Talk:Somali Civil War/Archive 1

Citation

The article cites to a questionable source for the assertion that the CIA funds a party engaged in the conflict. See note 7. <span style="font-size

Before informing islamic court union

Before they form ICU, became big union, they are different courts, under the major tribe live in Mogdishu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassuun (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Article split

I suggest making a split in different articles for every period- like in Afghan Civil War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The current Rise of the Islamic Courts in Somalia should be the latest period in that. (Somali Civil War (2006-current)) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Support this 100%. —Nightstallion (?) 13:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The evil oil companies

Why is the fact that oil concessions were granted in 1991 relevant in this article? Were these concessions still valid with the new government? Furthermore, this does not make any impact on the assessment that millions of people were starving and needed food aid. It could be argued that these allegations may have made Somalia more interesting for GHWB (who did not make nation building a task, that was Clinton), but to call this an important criticism is just a disgusting attempt to blame the oil companies rather than the famine as the sole cause of US intervention. You have to a pretty die-hard critic to argue that the Somalis should have been left to die if the oil companies somehow benefited. 65.185.190.240 02:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) The critics presumably think that the U.S. is responsible for the anarchy and war because the dictator who was overthrown (Siad Barre) was a friend of the U.S. and the large amount of land used by the U.S. oil companies may have been a factor in alienating the population leading to the revolt. (2) There was no "new government" to validate or invalidate the concessions. JRSpriggs 08:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See the Conoco Somalia Declassification Project. Documents show high level contacts between Conoco and the GHWB administration from 1988 until Bush's commitment of troops. Our sources of information in country were Conoco, the security for the Kott delegation was Conoco. We evidently went in to pull Conoco out of the fireDavidstaniunas 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Somaliland is northwest

The actual furthest "north" you can get in Somalia (North of 12º Latitude) is on the spur of Puntland in Bari region. I am sure folks in Puntland would not want to be confused with being part of the territory of Somaliland. Therefore, it is appropriate to call Somaliland "northwest." --Petercorless 07:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in "(between Djibouti and the northeastern area known as Puntland)". That is an improvement over "(north of the horn of Africa)". (After looking again at a map, it actually seems to be west of the horn.) However, it is NW or W of Puntland while also being NE from Mogadishu and the bulk of Somalia. It depends on your point of view. Hence the confusion. Similarly, Puntland is SE or E of Somaliland while being NE of the rest of Somalia. JRSpriggs 09:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ethiopian tank somalia.jpg

The image Image:Ethiopian tank somalia.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:D8m9caf00.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Somali [sic] Civil War

Why is this article called by this name, rather than Somalian Civil War?
The current name implies that all of the participants are ethnic Somalis. According to an obscure website called Wikipedia, only 85% of Somalians are Somali.
Then there is the small matter of the foreign interventions to consider.
Varlaam (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the Somali people are the principal actors in the war, as in just about every other area pertaining to Somalia. The other minority groups in Somalia are also not referred to as "Somalian", but by their respective ethnonyms. Middayexpress (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Somalia now

Somalia is still continuing the fight until today as its a war between Al shabab and the failing Somali government as they both want power to rule the country .

Source Suggestion

I found a book called A History of the Twentieth Century by Martin Gilbert and it has quite a bit of information regarding the Somalian Civil War. It looks like it can fill in potential gaps in information and source gaps. I would suggest reading it to those who created the article.

Belligerents

The current Belligerents section in the infobox is taking in account current, but not historical Belligerents. Most of these mentioned were not involved (or didn't even exist) in 1991. This needs a serious overhaul maybe by using separator lines dividing different periods of the Somali Civil War - first pre-1991 government against rebels. Then interfactional, then UN intervention, then interfactional, then TNG/TFG vs. "insurgents", then Ethiopia/TFG vs. "insurgents", then current. Alinor (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the AMISOM page doesn't have sources showing other participants than Uganda and Burundi - other states pledged troops at different times, but so far no sources to show that such are actually send in Somalia. Alinor (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The belligerents page should reflect all of the combatants that have been involved in the conflict at any stage of the war. Creating an effective infobox would be extremely hard in this case because for most of the conflict the civil war was a multifactional war with multiple factions each fighting each other for control. It is not dubious that Amisom, the United States and several other nations and groups are listed in the infobox since it is well sourced that they have participated in the conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should reflect all periods, but these periods should be clearly separated (I think the main phases are listed here).

See for example here - more than two sides (horizontal separation) and more than one period (vertical separation). I would propose that in the case here the vertical separation is more prominent - e.g. stretching all columns - so that the periods/their belligerents are clearly separated. Alinor (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to keep the belligerents information in this infobox (in addition to the infoboxes of each period) then it should be properly presented. Otherwise we can use the previous infobox version without belligerents. Alinor (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The list of belligerents seems rather arbitrary - where are the citations documenting, for example, Kenya's involvement as a belligerent? This feels a little spurious, but one hopes that citations will be supplied - there is little point in listing countries just for their own sake. RantingMrP (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Relationship between the U.S. and Somalia

--Aar (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I felt that this section needs some editing;therefore,i want to edit some grammatical errors and add some information because i have some information about this topic.I would take some facts from encyclopedia Here are my sources:

The section is only for a broad outline/introduction to the main subtopic article, which is War in Somalia (2006–2009). Middayexpress (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagregated death data for 2012 from Uppsala Conflict Data Program

