Talk:War in Somalia (2006–2009)

Requested move 2 December 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Somali Civil War (2006–2009) → Somalia War (2006–2009) – This article refers to Ethiopian intervention in Somalia, so there is no reason for the title to be "Somali Civil War (2006–2009)". It would be the same as War in Afghanistan (2001 – present) was named "Afghan Civil War (2001 – present)". In addition, the page was moved without prior discussion. 2804:431:B704:C7A1:F5D7:C9B2:8B16:882A (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope of the article and undone editing
This article is not only about the Ethiopian invasion of 2006, but also covers the subsequent military occupation by Ethiopia and the Islamist insurgency between 2006 and 2009. An invasion lasts a few days, whereas a military occupation can last for months or several years and be preceded by an insurgency (examples: Iraq War and Soviet–Afghan War).

Furthermore, this edition is not covered by sources that clearly cite "Ethiopian occupation of Somalia" and "Ethiopian intervention in Somali Civil War". --Fontaine347 (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Somalia War (2006–2009) → ? – The current title is very ambiguous, and very easy to confuse with "Somali Civil War." It also doesn't make Ethiopia's role in this war very clear - even though it's covered explicitly by English-language news outlets & human rights organizations that have talked about this, who, as far as I'm aware, don't simply call it "the Somalia War." Going by WP:CRITERIA, I believe it should be changed to something more specific. For example:

1. Ethiopian invasion of Somalia (2006–2009)

2. Ethiopian intervention in the Somali Civil War (2006–2009)

3. Ethiopian occupation of Somalia (2006–2009)

4. Ethiopian war in Somalia (2006–2009)

Or maybe something else. Alternatively, if none of these are satisfactory, we can keep the title as is. DJ (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Initially I agreed with you, but then I realised that this article is not just about the Ethiopian intervention but about the entire phase of the war from 2006 to 2009. A move to War in Somalia (2006–2009) may be the best option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s true that it doesn’t just cover Ethiopia, but the main trigger event for this is still Ethiopia sending troops into Somalia at the request of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), and i think the title could better reflect that. And not for nothing, the fact the Somali Civil War from 2009-present has its own extensive article, separate from the main Somali Civil War article, i think, is pretty notable.
 * I’m personally leaning more towards moving it to Ethiopian intervention in the Somali Civil War (2006–2009) or Ethiopian occupation of Somalia (2006–2009). DJ (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support #2 as the best descriptor for the events in question. No such user (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote in the above section:

"This article is not only about the Ethiopian invasion of 2006, but also covers the subsequent military occupation by Ethiopia and the Islamist insurgency between 2006 and 2009. An invasion lasts a few days, whereas a military occupation can last for months or several years and be preceded by an insurgency (examples: Iraq War and Soviet–Afghan War)."

So, if you really need to change the title, options #2 and #4 are the best. --Fontaine347 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"This article refers to Ethiopian intervention in Somalia, so there is no reason for the title to be 'Somali Civil War (2006–2009)'. It would be the same as War in Afghanistan (2001 – present) was named 'Afghan Civil War (2001 – present)'."
 * Oppose all. As said in ,

Obviously, that was in favor of changing the page from "Somali Civil War" to Somalia War, but it could also apply here. The War in Afghanistan isn't named "American invasion of/intervention in Afghanistan". However, if this page is to be moved, I would favor #2 the most, although a separate page for #1 (the initial invasion) could be made if deemed relevant Presidentofyes12 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to War in Somalia (2006–2009) and oppose proposal to mention Ethiopia, per Presidentofyes12 and Necrothesp comments that it's really about the whole war in that period. I think War in Somalia (2006–2009) is probably a better title though, as I'm not aware of a proper name "Somalia War" in this context, and it's a combination of civil war and foreign invasion anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll admit this is a better title than "Somalia War," though I'm still a proponent of mentioning the Ethiopia intervention somewhere in the title - if only to distinguish it from the Many other interventions the international community has had in Somalia. DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Would like to mention as a counterpoint: the beginning of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) is, in fact, called the United States invasion of Afghanistan; even the main war itself is sometimes called the "US War in Afghanistan." And it's not unprecedented to explicitly mention a belligerent having a major impact on a conflict, either (see Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war and Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen). To me, it still seems fair to mention Ethiopia's role. DJ (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Another different move suggestion appeared late. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

