Talk:Somalia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

genocide

Just clarifying my removal. In the recently added info on calling the withholding of food a genocide by ao Boutros Gali, also info was introduced on the Genocide Intervention Network. We have had here ample discussions on when an NGO is notable in relation to the source of the "failed state index" and one of things stressed there was that we need external sources to establish notability of indexes/lists etc of such organizations; and I have tehrefore removed it.... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I phrased the edit a little carelessly. The Genocide Intervention Network reference isn't an index or list, but an article on their site. The organization has a lot of New York Times coverage, by Nicholas Kristof in particular.Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I understood what you stated I guess (and my analogy to previous discussion might not be fully valid here); but my point is not the notability of the genocide intervention network (it is!), but whether we have reliable sources refering to the "area of concern" classification within their classification system; or discussing specifically the merit of the genocide Intervention Network-classification system. For me that would be required for bringing it up here. Sounds a bit unnecesarily complex maybe, but things can get quite heated over here over inclusion criteria and NPOV... L.tak (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Republic of Somalia" vs. "Somali Republic"

Why does this page use the former instead of the latter? The Transitional Federal Charter uses Somali Republic [1], as does the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names. [2] (comment added by Orange Tuesday on 26 February)

If there are no objections I'm going to change it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it because I object. How do you know if there are no objection if you only wait one minute. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Orange Tuesday did not sign his first post (of 26 feb) and also the "if there are no objections" suggested a waiting period would be taken into acount; so I understood Anna's revert. However,since Orange placed there comments already a week ago without comments here, I feel the change now was justified and I have placed it back. I have no position on which version is best; and it is not too late to have a discussion here on which name we should use... L.tak (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah apologies on not signing that first post. To add another source, Somalia's permanent mission to the UN also uses "Somali Republic". [3] Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought it was all one edit. Anyhow, I was just after due process, considering the article's history. I have no opinion on the edit, and will let others agree or dispute it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

XIMAN IYO XEEB

for somali language (Ximan iyo Xeeb) known as enlgish (himan and heeb) is a secular, decentralized state in the central region of Somalia. The administrative capital, South Galcayo, is based in the southern half of the city and district of Gaalkacyo. To the north is Puntland, to the west is Ethiopia and to the south and east is the rest of Somalia, presently under the nominal control of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG). The name is a combination of Galguduud and Mudug. Unlike the secessionist Somaliland region in northwestern Somalia, Himan and heex, like the northern Somali region of Puntland, is not trying to obtain international recognition as a separate nation. It considers itself a federal division within the larger federal republic of Somalia, such as defined by the 2004 Transitional Federal Charter (TFG). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafka (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 elections

In reference to the upcoming national elections, it is indicated that "in March 2011, however, the elections were postponed for 3 years, which the United Nations called "disappointing" and the United States embassy called "unilateralist and a disservice to the Horn of Africa"". However, this is inaccurate and based on old intrigue from last month [4]. That UN passage is a reference to the parliament's unilateral decision to extend its own mandate for another three years. The President, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have all opposed the move, as has the international community; a call has since been made to scale back the length of the extension, probably to just one more year. That said, the national presidential elections themselves are still very much scheduled to take place in August, with a new parliamentary speaker and deputy speaker expected to be appointed prior to the end of the transitional period in a few months time [5]. A national election committee was also recently announced to oversee the transition [6]. I have adjusted the passage to reflect this. Middayexpress (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A, that must be my definitions going wrong; especially that of national elections. Do I understand correctly i) that the "national elections" are the presidential elections? ii) And were they already planned for August 2011 before. iv) At the same time also parliamentary elections were planned? v) After parliamentary elections a new government is formed (with possibly a new prime minister?). Cheers! L.tak (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The national elections were a reference to presidential elections in August and the concomitant end to the transitional period. New political parties have formed in preparation and are expected (and have begun) to campaign against each other, after which point a nation-wide popular vote will be held to determine who gets to represent the nation as the ruling party in the first representative government in 40 years. Middayexpress (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, all clear now (I hope). I was a bit confused as far as the term government is concerned (the transitional national government). I propose to change national election to presidential election (as does one of the sources you gave)... Would it be correct to state that the parliamentary elections have been postponed by 3 years? And do we have a source for reduction to postponement by 1 year only? L.tak (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "national presidential elections" is best because the term gives an indication that the elections are being held via a nation-wide popular vote, whereas the president was previously appointed by parliament alone. Parliamentary elections have not been postponed for three years; assembly members just unilaterally extended their mandate for that length of time. However, this is almost certainly going to be repealed in the next few weeks since most of the key power brokers (both Somali and foreign) are opposed to it. The Cabinet just voted yesterday to limit the extension to one year [7], but there is currently some resistance to the motion by the parliamentary Speaker [8]. I suggest we adopt a wait-and-see approach to see how the issue resolves itself, as developments seem to be unfolding very rapidly. Middayexpress (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this sounds like different institutions fighting for power... Let's wait a month and see how things unfold... In the meantime I will add a short section on the parliament to the somalia article, as that seems to be missing until now! L.tak (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, there seems to be plenty of sources claiming that both presidential and legislative elections scheduled for August have been officially postponed for a year:

