Talk:Somalia

Cities

The population data in the "Cities" section is way, way, way off. Mogadishu was never more than 1.5 million at its height, and has been seriously depopulated. Garowe(according to UN Habitat estimates), has about 35,000-4,000. There are many other errors as well; these figures are a product of the tendency of Somalis to overestimate the size of their populations, in order to make their specific clan appear larger and more powerful than it is. Jrule (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To support Jrule, I noticed that the population data was way off from the urbanization estimates. Using the first 5 cities alone, given the numbers that are in the article, you get an urban population of ~5 million, more than 50% of the population. The article should recognize these inconsistencies rather than making false assertions about population data. David.aloha (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The city estimates are clearly fabricated. Something has to be done as it greatly affects the accuracy of this page.

Mazi99 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Article seems to have a overly positive slant...

I might be the only one who thinks this article reads like a tourist guide (oh, there are half-a-dozen other editors who think the same thing?!) but could someone (Midday Express) please explain how: the United Nations, Fund for Peace, Transparency International, The New York Times, Associated Press, US State Department, et al. are unreliable sources and obscure articles from sources I've never heard of are authoritative. I earlier saw Midday Express calling another user 'paranoid'; it would seem to me that someone looking for corrupt sources of information and starting with: The United Nations, Transparency International, etc. might have some paranoia issues themselves...

I'm afraid you are a little late. The article has been completely re-written since those discussions you allude to, so they don't really apply. I also suggest you have a look at the civil war section in particular for reference. Middayexpress (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead made me laugh. "While it still has room for improvement, the interim government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011." If this was about a business instead of a government, it would be removed in an instant as an advertisement. The statements like this in the lead are way overly positive. "despite experiencing civil unrest, Somalia has also maintained a healthy informal economy..." How nice. No mention that the "healthy" economy is rated 150 out of 191 in the world? No mention of the 15 year period of anarchy the country went through? Ridiculous. Swarm^Talk 06:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, since, during that period of no central governing authority, Somalia's inhabitants had actually reverted to local methods of conflict resolution, primarily consisting of customary law. While the size of the GDP is indeed ranked 155th in the world, that is not really an indication of the health of the economy since not all countries are the same size and have the same size populations. The GDP was also a fraction of that size as recently as 1987, just prior to the civil war; it's been steadily increasing since then, except for a brief dip in 2008 on account of renewed fighting in the south ([1]). It's the GDP's growth rate that matters, and Somalia's GDP in 2009 had an estimated real growth rate (that is, after being adjusted for inflation) of 2.6% (71st in the world). Modest, to be sure, but healthy all the same, which is partly why the CIA indicates that "despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications" ([2]). It's the CIA itself that also indicates that "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011." Middayexpress (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The tone of the article is positive. That's the point. Swarm^Talk 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a reflection of the paraphrased CIA et al.'s own language. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The CIA doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of WP:NPOV. Swarm^Talk 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is that supposed to mean? And which part of that policy indicates this? Middayexpress (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It means that NPOV is a rule on Wikipedia, and the CIA don't have to follow it. Sw♠rm^Talk 03:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a riddle, but doesn't mean much since the CIA is a reliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this acticle is way to positive. Maybe it should mention that Somolia has ranked number 1 on the failed state index for three years in a row. Mike 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.45.63 (talk)

There's nothing positive about a civil war and its attendant consequences, all of which are discussed. "Failed state" is also an arbitrary, politically-based concept ([3]); hence, why the index is not featured on just about all other country articles on Wikipedia, including this one. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"While it still has room for improvement, the interim government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011." This seems to be an unduly positive assessment of the TFG. "...still has room for improvement..."-- I couldn't help laughing out loud when I read that. Considering that many view the TFG to be nothing more than a venal collection of ex-warlords, I'm not sure Wikipedia should be evincing such a favourable stance on it. Jrule (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the current TFG is a coalition government. Its federal assembly was enlarged in January 2009 following an agreement reached in Djibouti that was set up by, among others, the former UN envoy to Somalia [4]. The purpose of the agreement was to strike a truce with the Islamist Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia (ARS) that was then looking to topple the government from its unofficial headquarters in Eritrea; specifically, the cessation of armed confrontation in exchange for the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops. Parliament was subsequently expanded to accommodate ARS members, which then elected the current President to office (the former ARS chairman). The government has tried several times to strike similar peace deals with the remaining Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam militants, but so far to no avail. It has therefore now opted for what appears to be primarily a military solution, although the newly-appointed Prime Minister hasn't ruled out negotiations altogether. That phrase was also taken from the CIA itself, btw [5]: "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011." Middayexpress (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the CIA is not a neutral source of information. It reflects the position of the US government, which is to support the TFG politically and diplomatically. Wikipedia should not be taking the same stance. Jrule (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the entire international community supports the TFG; only the Islamists don't. As for the CIA, it was already identified as a reliable source by an ArbCom administrator on RS/N well after the discussion above took place. Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify-- obviously, the CIA would be a reliable source for certain facts and figures. Its opinion on the effectiveness of a government, however, should not be cited as gospel truth in an encyclopaedia. Would you accept the CIA's official position on the legality of its torture methods in the article on Guantanamo Bay?

