Talk:Somalia

Somali Nomad Girls Picture

The picture at the bottom of the page falsely charactarizes teenage girls in traditional clothing as 'nomad girls'. I couldn't change the caption, could someone kindly follow up on it as its misleading. Young women routinely wear these clothes at wedding after parties or social gatherings. Those aren't nomad girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.221.115 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Link

NPOV:Education

The education section about Quranic school is not written in NPOV style, I don't know much about this topic, but could someone who does rewrite, remove questionable words and add references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.168.131 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=29 concerning US backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent added info

info from this site[1] was added in the article a day ago i have removed it

second if the person that contributed it wants to add in his/her own words about the spread of Islam in Somalia he/she should add it in the main article Islam in Somalia

third about the Somali sultanates all lot was taken from the Northern Somali Sultanates article and i think it would be better if that info was added in the main article History of Somalia... RoboRanks 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Poetery

Why isn't there a poetry section, am suprised it wasn't included. Poetry is one of our pastimes our people are renouned for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.150.125 (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add it (please cite sources). Alternatively, the Somali people article might be a good place to add the information. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Official long form name

please someone cite sources as to the official long name of Somalia Ybgursey 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: there isn't one.

Now, the long answer. Per the CIA World Factbook: Jamhuuriyada Demuqraadiga Soomaaliyeed, Somali Democratic Republic. However, that was the name under the regime of Siad Barre c. 1991. It is obsolete. The new nation does not have an official 'long form' name other than "Somalia." Not yet.

The name used in the 1995 Draft Constitition for the Republic of Somalia was, obviously, the "Republic of Somalia." Not to be confused with the "Republic of Somaliland," the self-declared independent northern area.

The name used in the 2004 Transitional Federal Charter is the "Somali Republic." Per the preample:

In the Name of Allah, the most Merciful, the Beneficent. WE, THE DELEGATES REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE SOMALI REPUBLIC have solemnly resolved to enact a Transitional Federal Charter for the Somali Republic;

So note the present form is, as official as it can be given present circumstances, "Somali Republic," not "Republic of Somalia." --Petercorless 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Languages of Somalia

You guys should stop replacing what I wrote. The main language of Somali native minority second languages is Af-Maay and Swahili. Non-Native languages are Arabic and English are spoken well but Italian doesn't even deserve to be mentioned because hardly a soul speaks it in Somalia.

I can confirm this. A large Somali community is growing here in Greeley, Colorado. I work with native Somalis who have come here through the JBS Swift and Company work visa program. The only latin-derived language I have ever witnessed a Somali speak is Spanish, and only from learning bits and pieces since coming here.75.71.99.169 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2008 (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 ([2] 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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

Upload the original CIA Factobook image and add a dotted line [3]. --Jiang

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 --60.48.83.122, 09:37, 28 Oct 2004

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.

But that same report says A transitional government set up in 2000 only controls parts of the capital.

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.

PMA 02:45, Nov 24, 2003 (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)

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

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. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.240.110 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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".

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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: [4] Also, look at these pictures from Somalia [5] 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?

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)

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.[6] 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

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).

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".

New book

I become angry by reverts with comments like: "Remove advertising for a little known, and highly biased book" [7] 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 [8]. 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.

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.

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. [9] [10] 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)

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.

Flag

I had to remove the flag as it linked to an offensive image. Bearbear 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently, it shows the flag of USA.

Blog link - LVM Instititute Link

I've again removed the link to [11]. 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 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)

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.

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 [12] and [[13]]. --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.

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: [14] 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]

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

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?

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)

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)

Bullying

somalians in many schools in london(especially north) are prone to bullyingfor many reasons.The main reasons are for a lot of Somalis having flat faces so people call the "Abdul you got ran over by a truck on your face" and "abdul did your mum smack you on the face with a frying pan" and many many more.Also they are bullyed about because many somalis have braces and they say they are born with them now by the cause of evolution, but the main form of bullying is they call somalans "abdul" as most somelians have this name and are recognised by it. how do the somalians react? they mostly dont do nothing except they start cussing them and if the bullying goes far they bring a gang calledT.M.S(too many somlians) and have grenades thrown at them in extreme circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahoz.a (talk • contribs) 14:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rahoz.a (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2008 (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 itRahoz.a (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2008 (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

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)

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[15], and that should probably be noted, even though Wales is part of the UK, not a separate nation.

