Welcome!

Hello, Enigmie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F. If CNN reported something as news rather than opinion, there'd be a written news story on it. Also, your interpretation (and the interpretation of the poster on YouTube) distort what the host says, which is that the matter of who ended the cease fire is "questionable". As such, I have reverted your edits. Oren0 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an opinion but some sort of an 'investigation' by CNN journalist as to who actually (between Hamas and Israel) was the first one to break the ceasefire. Of course, I can get the video directly from CNN and I recognise that is better. But I do not understand why you would remove it. The host didn't say the matter is questionable. As you know, there have being questions as to who actually broke the ceasefire first. The journalist then embarked on an 'investigation' in which he found out, from reliable news sources, that on November 4th, Israel broke the ceasefire first. Now how is this 'questionable'? The host is merely saying that according to the 'investigation' he carried out, he found out Israel broke the ceasefire first on Nov. 4th. As such, I find your argument of 'questionability' not holding water.Enigmie (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made some inaccurate regarding the predominant clans in Mandera. Ogaden is not a major clan in Mandera, but in Garissa. As such, I removed the inaccurate changes you made. Enigmie (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't make any claims. It's the cited link that indicates that [1], [2]. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the book is talking about North Eastern Province, not Mandera. The two are not the same. Mandera is part of North Eastern Province but it is not the same as North Eastern Province. Furthermore, the book is full of inaccuracies as Hawiye actually do not live in the North Eastern Province of Kenya. Not to mention the author's biased and inaccurate description of the NFD War as acts of hooliganism and banditry. I wouldn't cite his book as a reliable source. I will try to find a more reliable, or at least neutral, source, though I admit it is very difficult to find such a source. Enigmie (talk)

Actually, the link does refer to Mandera specifically: "North-Eastern Province is an exclusively Somali-speaking region. These include the Ogaden, the Gurreh, the Degodia, the Hawiyah and the Somali-so-stated found in Garissa, Mandera and Wajir districts." For better or worse, the term "shifta" (which btw is irrelevant to what clans inhabit Mandera) itself also means "bandit". Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the author write about Mandera specifically? Your own quotes talk about North Eastern Province, not Mandera. The author is only writing about the whole province, which in those days was made up of three districts, Mandera, Wajir and Garissa (the number of districts was later increased), not a specific district, whether that is Mandera, Garissa or Wajir. If one speaks about the whole of North Eastern Province, then it is true that the main tribes are Garre, Degodia and Ogaden, though definitely not Hawiye. Yes, I know that Shifta is the Kiswahili word for bandits. I only brought it up as I consider it totally biased and not a neutral point of view to describe (more likely, dismiss) what was a complex conflict as banditry and hooliganism. But that is another topic, so let us stick to our topic at hand. I also won't edit the article any more and undo the changes you made until we reach an agreement, as it looks childish to me undoing and redoing changes we both make every now and then. Regards, Enigmie (talk)

I want to edit the article and restore the changes I made. f you have anything against this proposal, then please let me know. Otherwise I shall assume that you are fine with it. Regards, Enigmie (talk)

Your edit was original research, as explained. The term 'shifta' is also actually of Amharic (Afro-Asiatic) origin. It was originally used in Ethiopia and Eritrea in a different social context to mean "bandit". At any rate, the quote above clearly mentions "the Ogaden, the Gurreh, the Degodia, the Hawiyah and the Somali-so-stated found in Garissa, Mandera" etc. Ergo, that's what is indicated. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the meaning of the word "Shifta" has evolved and in Kenya at least, it is used in the negative sense of "bandits". Precisely the reason why the government dubbed the war the "Shifta" war, for propaganda purpose. Back to our topic now. So, do you have anything against my proposed edits then? I certainly 100% know that, when speaking of Mandera only, that Ogaden doesn't feature as the main tribe. In Garissa yes, but certainly not in Mandera. And Hawiye are not a main tribe in the entire North Eastern Province. Regards, Enigmie (talk)