User:Middayexpress has removed the 2012 statistics for the Somali Civil War conflicts but added the reference as verification of the 500,000 death toll for the entire conflict. They also claim that the quote in itself violates the NPOV standard. Also they reference "c/e" which I am not familiar with in their deletion of the statistics. User:Middayexpress I will undo your revision and asked you to please explain your action on the talk page. Thank you.Wareditor2013 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the famine, that figure is for the East Africa region as a whole, not just Somalia. It's also generally agreed that the primary cause of the famine was the prolonged drought caused by climate change, not conflict per se. It was just exacerbated by conflict. And the extent of that crisis was debated to begin with (c.f. [4]). Regarding the UCDP dataset, it says nothing about "Government of Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti, Burundi, and Sierra Leone vs. Al-Shabaab", or "Puntland state of Somalia vs. Mujahideen in the Golis Mountain", or "Republic of Somaliland vs. Khatumo administration", or "Duduble subclan of Gorgarte clan (Hawiye) vs. Suleiman subclan of Habar Gidir clan (Hawiye)", or "Al-Shabaab vs. civilians". It's on the death tolls of the principal actors in the conflict, including the SNA, SRRC, USC, SNM, ARS/UIC and Al-Shabaab (c.f. [5]). I know cause I checked beforehand. By the way, it's rather interesting that an account registered just this month should be quoting a veteran user wiki policy. Middayexpress (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress, you are simply mistaken. When you go to the webpage the stats are listed by different types of conflicts, each with a different aggregate death toll. You need to sum up all the fatalty stats for the year from the low and high columns (which I did) in order to get the totals that I quoted. I also made it easy to verify those totals by listing the low-high death totals for each of the conflicts. Go back and check again, click on Somalia, then non-state conflict and you will see Republic of Somaliland vs. Khatumo administration, Duduble subclan of Gorgarte clan (Hawiye) vs. Suleiman subclan of Habar Gidir clan, etc. Here's a link to the page: http://www.ucdp.uu.se/gpdatabase/gpcountry.php?id=141&regionSelect=1-Northern_Africa#

Also, why did you delete the famine figures? They are part of the 500,000 estimate as stated by your own citation. If you think that it shouldn't even be there because it involves all of East Africa then don't include it. I think the clarification is much better than simply leaving it unspecified.Wareditor2013 (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you didn't link to the non-state conflict UCDP page that you mention above. You linked to a completely different page with UCDP's actual datasets. That said, I've adjusted the Necrometrics toll to point to the number actually killed. I've also linked to UCDP's toll page for non-state conflicts, as the total such casualties are more informative than just those of last year. Middayexpress (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I see the changes you've made but I don't think they are as accurate as simply stating all of the known facts which is what I tried to do. Also citing the UCDP for figures it does not give ("300,000") is not helpful and it's wrong. Please leave it the way that it was so that it shows both an agregate death toll (500,000) with the explaination that it includes 200-300,000 dead from famine as stated by the first sourse you cite. Then, if you wish, create a UCDP figure which gives a much lower figure for the entire conflict (something like 80-100,000 deaths directly linked to fighting since 1989).

The 2012 figure is intended to show the current scale of the fighting, it can be supplemented with other years if you would like to expand the scope but it's perfectly valid especially since 2012 is the most rescent year for which data is available. Please revert this back to the way it was.Wareditor2013 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not cite UCDP for the 300,000 figure but rather Necrometrics; that is also for killings alone. The famine toll was not all conflict-related, so it's not wholly relevant. Regarding UCDP, 2012's toll would not be an accurate reflection of the current scale of fighting because there have been fewer conflicts between sub-state actors so far this year as compared to 2012. Al-Shabaab in 2013 is actually on the verge of imploding. The total non-state conflict toll is therefore more informative. Middayexpress (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Necrometrics

The necrometrics site clearly states 500,000 not 300,000. so why was my edit changed?, Please can you either remove it as a source or correct the figure.

Per the above. Middayexpress (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The only 300,000 figure from the necrometrics site is from the IRIN report and the site is at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/11/mil-041105-irin03.htm this however is not what necrometrics is claiming, necrometrics is claiming 500,000. "Somalia (1991 et seq.): 500,000".

If you want to keep the 300,000 figure then please change the source to point to the IRIN report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.15.178 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The link points to Necrometrics because it has a collection of the various toll estimates in one place [6]. 500,000 is for general casualities during the period, and 300,000 is for the number killed. I've adjusted the range accordingly. Middayexpress (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

the necrometrics site does not make any clear distinction between general casualties and number of killed. It is as you said just a collection of death toll estimates from news organizations. From the list the only news organization that agrees with your claim of 300,000 total deaths is the IRIN report. So it would make more sense to everyone if you gave the IRIN report as your source instead of linking to the Necrometrics site, which clearly states "Somalia (1991 et seq.): 500,000". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.15.178 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Necrometrics has the broad range of estimates in one place, which is why it is linked to. The 300,000 figure is the bottom range estimate. It also isn't from IRIN, but from the Somali government itself. I've placed a note to that effect. Middayexpress (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it is less confusing now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.15.178 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Start date/removal of content critical of TFG etc

The standard date for the start of the civil war is 1991. The 1988-1990 date that Menkhaus gives is not literally the start; it's just when the military began to intensify operations against rebels. He thus notes elsewhere that 1991 marked "the onset of state collapse and civil war" [7]. Also, the SNM was not the first of the rebel groups; that would be the SSDF. The USC was formed after both of them. Middayexpress (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for beginning to engage on the talkpage instead of repeated edit warring, Middayexpress. Claim about 'standard start dates' will have to be exactly cited. 'Civil war' may be throuwn around generally without much exactitute, but you will see if you look closely at the 2007 Fragile States and Insecure People chapter that Menkhaus specifically cites that the civil war began in 1988-90 : it's about the third page in. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise, because at the moment we have the civil war starting on the date the first phase - the removal of the dictator - actually finished, January 26, 1991. He was ousted from his capital in Mogadishu by military means - that's the definition of a war. So the war must have started some time before January 26, 1991 !!

