers could be the French, British, Italians, or perhaps even Ethiopians. We rely on other sources to tell us which they were, and the other sources say it was the British, Italians, and Ethiopians. We don't know the support took place in the conflict from your text, and you solved very few issues, with your text being very similar to what it was before. Am I to take it there are no issues with my text other than it being too informative? CMD (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That quote says he mounted a jihad against the Christian colonizers. And the Christian colonizers are cited in the first sentence as the French, Italians, British and Ethiopians. But the earlier quotes are talking about the British expeditions. Where the British are the main enemies of the Dervishes. And to be honest, the first text was actually fine, everthing was sourced. So do you now agree that he was aggressive against the French colonizers? Runehelmet (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say all the Christian colonisers. It was a theatrical phrase, and you're extending it far beyond what it actually means. You still have no sources saying he fought the French. And no, not everything in your latest text is sourced, so how you can claim everything in your first text was is beyond me. CMD (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That is your conclusion. If you believe that you're right then give me a source that states that the Dervishes did not fought the French but only the Italians, British and Ethiopians. Only then you can convince me. And don't tell me it's my burden to do that. I gave you a quote, you denied it by coming with a non factual argument.Runehelmet (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your quote doesn't support your argument, plain and simple. You haven't fulfilled your burden. CMD (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the assertions that the Dervishes fought the French and that they received support from the Ottomans and Germans "as a result of its successes against the British" (which would need citations), I don't see any issues with Rune's paragraph above dated 18:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

@CMD:In your eyes I haven't fullfilled my burden. Your assertion is not a fact, mister. And again I ask you to give me quotes that support your statements. Or do you just want to sit back and say 'no' all the time? If you want to be right then you should search sources that supports your arguments. I did it with mine, you said no. But your no is not analogical with the 'no' of Wikipedia. But I'm willingly to remove the French part.

"he created the Dervish State, an early 20th century state that resisted against the British, Italians and Ethiopians. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire, who launched four military expeditions against the Dervish State, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region. The Dervish State received political support from the Ottoman Empire and military assistance from the German Empire. The Turks also named Hassan Emir of the Somali nation. The German Empire promised to recognize any territorial conquest made by the Dervish State. The Dervishes reveived also aid from the new Ethiopian Emperor, Lij Iyasu, who converted to Islam. He had broken with the policies of his predecessors by aiding the Somali Dervishes. Lij Iyasu was apparently on friendly terms with Hassan and his Dervishes and conceived the aim of creating a vast Muslim Empire in NE Africa. The State fell in 1920 when the British bombed the Dervish capital of Taleex." Is this one better? Runehelmet (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a typo: "Dervishes reveived also aid from" should read "Dervishes also received aid from". Also, almost every sentence begins with "the", so the phrasing needs to be reworked a little for more varied reading. As far as the actual content goes, though, it's fine. Middayexpress (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Alright let's try this one. He created the Dervish State, an early 20th century state that resisted against the British, Italians and Ethiopians. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire, who launched four military expeditions against the Dervish State, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region. They received political support from the Ottoman Empire and military assistance from the German Empire. Mohammed Hassan was named by The Ottoman Empire as the Emir of the Somali nation. The German Empire promised to recognize any territorial conquest made by the Dervish State. Lij Lyasy, who converted to Islam, reigned the Ethiopian Empire from 1913 till 1916. He aided the Dervishes, by this he had broken with the policies of his predecessors. Lij Iyasu was apparently on friendly terms with Hassan and his Dervishes and conceived the aim of creating a vast Muslim Empire in NE Africa. The Dervish State fell in 1920 when the British bombed the Dervish capital of Taleex." Runehelmet (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There are actually more phrasing issues with the paragraph above than the previous one. At any rate, it's nothing that can't be cleaned up later. First CMD has to respond though. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring grammar and phrasing issues for now, as Midday said, it can be dealt with independently.

"The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire...and forced it to retreat to the coastal region." Our sources only say the British withdrew, and all seem to note the battles were indecisive. Neither side seems to have forced the other to do anything.

"They received political support from the Ottoman Empire and military assistance from the German Empire." The Ottomans sent a private note to Hassan, and the Germans sent a mechanic. Calling these actions political and military support is misleading and pointless, since we can say what they actually did.

"Mohammed Hassan was named by The Ottoman Empire as the Emir of the Somali nation." This was done in a private letter to Hassan. The way it's written makes it sound like some official statement, which never happened.

"The German Empire promised to recognize any territorial conquest made by the Dervish State." This was made in conjunction with German recognition of Ethiopian gains, with the Germans using the Dervishes as a proxy to try and get Ethiopia into the war.

