Talk:Puntland Maritime Police Force

File:Puncoaguar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Puncoaguar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Puncoaguar.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Saracen, etc.

A newly-registered account added considerable undue weight from op-eds (including a student paper from the School of Advanced International Studies/SAIS) and the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, with little semblance of neutrality or balance. Besides likely being a sock of the earlier Factchecker1801 (same antagonistic focus on Saracen and the Monitoring Group [1]), the user also added material that was completely off-topic. An example is an attempt to tie Saracen's alleged previous associations and activities in South Africa with the PMPF (e.g. "Saracen was registered to Lafras Luitingh, one of the founders of Executive Outcomes (EO) and former member of South Africa's apartheid-era Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB), "a euphemistically named secretive hit squad that targeted anti-apartheid activists") i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS. Middayexpress (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The edits I have made refer to a public controversy that is currently not reflected in the article. The sources cited include the following:

(1) SAIS Review of International Affairs, which is a respected graduate school journal published since 1956. The Advisory Board includes a number of distinguished figures including its Chair, Vali Nasr, Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of the Johns Hopkins University;

(2) ForeignPolicy.com: an online magazine, rather than a blog, that is widely cited and meets the criteria for being an authoritative secondary source;

(3) A statement issued by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

These sources are arguably more credible than the source 'Somalia Report', which is essentially a blog maintained by a sole individual. The reference to Saracen's origins and leadership is relevant insofar as it has functioned in a training and mentoring role for the PMPF, and has been identified by the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries as an organisation operating beyond international norms and standards.--HOA Monitor (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Somalia Report is an independent news publication that has both domestic and foreign journalists on its staff [2]. It also makes no difference who is on the SAIS' Advisory Board since the paper in question is by a student at the school, one Evan Fowler [3]. I'm afraid that indeed is not a reliable source. Per WP:RS, the definition of a source on Wikipedia is the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press), and any of the three can affect reliability. Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims likewise require exceptional sources. I've also had a chance to re-read the Foreign Policy article [4], and the piece is inconsistent both in tone and content with the spin that was given to it in the wikitext. For one thing, the authors indicate that although the Monitoring Group took exception to the PMPF, it is "hard to argue with the [PMPF's] results". On this overall point, the piece (rather ironically) quotes the founder of the same Somalia Report that is erroneously described above as a blog: "this project was conceived by, and executed by what we would call pariahs, people who are not part of polite society[...] but it remains one of the most efficient and productive solutions to the problem of piracy." Also, material by the Monitoring Group is not reliable due to its extensive use of obscure and anonymous sources. The UN itself acknowledged this when it agreed in July to establish an independent adjudication panel to supervise all of the group's future publications, with much higher standards of evidence now required from the panel. The Working Group material, however, is reliable and has been retained and redacted for neutrality. Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, a graduate student does not necessary lack the experience or qualifications to publish authoritative material. Although Fowler does not have an extensive record of publication on the topic, there are no obvious grounds upon which to challenge the capability of either the author, nor the integrity of its content. It could also be argued that the fact that the SAIS Review editorial board considered the paper to have sufficient merit for publication should be weighed against the opinion of one Wikipedia editor, which is consistent with other sources on the topic. Moreover, deletion of the text you object to is not merited since it is in fact a reference from a Somalia Report article -- a publication you apparently consider to be authoritative.

