Talk:Somalia/Archive 1

Describe

Describe the new page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.151.67 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 March 2002 (UTC)

Map and Somaliland

The map in this page is not correct, as it shows Somalia as if the Somaliland is a recognized independent country, which is not. While it might be OK to show the boundary between the Somaliland and the rest of Somalia, it needs to be same color as Somalia. andy 08:04, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Upload the original CIA Factobook image and add a dotted line [1]. --Jiang —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:11, 30 July 2003 (UTC).

Done. andy 13:12, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is only one Somalia recognized by the international community, therefore the map should have one color and any enclaves such the so called Somaliland should be ruled .warsame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.83.122 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 28 October 2004 (UTC)

The map in this page is correct, as it shows Somaliland as a de-facto recognized independent country, which it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective-Ali-100 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Basketballplayer90000 replies:

Well actually Somaliland is de-facto independent. It did not take part in any of Somalia's peace conferences for the last 14 years. Somaliland conducts elections whereby the people within the territorry of Somaliland elect their president, their parliament and their local governments. Somaliland has a different currency than Somalia, its own military and navy and its own flag. Furthermore you might have noticed that the international press does not mention Somaliland as being party to the conflict beteen the UIC and the transitional "government" located in Baidoa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketballplayer90000 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First sentence?

The first sentence is a bit strong. According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm there is some kind of government now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewmayer (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 August 2003 (UTC)

But that same report says A transitional government set up in 2000 only controls parts of the capital. PMA 02:45, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

not really... transitional governmant is only a group of individuals based in kenya. And controls no teritory, its just another group. They have no institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.128.207 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Continentally, it is entirely surrounded by Ethiopia and Djibouti on the north and mid-west, by Kenya on its south-west, and by the Gulf of Aden on its north, and the Indian Ocean as its eastern border."

So, Somalia is 'entirely' surrounded? Isn't this word unncessary, if not a little bit biased? At first lecture one may understand that Somalia "is entirely surrounded by Ethiopia"

'Continentally' needs something else to make sense, otherwise I'm understanding that it is also continentally surrounded by the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.

I would like to propose this: "Continentally, it is surrounded by Ethiopia and Djibouti on the north and mid-west, and by Kenya on its south-west; by the Gulf of Aden on its north, and the Indian Ocean as its eastern border." Kauderwelsch 06:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Surrounded" denotes encircling something. You can't surround something on one side only. The correct term to be used here, especially since we're talking about geography, is "bordered by" or "neighboring country". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.85.162 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good that you noticed that, it was an unneccessary wording to use "surrounded". On the other hand if we want to be correct then Somalia does not share a border with Djibouti. It is the de-facto recognised Republic of somaliland which share a border with Djibouti.

Somaliland and Somalia both share a border with Ethiopia however, while Somaliland is closer to major Ethiopian cities such as Jigjiga, Diredawa and Addis Abbeba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective-Ali-100 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Economy section

The summary about Somalia's economy needs a rewrite. It will be very difficult to calculate GDP and other percentages, but Somalia is quickly becoming an economic power house in the Horn of Africa. Telecommunications in Somalia, for one, provides the cheapest rates on the African continent, with international rates going between 20 cents to 50 cents now. There are many pasta companies, fisheries and internet cafes that dot throughout the country. There is even a Coca Cola plant. Nov 12, 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.171.71 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 November 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above paragraph. I challenge anybody to read this *Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It and remain satisfied with this entry in its current state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.240.110 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Provisional government

May the people of Somalia be fortunate and may the provisional government never step foot in Mogadishu. --Golbez 03:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I second that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective-Ali-100 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Provisional government took over Mogadishu bloodlessly today, following the withdrawal of the Islamic Courts government.

Given that the Provisional government has built a working coalition with Ethiopia and routed the Islamic Courts, can we quit calling it "weak" on the front page? 138.162.128.44 16:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pirates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.246.210 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

NOTICE: There are several obvious errors in this document. Unfortunately, I know very little about Somalia, which is why I came to this page. Somebody, however, should correct these mistakes. Suspected errors are followed by three parenthesized question marks.

From page, replaced with Template:Dubious. See Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute for more information on this kind of stuff--but it seems we do have a problem here. Wikiacc 22:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The page was vandalized by 64.60.74.162 on February 7, but the full extent was not realized. Every edit since then was a small fix of a part of the vandalism, so I have simply reverted it. Thanks for the catch.
— Ford 23:15, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Cleanup

An anonymous user (Friedo, perhaps) tagged this article for cleanup. I cannot figure out why. The article is not perfect, but it is actually in pretty good shape, a good article relative to the rest of the encyclopedia. If someone wants to specify exactly why this article needs cleanup, then at least the other editors can address it. Better yet, those who think it needs cleanup can actually do it. I will remove the tag in the meantime, since without details it is an impossible request.
— Ford 22:53, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Clarification

"Much of Somali society is highly organized and business is doing remarkably well." This is a very vague statement. What does it mean actually? Where are the statistics? --Eleassar777 07:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I put that sentence in. If you read the intro it leads one to think that's Somalia is a wasteland fraught with chaos. But that's not the case. Sure, it's anarchy in sense of no government, but much of it is organized and orderly, with a lot of business beng conducted. They even have internet cafes. One the the external links in this article points to a World Bank study showing how effective the private sector there is. HTML version There is also a link in the article in the Telecommunications sections showing how great business now that government is gone: [[2]] Also, look at these pictures from Somalia [[3] Look at the external link to Mogadishu University. The country now has more universities and more people getting an education now that government isn't functioning. Anarchy doesn't always mean disorder, so it needs to be clarified that there is some order in Somalia. RJII 17:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to agree with what is written in the section "Economy" of the article. --Eleassar777 21:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right. That section definitely needs some serious updating. RJII 04:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The economic section is a contradiction. "Somalia has a market economy. As one of the world's poorest and least developed countries", this statement seems to imply that a market economy leads to a country that is poor and impoverish. Gobstomper 01:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a contradiction, nor do I see how it makes the "market economy = poor country" implication as you suggest. With no functioning central government, how could Somalia have a command economy? Somalia does have a market economy, and it is indeed one of the poorest countries. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

...Abdirashid Ali Shermarke as Prime Minister....In late 1969, a military government assumed power following the assassination of Shermarke, who had been chosen, and served as, President from 1967–1969.