"Lij Lyasy, who converted to Islam, reigned the Ethiopian Empire from 1913 till 1916." This could be sourced, but even if it was, why is information about Lij Lyasy relevant to the History of Somaliland? It reads like a random injection.

"The Dervish State fell in 1920 when the British bombed the Dervish capital of Taleex." Slightly off in that the end was actually from a land campaign supported by the air force. The air force did provide the initial destruction that allowed the British army to move in, but the Dervish State only fell when the army subdued their cities.

I notice this latest version doesn't mention any dates except for 1920 (and the reign of Iyasu V, who should be called Iyasu V per the wikipedia article name), which is strange. I also note that there has still been no criticism of my suggestion other than it had too much information. Is there a reason that the text I proposed, which I wrote from sources rather than writing and trying to find sources to support the writing (which is how wikipedia writing should be done), is not acceptable? CMD (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

1. "In February 1902, the British assembled a 2300-man force that the dervishes attacked at Galcaio. Heavy losses forced the British to retreat to Bohotleh."-Encyclopedia of African history: Volume 3. "While the Dervishes reorganized, the British moved their forces to the coast."-Somalia in Pictures. This shows that the Dervishes forced the British to retreat.

2. Who says in the first place that it is not an official statement? Because it's 'intercepted' by the Italian administration, does not mean that it's private or that the intention was to keep that announcement secret. The Ottomans were openly at war with the British, so why would they keep that message secret?

3. You have a source that says that the Germans wanted to create a war that involved Ethiopia?

4. That info is relevant because he was involved in the Dervish War. And the Dervishes were centered in Somaliland, obviously.

5. We can rewrite that: The Dervish State fell in 1920 when the British launched a massive and coordinated sea, land and air offensive against the Dervish capital.[4]

More problems? Runehelmet (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Bohotleh is no where near the coast.

2. Um, yes. The fact it was intercepted means it was a private letter. Neither of us can speculate on the intentions of the Ottomans.

3. The section of the source which you're (supposedly) using to reference the German recognition of Dervish territorial gains is about Germany's attempt to involve Ethiopia in the war.

4. The British were involved in the Dervish War, we don't give their backstories. If it is relevant, an outside source needs to link them, and the text needs to show this linkage.

5. Better, although we shouldn't copy directly from the source. It's seems to be a good source by the way, we could use this a bit more.

I posted six points above, plus the note that you've still given no reason we can't use the text I suggested. Do you a) have any comment on my 6th point (second in order) and b) actually have any objection to my text? CMD (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

1)The first quote is about your objection of the word 'forced' and the second quote about their withdrawal to the coastal area.

2)Just a single word for you espionage. It's an official anouncement of the Ottoman regime, but the Italians intercepted it. That does not make it 'less worthy'

3)So you want to say that the Germans did not recognized any land of the Dervishes?

4)The Ethiopian Emperor is related with the conflict, so it's logical to add it in this article.

5)I never said that your text has to much info. In fact, your text lacks a lot of information if you compare it with mine. But that is because you decline mine text. And again: I sourced all the statements, so what is actually the dispute? Do you think that my intention is to bring the Dervish State glory and fame? I'm not a patriot. It's history we can't change it. Or is it you, who have a problem with the Dervish State? We know it's not about winning but to improve Wikipedia and its contents. Runehelmet (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Correct. Forced to Bohotleh, 1 quote. Withdrawal to the coast another. Putting them together would by WP:SYNTH, and at any rate we now have two sources which discuss withdrawal rather than being forced.

2) An announcement can't be intercepted. It's announced.

3) Read my suggested text for how to write reflecting what the sources say.

4) If we find a source that relates the information, then fine. So far we have a source saying he helped because he wanted to see an Islamic Empire created in the area. We don't need detail on his reign.

5) You said "It's not necessary to add when they received the support", implying my text had unnecessary information (which is strange, because you'd think out of all the information in a history article dates would rate amongst the highest in terms of importance). What does my text lack? I've expressed the reasons I don't think your text is suitable. And as for your "And again: I sourced all the statements, so what is actually the dispute?", throughout this entire discussion we've found numerous things you included that weren't sourced, so let's not pretend you started off with a great piece of fully sourced prose. What relevant, sourced information does my text not have? It can easily be added. CMD (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

1. You said that no one was forced to do anything. "Neither side seems to have forced the other to do anything." And I gave you that quote that indicated that the British were forced to do something. You were against the word force not the place where they retreated.

2. It was an official announcement of the Ottoman government. The CIA intercepts a lot of sensitive and military info of foreign governments. But do that change the fact that the info is not official? Official is not synonymous with public declaration.

