Talk:Somaliland campaign

Disputed links, wording

I don't think linking in the captions is necessary. First, the lede picture does not need links to articles already linked in the lede right beside it. Worse, the lede has a link to the very action described by the caption. Second, the other picture doesn't need a link to Sultanate of Hobyo, when there is a link to Sultan of Hobyo (same page) in the paragraph beside it. I think "cavalry" is too common a word to need linking in this case at all. We don't link camels in the text. That's it for links, except for the link to a website that seems to be down, which I have removed.

About wording: why are we avoiding common adjectives, like "Italian" and "Dervish", in favour of using multi-word nouns as adjectives, as in "Italian Somaliland protectorate" or "Dervish State forts"? That's my beef. I have no problem with the term "Italian Somaliland" and am not trying to suppress it. I also don't know why we need to say "the founder of the Sultanate of Hobyo" instead of just "the Sultan of Hobyo". Why more words that are irrelevant? That Yusuf founded the state is not relevant in this context. The other issues with wording have to do with representing properly the sources that are cited. In other words, I have no problem with the revised wording if it is correct, but the sources that I have added do not support it. For instance, "counter-attack .. by the Sultan's army" is not necessarily the same as "rebellion ... by the sultan's supporters". Both may be true, but one may be false. The wording should reflect the source cited. Nothing in that sources suggests that the British attacked the sultan to depose him. I don't know what Middayexpress means by "active voice - battle should be told from neutral perspective", but "had exiled" and "had restored" are active voice and "was appointed" is passive. Again, it is not clear to me that the British directly exiled the sultan rather than having others do it for them. Certainly the new wording is better if correct, but the original wording was hedged for a reason. Srnec (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It is common practice to link to relevant pages in image captions (c.f. WP:CAP). I agree, though, about the cavalry link. The Majeerteen Sultanate article can also be accessed via the Internet Archive . Additionally, Italian Somaliland is the official name of the territory. "Italian protectorate" by itself is vague and could refer to any number of global territories since Italian Somaliland is not introduced elsewhere in the article. "Founder of the Sultanate of Hobyo" is likewise preferable to "Sultan of Hobyo" because "Hobyo" alone most immediately refers to the city of Hobyo. That town served as the capital of the Sultanate of Hobyo, whose domain was much broader than just it (c.f. ). What I mean by "active voice - battle should be told from neutral perspective" is that we should avoid recounting the battle uniquely from any particular belligerent's perspective. In retrospect, it's not immediately clear that the British exiled or had others exile the Sultan to Eritrea. It would appear that the Italians exiled the ruler first to Yemen and then to Italian Eritrea (c.f. ). Middayexpress (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We do not need to link to Hassan in the caption, and I have removed that. The definite article in front of "Italian protectorate" makes it clear that a specific one is in mind. I think we should write a background section to remove the need even for a link at that point.

The title "Sultan of Hobyo" is correct and is perfectly normal. Like "Sultan of Muscat" or "King of Jerusalem". We are not comparing "invasion of Hobyo" (bad) with "invasion of the Sultanate of Hobyo" (better). We're just comparing titles, and it is more important to know that Yusuf was the Sultan of Hobyo at just that moment, not that he was its founder (which might not even make him its sultan at all). Srnec (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The definite article "the" in "the Italian protectorate" does not make that phrase any less vague. Bottom line, Italian Somaliland needs to be named and linked to, just like British Somaliland and Italian Eritrea are. Point taken regarding the "Sultan of Hobyo". Middayexpress (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I accept the need to mention Italian Somaliland clearly, but I think it is best to add a background section, which I have done. Now it only includes Italian Somaliland, but it should briefly describe the genesis of British Somaliland and probably an explanation of Hassan's origins and maybe a description of Ethiopia's claims in the region. I do not want the background to become too bloated, so it might be best to just put it in the lede somehow. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "Somaliland" referred to all Somali-inhabited territories in the pre-colonial period (i.e. Greater Somalia), not just Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland (Somalia). The section also doesn't explain how Britain and Italy acquired a foothold in the region to begin with. It was through treaties with the ruling Somali Sultans, not conquest. I've clarified that and the fact that it was actually the Italians who exiled Sultan Yusuf; first to Yemen, and then to Eritrea. Middayexpress (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Round 2