• "The Cabinet meeting also agreed to postpone presidential and parliamentary elections, due within five months, to one more year."
• "The Somali government also agreed to postpone presidential and legislative elections set for August until August 2012 in order to give more time to complete the unfinished tasks during the transitional period."
• "The proposed election on August has to be suspended up to August 2012"

Apparently, this was just decided yesterday. TDL (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are references to the parliamentary elections, not to the presidential one. The presidential elections will happen because all of the key power brokers (including the one person who is said to have engineered the unilateral parliament mandate extension i.e. the Speaker of parliament) would like it to take place. The Speaker looks to be positioning himself for the presidency [9]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I quoted? They claim that both presidential and parliamentary elections were officially postponed yesterday until August 2012. TDL (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that; please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Somali government also agreed to postpone presidential and legislative elections set for August until August 2012" leaves not much to doubt indeed. However with the discussion on what the value is of the 3 year extenstion the parliament has given itslef (and of which the TFG now contests the last 2 years) we could (in this general article, not in the TFP article) wait a bit by saying that the elections of both will not take place before August 2012 (or a similar statement). L.tak (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That assertion is highly doubtful since the Speaker of parliament has his eyes set on the presidency; I don't see him waiting another three years for his turn in office. Here's a quote from just yesterday on this [10]: "Power struggle continues in the Horn of African nation as Prime Minister Mohammed Abdullahi Mohammed sides with President Sharif Ahmed whose rival and current parliament speaker Sharif Hassan Sheikh Aden is plotting an attempt to oust the president when his term comes to an end in the upcoming August." Middayexpress (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the Speaker personally announced the creation of the national election committee just a few days ago to facilitate the transition [11]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted that it is a fight (in my new summary Parliament says: presidential in aug (maybe the that was only the speaker of parliament), parliament 3 years. Trans Gov says: president 1 year, parliament 1 year. We should either put both (as I suggest to do in the articles on TFG and TFP), or nothing for a month (which I suggest in this article, although I am open to show both situations...). I have therefore removed the info on the election committee for now... L.tak (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as suggested earlier, I think a wait-and-see approach is clearly the best solution for now. Middayexpress (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As per the sources I posted above, the PM was involved with the decision to postpone elections for a year, so I'm not convinced that the parliament is still advocating for August elections.

Both your suggestions are reasonable L.tak. It seems pretty clear that the elections in August are at least in doubt, so we shouldn't definitively claim that they will take place in August without some sort of qualification. Removing the statement entirely would also solve the problem.

Also, if we keep the statement I'm not sure it's fair to call them "national elections". As far as I can tell, the elections were only planned to take place is Mogadishu. [12], [13], [14]. Maybe "Direct presidential elections" would be a more accurate description than national, and get Middayexpress' point across. TDL (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the Speaker of parliament [15]: "Presidential elections would take a place in Mogadishu; it’s the lawmaker’s decision and we will not reverse it," The presidential elections are also scheduled to take place in Mogadishu because that is the national capital of Somalia and the seat of the federal government. In any event, it's best to wait and see how the issue resolves itself. Middayexpress (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that all this should be placed in a section in Elections in Somalia - explanations that currently no direct elections are performed, about how the current TFParliament members are selected, about how the current President is selected (here), about the current President/TFGovernment term expiring in Aug2011 and extension to Aug2012, etc. per the above sources. Alinor (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made section there now (Elections in Somalia), which still requires some work. I think a single sentence statement can go from there to here... L.tak (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Azania proclaimed

See Template_talk:Somalia_topics#Azania_proclaimed. Alinor (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; a new administration was announced. However, it appears to be the formalization of the pre-existing Jubaland administration after the Jubaland Initiative of last year i.e. Azania=Jubaland [16]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the population of Somalia?

I ask this because this page quotes a 2010 estimate of 9,359,000, whereas the CIA World Factbook, quoted on the [of Somalia] page, quotes 10,112,453. Has it grown by this much since 2010?

There is obvious uncertainty about the true figure, so why quote a number to eight significant figures when the first is under dispute? A datum of 'about ten million plus or minus half a million' would be far more accurate, useful, and statistically meaningful. Wally Tharg (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Arabic

• according to this article Arabic_language#Dialects and descendants,it shows only few Somalis speak Arabic, while in this article someone keep reverting it to many, is it true ?--Prince jasim ali (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a link to an OR, Wikipedian-made map (c.f. [17]). The linguistic assertion in this article, on the other hand, is sourced to several reliable references. Middayexpress (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Current famine

Shouldn't there be a section on current affairs, such as the current famine that has the potential of killing hundreds of thousands of people? The NY Times was saying it's worse then the 1992 famine, partly because it's so difficult for aid organizations to get into the country. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Added a mention in the relevant civil war section and a link-through to the main article. Middayexpress (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mandate extension

The Transitional Federal Government's mandate was extended to 2012 [18]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Help

I have trouble in edit mode sorting through the references. Anyway, the number 5 reference is listed two times and only needs one. It should be fixed but I can't do it right. Thanks Arkmanda (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I got it--for some reason, there was an extra <ref name="ReferenceB"/> listed in the middle. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Civil War

I was trying to find a quick reference for how many people were murdered during the civil war. Why isn't it present in this article? -Mike I'm not sure, but I bet no one even knows the answer to that. If I see something, I'll add it myself. Arkmanda (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Pic

