Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates totheHorn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
A fact fromShifta War appeared on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theDid you know column on 30 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the government ofKenya named the 1963-67 secessionistShifta War after "shiftas", the local word for "bandit", as part of apropaganda initiative?
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAfrica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Note that the phrasingintroduced by the anon: "pastoralism was well-suited to the arid conditions and the non-Somali residents -- who represented a tiny minority of the region's population -- were relatively prosperous" contradicts the quote immediately following, which in turn makes the ending quote pointless. While I haven't read the introduced refs, I would like to hear more about them - given that Baxter appears to be describing "prosperous" and something other than per capital income. -BanyanTree21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invite ;-) Describing the Shifta war as a "secessionist" conflict is inaccurate for the following reasons, taken from the text:
"OnJune 26,1960, four days before grantingBritish Somaliland independence, the British government declared that all Somali areas should be unified in one administrative region. However, after the dissolution of the former British colonies in East Africa, Britain granted adminstration of the Northern Frontier District to Kenyan nationalists despite a) an informal plebiscite demonstrating the overwhelming desire of the region's population to join the newly-formedSomali Republic,[1] and b) the fact that the NFD was and still is almost exclusively inhabited by ethnic Somalis.[2][3][4]"—Precedingunsigned comment added by76.68.248.189 (talk)00:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those people ended up in Kenya and engaged in a war to remove themselves and their territory from Kenyan sovereignty. That is the very definition of a secessionist conflict. (It wasirredentist from the perspective of Somalia, of course.) I don't even see a counter-argument in that quotation, just the foundation for my argument.
Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, or click the little signature button above the window button. My watchlist is set up to ignore edits by bots, so when a bot signs for you my watchlist doesn't show that you have posted.BanyanTree00:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That land wasn't Kenyan to begin with. The few non-Somalis that lived and still live there are other pastoralists, mostly of Oromo Ethiopic stock. Kenya's lone claim to the land is Britain's colonial assurance that they "could have it", nevermind the fact that they'd never set foot in the land to begin with, and that it is a violation of theself-determination principle for theactual inhabitants of the land. If you want to keep the "secessionist" label, fine. But that won't make the NFD anymore "Kenyan" than it is or has ever historically been.76.68.248.189 (talk)01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, they don't get to make that decision. The colonials got to draw the lines on the maps, they drew the NFD into Kenya, and attempts to move the NFD lines inside the Somalia lines count as secessionist.
I've gained enough information at this point to decide that you are editing from a perspective of Somali nationalism, e.g. editing the article to reflect an argument of ethnic nationalism rather than definitions of international relations. I am going to revert. -BanyanTree01:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References
^David D. Laitin,Politics, Language, and Thought: The Somali Experience, (University Of Chicago Press: 1977), p.75
^Africa Watch Committee,Kenya: Taking Liberties, (Yale University Press: 1991), p.269
^Women's Rights Project,The Human Rights Watch Global Report on Women's Human Rights, (Yale University Press: 1995), p.121
^Francis Vallat,First report on succession of states in respect of treaties: International Law Commission twenty-sixth session 6 May-26 July 1974, (United Nations: 1974), p.20
In the article, there is a quote that "the fact that the NFD was and still is almost exclusively inhabited by ethnic Somalis...". This is largely a misleading narrative. While it is true most of the pastoral communities favoured joining a less controlling, preferably Muslim government like Somalia; that doesn't make them ALL Somali, as this quote suggests.
The reality is that Wajir, Mandera and Garissa were predominantly Somali with minority Rendille, Gabra and Pokomo communities. Isiolo and Moyale districts were mostly Borana with a substantial minority of Somali and Gabra communities. Marsabit district was predominantly Borana and some Rendille communities. Turkana and Samburu pastoralists were also at the periphery.
This demographic situation is what was recognised by British Colonial authorities who set up the NFD commission to clarify as much. All these communities were mentioned in the NFD Resolution motion in the British House of Lords in 3 April 1963. Attached is the Hansard.[1]. The commission report is what also prompted the creation of North Eastern Region comprising Somali majority areas, following the colonial somali-galla grazing line.