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)

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.

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)

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. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Basketballplayer90000 (talk • contribs) . shotwell 00:05, 19 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) 01:43, 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.

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: . 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)

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)

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.

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 04:07, 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 ([16],[17]). -- 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 [18], [19]. 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)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Africa at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Africa whose scope would include Somalia. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:29, 20 December 2006 (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)

Someone changed the flag

Just noticed that someone has replaced somalia flag with USA flag.

I have just removed the US Flag but do not know how to replace it with the Somali flag.

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. (Sorry, forgot to sign, Wikipedia needs to autosign for guests.) 72.161.164.122 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)

Portal

I was thinking about creating a Portal for Somalia so we can organize all the Somalia releted article, and organizing everything while at the same time presenting Somalia in a good Portal fashion where information dispensing can be achieved. I wanted to know who will support such venture?--Samantar Abdirisaq 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

weird how this place was so busy and now this portal discussion went idel almost immidiately. this just proves people's intrest can only be engaged by wars and other news releated things. is anyone here genuinely intrested in improving Somalia article and giving it a more BANG to it with a Portal? --Samantar Abdirisaq 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be doing my usual monitoring of the general situation, as I've been doing for the last 7 months. My current plan is actually to flesh out the Somali history section. I've been trying to iron out the facts from various Qabiil historians. It's obscene for instance that the Ajuuraan Empire has half a paragraph on the Ajuran clan article, and a few paragraphs that I added to the Hobyo page, and not even an article of its own. --Ingoman 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If a portal is created, one subject that should be brought up is the standardization of geographic names. About half of articles on Somali places have Somali names for the title and half have English names. See Category:Cities in Somalia or Category:Somalia geography stubs for examples. There is currently a move proposal for one at Talk:Boosaaso. —  AjaxSmack  07:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

THE PORTAL HAS BEEN STARTED. much work will be needed to be done before we put on stage though... I really need a lot of help in getting this together. The Talk page is also open for discussions and what to do next. I am trying to read and look at other Wiki portal examples and so forth. ANYONE IS WELCOME TO HELP. thank you. So far, I have only built the skeleton of the portal but we need more work around this week to really get it read for articles and everything else. --Samantar Abdirisaq 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing Somalia's borders on the map

The TFG recognizes Somaliland as part of its borders, and so does the International Community. So ifl S/Land becomes a soverign nation and is recognized, we should leave it alone. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by FAH1223 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Well until I hear on the front page of this site that it is a UN member state It should be added in the map.

I strongly disagree, I do not believe formalities such as international recognition are more important than reality on the ground. I think post-USSR collapse, the UN has gone too far to discredit seccessionist movements, to the point of absurdity, for instance when Somalia was a state only legally, and Somaliland was the only actual state in Somalia until 1998. Categorizing states into "legitimate" and "illegitimate" countries is absurd and dangerous. --Ingoman 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But no country recognizes SOMALILAND! Somaliland is only a region on any map you see. 69.140.20.120 01:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister Gedi earlier this month called off flights and port activity for a short while for ALL of Somalia. A reporter asked if it also meant Somaliland, and he responded "There is only 1 Somalia." The next day, Hargeysa flights were halted, Berbera saw no activity until the action was lifted.