??? 154.20.186.105 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template

can someone set the table currectly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.41.241 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Economy and POV

I can't really put my finger on it (well maybe I can), but I detect a POV creeping in through recent edits of the "Economy" section. I'm not sure how these specific economic hot spots (e.g. wireless telecom, internet cafes) benefit, for instance, the rural (and, I assume, pastoralist) Somalians who form the majority of the population. I'm not sure if it's what the editor(s) are trying to put across, but it comes off as "laissez-faire economics are good for Somalia, as evidenced by the growth of wireless telecom etc." It's far from suggesting that Somalia is some sort of libertarian Utopia, but reading between the lines, it feels as though that's where someone's edits are coming from. Perhaps the bigger point is that one should not expect to read between the lines in an encyclopedia.

Also the edits are leading to some (possible) contradictions:

". . . the socialist government of Siad Barre had suppressed free enterprise and neglected large parts of the country."

This comes off as criticizing the Barre government for intervening in the economy ("suppressing free enterprise"), but also for not intervening ("neglect"). ("Socialist" and "suppressed free enterprise" had been added more recently to the earlier version of the sentence.)

The wireless communications sector is important enough that the World Almanac 2004 lists it as one of Somalia's light industries. ("Economy: Industries: A few light industries, incl. sugar refining, textiles, wireless communication.") But I'm wondering if it's listed only because it is one of the only sectors sufficiently organized to qualify as an "industry."

I would also not describe the situations in Somaliland and Puntland as anarchy - they may not be de jure (i.e. internationally recognized) governments but they are de facto governments. On the other hand I would also consider the warlord militias as "de facto governments" (and thus not "anarchists") in the basic sense of imposing one's will over that of another. For what that's worth.

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, and I'm not sure that you are out of line suggesting a "Somalia is libertarian Utopia"-POV to the recent edits. The optimistic tone of the contributions, despite the fact that factionalization continues to lead to much bloodshed, is quite strange and surreal. - Banyan Tree 19:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the tone is clearly trying to present Somalia as a poster-child for anarcho-capitalism whilst not being too blatant. Morwen - Talk 09:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, there are libertarian/anarchist elements out there that are looking on Somalia with great interest, it's a forbidden experiment and thus far it's doing extremely well, considering the situation and obstacles. Any NPOV article requires that side to be shown, since it's so unique in the world today. --Golbez 10:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Golbez is right. We cannot simply assume that more government is always better and that's the feeling I get when reading this article. Some argue that the violence is due to power struggles related to the formation of a new government. Violence that wouldn't exist if the current system was left intact. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.240.110 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fair and Balanced:

A government is only ok if the people has entrusted the men calling themselves "the government" to run the affairs of their life. In Somalia this is not the case. what ahpppened was that a few rich western government decided that Somalia needs a government so they got some Somalis together in a hotel lobby in Kenya and after a year of meeting there the organisers of the conference said: "the Somalis have elcted a government". Notice that when they said Somalis they meant the hundred fools that they had assembledd into thathallway, who these Somalis represent in Somalia nobody knows?

This seems impossible to believe bya non-Somalia who might not have followed the events but this is what actually happened and that is why the so called "government" could not set foot in Somalia for almost a year, people were saying "goverment? what government we didn't have an election Somalia, what is this government that they are talking about? "

The sad thing is that various Somali clans were getting along just find but as soona s this grab for power conference started in Kenya all clans said "oh yeah, well well see if these foosl get away with this cout dtat, we willa rm ourselves and will die before we become the subjects of some fake government and so here we are with the Islamic courts having taken over 70% of what is Somalia.

Great policy by the western governments, NOT!!!!

END —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective-Ali-100 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about Somalia, but it's interesting to note that the Economy of Somalia article paints a much less rosy picture. Cadr 18:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that there may eventually be some interesting philosophy to be learned from Somali telecommunications. For example, it would make economic sense for a Somali entrepreneur to put up a pirate Web server. If an international firm acted to block the entire country's internet and/or telephone access until the material was censored, would you call the firm a national government? If a foreign software company paid the local warlord a few thousand dollars to suppress the site by whatever means he felt appropriate, would that constitute law enforcement? As for the real world, I've added a citation that Somalia was the last African country to access the Internet in August 2000, with only 57 Web sites known as of 2003.[4] Mike Serfas 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

History

Can anyone add history of Somalia prior to 1977? 207.225.246.225 23:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is on there, but for brevity's sake, the history section starts in '77. If you wantto read the complete history of Somalis, you can click History of Somalia. --Soomaali —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:35, 23 June 2005 (UTC).

Map and Puntland

The current map showing regions of control is inaccurate. That map has Puntland controlling almost all of Somalia. If that was the case, then why is Somalia considered as having no central government? Puntland has never considered secession, but is only supposed to be an organized/governed region. If such a region extends over most of Somalia, then ipso facto Somalia would have a government. Besides, a check on the web (google or yahoo) will not turn up a single map that shows Puntland as extensive as the one depicted here (except for the imitator websites like Answers.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.138.16.195 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Puntland has disintegrated as a region, it is lawless, piracy is rampant off its shores, people are being robbed at night in massive numbers in both Bosasso and Garowe the two main towns of Puntland.

Most importantly however is the fact that international NGO's have abandoned Puntland and the UN agencies have left the region to after their staff continued to be attacked and kidnapped by elements apparantly related to the Puntland "administration". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufcali007 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That map of Puntland was a joke it has been deleted. Puntland consists of the Bari region, Nugaal region and parts of North Mudug region, in other words 2 and a half region. The leadership of that region however use a polciy of trying to set up buffer zones because of their extreme but unfounded fear of being invaded by the unnion of Islamic courts from the south and Somaliland from the west. Paranoia and fear leads to falls maps and the like, but in the end the reality on the ground is what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective-Ali-100 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

New book

I become angry by reverts with comments like: "Remove advertising for a little known, and highly biased book" [5] of people without any respect and standard of knowledge.