Additionally, I remain extremely concerned about your apologism for the TFG, which while may have been an attempt at a central government, committed atrocities by its security forces against its own people repeatedly. I note your removal of text in that direction, and I would encourage you to stop watering down the brutal nature of the civil war and the extent of the transitional authority. Now, we can either accept that scholarly sources note the weakness of the TFG and the brutalities of the war, and thus you stop edit-warring to water it down, or I can go to more formal measures. Please restate the relevant sections. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's quite misleading to suggest that only the TFG forces and their Ethiopian allies were responsible for civilian casualties when HRW itself notes that all parties including the insurgents were. The reality is, most of the people who had fought against the allied forces were ICG supporters and belonged to the same clan. They were worried about a change in the power struture and reprisals. As for the standard actual start date of the war, it's 1991. Menkhaus notes this in the link above and the CIA does as well in its factbook [8]. If this is still a problem, I can always try and reach him by email. He's a professor and I'm sure he'd be quite interested in this discussion and sharing insight. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, before I respond to your thoughts, something I should have added earlier: you cannot keep on distorting the facts and sources. The 1991 conference in the northwest is not just 'facilitating reconciliation' etc; it's a severe misrepresentation to say that without mentioning that it resulted in the declaration of independence of Somaliland!! Stick to the facts !! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Interpeace states that "the most successful and sustained of these processes took place in the secessionist Somaliland state, following the SNM's declaration of independence from Somalia in May 1991 (see volume V)[...] The Burao conference, at which independence was announced, was one of numerous inter-clan conferences in Somaliland between 1991 and 1997 that promoted reconciliation, facilitated disarmament, and established political and administrative structures in the former northern regions" [9]. This is already indicated in the wiki-text ("In the northwest, at the Burao conference of April-May 1991, SNM secessionists proclaimed independence for the region under the name Somaliland"). What was actually missing was the "secessionist" part, which I added. Middayexpress (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not worried about having more material added to the article - since I got started we've raised the size from 30kB to 42kB. By all means, go ahead and add sourced material about Al-Shabaab atrocities. But my main concern about your POV is that you consistently distort material about the central Somali institutions - so far I've observed, mostly since 1990. Whether it's removing the role of the UN, or removing sourced detail about the TFG forces' misbehaviour, you seem to want to play up the behaviour of a central government that has gained very few friends in the last twenty years. Menkhaus says that the 'genuine desire on the part of Somali communities for improved security, rule of law, and basic services cannot be conflated with a desire to see a revived central government. It is possible to actively pursue the former and actively hinder the later.' (FSIP, 80) Stop removing material that doesn't agree with your views!! While you served one version of a Somali state, this one does not (yet?) deserve loyalty!! It's committed too many crimes for that!!

As for the war start date, as I said, see Menkhaus in FSIP, 73: 'The civil war in Somalia began in the northern part of the country in 1988-90', against the SNM. The CIA and other non-specialist American institutions will of course be vulnerable to a once-over-lightly clean date regarding Siad Barre. But it's not logical, as I emphasise above. We should go with something that makes sense!!

As you've had the chance to comment regarding the TFG atrocities section, and have not addressed the core of my argument, I'm going to reinsert that section. Please feel free to add more on Al-Shabaab actions, and those of the ICU. This article will of course suffer from a systemic bias in that respect, because it's hard(er) to research their actions. Should say that my research is focused on the Somali state, rather than Al-Shabaab; I've a friend who would be much better on that subject. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I did not remove the role of the UN. What I did was correct your statement that "in 1993 and 1994, UNOSOM and Somalis negotiating themselves had some success in reconciliation and establishment of public authority initiatives." Interpeace does not indicate this. It instead writes that "more significantly, while the foreign military and diplomatic interventions in the first half of the 1990s failed to end Somalia's political crisis, Somalis themselves made progress in reconciliation and establishing public authorities". It is thus Somalis themselves that Interpeace generally credits for these local peace initiatives. Interpeace then goes on to explain which exact initiatives the UN did actually support/mediate, and how (viz. by "providing good offices and mediation" [10]). I correspondingly noted each of those actual UN-mediated initiatives in the wiki-text.

Regarding the civilian casualties during the Mogadishu insurgency, HRW indicates that all the involved parties were responsible ("Ethiopian, Somali and insurgent forces are all responsible for rampant violations of the laws of war in Mogadishu, causing massive suffering for the civilian population"). The civilians were "caught in the crossfire", as the ISA notes [11]. I've thus adjusted the wiki-phrase to reflect this balanced perspective. Also, it is inaccurate to assert that the "Mogadishu residents belonging to the same clan as the ousted ICU resented the TFG[...] they also felt threatened by the TFG, perceived to be dominated by a different clan" since what the link actually states is that "whereas the Courts drew their support predominantly from the Hawiye clan, the TFG is widely perceived as dominated by Darod clan interests[...] many Mogadishu residents resent the Courts' defeat, feel threatened by the TFG and are dismayed by the presence of Ethiopian troops in the capital" [12]. It's therefore the actual change in power structure that these particular ICU-supporting residents resent. This is why the ISA writes that "the conflict in Somalia is in reality about local clan-based rivalries and a struggle for regional predominance, particularly between Ethiopia and Eritrea" [13].

That said, your assertion above that I "served one version of a Somali state" is rather odd since you of course don't know anything about me, and admitted as much too when you previously invited me for a personal chat. It's interesting, though, that you say above that the TFG is "a central government that has gained very few friends in the last twenty years." This is in direct contrast with AMISOM's assertion that "the TFG and the TFIs gained broad acceptance and recognition by Somalis and made considerable progress in the areas of political institutionalization, especially the establishment and approval of the National Reconciliation Council, NSSP, as well as establishment of the Supreme Court, and regional and district councils" [14]. You also suggest that the TFG "does not (yet?) deserve loyalty". This is a very strange assertion considering the fact that it is not actually a Wikipedian's role to decide which political entities do or do not deserve loyalty/friendship. Instead of engaging in WP:ADVOCACY, editors must instead strive to remain neutral. This, among other things, means that when the SIPRI indicates that "the TFG was formed in 2004 and became the internationally recognized government of Somalia" [15] (which it indeed was), one does not remove that assertion simply because one for whatever reason personally opposes the TFG. Middayexpress (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll deal with your points in order; the role of the UN, civilian casualties, loyalties to a Somali state, and assertions about how much support the TFG gained in the few years immediately after its formation in 2004.