I've removed that out-of-place shock news item on a war pic. Per WP:EVENT, "routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Please also note that Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article." Middayexpress (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't try to make an article around it, I tried to insert it as a fact into an existing article. So I disagree with you very much here and will seek further guidance. If your not interpreting something wrongly, you got some dumbass policies around here. Arkmanda (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The topic of the article is Somalia, not that shock photo. The notability policy that I linked you to applies to all items on the website, as does WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Please also see the policy on civility; c.f. WP:CIV. Middayexpress (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't look at the policy about civility yet, and I don't think I need a policy to prompt an apology. I didn't mean to offend you or seem uncivil, so I apologize for offending you. I should have said, "in my opinion, the policy is counterproductive if it supports what you are saying". And now I'll look at your civility policy closer. Arkmanda (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. But please understand that there is a good reason for that and other policies. Per WP:TOPIC, material must actually be on-topic; and the topic of the article is not that graphic pic. Please also note WP:NOT#JOURNALISM: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources." Middayexpress (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of this conversation occurred on my talk page. For the benefit of others, this link provides more context and is worth considering. Arkmanda (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see there is disagreement in the title I chose for this section. But it is not about the removal of a "pic", it is about the removal of a source that had a "pic" in it. I think that's a distinction worth noting. Arkmanda (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about the pic itself (the topic of the article you linked to) and whether or not it is on topic per WP:TOPIC. The answer to that is obviously no. The topic of this article is Somalia, not some pic, graphic or otherwise, of a child. Even if it were on topic, the pic story still fails WP:EVENT, which stipulates that "editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article". WP:TALKNEW is likewise quite clear that editors should "keep headings neutral" and "not be critical in headings"... "this includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them". Middayexpress (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What's obvious to one person is not obvious to the other. Some things are obvious to me and perhaps not to you. Nevertheless, there is nothing more I can add to this discussion. Perhaps someone else can! Goodnight. Arkmanda (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

To that end, I have posted a query on N/N. Middayexpress (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The strongest argument here supports User Midday Express. So lets stick with that.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Greater Somalia

This is not Facts about Great somalia, as we all know Great somalia divided into 5 parts, Somaliland, somalia, djibouti, Somali Kenya and Somali Ethiopia. This is typical Darood Proboganda against Somaliland and Isaaq tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.121.232 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

We certainly try to be neutral. Could you be more specific in what you wish to see changed and what WP:reliable sources there are to back that up? Rgds! L.tak (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the IP is joking/messing around. For one thing, Greater Somalia consists of Somalia, Djibouti, the Ogaden and the North Eastern Province, not the territories cited above. Middayexpress (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

19th century weapon aid from Turkey?

There was no country called Turkey in 19th century . (which was founded in 1923) Ottoman empire would be more precise . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honoursener (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Noted and fixed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Somali prime minister Mohamed.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Somali prime minister Mohamed.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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 September 2011 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Clan

Im not sure what you mean by "only applies to one ethnic group in country". Most of Somalia has some level of tribalism, I have toned down the language and provided more sources to back up my claim. Pass a Method talk 14:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean that the other ethnic groups in Somalia are not traditionally divided into clans; the Somali ethnic group in particular is. That's who those statements refer to i.e. the country's numerically dominant ethnic group. Bantus, for example, are traditionally organized into tribes, not clans (which are separate anthropological strata). They also trace descent matrilineally like other Bantus, not patrilineally as ethnic Somalis and most other Afro-Asiatic speaking communities do. It thus doesn't actually apply to most other Somalian nationals. Middayexpress (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture "Political situation in Somalia as of July 2011" color ambigious

Political situation in Somalia as of July 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fedmap4.png

Cannot determine light / dark green difference. Not know to be colorblind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gematt (talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Potsdam conference

Potsdam conference took place in summer 1945,not November 1949 Ma1557 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Middayexpress (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Siad Barre

Surely a picture of Siad Barre, the longest serving President of Somalia (21 out of 52 years of independence) and the man who arguably defined Somalia's the vast majority of Somalia's modern history, is more fitting to be included in the article than a picture of a soldier or a propaganda pamphlet. I understand the need to reduce clutter, but there are pictures up that have little relevance to Somalia. This is akin to removing a picture of FDR to make room for a picture of an Abrams Tank. Yardalhirji (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, but the criteria is dictated by both relevance and WP:MOS. Middayexpress (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the picture of Barre first and then Kediye for the sake of clarity, as the sentence right before Kediye's picture reads "The putsch was spearheaded by Major General Mohamed Siad Barre, who at the time commanded the army." By the way,is there any particular reason you also edited the History of Somalia article and once again placed Kediye's picture next to the Supreme Revolutionary Council sub-section while Barre's picture (as head of the SRC) was confusingly placed next to the Rebellion sub-section, when in fact Kediye was executed for rebellion/treason later on by Barre? To the uniformed or those without much knowledge about Somalia's history, I fear there would be major confusion as to who of the two led the revolution and subsequently ruled, as some sentences in both articles seem to be mutually exclusive and contrary to what is accepted as the actual historical record, based mostly on an assertion (Kediye as Father of the Revolution) found in only one source. Also, this might not be the best place to ask this, but are you by any chance Somali? Yardalhirji (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't reveal personal details. That said, Salaad Gabeyre Kediye is at the top because he was officially dubbed the "Father of the Revolution" (c.f. [19]). Barre only later became the head of the Supreme Revolutionary Council/SRC, which is discussed further down on both pages. This and more is already explained in detail here. Middayexpress (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:SomaliForces.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SomaliForces.png, 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:SomaliForces.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