I'll add two other references to back up my arguement.[2][3]
Now, the same diligence cannot be said of the references to the misinformed quote, which in actuality mention nothing about regional demographics. Such as this[4]. Not only is it disingenuous, but it also implies ill-will by intentionally nullifying the existence of other non-somali groups, perhaps so as to fuel irredentist arguments. This is unfortunate as most of these groups favored joining Somalia in 1963 due to the Muslim connection, especially the Muslim Borana and Rendille.
My suggestion would be to edit as follows: "...the fact that the NFD was and still is majorly inhabited by ethnic Somalis and other cushitic groups like theOromo Borana speakers and Rendille, as well as Nilotic pastoralist groups like the Turkana ".
@Crystalline004: Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, and the House of Lords' resolution is highly problematic perWP:Primary.The Human Rights Watch Global Report on Women's Human Rights has no page, so it is unclear where exactly the important information is mentioned. However, Castagno's source seems good; could you provide the specific page where Castagno mentions the demographics?Applodion (talk)19:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Human Rights Watch Global Report on Women's Human Rights has no page, so it is unclear where exactly the important information is mentioned" - That is exactly my point, this is clearly an inaccurate source IN THE ARTICLE that says nothing of the region demographics.
I'm not sure why the Hansard source should be discredited though, as it's just a word by word recording of what was said in Parliament; not a resolution of any kind but a debate.
For the Castagno source, it's on page 3/24 in the journal article, where it cites a district by district breakdown of the population:
I quote it below just for completeness sake:
" According to the Report of the Northern Frontier District Commission (London, I 962), Cmnd.
i900, the approximate tribal population of the N.F.D. is distributed as follows: Garissa
@Applodion Please advice on your choice to have an arbitary summary over a wikitable to explain the prevailing demographics. I thought this was a topic that was agreed upon.Crystalline004 (talk)21:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Crystalline004[reply]
@Crystalline004: I didn't say that you should copy an entire table into the article. A article on military history does not need a giant table in the middle of one section on demographic details; this kind of stuff belongs into theNorth Eastern Province (Kenya) article's demographics/population section. Furthermore, summarizing content is notWP:Primary, it's a standard procedure done for every article on the wiki. In fact, in cases like this -where the entire table is not directly relevant to the article's topic- summaries are recommended to focus on the important parts of a source. As an example, it is completely irrelevant to this article that 7% of Garissa's population in 1962 were Orma Galla. Conversely,it is relevant that Orma Galla were a significant ethnic group in the war zone.Applodion (talk)18:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In retrospect, it is important to show region demographics as a table in this article as writing it in long-form paragraph can be misconstrued that it's just an opinion piece.
The last revision that I've edited makes it seem that all sub-districts from isiolo, Marsabit and Garissa had a majority by the somali community, which contradicts historical colonial references on the time period.
It is therefore important that the census reports are clearly shown to promote objectivity in the article. It is worth noting that it was not just the Somali community which wanted to secede in the NFD region, but also the Oromo/Borana, Rendille, Sakuye and Gabra.
We discussed this, and agreed to the change. A compromise was reached, and maintained for months. If you want to restart this entire dispute based on the same arguments, then request outside mediation. I'm not going regurgitate the same conversation.Applodion (talk)13:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed on a summary, not an opinion piece of the ethnic composition of the ethnic composition of each sub-district. I added high quality sources backing the census data conducted before the NFD plebiscite by the British.
Those sources have been removed in your edit, and instead replaced with the previous incorrect claim that the whole NFD was almost exclusively inhabited by ethnic somalis, with a few minorities at the fringes.
I've followed all the right procedures on this, kindly don't brush it aside as if you own the page. Wikipedia is sources and fact-checking, not opinionsCrystalline004 (talk)21:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, this source showing the tabled population data have been removed from the article:
I literally tried to integrate the information from the sources you had previously added, just not the exact percentages. I also explained that several of your sources were not "high quality", as they lacked exact page numbers or wereWP:Primary. Anyway, I have no idea how you even come to the conclusion that the current wording is an "opinion piece", considering that it is sourced. If you wish for certain sentences be changed, we can do this - tell me where the mistakes are. Don't just reinsert the massive table into the article.Applodion (talk)18:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