While you quote accurately the lead sentence of the last paragraph of p.13 of the Interpeace report, you may have missed the statement in the middle of the paragraph above that 'UNOSOM also supported a number of local peace initiatives, providing good offices and mediation, some of which had a positive impact,' going on to mention Kismayo, and the 1994 Bardhere conference, as well as saying there was another entire Interpeace volune (III) which covered those initiatives. This was why I cited both UNOSOM II and Somali efforts. In addition, multiple sources indicate that some of the regional and district councils created by UNOSOM survived into the post-March 1995 period, and there are indications that some of them carried out useful functions. UNOSOM's role was extremely important in 1992-94, and should be reflected here in line with WP:BALANCE.

Now indeed, all sides have committed atrocities during the war, and in my previous message I invited you to add further details where you thought they were lacking. But I am trying to explain in more detail why events happened. The Ethiopians drove the ICU from Mogadishu and thus made it possible for the TFG to relocate there. As you quote from the East African however, the TFG was perceived as being dominated by the Darod, and in any case was not broadbased enough to attract and retain support from enough of Mogadishu's residents. Systemic corruption and misappropriation probably had something to do with that, but Menkhaus' RUSI article clearly indicates the main factor: that the uncontrolled TFG security forces became the principal source of insecurity. When you water the actual events down to 'resentment', 'dismay' and 'feelings of being threatened', this does not accurately indicate the intense dislike caused by the atrocities the TFG militias created. Thus the local populace got angry enough that an insurgency started. One has to indicate reasons why, and 'resentment' and 'dismay' didn't foment the attacks, a much more serious wave of kidnapping, assaults, rapes, etc, did!! You cannot water that down to 'caught in the crossfire' of fighting, with its implications that such things took place accidentally!!

However I was encouraged by your willingness above to move a little forward and start naming names of clans. We won't manage to explain this war by trying to whitewash all clan involvement out. Thus I've quoted further from the East African article you found, and clan affiliations will be continuingly important as we expand this article.

Regarding service to a Somali state, I had the distinct impression that one of the people I was chatting to on the SAF talkpage said they were former Somali armed forces officers. I thought that was you, though maybe I'm mistaken. But your obvious expertise on military affairs and continuing additions to the civil war article made me think so too. Did you serve in the armed forces there? Be very very interested to hear more.

Regarding AMISOM's claims, they are not unfortunately Wikipedia:Third-party sources, unlike scholars like Menkhaus. If I was looking for accurate statements about the TFG's support, integrity, reliability, and provision of services to the people, I'd go to things like HRW and the International Crisis Group. I don't need to tell you that AMISOM have a vested interest in portraying their mission as a success, and that includes/means describing the TFG as a success. What experts have told me and the ICG etc reports I have read indicate to me that saying the TFG and TFIs 'gained broad acceptance and recognition by Somalis' is only applicable to a limited extent. The TFG faced an insurgency in Mogadishu, caused by the actions I've repeatedly emphasised, still does not control Somaliland, Puntland, Galmadug, had to accept ASWJ and Ras Kamboni controlling large areas without consulting them on major decisions, was widely and substantively accused of large-scale corruption, committed war crimes, etc etc etc. That's not 'broad' in my terms. We have to use sources that aren't portraying vested interests, not self-interested ones!

Better still, to quote Laura Hammond, writing in the Journal of Eastern African Studies in January last year [16] 'Somalia has been without a legitimate central government since the collapse of the Siad Barre regime in 1991.' 'For much of its tenure, the Transitional Federal Government, .. seemed incapable of patching together anything like a transition; its leaders were widely accused of emptying the coffers as quickly as they were filled. Personal rivalries between politicians have prevented leadership based on cooperation, and the parliamentarians were better known for beating each other with chairs than solving

problems through consensus.' This is the consistent tone of everything I've read.

Now, I should say that most of my comments, and the people I've talked to, refer to the 2004-up to 2011 period. Obviously things have greatly improved since 2011, but really I haven't started to systemically add material on that yet.

No, the TFG didn't deserve loyalty, in my view, but as I said during our earlier discussion on the SAF talkpage, I keep my opinions for the talkpages. I stick to referenced facts on the article pages. I have urged you and I will urge you again to add material regarding other actions by other parties that would further balance the description, and present a more nuanced viewpoint. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