3. But we are here talking about the Dervish State, as you said we will not add any irrelevant causes.

4. So you don't want a short intro of who the Ethiopian Emperor was? The readers must know who he is, and that is explained in one sentence.

5. Not true, if you look throughout this talk page, you see many quotes that backed my statements. And again you simply declined. This is in my eyes a circle discussion.

I'm not 100% against your text. I'm defending mine text to show you that the written paragraph is OKAY. But to solve this eternal discussion I accept your text. But, you must rewrite this:"And promised to recognise any territorial gains by Ethiopia and the Dervishes". This will cause confusion because in the first sentence states that the Dervishes fought against the Ethiopians. The readers will think: why would the German allies aid them both? That is also a reason to add the part of the new emperor in this article. Under his reign he aided the Dervishes, not fought them like his predecessors and future successors. Runehelmet (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

1) I objected to your text saying they were forced to the coast when we have no source that says they were. That's the entirety of my argument there.

2) Announcements are synonymous with public declarations.

3) Ah, but the source we have links this information to the Dervish state.

4) Not if outside sources don't connect them.

5) Sure, some of your statements were sourced, but considering we had to search after your post for sources for some of it, and that some of it had to be removed as we still haven't found any sources for it, your statement that "I sourced all the statements" is demonstrably false.

Hassan raised an army united through Islamic faith and established the Dervish State, fighting with Ethiopian, British, and Italian forces. The British launched four early expeditions against him, the last one in 1904 ending indecisively. British forces withdrew to the coast in 1909, and the Dervishes destroyed their camel constabulary in 1914. Ethiopian Emperor Iyasu V supplied Hassan with weapons and financial aid. Germany sent Emil Kirsch, a mechanic, to assist the Dervish Forces as an armourer at Taleh from 1916-1917, and encouraged Ethiopia to aid the Dervishes while promising to recognise any territorial gains made by either of them. The Ottoman Empire sent a letter to Hussan in 1917 assuring him of support and naming him "Emir of the Somali nation". At the height of his power, Hussan led 6000 troops, and by November 1918 the British administration in Somaliland was spending its entire budget on trying to stop Dervish activity. The Dervish state fell in February 1920 after a British campaign led by ariel bombing.

The first sentence says that the Dervishes fought the Ethiopians, but the third already notes that Ethiopia gave the Dervishes financial aid, so the confusion would arise with that sentence and not the one to do with the Germans. I added a bit at the start to note the Islamic nature of the state from the source you recently found. I can't really clear up the confusion as I have no access to the "A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa" book, and so have no context outside of the quote you provided. What does that book say about Iyasu and his policies? CMD (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That book only noted him briefly. But here are quotes from other books about him:

"Lij Iyasu, who succeeded Emperor Menelik, was favorably disposed toward his Muslim subjects and saw Mohammed as a useful ally in Ethiopia's struggle against European encirclement."- Twentieth Century, 1901-1940, page 1567

"Rumors reached Mogadishu of Muslim Ethiopian leaders in the camp of Muhammad Abdullah and of the expected conversion of Emperor Iyasu to Islam. The appalling prospect was raised of an alliance of the Muslims of Ethiopia and northern Somalia to drive out the Christian invaders."- Italian colonialism in Somalia, page 146

"Lij Iyasu became pro-Islamic and turned Ethiopia from an enemy to an ally of the Somali Mahdists. supplying them in their war against the Tripartite states."-Peace and war: cross-cultural perspectives, Page 139.

Hope this will help. Runehelmet (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph above is a considerable improvement over the others, both in phrasing and content. I only see two minor issues with it. To remove confusion, it would be better if it stated that Hassan and his Dervishes fought against the Ethiopians, British and Italians rather than with them. The phrase mentioning Emperor Iyasu's support also should probably briefly mention his reasons for doing so. Middayexpress (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading through the sources at the moment, I'm hoping more information on Iyasu is around somewhere. CMD (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Third part

Hassan raised an army united through Islamic faith and established the Dervish State, fighting Ethiopian, British, and Italian forces. The British launched four early expeditions against him, with the last one in 1904 ending in an indecisive British victory. British forces withdrew to the coast in 1909. In 1912 they raised a camel constabulary to defend the protectorate, but the Dervishes destroyed this in 1914. In the First World War the new Ethiopian Emperor Iyasu V reversed the policy of his predecessor, Menelik II, and aided the Dervishes, supplying them with weapons and financial aid. Germany sent Emil Kirsch, a mechanic, to assist the Dervish Forces as an armourer at Taleh from 1916-1917, and encouraged Ethiopia to aid the Dervishes while promising to recognise any territorial gains made by either of them. The Ottoman Empire sent a letter to Hassan in 1917 assuring him of support and naming him "Emir of the Somali nation". At the height of his power, Hassan led 6000 troops, and by November 1918 the British administration in Somaliland was spending its entire budget trying to stop Dervish activity. The Dervish state fell in February 1920 after a British campaign led by ariel bombing.