The book is a new one. It is still not to buy. I list the book because it gives the reader the possibility to self-improvement on the law and culture in Somalia. There is nothing better for this widely unknown topic. Maybe it is a POVed resource. But all books and links are less or more POV. This is no problem so long as the reader know what he gets. --Irgendwer 10:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of very good books on Somalia published each year. For instance Peter D. Little's Somalia: Economy Without State is a well regarded work on this subject, and there are many others. By contrast the one you are adding is an unreleased work by a little known author from a non-academic press. Moreover it seems to less be a work about Somalia and more be an investigation of anarchist/libertarian ideas. - SimonP 13:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

So what? Somalia: Economy Without State is not a book on Somali Law. Please take note of facts. And this topic is the mainly academic work of Michael van Notten in 13 chapters. The book will be published this year. Your opinion about the publisher is extraneous. And "it seems to less be a work about Somalia" is completely wrong. I know this. If you need more information about the book, you may contact the friendly editor Spencer Heath MacCallum. But he would shake his head on seeing your silly comments here. --Irgendwer 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm very impressed that the book has 13 chapters, but that doesn't make it an academic work. I have yet to see it reviewed anywhere, and my university libraries give no indication that they have ordered copies. It doesn't even seem to be available on Amazon.com. - SimonP 16:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The book has more than 13 chapters. I'm very impressed of your ignorance. There is already one review on the website and the description of the publisher. It is written in a academic style. It seems to me you want vandalize the entry. --Irgendwer 17:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Red Sea Press appears to be a specialty publisher whose books pertain specifically to East Africa (Ethiopia in particular). I wouldn't dismiss this book solely based on its publisher. FWIW, I'm pleased with the one title I have of theirs, Ethiopia: From Bullets to the Ballot Box by Kinfe Abraham. Having said that, I must reiterate my comments below that it is useless to link to a book that is not yet available. If you are going to add this link, do so when the book actually comes out. I also suggest that you not add this again under "Further reading," make another external link instead. I put this under "Further reading" in a previous edit and now consider it a mistake. "Further reading," like "References," is for works that are the actual sources of the information in the article. As the book in question has not yet come out, it can't be a source, and won't be until the article specifically incorporates material from the book. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that it isn't useful to direct readers to a book that isn't available. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is available in some weeks and it is already avaiable in parts on the website. This problem is only temporary and it concerns also to other printings. --Irgendwer 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible primary source

I happened across the following article which has a lot of good information: http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c11e.htm Some of this would be useful as-is, but there is a copyright notice at the bottom, and it appears thatr works by the Canadian government are not in the public domain [6]. If nothing else there is a lot of info. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Somalia as "free market anarchy"

A society cannot be both in anarchy (no government) and be a free market. A free market requires a huge level of regulation and coercion to maintain its existence, for example a legal and judicial process for dealing with cases of fraud and theft. I don't suppose these are provided under anarchy. Even libertarians know that the free market requires some government. "Free market anarchy" is a contradiction in terms; it should just say, "anarchy". I won't presume to make changes to the first paragraph without discussion, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.108.121 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was in complete anarchy either, the Warlords provide de-facto government, or at least some aspects of government. I'd prefer it read "No central government". Somaliland, which is part of Somalia (although vying for independance iirc) certainly has a functioning government. - FrancisTyers 11:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hence my previous comments (#Economy and POV). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL!, I just repeated nearly exactly what you said without having read it ;) What are the chances of that? :) - FrancisTyers 03:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A free market, by its idealized definition, is a market devoid of coercion. And, anarchy in its idealized sense is the lack of coercion, so a free market IS anarchy --economic anarchy. Now, as far as "free market anarchy," that's a philosophical theory where "government" is privatized --it's funded like a business is funded, rather than by taxation (and so it IS a business rather than a government). "Free market anarchism" is also identifiable by the philosophies called anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism. Here's a relevant quote by individualist anarchist Victor Yarros: "Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." So, if Somalia has a system of private competing businesses providing protection of individual liberty, private property, enforcing contracts, adjudicating disputes, etc. (and I'm not saying it does), then it would be "free market anarchy." RJII 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[ From thread-starter ] That's very interesting, I'd never thought of this idea before. I suppose that a system of, basically, private vengeance could enforce the rules of the market (eg. like the enforcement of criminal sanctions by vendetta not by a State). I take your point, although I'm unsure that private security arrangements can be called 'government'. You might agree that this complex idea would have to be explained a little in the article, if we go with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.108.121 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, it's not government if it doesn't tax and only uses its power in defense of liberty rather than in agression -it's business. Somalia has a whole isn't free market anarchy, however some areas may be. There are private police in some areas. Mogadishu has private police that patrol the city streets for petty crime. These are funded by businessmen who got together to fund them. [7] [8] So with private police, private courts, and no taxation, Mogadishu may actually be free market anarchy or anarcho-capitalism. RJII 17:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed "nation" from state; since this is more restrictive term and does not have a legal definition. The change also reflects the definitions in the respective artices- nation state, and state- in Wikipedia.Beside, at he heart of the conflict are differing cultures and the country consists of many cultures- so the reference to "state" is correct, while the one to "nation" is not.(Gary Joseph 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Wouldn't this "discussion" about the alleged virtues of "anarcho-capitalism" be better served on a page about same? Perhaps the obvious bloodlust being displayed could be toned down a bit as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.198 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Somaliland and Economy: Somaliland has a government but it is not a government in the western sense, people do not pay income tax in Somaliland, nor do they pay tax on goods(retail tax and the like). The only tax people pay is a small property tax. Somalia is not much different people do not pay tax there either. If one wants to go into business without being disturbed by government intervention and bureaucracy then Somaliland and Somalia is the place, considering that there is no bureaucracy they can't disturbe you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective-Ali-100 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag

I had to remove the flag as it linked to an offensive image. Bearbear 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently, it shows the flag of USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.49.252 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Blog link - LVM Instititute Link

I've again removed the link to [9]. It is simply a blog posting by someone who has "studied law in London, where she now works in financial services" and has no apparent expertise on Somalia. No one would ever consider linking to a highly POV blog entry about the American economy at the United States article. So why would we allow it in this one? - SimonP 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

SimonP - the link you have removed from various wikipedians is not a link to a blog. It's a story of the day at the well respected Ludwig von Mises Institute. It seems to me that the story is quite relevant as half of this talk page seems to be discussing the issues therein. Moreover the story is not just or even primarily the author's POV. [HSchickel 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)]

SimonP, the story is a review of Michael van Notten's book. I met Michael in 2002, at a conference in Houston on Somalia. He impressed me greatly as a thoughtful man. I don't think it's possible to make sense of Somalia without an understanding of its system of clans and clan law. Michael lived in Somalia for many years, was married to a Somalian woman, and was a member of a Somalian clan. I don't see how this article can be harmed by presenting more information about his book. RussNelson 06:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from the story,

"To understand more about the country without a government, turn to The Law of the Somalis, written by Michael van Notten (1933-2002) and edited by Spencer Heath MacCallum, sheds light on the little known Somali law, culture and economic situation. Somalia is often cited as an example of a stateless society where chaos is the "rule" and warlords are aplenty."