With respect to the Foreign Policy article, the authors clearly intended to describe multiple points of view, recognising that there is no single, one well-recognised point of view or "best view". In other words, both the Foreign Policy article and the wikitext you have deleted are entirely consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. I therefore propose to revisit this section and restore a revised version of the text accordingly in the near future.HOA Monitor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the text in question was from the Foreign Policy piece, not the Somalia Report. The authors, however, both echo and quote the Somalia Report's founder for the actual gist of their message, as shown above. This is ironic since you just described the SR as an unreliable one-man blog. As for the student paper, the School of Advanced International Studies/SAIS published it because Evan Fowler is a pupil there. A student is not a reliable source for most Wikipedia topics, let alone those on living persons. As the SAIS itself also concedes in its About the SAIS Review disclosure on its website, "the SAIS Review of International Affairs publishes essays that straddle the boundary between scholarly inquiry and practical experience, bringing a fresh and policy-relevant perspective to global political, economic and security questions[...] The views and opinions expressed within this site are strictly those of the individual authors, and content has not been reviewed or approved by the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University." That makes the student paper an unreliable source per WP:BLP, a policy which certainly applies to the PMPF ("Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion[...] this policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages"). Middayexpress (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The new material relating to a UN "adjudication" panel appears to be incorrect and cites an article without named author, which quotes an unnamed "source". There is no evidence that the panel in question actually exists HOA Monitor (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Sahan Journal reported this, though its source is unnamed [5]. By the way, the Somali government has now formally asked the UN to terminate the work contract of the Monitoring Group's present Coordinator [6]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The source itself is not sufficient to guarantee reliability, especially if there is no corroboration from other independent, credible sources. It is certainly no more credible than the SAIS International Affairs Review, and, unlike the review, identified neither its contributor nor its sources. With respect to the Somali government's request, there is no evidence that it has in fact been acted upon by the Security Council. Previous Somali governments have made similar requests to little or no effect. HOA Monitor (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The reference to Chopra relates to a private company under contract with the SFG, acting as its legal counsel: hardly a neutral, objective source. I'll correct this shortly.HOA Monitor (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no point asserting that the SAIS's student paper is a reliable source; it isn't. As shown above, the SAIS itself indicates that its essays constitute a mixture of fact and opinion, have not been reviewed by the school, and strictly reflect the author's own views. Also, I didn't state that the Security Council acted on the Somali government's request. I said that the Somali authorities formally asked the UN to terminate the work contract of the Monitoring Group's present Coordinator, as the official communique above shows. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reinstated text deleted on the grounds that it gave 'undue weight' to the SEMG. The SEMG is an authoritative, official source and no less credible that other sources referred to in the article (Somalia Report, Inner City Press, etc.). This selective use of sources suggests a degree of 'cherry picking' that undermines the NPOV of the article. Moreover, other authoritative, official sources including the UN Working Group on Mercenaries, supported the SEMG's findings in this regard.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted references to SEMG Coordinator, Matt Bryden, for irrelevance to the central point of the article and because assertions are inconsistent with the same individual's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Bryden). Also inserted SEMG Coordinator Jarat Chopra's response to SFG allegations, as reported by the Financial Times.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the SAIS student paper is still not a reliable source. As explained above, the Working Group material was also already presented, and in its actual context. Middayexpress (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, Midday. Other sources support the SAIS content and can be invoked at a later stage. The key is to ensure that the full spectrum, of views is represented here, and to to try to impose a single or "best version" of events that may reflect the prejudices of a single editor.HOA Monitor (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The full spectrum of views was indeed not being represented because all the material presented above is negative. That's skewed, not balanced. WP:BLP policy also still very much applies: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Middayexpress (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The negative content is merited because virtually all of the current content is positive and uncritical. By removing the critical content, the article loses its NPOV. Numerous official sources have been critical of the PMPF, as I have indicated. Refusing to accept their inclusion in the article is not Wikipedia policy, it is tantamount to censorship of views you disagree with. In addition, Wikipedia editorial policy requires that, "when you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral." Repeated reversion / deletion of text you object to is inconsistent with this guidance.HOA Monitor (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite is true. A large, undue portion of the page is devoted to negative criticism of the force, and under both of its main training partners. If anything, this needs trimming. The passage you cite above is also superceded by WP:BLP, which states that "contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The policy also explicitly instructs that "material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." A higher standard is therefore in effect on such articles. Middayexpress (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, Midday, since you've adopted the contrary position with respect to other articles I see you've been involved in. There are multiple, credible sources to support toe text I have inserted, including the UN, International Crisis Group, international media etc. Since we are unlikely to agree on this issue, and since we seem to be the only two editors involved, I propose to submit it for third party opinion (WP:3O).HOA Monitor (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In a number of pages I've been involved in that you have also appeared on in the few days that you've had this account registered, I've consistently had to point out the importance of respecting the neutrality, BLP and undue weight policies. So unless you are referring to some undisclosed, pre-registration activity on your part, that is yet another erroneous assertion. Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it's clear that we can't resolve this between the two of us, it seems inevitable that we need a neutral third party involved. I will do the necessary. Thank you, Midday.HOA Monitor (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No need. I've already asked for a formal Third Opinion. Middayexpress (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please indicate where and the language you have used, so that I may assess its objectivity.HOA Monitor (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