And for some odd reason, Hargeysa has seen protests from the TFG, after Dahir Riyale visited Addis Ababa. Something is brewing and the TFG does have some sort of control over S/Land, as minimal as it may seem. FAH1223 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of countries noone or very few people recognize, and I don't agree that this is the most important prerequisite for statehood. I think domestic legitimacy should be the most important thing, not whether other countries consider them legitimate. International recognition as a prerequisite leaves too much room for the "Illegal Combatant" syndrome, and favoratism, something the UN isn't supposed to show. I'd like to see a source that Hargeisa actually had to stop flights because Baidoa issued an air traffic ban. I know from the news I was following at the time that flights to ICU-controlled Mogadishu didn't even stop during the ban, let alone flights to Hargeisa. --Ingoman 01:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Charter's first Chapter establishes the Transitional Federal Government as the sovereign government of Somalia (Article 1), and gives the government supremacy of law over the nation (Article 3). It defines Somalia (in Article 3) as having the following borders:

(a) North; Gulf of Aden.
(b) North West; Djibouti.
(c) West; Ethiopia.
(d) South south-west; Kenya.
(e) East; Indian Ocean.

This puts a territorial contention with the self-declared autonomous state of the Republic of Somaliland, which has been operating as a de facto independent state, though it is not recognized internationally. It would also incorporate the autonomous state of Puntland.

FAH1223 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Domestic charters don't mean anything in international politics. Taiwan "officially" had borders encompassing mainland China, Mongolia, Tibet and Manchuria. Self-declared authority means nothing. And don't delete talk page content, it is vandalism. --Ingoman 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Atleast Taiwan is recognized by other states, even after the Chinese civil war. Somaliland is still considered Somalia to just about every country. And Somaliland's independence comes from 1 clan, and they are all Somali, while other clans protest themselves for the unity of Somalia. FAH1223 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

THE PROBLEM SOOL,SANAAG&BUHOODLE AND THIS MAP

mr james your map must be basis the somali clan families map because that part of somalia unlike other parts of somalia so be becarefull that is reason of the confilict and your intersection lines must be cover all harti area in sool,sanaag and cayn using tha map of somali clan families :

• lib.utexas
• this correct and usefull map of harti part in former british economist

there are area you excepted in your map the lines extended in the conflict area between puntland and somaliland {ceerigaabo(arigavo) district}Include :masagan,ceelaqoday,madare,ardaa,dhaxamo,biyoguduud,jiidali,fiqi fuleye,awrboogays,dhaabeeda,ceelqoxle ,xingalool,damalaxagare,yube,carmale,bir xamar,dabablehe look map of ceerigaabo:

• fallingrain that mean that area is inhabitants by isaq clan or belong them but that is not true it is big mistake to refer area for one clan to other clan.reason of conflict is distribute of the tribes if you look map of somali clan families you see:
• lib.utexas

the puntland need to make darod state look map of puntland: puntlandgovt include all area inhabitants by harti clan,

where somaliland need to make isaaq nation in the boundaries of the new republic are the same as those of "British Somaliland somalilandgov that is impossible because who inhabit the regions of Sool, Sanaag and Cayn (approximating over 40 percent of the geographical area of the so-called Somaliland), were separated from their fellow clan cousins in Southern Somalia (Puntalnd).here I execept here Gadabuursi,They had suffered atrocities in 1991 and occupied from the Isaaq rebel movement (Somali National Movement) and are understandably not keen for the time being to provoke any military reprisals from the Isaaqs, unless thy can count on the support of an effective and functioning Somali government in Mogadishu which can come to their aid when somalia get central govertment

mr james you must know too that the people of Sool and Sanaag, as members of major Somali clans, have recognized borders. It is a well defined border, with longitude and latitude; it is borders well recognized by Her Majesty, the British Kingdom; it is a border that recognizes where the Isaq sub-clans reside and where the Harti sub-clans are too. don't disturb those borders and the peace. (Sanaaglander 09:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC))osmanhr

Yo sanaaglander why are you so into qabil give it a break.This is what is tearing Somalia apart .if you want change be part of the solution.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly-gurl1 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 16 November 2007

A reminder: article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the subject of the article. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TRIVIAL GRAGH

I deleted it because of above reason, --Sanaaglander 10:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Map