Also, whether the "entire international community" supports the TFG is irrelevant. It is not the role of Wikipedia to "support" anything, but to provide an unbiased perspective. Jrule (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is relevant because your argument above was that the CIA is unreliable since the US government supports the TFG. My response to that was logically to point out that, in fact, the entire international community supports the TFG; only the Islamists themselves don't, so that's not much of an argument to begin with. Likewise, it makes no difference whether or not you personally believe what the CIA has asserted. It was identified as a reliable source (and not just for certain facts and figures) by someone who ought to know: an ArbCom administrator. That's pretty much where the story ends. Middayexpress (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Somalia has topped the failed states index 3 years in a row and has been in the top 5 at least back to 2006. This is a notable and sourced fact. Failure to mention this is flagrant POV violation by omission. If the editors of this page do not agree at least on that, a request for comment will be necessary. As previous mentioned, the positive spin of lede borders on "campaign pitch" and also needs to be addressed.--Louiedog (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has already received a thorough peer review; concrete suggestions, including from two administrators that regularly monitor the Horn of Africa-related articles, were provided therein and subsequently implemented. "Failed state", moreover, is an arbitrary, politically-based concept ([6]). This is why the index is actually not featured on just about all other country articles on Wikipedia, including this one. The passage that was removed alluding to the fact that the TFG is also reaching out to both local and international stakeholders is fact and was taken from the CIA. Lastly, Somalia just received a new government late last month after the appointment of Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, the new Prime Minister. The cabinet that the new Premier in turn named is mostly made up of technocrats like himself, and has actually been widely praised by the international community ([7]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's almost nothing in the aforementioned peer view except MoS suggestions, so the peer review in and of itself is certification of nothing, not to mention that the peer review is from a much earlier version of the article than the present with all sorts of significant changes to the lede.

Your link to aidwatchers.com is curious, as essentially an NYU professor's blog. It isn't a reliable source, nor are the suggestions expressed on it binding on wikipedia policy. Even ignoring this, the reasons expressed aren't particularly convincing for our context here - essentially that "failed state" is a counterproductive label because of the consequences. The fact remains that "failed state" has garnered a WP entry and the blog you curiously site, does not and that issues of the state not having a monopoly on violent force remain.

If you want to say that Mohemad's widely praised arrival has been suggested to be expected to/or has already turned things around, then that is to be included alongside statements of the fact that it needed to be turned around. Simply electing to omit a fact because another fact seems to render it less important represents both an imposed POV, censoring, and OR. The proper decision is to give the reader full context (that Somalia finished poorly in CSI, but that Mohemad is believed [cite] to have made great strides.) and let the reader decide for himself. If Somalia is going to stop leading the CSI in 2011, let the reader infer it rather than omitting the country's history altogether.--Louiedog (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Louiedog is right on all counts; this article's POV problem comes form omission of virtually all negative content rather than the inclusion of biased content. The lead doesn't even mention that Somalia is a failed state![8][9][10] Everyone knows this fact, and it's still omitted from the article! An RFC may indeed be necessary. Swarm ^X 22:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Loodog: I did not say that the peer review was a certification of anything. I clearly stated that "the article has already received a thorough peer review; concrete suggestions, including from two administrators that regularly monitor the Horn of Africa-related articles, were provided therein and subsequently implemented." That's why the article is different now in the first place. According to the POV template, "this template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." As already pointed out above, an ArbCom admin already indicated that the CIA and its assertions that you removed are indeed reliable. Another admin (Gyrofrog) who regularly monitors this and other Horn of Africa-related pages likewise asserted that the article is actually better now than it was in the past and that he did not detect the POV that once existed. Further, that link is not just to an article by some random professor, but research from a project of New York University's Development Research Institute (DRI) [11]. It explains the genesis of the failed state concept and its many shortcomings. You suggest that the failed state index is important, but seem to be unaware that it is not featured on just about all other Wikipedia country articles for the very reasons enumerated in that article by the DRI. The one thing that DRI article forgot to mention is that the Fund For Peace (which publishes the index) has been, in the words of the former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, "long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country" [12]. That also makes it a non-neutral source. Contrary to what the other account has claimed, the article also most certainly does not omit negative content; the Transparency Index and Somalia's place in it, corruption allegations, and the civil war and its many attendant consequences are all already discussed. However, they are not dwelled upon because Somalia is a region with thousands of years of rich history. The current civil war -- which is finally drawing to a close, by the way [13]; the Islamist insurgents are steadily losing ground and falling apart after their failed so-called 'Ramadan Offensive' ([14], [15]) and African Union troops reaching full strength -- is just a tiny part of that history. And that civil war is only raging in the southern part of the country; the autonomous Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug regions in northern Somalia (i.e. the bulk of the country) are actually quite stable and have been for years. There are also reports coming out now that Jubaland in the south is forming its own autonomous administration with the help of Kenya. Lastly, the allegations of corruption and ineptitude pertained to the previous bloated government, before the new Premier's appointment and his selection of a much leaner Cabinet made up of mostly technocrats like himself that are new to the Somali political arena. As already pointed out, the international community is actually quite confident in this new government and fully support it. It is just worried that it might not meet the August 11 deadline, when the transitional government's mandate expires and a new constitution that ushers in national elections for the first time in 40 years comes into effect. Middayexpress (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I posted multiple reliable sources referring to Somalia as a failed state in my last comment. The article doesn't even mention the term "failed". This is a serious omission. Swarm ^X 07:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