KHATUMO Estado de Somalia / State de Somalia

http://www.khatumo.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.225.141 (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Light green for Somaliland

Someone should update the map so that Somaliland is in light green for territory claimed by Somalia but not controlled, similar to the maps of Serbia and Cyprus. I would do it myself, but I'm not sure how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The map is a reflection of what the overwhelming majority of maps of Somalia look like and have looked like since the country gained independence in 1960. Somaliland is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia. Kosovo or Northern Cyprus, on the other hand, actually have limited recognition as independent countries. Serbia and Cyprus are also not constitutionally federations, unlike Somalia. As such, Somaliland's status globally is no different than that of Puntland or any other autonomous state within federal Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede

This article is highly outdated. The TFG government controls the entirety of the capital Mogadishu, and has made signficant gains throughout the south and central lands. Puntland and Somaliland in the North are both under full governmental control.

I think the introduction is sensationalist material not worthy of Wikipedia. Please edit ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabulani123 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest changes here (including reliable sources) and we can consider change. If you become a more experienced editor (it takes just a few edits to other articles), you can also give it a try yourself, but it might be wise to always discuss substantial changes on this page... L.tak (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The lede is indeed unsatisfactory given the successive gains made in the war effort, and the fact that the last insurgent stronghold in the south is expected to be captured over the next few months. The interim administration's mandate is also scheduled to end in August, after which point a permanent central government is to be set up in its place. When the foregoing comes to pass, the lede will have to be adjusted accordingly. Middayexpress (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We have in teh lede still "and is working towards eventual national elections in 2012", whereas I found a source here, which dismisses the idea of election outrightly. Midday, should we update that now already, or are things so much "in flux" that any speculation on what action will be taking place (constituional/clan leaders/elections by the people) that it is safest indeed to wait it out? (maybe: transfer of power to a ... definite/non-interim government?) L.tak (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The elections and transition to a representative government are still scheduled to take place. Both the main stakeholders, the TFG and the international community, are officially working towards them (c.f. [20]). Middayexpress (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

seems that the chances of direct elections have grown slimmer; but getting a clear picture without a crystal ball in this area is ... challenging. Let's wait and see until Aug indeed... L.tak (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Somalia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Somalia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lewisapd":

• From Zeila: I.M. Lewis, A pastoral democracy: a study of pastoralism and politics among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa, (LIT Verlag Münster: 1999), p.17
• From Somali Youth League: I. M. Lewis, A pastoral democracy: a study of pastoralism and politics among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa, (LIT Verlag Münster: 1999), p.304.
• From Isaaq: I. M. Lewis, A pastoral democracy: a study of pastoralism and politics among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa, (LIT Verlag Münster: 1999), p.131.
• From Majeerteen Sultanate: I. M. Lewis, A pastoral democracy: a study of pastoralism and politics among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa, (LIT Verlag Münster: 1999), p.208.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Federal Government

As of today, the Transitional Federal Government has ended, and Somalia now has a new parliament. The page should be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite yet. It doesn't end until a new president and parliamentary speaker have been elected. Middayexpress (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yemen?

we dont share borders with Somalia or Eritrea , unless Syria share borders with Greece and morocco with Spain, please correct me??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.191.29 (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I could see where a case could be made for Eritrea and Yemen, given the Hanish Islands conflict. But I'm not sure the same case could be made for Somalia and Yemen. (Incidentally, Spain and Morocco do share a border; see Plazas de soberanía, though I know you meant the Strait of Gibraltar.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Somalia lies in the easternmost part of Africa. It is bordered by Djibouti to the northwest, Kenya to the southwest, the Gulf of Aden with Yemen to the north", I know that Yemen and Somalia don't share a border, but if you look again you will see that it is referring to the nation that is located north of Somalia through the Gulf of Aden. And yes, Syria does not share borders with Greece, but the distance between Syria and Greece is far greaten then Yemen-Somalia. And for example, we can say that South Korea borders China(PRC) through the Yellow Sea, Cyprus and Turkey, Ireland and Scotland, Sweden and Denmark etc, so why not for Somalia and Yemen? It does not states that Somalia and Yemen share a border, but that Yemen lies north of Somalia, across the Gulf of Aden. Runehelmet (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But I'm not sure that we do say those things, at least not consistently. South Korea and Cyprus do use this sort of description (I think it's more appropriate for Cyprus, with it being an island). On the other hand, in the Ireland article it says, more generally, that "to its east is the larger island of Great Britain, from which it is separated by the Irish Sea." (Scotland article only specifies bodies of water.) I, for one, wouldn't have a problem with that kind of wording, e.g. "to its north is the Arabian Peninsula, from which it is separated by the Gulf of Aden." But I think it belongs in its own sentence, as it doesn't really "border" the Gulf, it's just there. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Yemen was also mentioned as a bordering nation because of Socotra. That archipelago is both officially part of Yemen and has mainland Somalia as one of its nearest territories. Middayexpress (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede

I have adjusted parts of the intro that were incomplete or outdated. There was no summary on the country's official languages, ethnic groups, population size and major religions. In addition, some passages indicated that the Transitional Federal Government "controls only parts of the capital and some territory in the centre of the nation", that "Al-Shabaab controls a large part of the south of the country", and alluded to "lack of government". There was also material describing the country as "most violent", a "failed state", etc. that likewise does not describe the present situation adequately. Besides being inconsistent with WP:LABEL, pro-government forces now actually control all of the capital and much more of the southern conflict zones than the Al-Shabaab insurgents do [21]. Al-Shabaab's last major stronghold of Kismayo is also expected to fall in the coming weeks, as the group is boxed in; it just lost Merca the other day [22]. In addition, the country's first permanent central government in two decades was formed about a week ago, and a new constitution was also passed in June, which officializes Somalia as a federation. This is all largely due to the structured Roadmap political process that was launched in 2011 (c.f. [23]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Interim President

Mohamed Osman Jawari listed as Acting President in the Infobox is not supported by the cited source (it says he is Speaker of Parliament). Please see discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of Somalia#Interim President. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Somalia?

Did any official source confirm this name change? Are we sure that this new name is already official? I remember casus of the new long name of Burma/Myanmar – Wikipedia has changed this name because new constitution it listed, but unfortunately this new name officially was adopted five mouth later. So, if no official sources confirmed name changed (i.e. Somalian mission to the UN still use name Somali Republic [24]), we should still use name “Somali Republic”. Aotearoa (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The federal constitution indicates that that is the new name [25]. Also, this [26] official statement from the UN Secretary General's office. Middayexpress (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

But in the constitution there is no information about name of the country. The name „Federal Republic of Somalia” is used in constitution, but without define if it official name of state (in the case of former state of Serbia and Montenegro long name used in constitution wasn’t official long name of state). Moreover, constitution is primary source. In this official statement from the UN Secretary General's office also no confirmation that Somalia has new official name. Furthermore official United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database still uses name “Somali Republic” [27], as well as EU [28]. Aotearoa (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's like you said, they just probably take a while to catch up. Chapter 1, and Article 1 in particular, of the constitution linked to above formally defines the country's official name as the "Federal Republic of Somalia". The AU Commission also refers to it as such in an official statement [29]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The real question is: is there already a constitution? If there is: then we should be bold and implement what we know is the best source (that part of original research I am willing to take responsibility for). But as far as I can see, the constitution is still provisional (see the pdf of Midday....) and to base a name change on a provisional document seems a bit... premature in my opinion. L.tak (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The July draft constitution indicates the following [30]: "In the event of a No vote, this draft provisional constitutional will nevertheless will take effect until a new constitution is adopted." Middayexpress (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I might be not so sharp today, but: where was that in the text you linked (couldn't find it...) and by which authority was that decided? L.tak (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, wrong link there. Here's the right one: the passage is on page 7 [31]. The Roadmap signatories apparently decided this. Middayexpress (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The constitution was apparently adopted on 1 August 2012. There is a slight problem in that the only source so far for it is here, at a commercial site. There is some chance that this somehow differs from the actual document, which we won't know until there is an official source for it. The maintainer of the supposedly official site, Kariye, is too busy writing about his many accomplishments, it seems, to bother posting something as inconsequential as the document that defines their government on its website :( Talk:List of Presidents of Somalia has some links to articles about its adoption. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are several sources stating it should be ratified before entry into force; and I feel without that there is not enough info for the change to be as definite as it is now. How can we state this everywhere a bit more careful? I don't feel like adding a "dubious/discuss" heading, but a note that this is based on a provisional document is needed IMO. Any thoughts? L.tak (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A note to the effect that "the Federal Republic of Somalia is the country's official name per Article 1 of the Provisional Constitution" should suffice. Middayexpress (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "official" as that goes to the heart of the the disagreement whether provisional constitution can result in an official name change... For the rest: good solution! L.tak (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• New long (official) name of Somalia is still doubtful. This new name is listed in the constitution, which entered into force three month ago. However this new name is not confirmed by government bodies of countries nor international organizations. UN, EU, UK still use, in the lists of countries, former long name (the Somali Republic), USA uses only short name (Somalia), and so one. We have the case of Burma/Myanmar – the new long name of country, which had been listed in the constitution, entered into force almost year later than constitution. Maybe such situation is also in the case of long name of Somalia. We know, that the new name is officially used in the title of president (‘President of the Federal Republic of Somalia’) and prime minister (‘Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Somalia’) – both titles are frequently used in government websites – but there is no confirmation that this name is already used for the country. Aotearoa (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Chapter 1/Article 1 of the new constitution linked to above formally defines the country's official name as the "Federal Republic of Somalia". Several foreign governments and regional/international bodies already refer to Somalia by that new long name (e.g. the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs [32]). The Somali government likewise now frequently refers to the President of Somalia in its official literature as the president of the Federal Republic of Somalia, which is another confirmation of the country's new official name (e.g. [33]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

But in the official document of 25 October 2012 Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs still uses name Reppublica Somalia. As I wrote above, new long name is used in title of president and prime ministers in many official websites, but for country itself old name is still used. Usually UN changes country name immediately, but in this case it still uses name Somali Republic. Situation is very unclear and should be explain. Aotearoa (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The link above from the Italian Foreign Ministry refers to the country itself as the "Federal Republic of Somalia". The short name and long name are used interchangeably, like in most other countries. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Population template

The discussion at Template talk:Largest cities of Somalia regarding population data might be relevant this article, as the template transcludes the population data in this article. Feel free to react there. L.tak (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As the discussion on Template talk:Largest cities of Somalia did not lead to a conclusion: I have tentatively placed a disputed section tag there... L.tak (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the data in the climate chart correct?