usage of primary sources
@Whoopsawa I removed many of your content because the way this article was structed was not appropriate at all and against Wikipedia's policies. Much of this article was (and still is) a WP:SYNTH of various different news outlets (WP:PRIMARY). Also read WP:PRIMARYUSE, you can't just use any primary source you only have to use ones that are reputable and reliable. Wikipedia articles have to rely on material from reliable secondary sources. I've added some in the article such as Inside Al-Shabaab by Harun Maruf, you can add some of your content back if you wish and word it correct but do not remove the ones I've added. I don't mean to remove much of your work on this article, and I'm generally not too interested in this content, however when I came across this page I just noticed the wording, the excessive quotations, the reliance on unreliable new reports, it was just so bizarre, I had to step in. The portrayal of the ICU almost winning and repelling the December 2006 invasion is just unbelievable levels of revisionism and a textbook example of original research, the ICU had no answer to the Ethiopian/US weaponry and were effectively annihilated, the only place were they face significant resistance was Idaale due to Al-Shabaab's better tactics and weapons, but not the bulk of the ICU. Both Harun Maruf and Stig Jarle Hansen make this clear, these are known experts in the field, not some news article or local reports from over 20 years ago.

Secondly Al-Shabaab was undoubtedly the dominant Islamist faction in this conflict, not "ICU remnants" most of the fighters were from Al Shabaab as well as some from the ARS even during the 2006 invasion they played a big role. You shouldn't add ICU remnants into the infobox especially as the first one mentioned. You didn't add any source for that claim, the citations you've provided offer no link or access to the source. Do you have any secondary source supporting this claim? Socialwave597 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Socialwave5971: Lets start with "The portrayal of the ICU almost winning and repelling the December 2006 invasion is just unbelievable levels of revisionism and a textbook example of original research". For one, that was not written, or even implied for that matter. Nearly overrunning Baidoa is not 'almost repelling' the December 2006 invasion. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is not unreliable nor did he write "a textbook example of original research". Reading WP:NOR, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. He interviewed numerous associated figures in the war to write his article, including US intelligence and the TFG; he is cited in books used on this article discussing the invasion, such as "Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield" by Jeremy Scahill. Sharif Sheikh Ahmed also is cited for reporting several battlefield victories before the withdrawal, so if anything Ross's reporting is an independent corroboration of some of Sharifs assertions. His report was not written as an indisputable fact beforehand and I will be putting back in what he wrote. His article actually fits the criteria for a secondary source considering the WP:PRIMARYUSE link states: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events" For some reason you also inexplicably decided to remove The Long War Journal article discussing ICU anti-armor tactics and advancements on Baidoa. On top of that, you removed this source I had used for losses during December 2006 that was straight from the University of Central Arkansas, so I very much question the veracity of your claims on unreliable sourcing.
 * You incorrectly assert that Harun and Stig made clear, "...the only place were they face significant resistance was Idaale due to Al-Shabaab's better tactics and weapons, but not the bulk of the ICU"
 * - Looking at Al-Shabaab in Somalia by Stig Jarle Hansen, you only cited page 47 which states:
 * Sharia Court leaders being outside the country has no bearing on the rest of the ICU fighting force so not sure how this fits into your claim.
 * - Inside Al-Shabaab by Harun Maruf explicitly states on page 42:
 * Pushing from Daynunay (not Idale) to just eight kilometers outside Baidoa is hardly insignificant resistance. Also, it should be little surprise a book called "Inside Al-Shabaab" will emphasize…Al-Shabaab. Maruf only mentions Idale and Daynunay, with a short reference to Al-Shabaab not defending Dinsor and retreating, all locations where Shabaab forces were mostly present. The battles at Bur Hakaba, Bandiradley and other major encounters are not at all mentioned.
 * - Now looking at what Gartenstein-Ross writes on 22 December 2006:
 * Stig writes that "the Sharia Courts and Al-Shabaab forces quickly collapsed", which is true considering the front line battles only last a week. Maruf claims that in "the first two big battles" the ICU fought from Daynunay and pushed to a few kilometers shy of Baidoa. The battle around Idaale were heavier than the rest because of Al-Shabaab's discipline, which does not mean that was the only significant fight. Marufs focus being on Idale and his view of it as one single continuous battle over the course of days instead of a series of clashes does not dispute Ross's report of the 19-22 December fighting that the ICU had achieved at least 3 battlefield victories.
 * 2: Now, Islamic Courts Remnants. Yes they absolutely should be in the infobox. You say I "didn't add any source for that claim". In the article there are citations with links on ICU remnants already on the page. ICU factions, independent of the ARS and Al-Shabaab were a major part of the insurgency, especially 2007.