It's as much a book review as anything. To myself and others (looking at the history you've removed a link added by at least 2 of us) this information improves the Somalia article. Somalia is a unique place in the world right now. In some ways this is good. In some ways this is bad. wp is only concerned with this being verifiable. The link is verification.

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this. I'm putting the link back for the last time. Before you remove it again please consider that more than one of us have independantly added it. Please respect our reasons for doing so. Please read the article linked. And please get consensus before removing the link again. Thanks HSchickel 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The link itself calls it a blog posting calling readers to "comment on this blog" at the bottom. Looking through your contributions most of your edits seem to be adding external links to similar articles. Either you have a personal interest in the site, or more likely you are try to propagate a particular point of view. Either behaviour is unacceptable. We don't normally allow links to blog postings in articles, and book reviews are equally rarely linked to. You also haven't responded to my comparison with the United States project. We have an active project to counter the systemic bias of Wikipedia, and one of those goals is to ensure that nations with few contributors, such as Somalia, are of the same quality as those with many, such as the United States. - SimonP 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. The link is in fact to an aricle of the day at LVMI. Comments are welcomed and the link at the bottom is a redirect to LVMI's blog where the comments are actually posted.

I've linked twice to LVMI in my logged in time on wp. The other link is to a pdf download of Bastiat's, "The Law." I suspect that link would be non-controversial as the Bastiat article is in good part about that work. A free download for interested parties would likely be welcomed. (The Law was published in 1850 and is out of copyright.)

I fully respect the NPOV aspect of wp. We all come with our own biases and our areas of expertise reflect those biases. The links that I provide, and the articles that I write and edit will show mine. It's up to the other editors to tone them down if required. I certainly try to not to let my biases show but I know it's impossible to do that entirely. As an editor here I expect and encourage that aspect of wp.

I will look at your project (this is the first I've heard of it). If I can contribute I certainly will. HSchickel 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

SimonP - I looked into the CSB project. I wholeheartedly agree with the principles. I'm not quite sure what it has to do with the LVMI link. I would love to hear your thoughts. In any case I won't reference it again. You are an administrator. If a reference made by multiple users is so far from policy you would know better than me. Cheers. HSchickel 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of CSB is that we should no treat countries differently. Looking at the LVM article of the day list there are dozens of them analyzing the United States, but one would never consider linking those articles from the United States page, as any POV links would be rejected out of hand. The same high standards should apply to countries where there are not many residents available to scrutinize what is linked to. - SimonP 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick response. I'm still a bit confused about the rules. WP Guide...External Links seems to allow POV linking if it's referenced in the article or as a source or for further reading. Somalia is currently a very interesting place to many people. Economists are especially interested. The majority of them have a strong POV. It seems we could write about topics that contain POV in an NPOV way. I'm curious, if the article read something along the lines of,

"AUTHOR/ECONOMIST/NEWSPAPER/JOURNAL stated the following about Somalia, 'STATEMENT, STATEMENT, STATEMENT.'" and other "AUTHOR/ECONOMIST/NEWSPAPER/JOURNAL stated the following about Somalia, 'STATEMENT, STATEMENT, STATEMENT.'" w/ references and external links for backup...

Would that be acceptable? Or does Somalia's status as a country mean POV topics cannot be discussed in even an NPOV way? I'd love any suggestions you may have for a proper (CSB/NPOV) way of handling this type of information in articles (especially if some articles work under more stringent rules and this is an example). HSchickel 22:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Somalia has no (...qualities...) nor any other feature associated with an established nation state.

I removed "nation" from state; since this is more restrictive term and does not have a legal definition. The change also reflects the definitions in the respective artices- nation state, and state- in Wikipedia.Beside, at he heart of the conflict are differing cultures and the country consists of many cultures- so the reference to "state" is correct, while the one to "nation" is not.(Gary Joseph 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

As far as I've researched based upon sources cited in this article, Somalia has an interim government with Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed as President and Ali Mohamed Ghedi as Prime Minister, and a, although weak, national currency known as the Somali shilling (11,000 per $1 US in 2000). I believe that the first paragraph needs to be edited regarding these delopments as cited in [10] and [[11]]. --Zsinj^Talk 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Has this provisional "government" managed to sneak into Mogadishu yet? --Golbez 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

According to those same sources, the provisional government has no building that it is housed in. --Zsinj^Talk 23:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Kind of an existential question, isn't it. Can it be a government if it's never stepped foot in the country? I mean, hell, I could declare myself prime minister, but if I can't back it up, does it matter? --Golbez 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am quite sure they've stepped foot inside the country. Anyways, I would still consider the Somali shilling the national currency even if it is very weak. This fact is mentioned in the infobox, but I feel this should be reflected in the opening paragraph (even if that part is just removed). --Zsinj^Talk 05:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Have they? Can you find a newslink verifying that? Because last I heard, they were still cowering in fear in Kenya. --Golbez 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The government has moved back to somalia and for the first time met in baidao with over 200 PM's and western diplomats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.136.109 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Aww, they finally made it. Maybe someday they'll even be actually elected. I'd like to see them get into Mogadishu, though. --Golbez 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the Somali shilling is that there is no one entity which controls the quantity of currency issued. That would make it NOT a characteristic of a central government. You might ask why people accept it. If there are no currency amounts larger than some fixed value, then the paper currency, nominally a fiat currency, will not be inflatable if the largest bill costs as much to print as it is worth. What will happen then is that the supply of currency will stay fixed until enough deflation occurs to make printing of bills (slightly) profitable. Competition will ensure that the profit from "counterfeiting" will stay low. RussNelson 06:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

photos request

Anyone have a photo of Somalia that shows the more modern aspects? Cities, buildings, cars, electricity, internet cafes, etc? The photo of a livestock herder makes it look like they're stuck in the stone age, but that's not the case --as can be seen here in these copyrighted photos: [12] RJII 16:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Somalia has been in various wars since the 60s, so they don't have sky scrapers and the sort, rather Morrocan type cities with rather beautiful white buildings everywhere. Typical Arabic architecture. I was just wondering though why Canadian troops and an American helicopter are displayed on a page that details an east African state. razr [May 11, 2006] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.236.161 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

photos huh?