On the Third Opinion page, obviously (which, incidentally, you first brought up, so you clearly already knew about it). Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And in answer to you question, your history page (and also Google) provides abundant information about your activities prior to my registration as a Wikipedia user. Your track record is a matter of relatively public record.HOA Monitor (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My contributions are as public as yours. Interesting, though, that you apparently felt the urge at some point to Google my Wikipedia username. I'll be sure to bear that in mind. Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I made reference to similar disputes you've had on other pages, Midday. The public nature of Wikipedia is one of the things that contributes to its credibility. Reference your last remark, Is there something sinister about using Google?HOA Monitor (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Newbies don't google other editor's usernames unless they are WP:WIKIHOUNDING or have an old axe to grind. Either way, it's not a good sign. Middayexpress (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No axe to grind, Midday, just a desire to understand what other articles you have edited and what your orientation has been. Google is often a more efficient instrument for this purpose than Wikipedia's internal search function. In the past, it seems that you've had similar encounters with other Wiki editors, and have been been proposed for a ban from editing a page on the basis of similar behaviour -- in some cases invoking the same questionable sources that we have discussed in our own interactions.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

When I referred to you as a newbie, I was being generous since the overwhelming majority of your edits, comments and allusions suggest that you indeed have an old axe to grind with me personally. I've contributed to this website for several years now, and in that time I've learned a thing or two about how genuine newbies behave. There are guidelines written on this too. Your behavior is almost the exact opposite of that. Middayexpress (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

This one was a little bit tricky, but I personally don't see the problem with both users' contributions remaining in the article (worked together somehow, of course). Whether or not HOA's contributions violate WP:UNDUE is debatable, although, granted, s/he did add quite a lot of negative information in seemingly strategically-placed areas of the article. OAN: While there's nothing on Wikipedia that prohibits Gsearching for another user, HOA, the way you did it does seem like borderline wikihounding. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Erpert, thanks for your intervention. I simply believe that the article to reflect that diverse perspectives on the issue exist, including several very authoritative sources, including official UN bodies -- sources that a far more authoritative than some of the dubious, sole source references upon which the article is currently based. Given time, I am quite prepared to substantiate this by developing a more comprehensive, sources revision of the article. The article is currently written in a style that is almost entirely positive and includes either inaccuracies or errors of omission. With respect to 'Wikihounding', I'm afraid it is Midday who merits this charge, not me. Midday has been essentially the only user to object to my edits and comments, to revert them or to contest them, asserting an almost proprietary claim to the material. I have simply argued that this article (and others) should reflect a balanced diversity of opinion: something Midday apparently objects to.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems you completely missed Erpert's point. He said that the contributions should be "worked together somehow, of course." That means consensus must still first be obtained here per convention. You can declare that you will unilaterally revise the disputed material all you want, but that won't make the consensus policy any less applicable. I can't say I'm surprised that Erpert also noted that you added almost exclusively negative material, and quite a lot of it at that. That's an allusion to both the imbalanced nature of your edits and the conspicuously antagonistic tone of the text in question. That too will therefore have to be worked out. As for the Wikihounding, that's been established as well. Middayexpress (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Midday, the history makes it clear that you refuse to permit a single edit without reverting or amending to your own preference. All I have done is defend my contributions, in a reasonable interpretation of the 'Be Bold' advice offered to Wikipedia contributors. My contributions are generally supported by multiple, credible, sources, including UN and governmental bodies as well as established international media outlets. Your grounds for objection rarely, if ever cite comparable references.