The pictured Mohamoud Ali Shire was one of the main players in the Somaliland Campaign. He was the Sultan of the Warsangali Sultanate, one of the Somali polities with which Britain had signed a protectorate agreement to establish the British Somaliland protectorate. Sultan Shire was also an ally and the brother-in-law of Mohammed Abdullah Hassan. The link-throughs to the Warsangali Sultanate, Majeerteen Sultanate and Sultanate of Hobyo articles are likewise relevant since all of these sultanates were part of the ruling establishment before and during the formation of Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland. Perhaps they don't meet the Template:Main linking criteria, but they certainly do Template:See also (which goes at the top of sections). This obviously also applies to the Dervish State. Middayexpress (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about Somali history. It is about a series of military campaigns that form a small part of Somali history. Those articles are relevant, but they are all linked already in the text. The reader doesn't need to 'see also', they can read about their relevance and click on the link if they wish. The image is large and the sultan's role in the campaign is nowhere mentioned, making it out of place at least for now. I have other misgivings, but I'm going to concentrate on expanding the campaigns sections. Srnec (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Kindly stop de-linking Italian Somaliland. Here, you indicate that "that's not what the source says", when, quite clearly, that is what the cited Issa-Salwe source says. Relevant excerpts from his book can be found on this webpage. Further, you re-added a book by Lee V. Cassanelli that's not being used as a ref. I mistakenly introduced that book, when I really meant to cite an I.M. Lewis work. I corrected the error today, so there's no need to re-add the Cassanelli citation. The hatnotes pointing to the Somali sultanates are every bit as relevant as those pointing to the opposing belligerents, British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland (which are also linked to in the body). Per Template:See also: "[seealso] is used to create hatnotes to point to a small number of other, related, titles at the top of article sections according to Wikipedia:Layout. It is not for use in the "See also" section at the bottom of an article." Middayexpress (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even realise I was de-linking the first instance of Italian Somaliland. I was only intending to restore details you removed from the cited source, Hess. Here is a source that says that "Italian Somaliland" only came into use in 1905.

I checked all your sources. Cassanelli was correct and it is worth keeping him even if he is not being used at the moment. The bibliography doesn't need only to contain books cited in footnotes. We could put it in a "Further reading" section if you insist.

I left the Somaliland links because the sections had those titles. A main article link often matches a section heading. I would more than happy to remove them too. That would be my preference, over adding more hatnotes. Srnec (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear, as Hess claims, that Sultan Kenadid approached the Italians about a protection agreement. Other sources much closer to the period in question suggest that the ruler actually accepted a protection offer . Given this, it's perhaps best to just indicate that he entered into an agreement with the Italians. Further, page 19 of Cassanelli's book does not discuss the Gadabuursi and Habar Awal treaties. That's because I accidentally pasted the wrong ref yesterday from another page. It's page 19 of I.M. Lewis's A Pastoral Democracy that does. I corrected that mistake today and added a link to the book, but you accidentally re-inserted the Cassanelli work. At any rate, the References section is for works that are actually used as references in the article. All the belligerent link-throughs are relevant, including the British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland ones. Regarding "Italian Somaliland", that pdf is quite mistaken. It has been in use as a term from the early 19th century onwards, though the polity itself was formally established considerably later (it originally just used to refer to Italian interests in the Somali territories; c.f. ). Middayexpress (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

1. It may not be clear that Hess is right, but it is not clear that he is wrong. You removed him several times without explanation.
2. You are right about Cassanelli, except that I did not add him back accidentally. I believe that articles should have extensive bibliographies. Like I said, we can split off a "Further reading" if you would prefer.
3. Of course all those links are relevant and they should be in the text. I don't believe any require a special hatnote.
4. I am aware of all this, but "that pdf" is not saying when the term came into use, but only when it came into official use. I do not know if it is right, but I doubt the Italians signed a treaty of protection with one small sultanate and started calling it "Italian Somaliland" in official documents. Srnec (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

i dont think a two decade long war should be shortend in the results section

afghanistan and iraq war have a lot more detail due to the durity of the conflict this page should have it also Sha19999 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This page does not warrant such detail. The Hundred Years War article certainly didn't need it. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it should also the hundred years war is from the middle ages can we stick to the mordern era, also allied victory is misleading since it wasnt even a first World war event but coencided with it. But i think we need more editors opinion on this so it can be fair, also its an event that is very important as the longest resistence war to European colonization Also the first time an Areal bombing took place in africa.Sha19999 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy with other editors to voice their opinion. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Sha19999 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This war started in 1898 long before the First World War and the creation of the allied alliance a bit strange to say allied victory. When the war was won in 1920 after the first world wars were over don’t you think Sha19999 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

We can leave the result as it is, however it isn't aligned to the recommended WP:RESULT, so it could change. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2025 (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:

• Somaliland campaign.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The article's title is inconsistent and should be renamed to Anglo-Somali War