Does the TFG claim Somaliland and Puntland? and if so would the TFG's count as Somalia? I guess what I really mean is shouldn't they have a separate page? --Merhawie 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The TFG is widely recognised by the "international community" as the only and official government representing Somalia. Puntland doesn't claim independence from Somalia, but regards itself as an autonomous state within Somalia ("Puntland State of Somalia"), which it de facto is. Somaliland has declared its independence (which it de facto maintains), but is de jure still part of Somalia, for no other country has recognised it and the TFG still claims it (see Chapter 1 of the Transitional Federal Charter which defines the borders of Somalia). Béka 12:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Warlord names

Are the "Somali Warlord Muamar Aideed" and "Mohamed Farrah Aidid" in the '60s to '90s chapter the same person? If so, the naming convention should be unified. RandomMonitor 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing that confuses a lot of people is that Somalis all have nicknames, by which they are much better known than their real names. For instance the warlord Muhammad Omar Habeb is known as "Mohamed Dheere". "General Aideed" as he is generally known as, is a nickname as well. His real name is Mohamed Farah, and his son's real name is Hussein Mohamed Farah.

Some even sound like real names, like Yusuf Idha'adde, the security chief of the ICU, but that's a nickname too, it means "white eyed" His real name is Yusuf Mohammed Siad.

In general, Somalis are known by their nicknames, and their real names are only used for official or genealogical purposes. In response to your original question though, Muamar is incorrect, his name is Mohamed.

--Ingoman 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Scouting in Somalia

Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Somali? Thanks! Chris 06:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

New changes to economics section of Somalia, and data.

Hi

i have been on the ground and talked to many in the Mogadishu business community about the recent changes to the countries infrastructure and light construction taking place outside the city. the government released papers showing the current imports and exports of the countries growing cement industry and light machinery. The telecommunication industry in Somalia is growing at an rapid rate, with high-speed DSL and ADSL connections appearing even in the poorest homes, and seem to be the back bone of the countries recent return to Government rule.

i changed some of the sitting on the Somali page to reflect the sent increase in economic activity. i hope the people viewing the new editing of the Somali page can truly get a real picture of the return of peace and prosperity. Somalia is no longer an failed state, but one emerging from the chaos of rising to the challenge.

Hope you people can understand and see Somalia in its true light, and help change the Economic section of Somalia wikipedia.

--Edd34 17:32, 27 September 2007

State

This might sound a bit stupid but can lawless Somalia even be called a state anymore? The H-Man2 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question, but where in the article is Somalia actually referenced as a "state"? 24.193.49.117 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Government

Should it be listed as 'Anarchy'? At least in brackets? I think it's a rather important thing to mention. Zazaban 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Somalia is in a state of anarchy.

italian

Just a question, Italian language is still teaching in somalia today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

no, there are no official government curriculums but a substantial, especial the older generations, still speak Somalis and there is a large somali population in Italy which contributes to a lot of other people learning the language. But even without a government Arabic and Italian are taught in private schools scattered through out the country.

Thanks but why when I go to italian language page in wikipedia its write that italian is speaking in Somalia,Libya...?

The only OFFICIAL language of Somalia is Somali. English is the language of science, technology and academia and Arabic is the language of religion, law and philosophy, and English and Arabic are also largely the languages of commerce and diplomacy so educated Somalis can speak all three languages, but the majority of Somalis speak only Somali and/or Maay. Italian was learned by the Somali upper class about 70 years ago as the language of administration, but then only in Italian Somaliland, British Somaliland having of course English as an administrative language. The institutions of British Somaliland were the ones that developed into modern Somalia, Italian Somaliland having been largely dismantled after 1942. --Ingoman (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

??? I never said that I just want to understand why its still put in the italian speaking countries? go in the italian language page see: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Map_Italophone_World_-_updated.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would no longer classify it as such myself. You should take it up with the author of that map and editors of such pages. They likely are making assumptions based on colonial history. --Ingoman (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a large Italian Speaking Somalis... even today. To say that its just colonial history is just false based on no solid evidence. Its really something that should be as clear as water, i am not sure why people cant research the actual fatcs before making momentous statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.163.190 (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove me that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC) no Italian is not being taught in Somalia because there are no Italians left there.Some people do still speak Italian,but no,it is not being taught in Somalia at this timeCoolisha (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the race of the somali people ?