Erpert's point is well taken. I am therefore offering to take the lead in preparing the next draft -- since I am the one proposing amendments and improvements -- which will then be subject to the usual review and revision by other editors.HOA Monitor (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the history shows me reverting a series of anonymous ips and single purpose accounts that were making disruptive edits, including adding dead-links and just plain vandalism. Your contributions have consisted of a mixture of material based on both reliable and unreliable sources (e.g. a student paper), all with one thing in common: they were exclusively negative in content, tone and placement, as Erpert just noted. What's even more disturbing is that this is the situation as well with all of your other edits elsewhere in the few days that you have had this particular account registered. This is frankly not a good sign. I will be looking forward to your draft presentation here on this talk page per the consensus policy. Let's see whether it too follows this pattern. Middayexpress (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

EU training

On 27 March 2014, a Puntland government delegation met with EU representatives aboard a NATO ship. The meeting concluded with an announcement by the European Union officials that the EU would begin training Puntland Maritime Police Force units in Djibouti. The new training schedule is intended to help the Puntland authorities strengthen their marine defense capabilities in keeping with the New Deal Compact's Somali Maritime and Resources Strategy [7][8][9]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Section blanking

Please stop removing longstanding article sections for your own POV. Take it to this talk page before you make major changes, it's the appropriate way. 26oo (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the vaguely associated paragraphs (what is a section on EUCAP Nestor doing in this article? etc) with the exception of a rather weird attack on the SEMG, which does not really belong here. They have very little relevance for this article, but you're complaining about blanking so I've put them back in for now. I have retained the expanded, referenced intro, which now is a length more appropriate for the text. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I will remind you that WP:BRD sanctions relatively bold edits, and core editing policy means that articles should stick to the topic. There's no real need to have references to UNSCRs 1772, 1976, 2015, and 2093, nor Nestor, because they don't refer to the PMPF. Should you wish to find material re those topics that do refer to the PMPF, please feel free to discuss or add. Otherwise this material will in the end be removed again. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, surely WP:BRD means that discussion on the talk page should follow a revert, not precede a major edit? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, a third opinion has already been provided on the matter on this talk page. The addition of WP:UNDUE section on strategic sections of the page is not right. The matter of legality has been discussed at length on the Sterling Corporate section. Also there is no indication that the force acts in a different manner than its mission statement as provided in the UN reports. 26oo (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into the details of the content dispute right now, but just to note that one of the editors who was involved in that discussion has now received a topic ban for POV editing. That should probably mean that any previous consensus is reassessed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That would normally be true but an outside third opinion was given at the time. 26oo (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that binds the article forever though. Consensus can and does change over time, and a third opinion was only requested in the context of a debate that Middayexpress was a party to. Perhaps Erpert would like to offer a comment? Like I say, I don't have time to look into the details of the content dispute, but it seems that this is worth discussing further. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, I have warned you previously about removing WP:RS material that disagrees with your WP:POV. I will add a quick note to your talkpage but not template you again, as you've been long enough around to know the rules. However, should you do this again, you will be one step from WP:ANI. The proper procedure for contending that a source - the Group of Experts or anything else - is not reliable is to go to the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not edit war on particular pages. Should you wish to do that, I'd happily put my point of view on the matter. But if you continue to willfully remove referenced content that has no issue except WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you will eventually get a block. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Buckshot06. You are adding WP:UNDUE material which has been tackled before in the talk page. Legality of the force as per UN allegations has no place in an introduction and is your method of inputting biased material that has already been balanced. There is a long standing consensus. The article's edit history alone shows that you might have an agenda here. I am reverting the material due to a previous consensus. Any issue you want to take up on ANI, I am happy to respond to. 26oo (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The introduction should summarise the content of the article, so if the UN "allegations" are sourced to reliable sources in the article, they should be mentioned in the introduction. I don't see how reporting them is biased, unless the article is saying that the UN allegations are correct, rather than just reporting them. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. That is a very fair point however this is a fairly large article and Buckshot06 felt the need to reintroduce WP:UNDUE material that has already been given a third party about. This is done in bad faith clearly. The positioning of the text in strategic points goes to suggest that including the threats on my talk page. His altercations with a previous user is clouding his judgement. Also I would like to point out that a paragraph like that should be balanced as per the more lengthy material in the rest of the article. None of that was done here. We should take this to an administrator that is uninvolved or we can refer to the previous outside opinion. 26oo (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where in the third opinion it was agreed not to include this material. What was said was "I personally don't see the problem with both users' contributions remaining in the article". From what I can see, the article as a whole needs a lot of work. The bit about "it remains to be seen how the U.N. can both deny and confirm that the PMPF program is an official Somali government activity" doesn't make any sense without the context of the UN criticism, for instance. User:Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you read the third opinion, User:HOA Monitor also introduced similar negative material in strategic places which is WP:UNDUE. The paragraph is not balanced like the material in the article. There should be a section about the legality and support of the PMPF but that doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the introduction of the article in that unbalanced manner. User:Buckshot06 is pushing his own POV with United Nations sources yet response to the allegations is kept out. User:Buckshot06 has no previous history editing the article before introducing negative material, which is why it can be considered bad faith. The introduced material is not balanced. 26oo (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Then surely the solution is to balance out the introduction by making it more thoroughly summarise the content of the article. While it is mentioned later in the article, the introduction is the only place in the article where the UN material is referenced, so in removing that you are removing all sources for it. I have tried to ensure that the material is clearly attributed to the UN, in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Also, 26oo, I have no idea why you changed my signature to that of HOA Monitor. I hope that it was a mistake? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant section is the the part of the WP:NPOV rulings that is designated WP:YESPOV: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." The material is not undue, rather it is critically important to maintain a complete picture of the topic. What you're doing is twisting the meaning of WP:UNDUE, as this cite from WP:YESPOV indicates. Whether I have any previous history editing any article is completely irrelevant. I'm just about to check this allegation of misrepresenting signatures, 26oo, and if that is correct, together with your removal of reliable sources, and your twisting of UNDUE in regard to YESPOV, I will notify ANI. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Cordless Larry I agree that it should be balanced. That's why I removed the material. The government response in the Sterling section should have been included in the beginning but previous bad faith aside if it must be included in the introduction so should the deployments of the force including responses in guide with the mission statement. That is a much larger part of the article that hasn't been summarized. As for changing your name, I did not such thing. I copied HOA Monitor's nickname because I didn't want to type it in my paragraph and I seem to have inserted it before your name, not replacing it. Apology for my laziness. 26oo (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, please keep your threats to yourself go through with them. I am perfectly happy to take this to ANI, you've threatened me many times unfairly. 26oo (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You're the one twisting WP:UNDUE and violating WP:YESPOV, who's admitted before that you are not here for the benefit of the encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). I have just filed the AN/I complaint, and will copy your talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sentence: United Nations bodies have questioned both the mission and legality of the force.