Hello again, I just realized how patently banal it is having pictures of an invading army on a page thats supposed to detail a foreign country. Would it be appropriate for the US page to have the drawings of British soldiers in the revolutonary war? I'm wiki challenged and unable to change it, could someone please take 2 minutes out of their very busy schedules to fix it. Mogadishu has some very pretty scenary, i'm sure you could come up with beautiful pictures. razr May 11, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.236.161 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you own some photos which you can release under the appropriate license, please consider uploading them. The photos currently on this page are, unfortunately, the only pictures available here on Wikipedia or on Commons. Better than nothing, but maybe not by a lot. bcasterline t 13:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction about Operation united shield

There seems to be a clear contradition in this paragraph:

Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions. The UN withdrew in Operation United Shield by March 3, 1995, having suffered significant casualties, and the rule of government has not yet been restored.

However, the concluding sentence of the article on Operation United Shield is:

A success, the operation saw the safe withdrawal of all 6,200 troops, as well as over a hundred combat vehicles, without a single UN or US casualty.

So, which one was it? Were there significant casualties or not a single fatality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.151.12 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the ending sentence is refering to the withdrawal period, and not the duration of the operation itself. Perhaps this shoul be made more clear. 67.180.248.197 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Xeer

I would suggest that this article needs to mention the Xeer. An article about a society without a government that doesn't mention the system of law seems unencyclopedeic to me. RussNelson 06:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier Somali history

As a World Civilizations student, I find this artical lacking in details on Somali colonization, and general early history. The earliest date mentioned in the history section is 1960, and the start of the section says "independence of Somaliland from the United Kingdom was proclaimed" without explaining how Somaliland came to be under the rule of the UK, etc. 67.180.248.197 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

APC-EC Courier

I can find no evidence for this publication. It gets virtually no Google hits, and does not seem to be available in any major library. Perhaps you are just copying a mistyped reference from this site, a highly POV work by someone with no background in the subject at hand. However, I'm sure you would not cite a source that you had not actually read, because doing so would be a major breach of research standards. If you have a copy of this journal, what is its full name and what date did this article come out? With this information it might be possible to find it. Also this article comes from some time prior to 1998, so presenting it as a view of the current situation in Somalia is somewhat inaccurate. - SimonP 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk about assuming bad faith. Maybe you're only looking for it on the internet? What's on the internet is only the tip of the iceberg of all the information that's out there. It's called "The Courier." ACP-EC stands for Africa, Carribbean, Pacific - European Community." It comes out every two months. That issue, 102, is the March/April issue from 1997. RJII 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, I should be able to check that out. - SimonP 02:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the report. The quotes do make a few errors, and they certainly misrepresent the thrust of the report. The title of the article cited is also incorrect. I've made the necessary corrections. Also where does the Coca Cola information come from? The Coke website does not list there being a bottling plant in the country. - SimonP 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing the Mogadishu Coca-Cola plant in the news. Here's a BBC article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The fact that the info box's "transitional goverment" links to anarchy is amusing, but is it appropriate? 67.176.18.164 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Timeframe Contradiction

"The 2nd Battle of Mogadishu started in May 2006. The battle is being fought between the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism or "ARPCT" and militia loyal to Islamic court union or "ICU". The conflict began in mid-February." So did this start in mid-February, or in May? Adoubleplusgood 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is unclear. Essentially the conflict between the two groups has been going on since at least February, but the current round of fighting only began a few weeks ago. - SimonP 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can that phrasing be incorporated into the article if it can be sourced? -Fsotrain09 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

the islamic movement seems to have contolled most of south and central somalia. it has been said that business man are funding the islamist and are bringing a law of sharia into the country. The united state suspects the leader of the islamist movement to be a member of alithad which is part of the UN terrorist organization...please add to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.163.204 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopian Troops in Somalia

there are rumors that that the TFG have ethiopians troops in somali-land, and more rumors that ereterian troops are in somalia too. somalia could become a battle ground for the arch foes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.163.204 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. If that isn't in the article, we need to add it. --Ionius Mundus 15:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

With cited sources, of course. --Fsotrain₀₉ 16:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

{Mr Fair and Balanced) says:

Somaliland is what you call de-facto recognised meaning that countries recognise the reality on the ground, in other words Somaliland is there it can not be ignored so countries in the region such as Ethiopia and Djibouti have to deal with it and so they do. And with time good relations have developed between Somaliland and Ethiopia not the least because of increased trade between the two countries.

Somaliland is not de-jure recognised however, meaning that according to International law no country has officially recognised Somaliland and so legally Somaliland can not get loans from the IMF and World Bank like an offically recognised country can. De-facto and de-jure that is what this issue boils down to. END! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective-Ali-100 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

International Recognition of Somaliland

The article on Somaliland claims that Ethopia has recognized Somaliland's independance (no source is given, however). If true, the statement in this article that Somaliland is unrecognized should be changed. In addition, Wales has recognized the sovereignty of Somaliland[13], and that should probably be noted, even though Wales is part of the UK, not a separate nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.81.179 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If true, then yes, it should be changed. First, prove it to be true. --Golbez 04:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps of Somalia

I'm thinking of creating a map of Somalia showing current and recent positions of the various warlords, the Islamic courts, Ethiopian incursions etc.I've been frustrated by the lack of information forthcoming from the media about the exact locations of the various groups. Anyone interested in helping out? I could use help with creating maps and finding appropriate sources. Polocrunch 18:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam: I'll help you out whats your email? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective-Ali-100 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to get closure. Tons now available on the Rise of the Islamic Courts Union (2006) and War in Somalia (2006–present) and related pages. --Petercorless 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Natural Resources

It is believed that Somalia has significant oil resources. I added this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.230.150 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To date, no provable resources. --Petercorless 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination for Prof. Mohamud Siad Togane

An article about a Somali-Canadian, Prof. Mohamud Siad Togane, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof. Mohamud Siad Togane. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Population

I know there is lots of variation in population estimates, but the numbers given should be more or less official numbers. In the demographics section, the population is estimated at around 8.5 million (shown beside it is a map of Somalia including Somaliland). The Somaliland page claims that the population there is 3.5 million, and the Puntland page claims Puntland has a population of 3.65 million. Mogadishu itself definitely has a few million (estimate 3-4 million), and there is still the rest of southern Somalia unaccounted for. You see the problem here? Either the overall estimate of 8.5 million is way too low, or the Puntland / Somaliland figures are way too high (which, being in the much more stable parts of the country, I somehow doubt). How are these numbers constructed anyway? - Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.130.38 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Jeff:

Generally speaking I can say this: No Somali believe in the figures provided here, because during the years these figures came out the country was under a dictatorship and the dictator inflated the figures where the Darood clan lived and reduced the population figure where non-Daroods lived. Therefore the map showing Somali clan distribution in the Horn of Africa and Somalia on the CIA Somalia page and other websites is tremendously biased in favor of Darood clans. In reality the most populated areas are those with high rainfall and agriculture and those areas are: Bay and Bakool region(Somalia), Mogadishu/Benadir region(Somalia), Awdal(Somaliland) and Hargeysa region(Somaliland). Puntland region is the most barren region in Somalia and the population density is very low there with the exception of Bosasso city. Water and agriculture means higher populations, desert means lower populations simple as that.