UNOSOM's involvement in the 1993-1995 local peace initiatives should be noted but not overstated. What Interpeace indicates is that UNOSOM facilitated specific conferences by providing office space and mediation. This is now indicated for each of these initiatives. You are also mixing up the order of retaliation in the Mogadishu insurgency. The allied fores captured Mogadishu, then the ICU splintered into Al-Shabaab and the like, then these militants launched a wave of attacks against TFG and Ethiopian forces, who then retaliated heavy-handedly. ISA explains all of this, and HRW summarizes each of the parties' respective roles in the civilian casualties. It also indicates there that the TFG played a secondary role to the Ethiopian troops [17]. I've noted this, as it's not neutral to simply highlight the alleged indiscretions of only one of the warring parties. Further, Menkhaus is obviously not more of an authority on the war in Somalia than AMISOM, nor do I think even he would claim to be. He is, though, relatively more neutral than certain other writers. On the other hand, the ICG has long been regarded as biased and politically-driven when it comes to Somali affairs (e.g. [18]). Laura Hammond is also mistaken about the extent of territory that Al-Shabaab controlled. Per the former UN Special Representative for Somalia Augustine Mahiga, around 85 percent of the disputed territory was actually under government control by November 2012 [19]. I've noted that official figure in its place. I want to believe that you indeed keep your opinions to the talk page, but it's difficult to do that when you also use them as editing rationales. Lastly, I don't divulge personal information to Wikipedians, whether they're aggressive or friendly; it's nothing personal. Middayexpress (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point - part of the reason Al-Shabaab gained so much support and the insurgency arose was that the TFG's security forces behaved so badly. Menkhaus writes that the Ethiopians overcame the ICU within days, then made the 'fateful decision' to occupy the city, then the TFG security forces' started robbing, assaulting etc. That's the order indicated. Menkhaus is a WP:Third Party source, and is more of a reliable source than AMISOM. AMISOM *has* to present a reasonably positive picture if it wants to retain support. The 85% figure is as of Nov 2012 and also comes from not-a-third party source. In any case, the point is the rural area control, not the percentage of territory. Menkhaus indicates that since Nov 2008 'Al-Shabaab has controlled much of the Somali countryside' (the RUSI article, 12), Hammond indicates the same thing in January 2013, and my independent research with people on the ground last month confirms it. If you wish, I'll flip you my notes of that conversation.

Now, you are getting close to insinuating that I am guilty of POV. If you wish to do so, call a spade a spade. I am more concerned about your edit-warring record, for which you have been blocked three times, and the clear record of emphasising the central government's reach and power, and reducing its bad record, you have. The most recent fix I've had to make is *yet* another example. This edit of 5 January 2012 was reporting a source that said AMISOM was understaffed, and the sentence didn't mention the TFG. You changed the key word to 'underequipped,' and changed the whole meaning by emphasising that AMISOM were assisting the TFG. You seem to do this again and again and again; the TFG simply haven't been as important a military factor as you make them out to be!!! To recite just one example, the Ethiopians took Mogadishu in December 2006, not the TFG. The continued disorganisation, factionalism, and lack of support for the TFG's disparate troops don't allow them to be that capable on the battlefield. Addend: didn't allow them c.2006; things may start changing since large numbers are being trained by EUTM.Buckshot06 (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That statement on the chain of events in the Mogadishu insurgency is not actually from Menkhaus himself, but originates from another source. That's why he has a footnote after it. This doesn't change the fact that the actual chain of events is as the ISA describes above. HRW also explicitly states that the "Somali transitional government forces played a secondary role to the Ethiopian military" (which at the time wasn't part of AMISOM; AMISOM didn't exist yet then), and summarizes their indiscretions accordingly [20]. AMISOM is obviously a much more reliable source on the war than the average journalist or scholar since it has had a presence on the ground and in the battlefield throughout its mandate. Until recently, most foreign journalists didn't let alone academics. Similarly, the official 85% territorial control figure is from the former UN representative in Somalia. Further, those blocks were from three to four year ago, back in my salad days when I was still learning the ropes. A look at the history page now, though, shows that you've reverted exponentially more times than I have; so take it for what it's worth. As for personal comments, I try to keep things on the actual content, even if my interlocutor does not or perhaps cannot. Lastly, per the Security Council resolutions that empowered it, AMISOM's very mandate was indeed to assist the TFG. Somali leaders themselves approached the African Union about the possibility of authorizing such a deployment. By the way, the TFG hasn't been in power since 2012, so there's no sense in referring to it as though its term hasn't ended. Middayexpress (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised at you, Middayexpress. You appear to have not noticed the specific dates the HRW report of Aug 2007 refers to. The quote from Menkhaus I've reinserted specifically talks about events immediately after the capture of Mogadishu by the Ethiopians & TFG in December 2006. Also, it's his words and his judgment, though he says, 'for details, see' the two HRW reports. At that point, in Dec 2006-Jan 2007, he judges that the actions of TFG security forces became the principal source of insecurity for the local population. This partially fomented the insurgency. Now the 'secondary role' quote comes from an HRW report which specifically says it's about the fighting three months later in March-April 2007. By the time the insurgency had gained strength, and both the Ethiopians and the TFG were using force against it. The Ethiopians, says HRW, were primary; the TFG forces secondary. But three to four months earlier it was the TFG security forces' actions that Menkhaus describes. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing the logic in removing a statement from an academic journal on the grounds that it contradicts something a UN spokesman said a few months before it was published: WP:NPOV requires that we cover all views, and the sourcing here obviously isn't problematic. If the author was able to update the article up to the date of publishing it's also a more recent source. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Buckshot06: The chain of events in 2007 was Ethiopian occupation => violent insurgency by ICU splinter elements => heavy-handed counter-insurgency by the allied forces. Menkhaus explained this in his own words during a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations ("The impact of the 2007-2008 Ethiopian military occupation of southern Somalia has created still more challenges for effective strategy[...] That occupation, and the destructive insurgency and counter-insurgency violence it triggered, helped to fuel an unprecedented level of radicalism in Somali society" [21]). Regarding Operation Linda Nchi, Somali and Kenyan military officials held a meeting the weekend before in Dhobley to organize the operation [22]. The cables also assert that Kenyan officials had provided military intelligence-based justifications for launching OLN back in 2010 to US officials, and these turned out to be fabrications [23]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, you still appear not to have noticed the additional step that Menkhaus includes in the RUSI article. Immediately after he mentions the Ethiopian occupation, he says the TFG security forces became the principal source of the local populations' insecurity. This helped cause the insurgency that then arose (and then led to the heavy hand reaction in which the TFG played a secondary role). You are continuing to take out a key point in the causal chain of events, and I don't fully understand why. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That is an allusion to the TFG's heavy-handed counter-insurgency, which was actually a response to the insurgency. It's attributed in the RUSI article to the HRW. The latter, like Menkhaus in the USCFR hearing, explains the chain of events in 2007 as Ethiopian/TFG arrival => violent insurgency by ICU splinter elements => heavy-handed counter-insurgency by the allied forces. HRW also indicates that the insurgency actually began within days of the allied forces' arrival ("Within a week of the TFG and Ethiopian army's arrival in Mogadishu the first insurgent attacks began. Ethiopian and TFG forces responded by sealing off areas around the attack sites and conducting house-to-house searches."). It also explains that the TFG, Ethiopian and insurgent forces' respective alleged indiscretions were limited to what the ISA paper reports. HRW indicates that the other reported incidents against civilians were actually the work of criminal elements ("witnesses blamed bandits and other criminal elements for the attacks, not TFG or Ethiopian forces or the insurgency") [24]. Also, the new U.S. Mogadishu Coordinating Cell was established because the Somali authorities and AMISOM specifically asked for it [25]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please also see Phil Leggiere's analysis, which summarizes Menkhaus' work on the ICU/TFG/Ethiopian conflict. It similarly notes that the TFG and Ethiopian forces' heavy-handed clampdown was actually part of the counter-insurgency ("Since early 2007," he writes, "attacks on the TFG and the Ethiopian military have been daily, involving mortars, roadside bombs, ambushes, and even suicide bombings. The Ethiopian and TFG response has been extremely heavy-handed, involving attacks on whole neighborhoods, indiscriminate violence targeting civilians, and widespread arrest and detention."" [26]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