I find it strange and look unreal. The temperatures and precipations are about the same over the year in the chart.--如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng) (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

At least they do not stem from the source; which has only general information already in the text of the section. I suggest to remove the data, unless we'll find a reliable source with weather data.. L.tak (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The weather box was based on an old formulation. I've replaced it with one for the capital. Middayexpress (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

great!

Resolved

L.tak (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

JKS JKS!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.83.114 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Shimbiris

This source (along with the Shimbiris article) says that the mountain's height is actually 2460m based on SRTM data. This conflicts with the 2416m height cited here. I'm not sure how reliable the source is and I have no idea how to verify the SRTM data... perhaps someone smarter than me can? -Brycehughes (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The caption for the map of the current political situation

As the map depicts an ongoing issue the caption under the map will need to be updated continually. I have updated it myself a few times however I see this as wasteful. The file is updated often enough and the date is often posted on the image itself (currently this is an exception due to areas going back and forth) that removing the date from the caption would not stop it from being descriptive. I will change it to say something along the lines of "Current political situation in Somalia" now. I wanted to post this here in case some discussion is needed, however I doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.237.34 (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Somalia changes its national anthem

Source: http://worldstatesmen.org/Somalia.html. --190.82.239.174 (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. As of August 2, 2012, it is Qolobaa Calankeed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is an indisputable source - the draft constitution. Source:http://www.constitution.org/cons/somalia/120708_ENG_constitution.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blukingkong (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

'insurgents'?

The introduction refers to 'insurgents'. Merriam-Webster says that an insurgent fights against an established government. Somalia does not have an established government. Either way, 'insurgent' does not convey a neutral tone. My suggestion is instead to use 'revolutionary'. Ashleyjohnston (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Insurgent is apt, as the Islamist campaign is an insurgency. Somalia also does actually have a permanent government. Middayexpress (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

De-facto independent states

This article makes hardly any mention of the present political division of Somalia. While the United States and other western governments are putting all their support behind a central government, the reality is that many parts of the country have declared independence or autonomy long time ago and are doing quite well without the central government or foreign aid. Brushing over the political reality does not do justice to the thousands that have died in all these conflicts for independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.179.95.21 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since the adoption of the Federal Constitution in August 2012, Somalia has officially been a federation, the Federal Republic of Somalia. It consists of autonomous regions or federated states; formally, Federal Member States. Middayexpress (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Politicians

Many country pages (e.g. Uruguay, Egypt, Poland, Bulgaria, Mexico, North Korea) have images of the same foreign politicians e.g. Obama, Bush, Medvedev, Hillary Clinton, Putin, John Kerry etc present. I'm proposing such images should be moved to relevant US- or Russia- relations pages. For example it is more suitable to have two images of John Kerry on a page about US-Egypt relations than on the Egypt page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You removed the only picture of Somalia's president from the Somalia article. That is not helpful. I have restored it. bobrayner (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. Thank you for pointing out the mishap. I've since added an image of the president of Somalia. Please keep up the good work. B. Fairbairn (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There already was an image of the president engaging in foreign relations. Kindly stop removing such pictures from various country pages. Middayexpress (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Somalia formation history typo

Under Somalia's formation history in the box on the right hand of the page, it reads "5yadadada July 1960". Should this say 5 July 1960? I don't know how to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wboudreau (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 February 2014‎

Thanks for highlighting this. It was the result of vandalism by an anonymous IP, but it has been reversed by ClueBot. You can edit the page too, by clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the top. Green Giant (edits) (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It was some old spam. Wikipedia's servers are kinda delayed today for some reason. Middayexpress (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard it was because Jimbo plugged his beard trimmer into one of the USB sockets at WMF! Green Giant (edits) (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Human Rights

Edit wars are not good. And the way I see it when someone new (esp) is adding info that disputed the first thing I do is look at the talk page. For if the entry is sincere they will cease, wait and run to the talk page and deal with the issue that way. So i am biased to revert to the version of the senior contributors and hope to see some TK page activity on the dispute. That is just me.--Inayity (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. I'd like to include subsections on the main page introducing the topics of human rights in Somalia, as well as a subsection about corruption in Somalia. These topics are relevant to conditions impacting peoples lives in Somalia. I'm not Somalian, not African, haven't been to Africa. Corruption is relevant for mention, because Somalia was/is the world's MOST corrupt country! (Daayuum!) Zoompte (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