Is there any content that should be but isn't included? Runehelmet, is the A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa this book? Could you fill out the source details, as I don't have access to the book myself. CMD (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine know. But I think that we need to add a reason why the new Emperor broke the traditional policies. And the reason for that was his controversial conversion to Islam. "In the First World War the new Ethiopian Emperor Iyasu V reversed the policy of his predecessor, Menelik II, and aided the Dervishes". Nearly all of the Emperors of Ethiopia had a dispute with the Somalis. So we can write 'predecessor' in plural and have Menelik the second as a recent example. By the way, I've filled in the mising part of the details. PS: Sorry for the late reaction, didn't noticed your post. Runehelmet (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The isbn you gave appears to be invalid, can you double check it? Also, as the Dervishes only arose as a military force to be opposed or supporting in the late 19th century, how different Ethiopian emperors treated Somalis as a whole isn't important to the topic. CMD (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry forgot the last letter. I though it wasn't part of the code, it's quite unusual to have a letter in the ISBN. Runehelmet (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there's never a letter in an ISBN. I've edited to the ISBN given online. Does that match with any numbers in the book? CMD (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does match with the book but as older versions. Those two ISBN's refer to the same book, that is strange. If you use the ISBN I added, it will refer to an other book but with the same title, author etc. [5]. But we can use the current one too. Runehelmet (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We can just use the 13 digit one. That seems good enough to put in then. CMD (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Runehelmet (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The adjusted paragraph above from 13:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC) seems fine. The last remaining thing to mention is the Emperor Iyasu's reason(s) for supporting the Dervishes. Middayexpress (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The source we have notes that he saw value in the defeat of Britain, France, and Italy, and became Pro-Islamic. I unfortunately can find little reliable information, and most ebooks on the topic only have snippet views (although lonely planet informs me he had christian and muslim wives). CMD (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured. I also remember reading somewhere that Iyasu was actually thinking about marrying one of Hassan's sisters or daughters; so that would've made him the Dervish leader's brother or son-in-law. Middayexpress (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

On this point [6]: "Erlich states that Iyasu married one of the daughters of Abdella Sadiq, but the testimony of Iyasu's chronicle seems to indicate that he did not." Middayexpress (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting bloke. How about "In the First World War the new pro-Islamic Ethiopian Emperor Iyasu V reversed the policy of his predecessor, Menelik II, and aided the Dervishes, believing a defeat of France, Italy, and the United Kingdom and an expansion of the Ottoman Empire would be beneficial to Ethiopia." CMD (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Off the bat, I don't see any issue with that. Middayexpress (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just realized that the quote I posted earlier doesn't refer to Hassan. I must've confused "Sadiq" with "Sayyid" (a frequently applied honorific for Mohamed Abdullah Hassan); they're also both called Abdullah/Abdallah. The gentleman referred to there was apparently all at once Emperor Iyasu's father-in-law, his Islamic tutor, and his contact with Hassan [7]: "In June 1915, Iyasu moved to the Ogaden and stayed there until April 1916. Without even notifying Tafari, Ras Makonen's son and the governor of Harar, Iyasu appointed 'Abdallah al-Sadiq vice-governor of Hararge. He then married 'Abdallah's daughter and made his father-in-law his tutor on Islam and his contact with Somali leader Muhammad bin 'Abdallah Hasan (the "Mad Mullah")." We should probably mention this. Middayexpress (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Somaliland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627100400/http://www.mbali.info/doc494.htm to http://www.mbali.info/doc494.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309121250/http://www.civicwebs.com/cwvlib/africa/somalia/1994/dawn_of_civilization/chapter_8.htm to http://www.civicwebs.com/cwvlib/africa/somalia/1994/dawn_of_civilization/chapter_8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Somaliland

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Somaliland's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "LOC":

• From British Somaliland: Ofcansky and LaVerle Berry, Thomas P. "Ethiopia in World War II". A Country Study: Ethiopia. Library of Congress. Retrieved 11 January 2014.
• From History of Madagascar: Metz, Helen Chapin (1994). "Library of Congress Country Studies: Madagascar (Education)". Archived from the original on March 27, 2019. Retrieved February 1, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Signatures-Somaliland-independece-.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)