1986 vs. 1991

The infobox says the Somali Civil War started in 1991. Yet the first phase of the war, the Somali Rebellion, started in 1986. What's the deal? Charles Essie (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have repeatedly tried to change to an earlier date (1988 is another arguable date), but User:Middayexpress just reverts, over and over and over again. Check the start of the section immediately above, at the top of the page. If you skim the discussions immediately above you will see evidence of his tendentious defence of Somali sovereign authorities (like insisting resistance didn't begin until Siad Barre actually fled from the rebels at his door!!), well beyond the limit of any reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

1991 is the standard start date for the war. Fallout from the Ogaden War of the late 1970s and the ensuing establishment of various rebel groups in the 1980s are what led up to the conflict. However, 1991 was when the United Somali Congress actually seized control of the capital from the Red Berets, ousting the Barre administration. Please see the US Office of the Secretary of Defense [27] and Necrometrics [28]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My and Charles' point is that this is an illogical choice of date, possibly as a result of a misunderstanding of what the civil war is defined as. There are justifiable arguments that inter-factional fighting, in the absence of a central government, assumed the dominant place in 1991. But there is also no doubt that January 26 saw the end, not the beginning, of the initial phase of the civil war. Why do you continue to hold to this illogical position, when we can find multiple sources (like the one that you've just, again, reverted) that say serious rebellion began anywhere from 1985 to 1988? In conformity with this apparent consensus, I will change back the date to 1988. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: by this edit, @Mickey Featherstone: has just changed the date to the more correct 1986. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could note that there is disagreement about when precisely the war started? There are lots of sources that put it at 1991, including the ones that Middayexpress has identified (but also many others). This article by James Fearon could perhaps be cited. As he explains: "Similar problems arise in deciding on the start date of a civil war. Did the Somali civil war begin in 1981, when armed bands of Isaaqs started small-scale operations against Siad Barre's regime and Isaaq collaborators, or in 1988 when Barre razed the Isaaq town of Hargeisa (killing thousands), or in 1991 when Barre's government collapsed and anarchic interclan warfare took over? Here the question is not spells of 'peace', but what to consider a continuous sequence of events that belong to one war". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Cordless Larry. This is exactly what we need : more community input. @Charles Essie: - what do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Every war has catalyzing factors that lead up to it. However, war itself is defined as major armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. For Somalia, the standard start date for its civil war is January 1991, when its central government was deposed. Besides the US government and the Necrometrics repository (whose toll is counted from 1991 onwards), the UN [29], Somali civil society [30], and the Somali government [31] also note 1991 as the official date. The rebel groups notwithstanding, that's all of the principals. That there were some intermittent rebel clampdowns between 1986 and 1990 can perhaps, though, be noted parenthetically in the infobox. Middayexpress (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress, your statement contradicts itself. In order for Siad Barre to be deposed on January 26, 'major armed conflict' must have occurred, and war certainly began. Using exactly your terminology, it probably does indeed meet the SIPRI definition of 1,000 combat-related deaths in a year for SIPRI/UCDP to define it as a major armed conflict. There are now three people telling you that 1991 is an illogical date to blindly stick to, and one, helpfully, offering a position of compromise. I don't really believe it is required to go straight to the compromise position - you don't WP:OWN this article - but in the spirit of good faith I will not insist on 1985, 1986, or 1988 in the infobox at this time. I will however change it to a formulation that reflects what User:Cordless Larry is driving at.

I would kindly request you to consider not going into an endless cycle of blind reverts bumping up against WP:3RR, but instead admit that there is a considerable grey area between 1985 and 1991 we're dealing with here. In addition, and I'll say it again, it flys in the face of all logic to date a war's beginning from the day a dictator fled from his last stronghold.