 * - Jan 2007 "Late Friday, government troops also repelled an attack on the Somali president's palace. A leader in Somalia's Islamic Courts movement said his group was responsible for the attacks, calling it part of a "new uprising." (cited WP)
 * - Oct 2007 "As fighting in Mogadishu escalated, ICU remnants in southern Somalia found a window of opportunity and peacefully captured the town of Dhobley near the Kenyan border in mid October." (cited OCHA)
 * Al-Shabaab was not "undoubtedly" the dominant Islamist faction in this conflict. They became dominant only towards the end of 2007 and during 2008.
 * Stig Jarle Hansen, writes in page 280 of Harakat al-Shabaab, and Somalia’s current state of affairs
 * May 2008 Amnesty International Report pages 3 and 4:
 * Financial Times August 2007:
 * December 2007 Al-Jazeera report on ICU remnants in Mogadishu
 * In May and December 2008, Al-Jazeera reported:
 * I could really keep going but this reply is long enough.
 * As for your general claim about primary and unreliable sources, point out which ones are "unreliable news reports". Considering you deleted an actual university web page link, I don't think this is a serious assertion. Shabelle Media, HornAfrik and Hiiraan (what I mostly used for news) are the significant independent Somali media outlets of the era and are as good as (and consistently referenced by) authors like Maruf and agencies like Reuters so not sure what you are looking for there. I can not think of a single thing I wrote down that wasn't explicitly stated in a cited source, so no idea why you mention WP:SYNTH. Whoopsawa (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Whoopsawa The edits I made were rushed, sloppy and full of typos, and I may concede that I removed some reliable sources here and there, but the bulk of information came from contemporary news articles. I never denied the very early victories of the ICU anyways, but once the ENDF deployed their heavy weaponry they were swamped. Now about the "ICU remnants", who were they? You mentioned that these mysterious "ICU remnants" controlled the town of Dhobley, well according to this article that group was Al-Shabaab. It's pretty clear that AS was the dominant Islamist faction in this conflict, even before the war began AS was the most dominant faction within the ICU and began to sideline and intimate moderate leaders of the ICU, they were dominant from the beginning. From December 2006-March 2007, the ENDF was mostly fighting with clan militias, but by mid 2007, Al Shabaab became the main anti Ethiopian force in southern Somalia, so from mid 2007 to 2009 AS was the main Islamist faction in the anti Ethiopian insurgency, yet you put "ICU remnants" on top of the infobox. This is why secondary sources are crucial on Wikipedia, because as information becomes more available overtime they may differ from contemporary reports. Per Wikipedia policy primary sources should be kept to an appropriate minimum. Socialwave597 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Socialwave597If you don't deny the early victories I have no idea what you were bothered by a "portrayal of the ICU almost winning and repelling the December 2006 invasion" that didnt exist. Nowhere was it being implied the ICU was about to chase the ENDF across the border or something. "ICU remnants", were an array of different scattered groups with different leanings, so I don't know how you want me to answer "who were they" . The article you linked regarding Dhobley is 5 months older than mine, so that means nothing considering territory constantly exchanged hands.
 * I will cite this to you again. In Harakat al-Shabaab, and Somalia’s current state of affairs by Stig Jarle Hansen and Mohamed Husein Gaas it is written:
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/24916969
 * AS being the most dominant entity in the ICU is hardly an objective fact.
 * In The evolution of political violence: The case of Somalia’s al-Shabaab by Jason C. Mueller
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2016.1165213
 * In Dirty Wars by Jeremy Schahill:
 * pg.200, quoting Malcom Nance
 * pg.205, quoting Ahmed Madobe:
 * I can go on but this is getting off the point. Whoopsawa (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Whoopsawa Yes, from 2006 to mid 2007 the fighting was mostly against clan militias, however by August 2007 to the end of the conflict, AS was the dominant faction in the anti-Ethiopian insurgency, so for the majority of the insurgency AS was the primary Islamist group in Somalia, therefore they should be at the top, not "ICU remnants", who arguably shouldn't even be in the infobox. Read page 67 of Inside Al Shabaab by Harun Maruf, all of these "ICU remnants" aligned themselves with the new group of ARS in Eritrea, expect for AS which craved out its own path and chose not to be apart of a larger insurgent movement, therefore I see no reason why ICU remnants should be included in the infobox. Socialwave597 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Socialwave597 The fighting was not "mostly against clan militias", I sent you the Stig Jarle Hansen and Mohamed Husein Gaas source on the significant non-Shabaab participation during early 2007. They explicitly chose to single out "...parts of the anti-Ethiopian opposition played a much larger role in the initial fighting, especially other remains of the Islamic courts.", not clan militias. The ARS was not even formed until September 2007. That leaves over half a year of Islamic Courts remnants not even having the option to join. I cited earlier that Amnesty International makes the distinction of separating the three parties in a May 2008 report:
 * This is a very clear and deliberate distinction between Islamic Courts, ARS and Shabaab. If you want Al-Shabaab to be the top faction in the infobox, I don't really care all that much, but either "Islamic Courts" or "Islamic Courts remnants" or "Islamic Courts insurgents" will be present.
 * Going to Page 67-68 of Inside Al-Shabaab
 * This hardly says that all ICU remnants aligned with the ARS, but that other resistance groups gradually became ARS aligned.
 * Just to further drive the point that there isn't some clean binary faction option you can group all divide the Islamic Courts insurgent groups, I am going to copy two articles from World News Connection (which is unfortunately not openly accessible without an institution):
 * >August 31, 2008 Hiiraan media report "Somalia: Islamist Official Rejects Both Leaders of Rival ARS Wings"
 * Here we have faction in late 2008, explicitly called the Islamic Courts rejecting both ARS wings. If it was Shabaab it would have been called that considering the AS shook the ICU banner nearly two years earlier.
 * >12 January 2009 Shabelle Media Network article "Somali Al-Shabab 'saddened' by fighting with Union of Islamic Courts"
 * Al-Shabaab had been in in conflict with the ARS for over a year by this time, so it makes little sense they would refer to this group as the Islamic Courts Union and not the ARS. Whoopsawa (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * pg.205, quoting Ahmed Madobe:
 * I can go on but this is getting off the point. Whoopsawa (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Whoopsawa Yes, from 2006 to mid 2007 the fighting was mostly against clan militias, however by August 2007 to the end of the conflict, AS was the dominant faction in the anti-Ethiopian insurgency, so for the majority of the insurgency AS was the primary Islamist group in Somalia, therefore they should be at the top, not "ICU remnants", who arguably shouldn't even be in the infobox. Read page 67 of Inside Al Shabaab by Harun Maruf, all of these "ICU remnants" aligned themselves with the new group of ARS in Eritrea, expect for AS which craved out its own path and chose not to be apart of a larger insurgent movement, therefore I see no reason why ICU remnants should be included in the infobox. Socialwave597 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Socialwave597 The fighting was not "mostly against clan militias", I sent you the Stig Jarle Hansen and Mohamed Husein Gaas source on the significant non-Shabaab participation during early 2007. They explicitly chose to single out "...parts of the anti-Ethiopian opposition played a much larger role in the initial fighting, especially other remains of the Islamic courts.", not clan militias. The ARS was not even formed until September 2007. That leaves over half a year of Islamic Courts remnants not even having the option to join. I cited earlier that Amnesty International makes the distinction of separating the three parties in a May 2008 report:
 * This is a very clear and deliberate distinction between Islamic Courts, ARS and Shabaab. If you want Al-Shabaab to be the top faction in the infobox, I don't really care all that much, but either "Islamic Courts" or "Islamic Courts remnants" or "Islamic Courts insurgents" will be present.
 * Going to Page 67-68 of Inside Al-Shabaab
 * This hardly says that all ICU remnants aligned with the ARS, but that other resistance groups gradually became ARS aligned.
 * Just to further drive the point that there isn't some clean binary faction option you can group all divide the Islamic Courts insurgent groups, I am going to copy two articles from World News Connection (which is unfortunately not openly accessible without an institution):
 * >August 31, 2008 Hiiraan media report "Somalia: Islamist Official Rejects Both Leaders of Rival ARS Wings"
 * Here we have faction in late 2008, explicitly called the Islamic Courts rejecting both ARS wings. If it was Shabaab it would have been called that considering the AS shook the ICU banner nearly two years earlier.
 * >12 January 2009 Shabelle Media Network article "Somali Al-Shabab 'saddened' by fighting with Union of Islamic Courts"
 * Al-Shabaab had been in in conflict with the ARS for over a year by this time, so it makes little sense they would refer to this group as the Islamic Courts Union and not the ARS. Whoopsawa (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * >August 31, 2008 Hiiraan media report "Somalia: Islamist Official Rejects Both Leaders of Rival ARS Wings"
 * Here we have faction in late 2008, explicitly called the Islamic Courts rejecting both ARS wings. If it was Shabaab it would have been called that considering the AS shook the ICU banner nearly two years earlier.
 * >12 January 2009 Shabelle Media Network article "Somali Al-Shabab 'saddened' by fighting with Union of Islamic Courts"
 * Al-Shabaab had been in in conflict with the ARS for over a year by this time, so it makes little sense they would refer to this group as the Islamic Courts Union and not the ARS. Whoopsawa (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Al-Shabaab had been in in conflict with the ARS for over a year by this time, so it makes little sense they would refer to this group as the Islamic Courts Union and not the ARS. Whoopsawa (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Al-Shabaab had been in in conflict with the ARS for over a year by this time, so it makes little sense they would refer to this group as the Islamic Courts Union and not the ARS. Whoopsawa (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)