But would you agree you seem to have a pre-packaged POV which will obviously offend other more balanced editors. Somali is corrupt? And you are here to push that agenda loud and clear, is not a good rationale. I do think the sections should be included if there is WP:WEIGHT and are included in similar country based articles in a NPOV manner. But let other editors weigh in. B/c I am sure if you went to USA and added largely negative content about its Imperialist persona someone would also revert you. --Inayity (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Somalia is corrupt. I don't see why that is controversial. In 2009 Transparency International ranked Somalia in last place on its annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), a metric that purports to show the prevalence of corruption in a country's public sector. Zoompte (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is already in the article so your mission is accomplished. --Inayity (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I had a look, and I found it! :) I didn't see it before. Zoompte (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; the purported graft level is already noted. The human rights page is also very outdated, with much of it very loosely pertaining to the 2007 insurgency period. A lot has changed since then, including a new Human Rights Task Force, Human Rights Roadmap, National Gender Policy, and National Day of Human Rights. Btw, that "new" account is a sock of User:Andajara120000. Middayexpress (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok then. It must be lovely to live in Somalia now. Zoompte (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Demonym

demonym =

• Somali
• Somalian

I don't know what that book is telling you because Somalian has never been an acceptable demonym. Example: "Bildhaan: An International Journal of Somali Studies" This is the only academic journal on Somalia and uses "Somali" as a demonym/adjective. Somaliyeey (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is 'Somalian' on there? It is neither correct nor appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.20.166 (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In the light of the above comments and the lack of response to my own equivalent comment on the Demonym article Talk page, I have removed 'Somalian' from the Demonym section of the infobox. However, in the process I seem to have mistakenly messed up the formatting. I'm sorry about this and for the consequent necessity for effort by others to restore it. If it's not too much trouble, please send me a message to explain where I went wrong.

79rr (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Google books give 44k+ entries for "Somalian"; this is admittedly much less than 1m+ for Somali, but still significant. My Oxford dictionary gives both, saying that Somalian=Somali. Materialscientist (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The term 'Somalian' can indeed be found in print media and even reference sources. However, its appearance in the infobox of the Somalia article gives this reader the impression that the two terms 'Somali' and 'Somalian' are presented as having equal standing. That would be misleading; 'Somalian' is widely regarded, including by English-speaking Somalis, as incorrect, mistaken or ignorant.

79rr (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If so, why does the Oxford dictionary list them as equal? Webster also doesn't say anything about correctness. Anyway, listing two possibilities in the infobox of this article does not imply they are equal. Materialscientist (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's because they are dictionaries, primarily concerned with meaning, and they do not deal in this instance with preferred usage. Actual current usage (as suggested by your Google books information above) is overwhelmingly in favour of 'Somali'. As for what the listing in the infobox implies, it may not imply that both are equal, but it fails to convey that one is widely regarded as incorrect and that its use may well give an impression of ignorance to the hearer or reader.

79rr (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a distinction between "Somali" and "Somalian". "Somali" is the name of an actual ethnic group, the Somali people, who happen to be the most populous in the territory of present-day Somalia. Consequently, that ethnic group lent the nation its name as well as its other official language, the Somali language. This is similar to the Albanian people, Albania, and its own official language, the Albanian language. So "Somali" now serves as both an ethnonym (for ethnic Somalis, wherever they happen to reside) and secondarily as a demonym (for citizens of the Republic of Somalia, regardless of their actual ethnicity). On the other hand, "Somalian" only serves as a demonym for Somalia nationals. Middayexpress (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Airlines, dead-link (original title:NPOV)

Title changed by MiddayExpress to "Airlines, dead-link" Article has obviously been edited with an agenda in mind to make Somalia look like an emerging free market paradise. Just browsing through sources raises questions. Lets take a look at some choice quotes.

The World Bank reports that electricity is now in large part supplied by local businesses, using generators purchased abroad. By dividing Somalia's cities into specific quarters, the private sector has found a manageable method of providing cities with electricity. A customer is given a menu of choices for electricity tailored to his or her needs, such as evenings only, daytime only, 24 hour-supply or charge per lightbulb.

The free market is apparently a bunch of dudes running emergency generators out of their shack. But who knows the truth? The source link yields the following error: "This publication is not available for download!"

Somalia now offers some of the most technologically advanced and competitively priced telecommunications and internet services in the world.[14]

Source: An opinion piece by a man named Paul Trustfull which makes the bold claim that, "Today the Somalia region boasts some of the most advanced and cost competitive telecommunications and internet services in the world and certainly they exceed those of anywhere else in Africa" with no evidence whatsoever. It also appears to be a puff piece on a Somalian telecom CEO. I'll let you make that decision yourself.

Link to article: http://www.forbescustom.com/EmergingMarketsPgs/AbdirashidDualeInterviewP1.html[1]

Due to the entrepreneurial spirit of the Somali people and a lack of strict regulatory frameworks, by 1997, up to 14 private airline firms operating 62 aircraft were offering commercial flights to international locations.[8][12] With competitively priced flight tickets, these companies have helped buttress Somalia's bustling trade networks.[12] An informative and totally not subjective entry with source [12] being www.africanexecutive.com[2] , a subsidiary publication of IREN (Inter Region Economic Network), which describes itself as: "a leading independent African think tank that promotes ideas and strategies geared towards causing prosperity in Africa through free enterprise and sound public policy." (From IREN's About Us page).

The above quote was also lifted nearly verbatim from the source, which spends a single paragraph detailing Somalia's travel industry. As you can guess, it is devoid of facts other than the assertion that there are 14 companies and that the prices are competitive.