im not teying 2 be wierd or rude but seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolisha (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Somalis themselves believe to be descended from Arabs (preferably the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad) who came to their area and intermarried with locals, while linguistics and genetic genealogy suggest they are closely related to Cushitic-speaking Black African peoples in the Horn of Africa, such as the Oromo. Actualy they seem to be mixed Arab and Black African. Béka (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Word of advice, Coolisha: When seeking information on the genuine racial background of a given population, do not rely on man-on-the-street assertions. They will only tell you what they want you to believe and wish were true. Turn instead to actual scientific studies from people qualified to know what they are talking about. Causteau (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Consistency of regions across Solami articles

We could do with getting the "number of regions" stories straight at Somalia#Administrative divisions (lists 18, notes there are now 27, Districts of Somalia (lists 19) and Regions of Somalia (lists 27). I appreciate the changes since circa 1990, but we should be capable of discussion the history of region changes. Currently, at best, Districts of Somalia serves to confuse. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are only 13 regions in Somalia since the regions know constituting The Republic of Somaliland have formed their own country. Hence Sool, Sanaag, Togdheer, Waqooyi Galbeed and Awdal do not consider themselves part of Somalia but rather Somaliland. (Yusufcali007 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufcali007 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Capital city

Why does the third paragraph of the lead section fail to state that Mogadishu is the capital? This is widely acknowledged, and is noted in the infobox and in the Mogadishu article. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a bit of ambiguity in this regard, as the government is still located at Baidoa and has not relocated to Mogadishu. --Ingoman (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The capital Mogadishu is not controlled by the so called "government", but it is the capital of Somalia nevertheless.

(Harun8 (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)) Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia since a Chinese dynasty passed through the nation, naming it as they passed. The Somali government relocated after Nur "Adde" became Prime Minister back in 2007 after numerous arguments and encouragement with other ministers. Since then only one or two incidences have happened near the Villa Somalia - suggesting that they are welcomed by their people.

Do not erase bibliography and references. please

Please, do not erase bibliography and references. Wikipedia is based on scholar opinions and references, in every language of the world. Please, add your bibliography and/or references if you disagree with the opinions of some scholars. It is the way Wikipedia works. Thanks, J.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.20 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect J.T., it seems to me that it's you who is not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's policies, particularly the one regarding non-English sources on English Wikipedia (i.e. this site) that I already pointed out to you:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

Your Una sconfitta dell’intelligenza. Italia e Somalia source falls short in several respects because:

1)It's not in English and this, again, is English Wikipedia. Since your source is not in English, readers can't "easily verify that the source material has been used correctly".

2)You personally translated the text instead of providing a translation published by a reliable source.

3)Your assertion here that "...by 1939 nearly 10% of the Somalis were catholics" also more than qualifies as an exceptional claim per Wiki policies since all the available mainstream historical sources on the Somalis agree that they are and have always been among the most singularly Muslim populations extant. Your edit therefore necessitates a high quality source, which Una sconfitta dell’intelligenza. Italia e Somalia unfortunately does not qualify as:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I have therefore removed this portion of your edit again. The rest, however, can remain since it appears to be properly sourced, and does not make any exceptional claims (and in other languages to boot). Causteau (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, Costeau. Not your personal place to write what you like. Who are you to write that the italian scholars are NOT reliable sources? This is exactly the way of thinking of the moslems who support the fanatism of the "Taliban" in Somalia! Soon or later someone will denounce your extremism, hidden under a curtain of "wikipedia rules". I have reverted your arbitrary erase and will consider in future an arbitration on your moslem behavior.J.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.151.45 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What on Earth are you on about? I didn't qualify your sources as unreliable -- they qualified themselves as such per Wikipedia's policies, as clearly explained and quoted above. Let me cite you the reasons again since you didn't seem to get it the first time:

With all due respect J.T., it seems to me that it's you who is not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's policies, particularly the one regarding non-English sources on English Wikipedia (i.e. this site) that I already pointed out to you:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."