Those are clans, not tribes. In any event, please have a look again at the o/r policy. Also, out of curiosity, what in your opinion are the main clans in Mandera and Garissa, respectively (bearing in mind that the Degodia and Murule are often classified as Hawiye sub-groups)? Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the difference between clans and tribes is not always that cut-clear. But I assume you are seeing Hawiye, Dir, Daarot etc. as the tribes and the clans to be the groups that come under those tribes. I read the O/R policy and I agree that you are on the right side as far as O/R policy is concerned. But the O/R policy is not consistent. Going through a Wikipedia article, it is not uncommon to find articles in which every sentence or paragraph is not cited. And in my opinion, it is very difficult to find sources, much less reliable ones, for areas where people have traditionally being nomads and illiterate. And where there has being some documentation, it has often being done from the perspective of a biased outsider. For example, the book you cite has been written by a Kenyan Jaluo (I can tell from the author's name, his tribe), not a Somali. And although I haven't read the book, it doesn't strike me as a solid and reliable scholarly work, from what you have quoted. I am trying to find a reliable source but so far without success. Not surprising as we are dealing with, what is effectively a village (from a global perspective), not an American city. I am providing a primary source, not an opinion (though I recognise there is often a very fine-line between the two). So, I know for sure 100% that the main tribes in Mandera are Garre, Murulle and Degodia. There are other tribes like Sheekhal, Leysan, and more recently, Marehaan (because Mandera borders Beled Hawa (Bula Hawa), an area predominantly inhabited by Marehaan). Certainly not Ogaden. Ogaden are the major tribe in Garissa. In Wajir, on the other hand, the major tribe is Degodia. This is a fairly very basic and common knowledge to every Somali from Kenya (Somali-Sijui). I personally don't care about which tribes live where. I have no personal interest in it and I would actually be happier and fine with it if the whole tribe thing was removed from the article. But if, on the other hand, the aim is to give an accurate description of the area and its inhabitants, in an anthropological sense, then I think an edit is necessary. Regards, Enigmie (talk)

There is enough of a difference anthropologically-speaking between clans and tribes to warrant separate wiki articles, though you're right in that there is some degree of overlap. Moving on, the Degodia and Murule are both often classified as Hawiye sub-clans. Hence, when folks assert that the Hawiye have a notable presence in the area, that's what they're referring to. Somalis have also historically had various writing systems (c.f. [3]), so traditions would and have been recorded not just orally (as is the case in most of Africa; the Ethiopian highlands and the north notwithstanding) but actually written down too. Further, Somalis have traditionally been divided into two social strata, not just one: reer miyi (country-folk) and reer magaal (city-folk) (c.f. [4]). The first is more basic in culture, the second advanced -- a hallmark of many other Afro-Asiatic communities (e.g. Fellahin vs. city dwellers in Egypt, Bedouin vs. urban sheikhs in Arabia, etc.). But since you say you're Somali, I'm sure you're already aware of this. By the way, a primary source is not the same thing as a Wikipedian's opinion. The former carries weight on this website but is limited in certain areas, whereas the latter for better or worse does not. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am aware of all that and it would make for a good discussion, but I want to try and do my best to keep us on topic. I also know Degodia and Murulle are Hawiye but I just mentioned Hawiye as the author was mixing major tribes (Hawiye etc.) with clans, like Degodia, Murulle, Garre, Ogaden etc. Assuming that the author meant Murulle when he said "other Hawiye", he will still be wrong as he is saying Ogaden is a major clan in Mandera, which is not the case. So, I suggest that the article be edited by either removing the whole tribal part of the article or, assuming that its inclusion is seen as necessary to understanding the area and its inhabitants, the necessary changes that we have discussed be made. Regards, Enigmie (talk)

So, what do you think of my suggestion then? Enigmie (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Bentogoa. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Yellow badge  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Bentogoa (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a RfC on the Reagan article on a subject in which you have previously commented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan#RfC:_Reagan_and_Apartheid Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]