Therefore, I would kindly request you, once we have negotiated an interim compromise formula for the infobox, to be willing to be a little flexible, and (a) not keep blindly reverting, and (b) be willing to engage in substantive discussion, on this talkpage. I should note that there are a range of other forums and avenues beyond this talkpage which can be accessed if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're on about. I didn't change the date, though it would certainly make sense if I had since 1991 is the standard start date per all of the principals actually involved in the war. That includes the Somali government, civil society, UN and US government. 1991 is also when Necrometrics began actually tabulating the toll -- not in 1986 or 1988, when the Supreme Revolutionary Council was still very in power. At any rate, I'm all for a compromise format for the infobox parameter, which would ideally disambiguate the dates. Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You've at least twice changed the date back from sometime in the 1980s back to 1991. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I will refrain from using all caps or expletives, but surely, again, it doesn't matter what authorities or principles say if it's clearly factually incorrect. I don't, and refuse to, bow down before something merely because they're in a position of authority. This is an encyclopedia, not a distillation of what the Somali government, UN, US or anyone else would think the case might be, solely because they didn't urgently need to get involved before the conflict started having major effects beyond Somali boundaries!! I'm also boggled by the concept that when somebody started to count deaths might legitimise a position about when people actually started dying!! I have been biting my tongue through this whole discussion, but now I'll say it: use your brain! Just because they're some government or other doesn't make them correct, when they sprout manifold idiocy!!! (Or, what's probably more likely, they only had to take notice in 1991, so that's when they dated it from, and then didn't want to open further cans of worms by reevaluating the start date later, especially in the face of possible claims against them for inaction.) Buckshot06 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the date was already at January 1991; I was just changing it back to that per Necrometrics, and that was well before your post above. At any rate, the combatants involved in a war are in the best position to know when it actually began. With regard to Necrometrics, it indicates that the war began in 1991, so that's when it tabulates the toll from [32]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You should be well aware that as the person who readded the data in question, you bear the responsibility, whereever it originally came from. That's what WP:BURDEN means. That's why I'm asking you over and over and over and over again to just think about what is logical rather than continuing your reverts simply because that's what was there before. I don't give a tuppence when Necrometrics thinks the fighting began if there is significant reliable RS evidence to the contrary. Neither should you. This is before we consider that the Center for Defense Information, one of the sources they list, totals 350,000 casualties from 1978 onwards!! Regarding who's best to know, none of the key combatants in question have been asked their opinion - what we've had is instead onlooking international agencies plus the practically expatriate Somali government after Jan 91. In the case of the sources listed at Necromatics, it's a whole long list of international media. The people who've been fighting - the rebel groups, shards of the former army, Red Berets, militias, and other odds and sods - do you see their estimates in the Necromatics list? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is tricky since it doesn't really offer the space to give a nuanced account of when the conflict started. Leaving that to one side for the moment, do we have consensus to include a brief paragraph in the body of the article noting that there are different possible interpretations of when the war started, based on the Fearon source? Middayexpress? Buckshot06? Charles Essie? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If I may offer an opinion Cordless Larry, the infobox could say something like : '1985-1991 dependent on source, to present'[Long footnote explaining which source gives which date]. Based on the views above, I believe there is indeed a level of consensus for a paragraph at the front saying there are different interpretations of when the war started. Then there needs to be a summary paragraph, or several, dealing with 1985-91, probably/possibly starting with Barre's car crash. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If that's an option for the infobox that has support, could I suggest using a forward slash instead of a dash, as 1985-1991 might be misinterpreted as meaning the war lasted from 1985 to 1991? "1985/1991-present" (or whatever dates are agreed) seems clearer. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For the actual wording, I would probably prefer the even clearer '..The war's start is dated from 1981 to 1991 dependent on source'. But it's probably time to wait for the others' opinion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That obscures which authorities assert which date. A better parameter would note that all of the actual principals in the war -- the Somali government, civil society, UN and US government alike -- indicate that the war began in January 1991. It would also note parenthetically that some unofficial sources suggest that the war began earlier, in either 1988 or 1986. Middayexpress (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't prioritise "official sources" though. We should also reflect what peer-reviewed academic sources say. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, what most official and peer-reviewed sources alike indicate is that the civil war began in 1991 [33]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much what Midday has already pointed out. I have rarely heard any organization state that the Civil War began prior to 1991. AcidSnow (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Since no one objected to my suggestion to include some material based on the Fearon source to reflect debates about the start of the conflict, I've added this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress has moved this to the infobox as a note. I think it's helpful there, but Help:Infobox says that an infobox is supposed to summarise parts of article, so I wonder if we could also cover Fearon's argument in the article text somehow? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The note is rendered as a footnote via the #tag code, so it's already visible outside the infobox parameter. Middayexpress (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but I think this point about dating the start of the war is important enough to be covered in the main article text as well as in a note to the infobox. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Help:Infobox allows footnotes in infoboxes under special circumstances. There's a special code earmarked for this, ParserFunctions. The #tag code is one of these. The ParserFunction makes the note visible toward the bottom; it is not visible at all in the infobox outside of the code. Middayexpress (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the inclusion of the footnote in the infobox at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not put a circa by the 'disputed' for the start date? (Like this: Disputed (ca. 1978-1991) *footnote* – Present) 142.110.227.185 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Spurious "decentralization" while CIA WFB actually says "turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy"