Material in the article include;

• Follow-up investigations by Robert Young Pelton's Somalia Report and Dissident Nation concluded that the allegations were largely unfounded and politically motivated.

• The Puntland government shortly afterwards released a press statement where it likewise rejected the accusations, suggesting that the "SEMG reports to the U.N. Security Council have been drafted in an unprofessional manner and intentionally biased against the Puntland Government's consistent anti-piracy activities."

That's one of the sentences that should be balanced. Also there should be a paragraph about its deployments which make up a large part of the article. Perhaps significant ones such as the humanitarian rescue operation of hostages of MV Iceberg 1123 or the response to the 2013 Somalia cyclone in northeastern Somalia.

26oo (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, Pelton's perspective on the PMPF should be treated with caution, if not simply set aside, since he has acknowledged in court that he was under contract with Erik Prince to promote the force on his website, "Somalia Report". Alternatively, mention might simply be made of this fact in the article in order to qualify his criticism of UN findings? I defer to the judgement of more experienced editors on this.HOA Monitor (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, with respect to the PMPF's role in the release of the MV Iceberg, there is no question that it deserves mention as one of the force's documented successes. However, a reference to the rescue in a film about the PMPF portrays it, on camera, as a poorly-managed operation against a ship that had long since run aground. It might therefore be prudent to make reference to the rescue without lending it undue weight as a success story.HOA Monitor (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I take issue with [User:26oo|26oo]'s assertion that"there is no indication that the force acts in a different manner than its mission statement as provided in the UN reports". The UN SEMG and the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries both independently came to this conclusion (both are cited in the etxt so I won't reference them here). Refutation of the SEMG allegations has come chiefly from the Puntland authorities and Somalia Report which, as we've now established, was paid to promote the PMPF, so there is merit to presenting alternative WP:POV. Unlike the SEMG, the findings of the WG on Mercenaries (which state that "the PMPF had engaged in operations unrelated to piracy, including a recent case in which the police force had worked to prevent a candidate for the Puntland presidency from campaigning in Bossaso [and] was operating outside the legal framework”) do not appear to have been challenged, but perhaps I've missed something.HOA Monitor (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)