The current title "Somaliland campaign" doesn't really fit. "Somaliland" wasn't an official political entity at the time, the actual polity was British Somaliland, and the fighting wasn't even confined to that territory anyway, it spilled into the Ogaden and Italian Somaliland too. So the title is both inaccurate and misleadingly narrow. Wikipedia already names comparable colonial-era conflicts by the two sides involved rather than a single place — Anglo-Zulu War, Anglo-Boer War, Anglo-Ashanti Wars. "Anglo-Somali War" fits that same pattern and is already listed as an alternate name in the article's own first sentence, so this isn't proposing new terminology, just picking the more accurate option that's already there. Slowsilversoldier (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that it also involves the Italians and Ethiopians, and not all the Somali groups fought on the other side. So maybe it should be titled "Dervish war"?. ~2026-42774-06 (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree and that's what we should be discussing, the current title is redundant, inaccurate and biased. The "Dervish war" or anything of that adjacent is neutral. The naming issue is political. Somali nationalists want to call it the "Somaliland National Liberation War" to frame it as an anti-colonial struggle. British historians traditionally called it the "Somaliland Campaign" to frame it as a military pacification operation.Ethiopian historians barely mention it, because it's embarrassing that they got free Somali land out of it. Another issue with the "Somaliland Campaign" is that the dervish were fighting for their own clan based interests, not a unified Somali nation. I would love to see the title being corrected/updated Slowsilversoldier (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Dervish War is probably a better title. Srnec (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

How do we go about bringing a change to it? Slowsilversoldier (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I can move it, but I'm a little unsure. Otherwise, go thru WP:RM.

Clodfelter's Warfare and Armed Conflicts calls it "Operations Against the Mad Mullah (1899–1920)". War and Religion: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict calls it "Mad Mullah, Wars of the (1892–1920)". Phillips and Axelrod also call it "'Mad Mullah', Holy Wars of the (1899–1920)".

In other words, sources which are concerned with encyclopedic coverage—as we are—tend to identify the common theme of all these campaigns as the person of the 'Mad Mullah'. We might consider something like that. "Dervish Wars" is more common than "Dervish War" but both have the problem that they are sometimes used to refer to the Mahdist War in the Sudan. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I propose to re-name this page "Dervish War (Mad Mullah)". And to have a "Dervish War" disambiguation page redirecting to this page and to Mahdist War. ~2026-43425-36 (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree on the overstated ambiguity of the title "Dervish War", while there is an overlap in the term "Dervish' the confusion risk is low as the Mahdist War in Sudan has a well established name that everybody uses. The Somali Dervish is far more specifically and consistently associated with that term than the sudanese context is. Hassan literally named his movement the Dervish state, it was their formal self-identification. Slowsilversoldier (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The fact that older encyclopedic sources use 'Mad Mullah' framing reflects the historiographical bias of the era in which they were written, not a neutral standard we should replicate. Wikipedia's own naming conventions prioritise accuracy and neutrality over deference to dated sources. 'Mad Mullah' was a deliberate British propaganda label designed to delegitimise Hassan's movement, including it in any form, even in brackets, would be inconsistent with how Wikipedia treats other colonial-era conflicts where the colonised party's own terminology is now preferred. Slowsilversoldier (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't have to use 'Mad Mullah', but the sources I referred to are not old. Per WP:POVNAME, non-neutral names are sometimes preferable to unrecognizable ones. What may have been an insult in the 1890s does not play that way today. Ever heard of Mad Max? Srnec (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2026

Somaliland campaign → Dervish WarDervish War – The current title "Somaliland campaign" is both inaccurate and non-neutral per WP:NPOV. "Somaliland" was not an official political entity at the time, the territory was British Somaliland, and the fighting extended well beyond it into the Ogaden and Italian Somaliland, making the title geographically misleading. More fundamentally it frames the conflict as a British military operation rather than a war between recognised parties, which misrepresents its nature and scale. "Dervish War" is the most accurate replacement because Hassan formally constituted the Dervish State as a political entity, this was its official name, not a nickname or external label. Wikipedia convention names wars after their belligerents, and the Dervish State was the primary and consistent belligerent throughout the entire 20 year conflict regardless of which colonial powers were involved at any given time. The proposed alternative of "Dervish War (Mad Mullah)" is rejected on the grounds that "Mad Mullah" was a deliberate British propaganda label designed to delegitimise Hassan's movement and should not be perpetuated in any form per WP:NPOV. The Sudan ambiguity concern is overstated, the Mahdist War has a well established independent name universally used in the literature, and a simple disambiguation page resolves any remaining overlap. Slowsilversoldier (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. I proposed "Dervish War (Mad Mullah)" but this is fine too. In this case, we should add on top of the article "for the conflict sometimes also known as Dervish war, see Mahdist war".~2026-43404-54 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Slowsilversoldier (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak support. There is no neutrality issue. "Somaliland", in this context, is unproblematic. But there is an accuracy issue. This article isn't about a singular Somaliland campaign but a protracted war involving several powers. The proposed title is used (I created the redirect myself) and the ambiguity can be handled by a hatnote. Srnec (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia convention is not to name wars after their belligerents, it is to name wars per the WP:Article titles guideline, often defaulting to the name that WP:Reliable sources most use when discussing the war. The current title does not seem more geographically misleading than many war names, wars, including current ones, are rarely so precise and well-contained. There is also no neutrality issue by using "Somaliland' instead of "British and Italian Somaliland", or similar. Much of the opening statement seem disconnected from the guidelines. It would be helpful for key sources to be provided in an RM, and for RMs to be written in a person's own words. CMD (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)