The entry makes bold assertions, liberal use of adjectives, and cites terrible sources. How can one objectively state airline prices are competitive or that the economy is robust? I'm pretty sure this entry fails to live up to the standards for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.17 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The dead-linked first passage from the British Chambers of Commerce now points to the book edition. The second passage is not an opinion piece; it's from a Forbes interview with the CEO of Dahabshiil. The third passage on entrepreneurial spirit was also not indicated in the wiki-text; what was is the ~14 private airline firms and their function. This has now been replaced with a passage from the Somali Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCI) on the number and function of local private airlines. Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed the electricity section, which was indeed not very encyclopedic; thanks for pointing that out! If there is more, let it know on the talk page....L.tak (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite what the British Chambers of Commerce indicates. At any rate, it doesn't really matter since eletricity is now generated, transmitted and distributed by local firms like the Somali Energy Company. I've adjusted the passage to reflect that. Middayexpress (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We should be carefull when companies are added that we are not "advertising". Is this the largest company and is this the reasons it was added? L.tak (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Somali Energy Company is one of the largest local eletrical power firms. It was thus mentioned in the appropriate energy area. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

ref

can someone expand the ref "Surficial Deposits of Uranium in Galmudug State of Somalia" so it can be evaluated? If it is "[www.scribd.com/doc/26697058/Surficial-Deposits-of-Uranium-in-Galmudug-State-of-Somalia this one], it begs the question if it constitutes are reliable source.... L.tak (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the same geological survey that is noted by the government of Australia [34]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

They also link to the scribbd file, which is problematic as it looks like a student's report (and I were to supervise him, he'd have to approve his sourcing: e.g. he links to wikipedia as sources). Scopus yielded nothing (on uranium and somalia), which worries me a bit... I'll have a look tonight if I can find a primary source in the paper; maybe email the Russian author that he based himself of, or find the World Energy Council report from 1993, that says it is difficult to extract.... L.tak (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The major uranium deposits that the paper alludes to were first discovered in the late 1960s by UN geologists and concurrently announced by the Somali authorities. They were estimated at over a quarter of the world's then known uranium reserves of 800,000 tons [35]. The international geologists also discovered some valuable rare minerals, such as yttrium. Middayexpress (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this review of literature is best as our source (a 1984 source, but there seems to be no update in reliable sources)... I will replace the ref; feel free to further improve if you find anything more.. L.tak (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The IUREP Orientation Phase Mission to Somalia indicates that as of 1984, the country had 5,000 tons of uranium reasonably assured resources (RAR), 11,000 tons of uranium estimated additional resources (EAR) in calcrete deposits, as well as possibly up to 150,000 tons of uranium speculative resources (SR) in sandstone and calcrete deposits [36]. Altogether, that's around 20% of the world's estimated 800,000 tons of uranium reserves in 1968. Local uranium exploration is today being led by Kilimanjaro Capital [37]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Great for an article on uranium exploration, but way to speculative for your "energy" section I'd say. Let's stick to the proven reserves and not discuss too much about a range of 0-150 000 tons. I also wonder: is the 800 000 tons at the time proven resources or speculative resources? If it is proven, than we are comparing two completely different things... L.tak (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Central Bank doesn't suggest that if peace and stability remain, the production of natural resources can be maintained at growth and development levels which exceed pre-war levels. It indicates that the untapped natural resources themselves will accelerate growth and development past pre-civil war levels ("With the return of peace to Somalia, and the subsequent reconstruction and development of public institutions, the Somali economy is bound not only to recover from pre-civil war levels, but also to accelerate in economic growth and development given the country’s unexploited natural resources which include deposits of uranium, tin, copper, zinc, gold, coal, zircon, and kynite" [38]). At any rate, reasonably assured resources (RAR), estimated additional resources (EAR), and speculative resources (SR) are standard UNFC and IAEA/NEA tiers [39]. Noting the RAR alone gives the misimpression that the uranium deposits are lower than industry experts actually believe they are. Indeed, Kilimanjaro Capital, which has local uranium concessions, asserts that "Somalia was one of Africa's largest suppliers of uranium with tons of proven reserves and even more undiscovered[...] Somali uranium powered Iraq's infamous nuclear program[...] Brazilian, UAE, American, and Italian companies scrambled for concessions and had big plans for the region including US major Westinghouse" [40]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Proven resources are just what they are: proven. The rest is educated guessing. It is normal in a general encyclopaedic article to focus on what is known, especially if no recent sources are available. We should make clear what is known and what is going on, and the paragraph now suggests a lot of activity, which comes from incidental news reports. Also the heavy use of old data (yttrium as being something special, it is more abundant than silver we know now) is a bit confusing. This is combined by quite a lot of non-need adjectives suggesting almost a gold rush is going on for the "untapped resources" etc etc... I find it far from neutral and see that my attempts to neutralise it are not working in the short run. I therefore will go about it slowly, one problem at the time, so we can work it out together. In the mean time I will re-instate the NPOV template to alert readers of the situation... L.tak (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"Untapped" is obviously an important adjective, as it indicates that the resources in question have not yet been exploited. It's these "unexploited natural resources which include deposits of uranium, tin, copper, zinc, gold, coal, zircon, and kynite" that the Central Bank suggests will propel local commerce. The yttrium reserves have also since been estimated; please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Aren't all reserves untapped and isn't it thus more of a newspaper term? L.tak (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)