Somaliland by now probably has a population of around 4 -4.5 million while Somalia probably has a population of around 6 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective-Ali-100 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

De-facto/de-jure

Somaliland is de-facto recognised. But not de-jure recognised. Somalia on the other hand is de-jure recognised but de-facto non-existant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketballplayer90000 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop changing the article and discuss it here? Moreover, will you please refrain from changing other peoples' comments on this talk page? shotwell 00:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a simple Map should not be the reason for trolling and selfishly delete a whole page

people should post why they edit in the first place

RoboRanks 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC) RoboRanks

You are correct that blanking or vandalizing the page is not a good response, but it appears that Basketballplayer90000 has some legitimate concerns concerning this map. shotwell 00:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Somaliland's De-facto and De-jure Status

After having spoken to experts on African affairs in the US State Depertment I was given the following information as regards Somaliland.

The Republic of Somaliland is de-facto independent and hence de-facto recognised by neighboring countries such as Djibouti and Ethiopia as well as many European countries. De-facto meaning it is a reality on the ground and so countries have to deal with the reality.

However the Republic of Somaliland is not de-jure recognised, de-jure meaning legally, so Somaliland is according to international law not yet a country but according to real-politik it is.

Somalia is the opposite of Somaliland. Somalia is de-jure recognised but de-facto it does not exist as a country. In other words no group controlls the territorry of Somalia but legally in international law it has the status of a country. Many point to this absurdity in the Horn of Africa as a case point why international law needs to be updated to face current realities so a well managed country like Somaliland which is a de-facto reality does not suffer while a country in warfare such as Somalia is accorded various benefit because of its de-jure status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketballplayer90000 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talkpage; can you provide cites or refs for this info? Even if true, we can't include material that isn't verifiable and published by a reliable source. Unfortunately, word-of-mouth isn't considered verifiable for our purposes; can you provide a link to someplace this has been published? Then the article can be modified to include it. Thanks. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Basketballplayer90000 says:

I will try to do so Doc-Tropics. However I sense a doublestandard here, why is nobody asking for verification of the false map that keeps being posted to the Somalia page? Either we try to play by the rules all the time or the system will break down. A man can not readily stand by when he is being unfairly wronged and treated differently then others on the chess board.

I shall immediately try to provide references that are verfiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketballplayer90000 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BB, that's the key. Info that is well-sourced and relevant is not going to get deleted. Regarding a perceived double-standard, I concede that it's possible. Simply put, most editors will give preference to established material; we assume good faith on the part of the original author. When seeking to change established material however, editors will always insist on refs that support the change. Similarly, if you feel that a specific statement is incorrect in its present form, you can add a "fact" tag to the sentence or section, like this: {{fact}}. That will challenge other editors to support it with refs, and if they fail to do so (after a reasonable period)the material can then be removed. When in doubt, it's always best to discuss changes on the talkpage :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing factually incorrect about my maps, I have drawn Sool and Sanaaq as being "disputed territory" between Puntland and Somaliland. This may be a dispute that you, as a Somalilander, do not recognize, but it is reality nonetheless.

I am aware that with the ICU literally knocking on the door of Puntland that Somaliland achieving international recognition is the only assurance of safety at this point, but don't take it out on the truth. Besides, I think recognizing that Sool and Sanaaq are disputed would get you more international credibility that the ridiculous assertion that Somaliland has no domestic problems whatsoever. Somaliland has pretty serious clan-based rebel groups in the east AND west. --Ingoman 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would greatly help if you could provide some references to support the map. shotwell 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have, the main page for the maps is Somali Civil War (2006-present) in which you can see the news articles detailing each development. However that is not what he is protesting. His issue with my maps is twofold. One, I have drawn in the disputed areas of Sool and Sanaaq as being in dispute between Puntland and Somaliland. He does not accept Puntland's claim, so I am "portraying false information" by stating that this claim exists. The second thing I have done which is "false" is naming the tiny nominal government in Baidoa "Somalia". I feel justified in doing so however as they are the only faction that has UN recognition, and also they call themselves Somalia, which is the main reason. Somaliland has important political reasons for not recognizing the legitimacy of the Baidoa government, not that it's hard to all things considered, but tough cookies. --Ingoman 02:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So these are just territorial claims, right? I figured it was clear that your map represented territorial claims, but perhaps an acceptable solution would be to explicitly indicate as much. Perhaps in the caption? Is this an acceptable solution to everyone? Is it documented that Somaliland rejects these claims? It would probably help if we indicated this as well. shotwell 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A clear explanation in the caption that they are "territorial claims" or "disputed territorial claims" seems to be a good compromise. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ALERT ALERT ALERT:

I have noticed one major mistake with the map, click on the map to make it larger: see the area called Ceerigabo, that is not part of the disputed area, it is fully in the controll of Somaliland. That is were the Sanaag regions capital of Erigabo is located.

Wikipedia should take down the disputed map and just put up a blank map of Somalia showing the boundaries with other countries untill we settle this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farasfarasfaras (talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Has Puntland made a territorial claim there? shotwell 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: The article is currently protected and the image cannot be changed until the dispute is settled. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Maps on the Somalia Page

The truth of the matter is that under no circumstances can I and many others who are aware of the truth accept the map named "Current Political Reality in Somalia" this is a clear fabrication but certain members here who I will not name continue to post the map even after they have been given evidence of its falsehood, hence these members have failed to respect facts and instead choosen lies as their preffered contributin to this page. The map is clearly ludicrous as it basically asserts that Puntland controlls most of Somalia, nothing could be further from the truth and indeed for people who know about Somalia laugh at that picture. Neverhteless we take it seriously and will continue to erase that map.

Either we all agree on a map for the Somalia page based on an honest assesment of the facts or we have no map ont hat page, it is as simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketballplayer90000 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Border dispute and the MAP

Why don't we settle this issue the way the UN settles border dispute. First we look at where the curent battlines are drawn, in other words how much do Somaliland control and how much do Puntland control of these regions.