While I have no doubt that the inclusion of the reductive term "failed" is something you would not object to, that still doesn't change the fact that the "failed state" concept is a dubious, politically-motivated concept ([16]) or that all newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index. And the Fund For Peace is of course still very much an advocacy group ([17]), which, per both WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE, makes it an unreliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds very interesting information to be included alongside statements describing the hitherto problems of governance. If your goal is to correct readers' misperceptions, you do better by acknowledging what they are first and then mentioning factors that negate it.

Also, since we're still disputing POV here, please do not remove the tag. I and other editors do reasonably believe that POV issues exist due to sourcing issues. To peremptorily remove it is dismissive and does not aid consensus.

To resolve this, I've filed an RfC.--Louiedog (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As already quite clearly explained, the problems of governance affecting Somalia's coalition government that you have pushed to include were already featured in the article to begin with. So were the coalition government's various attempts to address these issues, not to mention the fact that there is now a new government in place that the international community is actually quite confident in. As for the POV tag, I removed it because it did not meet the criteria outlined on the relevant POV template page (and thus constitutes abuse of tags). Namely, that "this template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." You again seem to believe that your opinion or those expressed by other accounts determine whether or not this particular tag is relevant, when the template itself clearly indicates that only reliable sources are. And as already pointed out, the CIA's assertion regarding the Somali federal government was already determined to be a reliable source. The Fund for Peace, by contrast, is an advocacy group, which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the NOTADVOCATE issue, we should be able to mention the listing of Somalia on this page so long as the source is listed, as per the line "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." in the NOTADVOCATE statement. I'd also note that AidWatch, whose article you mention as a foil to the listings, is another advocacy group; perhaps when the entry is noted, the listing could be described as controversial, with a link to the AidWatch site. The list itself is very well known, and is mentioned not only within Foreign Policy, but other well-respected publications such as the Economist. Deliberately ignoring this coverage strikes me as a fine example of the lack of NPOV in this article. Random name (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The article I linked to is not advocacy, but research from a project of New York University's Development Research Institute (DRI). WP:NOTADVOCATE is also clear that content hosted on Wikipedia is not for "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise." The line that "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view" is subordinate to that, and refers to the index or Foreign Policy articles themselves. This is why WP:QS also states that questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional" and that such sources are therefore "generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties" and "should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves". The fact remains that the "failed state" concept is a dubious, politically-motivated concept ([18]) and that all newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index. And the Fund For Peace is of course still very much an advocacy group ([19]), which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an absurdly biased article. I'd go as far to call it propaganda. The entire first paragraph is simply filled with POV opinions. All the negative aspects of Somalia - namely, that it is a fragmented, mostly-lawless country consumed by violence - are omitted. By omission, the opening paragraph implies that Somalia is a good, stable country, as opposed to one that has been topping the Failed State Index for years. A journalist who has travelled to post-war Iraq and Afghanistan has said that Somalia is the scariest country he has ever visited, and yet this slanted article portrays it as not only being a good country to live in, but even better than its far more stable neighbours. This whole article exists only to support a Libertarian propaganda point. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Piracy

The source cited says that worldwide piracy dipped 18% so the article shouldn't mislead the reader into thinking that is the statistic for attacks off the coast of Somalia:

Pirate attacks worldwide fell 18 per cent in the first half of 2010 from a year ago, as patrols by several navies in the Gulf of Aden curtailed raids, an international maritime watchdog said on Thursday.