Your Una sconfitta dell’intelligenza. Italia e Somalia source falls short in several respects because:

1)It's not in English and this, again, is English Wikipedia. Since your source is not in English, readers can't "easily verify that the source material has been used correctly".

2)You personally translated the text instead of providing a translation published by a reliable source.

3)Your assertion here that "...by 1939 nearly 10% of the Somalis were catholics" also more than qualifies as an exceptional claim per Wiki policies since all the available mainstream historical sources on the Somalis agree that they are and have always been among the most singularly Muslim populations extant. Your edit therefore necessitates a high quality source, which Una sconfitta dell’intelligenza. Italia e Somalia unfortunately does not qualify as:

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

I have therefore removed this portion of your edit yet again. And in your future dealings with other Wiki editors, kindly refrain from indulging in personal attacks. It's a violation of Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and WP:Civility. ---- Causteau (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a citation yesterday and it was removed. I'm wondering why this occurred. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.211.5 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the Somali people article? Your IP address added a reference to the New York Post under the "References" section. I assume it was removed because it isn't clear that any portion of the article was actually using it as a reference (i.e. there were no citations). It may have been better suited for the "External links" section. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Claim of ICU banning soccer

This article repeated the commonly reported view that the ICU banned soccer viewing. I left the original citation in place, but modulated the tone and cited a balancing source. The story behind the story is interesting, and sheds some light on the problem of balanced presentation of the record of the ICU while it was in power. Some reports have it that Somalis were even shot for being at theaters where World Cup broadcasts were shown. Though it appears there was a grain or two of truth in most reports, the real situation seems to have been decidedly more mixed and complex.

Even in an International Sports Press Association report [20] with some anti-ICU POV slant, you can see a little more complexity. In one case, some children were arrested for playing soccer, and forbidden to ever play the game again, which is distinctly draconian. However, their sin seems to have been in playing soccer during Ramadan, not in playing soccer at all. The BBC reported [21] that the gunmen who shot some World Cup broadcast spectators were arrested, "could face the death penalty", and that there was no official ICU blanket ban on viewing soccer matches, though there may have been some variation from court to court. The blog "The Global Game: Soccer as a Second Language" [22] rounds up some reporting from the time, including a proposed ICU ban on sports reporting, although even the most detailed reporting I've found on this proposed censorship [23] doesn't make it clear whether it was fully enacted, and in that same report we find that the ICU has, besides its clear ban on playing or watching during Ramadan, gone no further than sex-segregated seating, enforcing prayer times, playing Koranic verses over the stadium PAs, and generally trying to Islamicize the events rather than outright banning them. Some of the concern about viewing international broadcasts of soccer games appears to have been related to a desire to censor alcohol advertising more than soccer itself. There's almost the makings of an entire article here, but for now, I think it might be enough to briefly clarify here (and more broadly amplify in other ICU-related articles) that ICU policy about soccer was mixed, inconclusive, not uniform, and generally not some draconian Taleban-like treatment of the sport. Yakushima (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Raped girl, 13, stoned to death in Mogadishu

I'm not sure where (or whether) this belongs in this article, but here's a news story I just stumbled across reporting that A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death on on October 27 in Mogadishu, Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants: Raped girl, 13, stoned to death, South Africa: News24, 1 November 2008, retrieved 2008-11-02. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Search for this in the article: "Somalia(formerly British Somaliland)". There should be a space between "Somalia" and "(formerly ...".

Article Clean-up

This article needs to be cleaned up, I see there is some POV. An example of POV is in the following sentence: "Though many Somali warriors were killed during the war, they still defeated the enemy and succeeded in protecting the Benadir coast." There should be no references to other groups as "the enemy".

Also, the following sentence appears out-of-place, I believe it should have been a title: " The Situation in Mogadishu in 1990."--72.140.155.2 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)