The Sanaag region is in Somaliland control militarily but verbally disputed by Puntland so leave Sanaag out of it.

As for Sool region the abattle lines are currently drawn in Adiadeeye which is about 10km northwest of the regional capital Las anod. Somaliands military is in Adiadeeye and Puntland controls Las Anod so the egion is split 65-35 in favor of Somaliland while Puntland control the regional capital.

The area called Buhoodle in the map is well known somaliland stronghold and far from disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farasfarasfaras (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What's going on here?

ALTERNATE SECTION HEADING

Farasfarasfaras sock puppets

What's going on here, really? Basketballplayer90000 and Farasfarasfaras are both brand-new accounts, they both appear to be single purpose accounts, they have made nearly identical edits on closely related articles, and now one is voicing support for the other. Good faith only goes so far when the smell of socks is in the air. I think this situation might warrent a Checkuser. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

farasfarasfaras says:

Hey buddy deal with the message not the messenger, ok! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farasfarasfaras (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you've made it rather clear. shotwell 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the same user has used about 4 or 5 accounts, and made very broad changes to virtually every single page even remotely related to Somaliland. Check the edits of the following users:

• Basketballplayer90000
• Kurtnimmo90
• Dhulbahante55
• AfricanThunder99

also these IPs:

• 76.169.136.160
• 68.89.166.181

We should probably go through all these users edits and try and repair the damage. --Ingoman 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ok people make mistakes, just don't repeat it.

We should probably deal with the message in any case. But no more different accounts, i think you goet the messgae, good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farasfarasfaras (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes we think we know it all but we really don't. Did it occur to you that someone might forget their password if they are new here and soif they get logged out and need to logg back in again but can't they might want to start a new account?

In any case refute the message not the messenger, perhaps the message is irrfutable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farasfarasfaras (talk • contribs) 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take steps to initiate Checkuser and get this accounts blocked if others will begin repairing the damage. I suggest either ignoring or deleting further comments from the socks. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the Name of Fairness put a Neutral Map there

This issue might never get settled as someone will always object to the facts on the ground. So untill this issue get settled remove the disputed map as it is seen being biased in favor of Puntland and against Somaliland and the Union of Islamic courts.

Put a Somali map just showing the international boundaries Somalia has with the neighbors or put in a map that shows the Somaliland, Puntland and the rest of Somalia as the international community defines it. I think you have one such map showing Puntland in blue, Somaliland in pink and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farasfarasfaras (talk • contribs) 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Somaliland, Puntland and POV

Since we seem to be under a politically-motivated attack here, I suppose I should outline what's going on here. Puntland and Somaliland have a dispute over the Sool and Sanaaq regions of Somalia, a dispute that is primarily clan-based. This is because Sool and Sanaaq are inhabited mainly by Darod clans and Somaliland was created by Issaq clans, who still hold most of the power in the country. Puntland's support is primarily derived from Darod clans, who resent Somaliland's Issaq ruling over Sool and Sanaaq. Both sides have consistently refused to accept the other's claim, or even existence of such claim, and consider both sides occupation of any part of Sool or Sanaaq as an occupation. This is a very hot button issue, and the Somaliland equivalent of the Israel-Palestine issue (in terms of what exactly defines Somaliland and Puntland). Thus people should be very cautious in being swayed one way or the other on this issue. --Ingoman 04:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that we could effectively compromise by explicitly indicating your map represents territorial claims? We could just write this in the caption. I don't think there is any basis for a dispute if we indicate as much. shotwell 04:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As a relative outsider, I think that represents a good compromise which would resolve the situation. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to, but that won't make this guy stop vandalizing. Look at the edit he tried to do to the Puntland page. --Ingoman 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that us three agree, but I don't think we would have ever disagreed in the first place. I've reported this user on the vandalism noticeboard. shotwell 04:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Although, I do think it'd be good to put this in the caption once the article is unprotected, in the event that someone else takes issue. shotwell 04:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I take offense at this ridiculous petty nationalism even being taken seriously, but I suppose I should have expected it having waded into the Somalian political situation and tried to make sense of it all. I think a lot of the factions depend on international ignorance of the real situation. --Ingoman 04:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I also reported to AN/I with request that the accounts be investigated and appropriate action taken. If the troublesome accounts are blocked I think the Protection could be removed. The entire issue seems to have been politically motivated. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears to have been taken care of. shotwell 04:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Tawker blocked the five I listed as "obvious socks". Under the circumstances, un-Protect seems reasonable. Well done :) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Map

The map showing the political factions is confusing

I suggest

1. Removing all colouring and detail from Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti. have them plain white with country names in BOLD.

2. Removing Kenya ,Ethiopia and Djibouti from the map key.

3. rearranging the map key so that the factions that are members of the Provisional Govt are next to each other. 200.108.28.37 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to commons:Image:Somali land 2006 12 02.png and/or commons:Image:Somali land 2006 11 14.png? It would also be useful to know the source of the data that User:Ingoman used to create these maps. Otherwise both maps would seem to fall under original research and, without some kind of verifiability, their inclusion in Wikipedia is questionable. Ultimately it boils down to being a Commons issue since they're hosted at Commons, but I've left comments there, as well ([14],[15]). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The maps do have a certain amount of false precision to them, as in reality the borders are far from clearly delineated. The basic borders of the courts, provisional government, Puntland, and Somaliland are all fairly standard, however. See, for instance, these BBC maps [16], [17]. I also agree with the anon that the coloration and legend are unnecessarily confusing.- SimonP 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The news articles detailing the advances and conquests of the ICU are clearly documented in the article Somali Civil War (2006-present). The BBC map is quite inaccurate and contains a number of inaccuracies, such as displaying Galgadud and south Mudug as outside ICU control, and displaying Jubaland as an ICU ally for a while (Jubaland also contained Gedo and was dead-set against the ICU). The reason why I drew in the surrounding Somali-populated areas is that in all likelyhood this conflict is going to go regional, and that will be the battleground.--Ingoman 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I (sadly) think you're right about the possibility of regional conflict, and thus the bordering areas merit inclusion in the map. I think it would be best to actually cite the news sources on the image page itself. I still wonder if even that would be considered original research or not (again, perhaps a Commons-related question as much as for Wikipedia), but I think citing the sources would go a long way. A verified version might also be helpful for Wikinews. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh fair enough, though the BBC map is crap and everyone uses that without any sources. --Ingoman 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making the update Ingoman! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The neighbouring countries do merit inclusion but should they be so detailed ? With provinces etc. Its looks like they're part of somalia rather than neighbours. At a minimum the Map key should be rearranged so that Provsional govt factions are next to each other (and they should be shades of the same colour)Islamic Courts and allies next to each other, and foreign nations next to each other. Finally the part of Somalia under Ethipian control should be stated as that Controlled by Ethiopia not as if it has been annexed by Ethiopia. If you can point me to a blank version of your map I'll show you what I mean. Xerex200.108.24.229 15:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also given that Somalia and the Islamic Courts are enemies should they both be shades of green ? I think a starker colour difference should be usedXerex 20:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Maps detail GREATER SOMALIA and the areas where all SOMALIS live. So, the map shouldn't be changed, its fairly accurate. FAH1223 18:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

de jure or de facto?