The source also doesn't refer to the efforts of the Puntland authorities, but only to the actions of the naval vessels of the international community:

The actions of the navies in the Gulf of Aden have been instrumental in bringing down the attacks there. The Indian Ocean poses a different challenge, warned the bureau's director, Capt. Pottengal Mukundan. An international flotilla, including US and European warships, has been deployed to the Gulf of Aden and prevented many hijackings, most which were opportunistic in nature with some pirates paid multi-million-dollar ransoms.

I therefore don't think the sentence can include the reference to activities of the authorities on land without finding a source that attributes the 'decline' in piracy to the combined efforts, which seems logical. I propose leaving in the reference to the activities on land on the assumption that such a source should be available. Corlyon (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the cited source speaks of pirate attacks worldwide having fallen; however, most of those occurred in the Gulf of Aden. This is why that same source attributes the global decline specifically to patrols by "several navies in the Gulf of Aden" and indicates that "attacks dropped to 33 in the Gulf of Aden from 86 a year ago". It's the other source that cites Puntland. Middayexpress (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag colour

In the CIA World Factbook the colour of the blue in flag is much lighter. Should the flag be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.104.3 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The blue in the flag is sometimes depicted as light, but more frequently as a standard blue ([20]). Whatever the shade though, the key part is the combination of a blue background, which represents the sky and the Indian Ocean (although it is believed to have originally been influenced by the flag of the UN [21]); and a white five-pointed star, the so-called "Star of Unity" representing the five areas in the Horn of Africa traditionally inhabited by ethnic Somalis i.e. Greater Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Somalia: alleged omissions

Loodog and Swarm believe omissions of various negative aspects of Somalia's government to be POV. Middayexpress believes this is not the case because other omitted pieces of information negate how negative these aspects are.--Louiedog (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the situation is that two accounts (Loodog/Louiedog & Swarm) believe that various negative aspects of Somalia's government have been omitted. This is, in fact, not the case at all, since in the coalition government sub-section of the Politics section, it is clearly explained that the coalition government -- an establishment+Islamist inclusive government that was put together by a UN initiative in Djibouti -- at the time was beset by charges of corruption, lack of transparency and inefficiency, among other things. It is also explained in the reforms section that the coalition government has enacted numerous reforms to try and tackle these issues. As also already explained to those accounts in some detail, Somalia now has a new government, which was appointed by a new Prime Minister who was sworn into office just last month. This new government, by contrast, is much leaner than the previous government and is mostly made up of technocrats (like the new Prime Minister himself) that are new to the Somali political arena; only two ministers from the previous government were retained, and both are well-regarded in the international community. This new government has also been widely praised by the international community ([22], [23]) as just the thing Somalia needed to prepare the country for the August 11 deadline, when the transitional government's mandate expires and a new constitution that ushers in national elections for the first time in 40 years comes into effect (with the civil war in the south also finally drawing to a close [24]). However, this isn't good enough for the accounts above, who keep acting as though the charges leveled on the old government apply to this new, technocratic government or that other, stable regions do not exist in Somalia (such as the autonomous Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug regions i.e. the bulk of Somalia where there is no war). Both accounts specifically have a problem with the CIA's assertion that [25]: "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011," which they have at various times described as "POV". This is something that was already brought before an ArbCom admin on RS/N in the past, who indicated that the CIA factbook is indeed a reliable source. Also note that another admin who regularly monitors this and other Horn of Africa-related pages likewise asserted that the article is actually better now than it was in the past. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

TLDR. I believe I understand your viewpoint by now anyway. Rather than the original participants in a dispute continuously hammering their differing opinions at each other, the purpose of an RfC is to bring in outside comments. I would like to see people allowed to leave their comments free of badgering or attempts to sway them. I also hope we don't continue our dispute in this RfC forum because doing so will clutter it far too much; I think the discussion should be left in the above sections. Anyway, the best summary of the situation is that Loodog and I feel the article isn't entirely neutral (because it omits some information on the negative aspects of Somalia), and Middayexpress feel that the article in its present state is indeed neutral. Swarm ^X 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, back when I was a contributor I had occasion to deal with this page from time to time, and it was one of the pages that annoyed me enough to make me give up on Wikipedia. The page often gets contibutors coming in and asking why <x> and <y> aren't mentioned, and why the article often seems so oddly positive about everything in the country. Any criticisms are rather tersely dismissed by Middayexpress or one other editor (can't recall the name), and no progress is made. I don't know what can actually be done to fix such a situation in wikipedia - hence my leaving. Hopefully someone will come up with something - good luck. 77.101.60.220 (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming from an anonymous IP (and one that doesn't even bother identifying the account he/she supposedly used to use, no less), that does not mean much at all. Middayexpress (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)