Somalia exists solely on a de jure capacity, as stated in other Wikipedia articles, not de facto, as this article states. please correct. Ybgursey 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hate to break it to ya, but if it exists de jure, it already exists de facto. Trekphiler (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Article

This is a really great article. I think it's one of the best on Wikipedia, not focusing on factual information and fallacies. Just in terms of information presented, and the way that it is presented, I think it is one of the best. Hizrael 12:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by Hizrael was actually added by 65.35.11.39 at 17:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopian Invasion

Should an article be about the Ethiopian invasion of Somali be made? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.14.222 (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Two points:
- A very similar topic seems to be discussed alreay under item 27. Is it usual to start new topics for simlar issues?
- From both a legal and a semantic point of view, what is happening in Somalia is probably not best described as "invasion". According to the Africa correspondend of the swiss newspaper NZZ ([18] article on the online version of the Newspaper, 27th december 2006), the Ethiopian Troops have been formally invited by the UN-recognized government of Somalia. According to the same source, the African Union has recognized that Ethiopia is acting on its right to self-defense (I was however not able to confirm this information by visiting the Website of the African Union - this website is notoriously out-dated, so that this does not invalidate the information of the NZZ).
Georgis 11:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you would ask such a question betrays your ignorance. --Ingoman 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

from what i heard the only place that swahili is spoken in somalia is a village on the border with kenya called mushunguli with a population in the hundreds.in my opinin that does not warant swahili as an important language in somalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.150.125 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed the flag

Just noticed that someone has replaced somalia flag with USA flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.192.131 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed the US Flag but do not know how to replace it with the Somali flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshdhaliwal (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed dubious paragraph

I have removed the paragraph added by Mohmoe at 22:52, 23 December 2006. It made some dubious claims about U.S. support, and some original analysis of the military situation. This information, if true, is interesting; however, it should be properly referenced before being re-added. -- Beland 19:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

War in Somalia

Please expand this info as it is a current event.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

More than that, we need to refresh the introduction becuse the currect one still shows Islamic Courts Union as a powerful organization but as we all know they are defeated now. Deliogul 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

'Warlords' vs 'militas'

Why are the ARPCT being called warlords while the UIC are being called militas? It seems, at least to me, that neither side are clearly capable of being called either one. It seems that there is bias here saying that UIC are not "warlords" whereas the ARPCT are. Thanks for any clarifaction. 72.161.164.122 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you would ask such a question betrays your ignorance. --Ingoman 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't asnwer his question. I think we should be neutral, like journalists. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ingoman, I'm sorry, but it seems that the term 'warlord' is hardly applicable to just one group over there. I find the bias against the ARPCT pretty shocking given how much UIC and its affiliates have been supported through arms trade and foreign fighters in Somalia. The article talks about the CIA funding ARPCT, but neglects Ethria and all the other countries helping the Islamists (Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Uganda according to a recent UN panel report). Please, do not let your bias cloud your view on this. It's not as clear cut as everyone is making it out to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.164.122 (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

What else do you call former military officers who seize control of land as their personal domain, and rule as a law upon themselves? That sounds like a warlord to me. If you want to believe that they are government representatives then that's fine, but don't argue that that's an objective point of view. --Ingoman 02:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not the ARPCT are warlords, the question is why the UIC are considered a militia when they are also composed of highly a militant centeralized contengent funded by foreign sources (and in fact, significantly more powerful than the ARPCT given how easy it was for them to take Mogandishu; at least until the CIA evened the odds and the UIC fell just today). Unless you can distinguish between the two forces, the two militant forces, then I don't think you should say they are one or the other. As far as I can tell only one of these warlords were former military commanders, the rest were merely government officials. Sorta, you know, how the UIC is composed entirely of government officials. 72.161.164.122 14:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need to act as growns up. Also, Please read Wikiplocy. The User that uses the following IP 72.161.164.122, I will give you a short run why the UIC is called a Militia and the APRCT are mentioned as Warlords. The first is reason ios quite obvious, the Warlords held land prior to the ICU rising up and they controlled those lands with punity. no one doubts they were warlords and not because we said they were warlords but its a FACT that they were warlords prior to the creation of the APRCT. when the APRCT was created, this did not change them in any significant way, the were warlord union in some sort. We, or at least the people who edit this pages did not all over sudden started calling the APRCT warlords, that was their prior title and that did not change in the process of the creation of the APRCT. now lets turn towards the ICU, the ICU were not warlords. In other words, all the high ranking members did not have they own patch of land prior to the creation of the ICU with one exeption, the ICU member Indade was a warlord in the Jubba valley area and once the ICU came over, he chose not to fight but join them. give up his lands and become part of the solution. this is the main differntiation. but others reasons exisit such as the ICU was essential government in a wide region. and not a small patch of land. they had a functioning organisation etc. you get the point. --Samantar Abdirisaq 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why war?

Don't leave this self-eplanatory. I don't know why this war began. Having read all the article offers, I learned that since last spring, the warlords formed an internationally recognized goverment of Somalia, but which excluded the Islamista, who consequently attacked the warlords and drove them out Somalia. They seem to believe that the Warlords represent anarchy and thus the political conflict between the interim government and the islamists. But why don't the islamists sue a negotiatory solution and rather seem to try to drive them violently out of the office and the country? Teemu Ruskeepää 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

BBC World News had that the Interim Government are against the warlords. The interim government thus replaced the Warlords overthrown by the Islamists, and the Islamists try to overthrow the goverment as well. Why? Teemu Ruskeepää 14:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

UIC or ICU?

This article uses the term UIC whereas the linked article on the recent war uses the term ICU. Usage should be standardized. Otherwise readers will be prone to confusion. I would propose using ICU unless there is a good reason for prefering the current terminology used in this article. In which case the linked article on the war should be changed. Mamalujo 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)