Middayexpress, I must ask you a further time not to distort sources. What you wrote, quoting the 2011 edition of the World Fact Book, was along the lines of "A period of decentralization ensued, characterized by a return to customary and religious law in many areas". As I've quoted from the page, what they actually say is "After the regime's collapse early in 1991, Somalia descended into turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy." This is purely and simply twisting the source to fit your own wishes. The word "decentralization" is especially egregious, because it implies some sort of controlled administrative process. It is nowhere mentioned on the page you cite. Actually there was continual warfare, especially in Mogadishu. I must again ask you to stop distorting sources, and must again remind you that there are a range of other forums and avenues available beyond this talkpage. I will quote from WP:RfC : "..The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued. In severe cases of misconduct, you may try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If none of those steps resolve the dispute, then arbitration may be warranted as a last resort." Buckshot06 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's what the CIA factbook indicates on the return to customary law and religious law in many areas (what I actually wrote); it's under judiciary [34]: "under the terms of the 2004 Transitional National Charter (TNC), a Supreme Court based in Mogadishu and an Appeal Court were established; yet most regions have reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, either secular, traditional Somali customary law, or sharia Islamic law". Middayexpress (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Stick to the point. I'm well aware that eventually - and of course - local means of more traditional/Sharia conflict resolution reemerged. But what you did was change the order of the CIA WFB data to say the government fell (fine), produce this word "decentralisation" from absolutely nowhere, then you abandoned the intro section to dive deep into one of the subsections to change the subject and talk about what happened much later (after much fighting). This distorts the sequence of events as defined in the intro to the CIA WFB, badly. Again, I would remind you that there are a range of other forums and avenues beyond this talkpage, some of which we've already had discussions as a result of. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I only adjusted a phrase in the lede and the infobox and per the CIA [35]. I'm not sure what your gripe with the period of decentralization is exactly. Puntland and Galmudug (the former of whose formation the CIA also notes) were established after the peacekeeping mission. Both are also decentralized states, as was the original Southwestern state. Only Somaliland was established prior to the mission, and it too didn't really get going until the mid-1990s. This is indeed decentralization per the US government [36]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Somaliland, Puntland and Galmadug were not, as-for-example Scotland, established because central government agreed to push down powers to a state's constituent regions through a peacefully agreed process (a rough definition of decentralisation). They seized virtually-sovereign control of their own destinies after central authority was destroyed by the rebels' guns. So decentralisation is the wrong word to use: some version of sovereignty or independence is needed. But those two regions were covered in the sentence afterwards, talking about autonomous regions in the north. The egregious misrepresentation you made was implying that each region peacefully received power from some benevolent central government. Actually, there was no central government left to hand over power to Somaliland, Puntland and/or Galmadug, and there was continuous, though not always heavy fighting south of Mudug. The really spurious misrepresentation you added was implying that power was transferred peacefully west and south of Mog, up to the Mudug border, and in some cases north of it, while actually there was serious fighting over and over and over again. Serious fighting does not equal "decentralisation"!! If USAID says this, they probably refer in some confused way to Somaliland and to some extent Puntland, not, as you managed to twist their words, the entire territory of pre-91 Somalia. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's what was actually written: "A period of decentralization ensued, characterized by a return to customary and religious law in many areas as well as the establishment of autonomous regional governments in the northern part of the country." The fact that there was a return to customary and religious law in most areas has already been established above per the CIA. With regard decentralization, I'm not sure why you believe that it must be officially mandated. All decentralization actually is a functional movement away from the center, whether through official means or dispersion ("Decentralization (or decentralisation) is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority"). And here's how that decentralization happened in Somalia: "In the nonappearance of a principal authority, Somalia's inhabitants reverted to native shapes of clash resolve. A limited States and areas of Somalia, autonomous areas containing the Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug administrations, appeared in the North in the resulting procedure of decentralisation" [37]. This is why the US government describes the regional state formations of Puntland and Somaliland alike as decentralization. Also, while the wiki assertion that "from May 1991, two autonomous regional governments began to form in the northern part of the country" implies Somaliland and Puntland, it ignores the decentralized regional administrations of Galmudug and the Southwestern state that were also formed in the central and southern areas. Middayexpress (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand enough about this issue to comment, but the book you've just cited, Middayexpress, is not a reliable source. It looks like a collection of material copy-pasted from Wikipedia, in fact, with some sort of word-switching going on (compare your quote with this from the Wikpedia Somalia article: "In the absence of a central government, Somalia's residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution. A few autonomous regions, including the Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug administrations, emerged in the north in the ensuing process of decentralization"). The publisher is listed here as one that repackages Wikipedia articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a better paper by the Somali scholar Abdisalam Issa-Salwe on the trend of decentralization after the start of the civil war [38]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Better, yes, but it's not a published source, it's just a conference paper so I'm still not sure it meets WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I should also note that Issa-Salwe's paper was published on Sahanonline [39] and Somaliwatch [40], and presented at the Seventh International Congress of Somali Studies. Middayexpress (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think having a paper accepted for presentation at a conference makes it reliable, as most academic conferences don't involve peer review of papers. I'm not aware of Sahanonline.com so can't comment on that. I'll ask on the reliable sources noticeboard for views on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The view on the RS noticeboard is that it's not a reliable source for this claim. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The Transitional Federal Charter also officially stipulates that the government in Somalia is based on a decentralized, federated system ("The Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic shall have a decentralised system of administration based on federalism" [41]). Middayexpress (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a reliable source for a claim that the Charter itself specifies that Somalia is based on a decentralised system, but I don't think it is for the claims made above about historical developments from 1991, and it doesn't support any claims about the extent to which decentralisation was implemented. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Second Cordless Larry. The critical point about decentralisation, per, for example, the the World Bank, is that it's almost always understood as a peaceful process. Your original source was the CIA WFB, starting immediately after Barre's fall, say January-March 1991. It said fighting. You said this decentralization. I am quite focused on removing distortions of the historical record from the lead, and since you appear to have conceded this point, I suggest we drop the subject. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

On that note, this article in the journal Global Governance offers the view that: "Another critical feature of the TNC was the decentralization of state functions, both in decisionmaking and defense/policing authorities. In principle, the TNC recognized and legitimized de facto autonomy of eighteen regions and, in particular, partition of the north, which is home to a relatively homogenous clan composition. In some parts of Somalia, however, decentralization equaled the disintegration of state authority". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick source note, the full cite is Sumie Nakaya, Women and Gender Equality in Peace Processes: From Women at the Negotiating Table to Postwar Structural Reforms in Guatemala and Somalia, Global Governance Vol. 9, No. 4 (Oct.–Dec. 2003), pp. 459-476. This will be a useful addition to the Transitional National Government article. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to argue that Puntland, Somaliland, Galmudug and the Southwestern regional states were not decentralized states, when they obviously are. And all of them, except for Somaliland, were established through local consultations and after the peacekeeping mission. At any rate, since you've seen and admit above that the CIA does indeed indicate that there was a return to customary and religious law in many areas alongside secular law, I've noted that instead. I'm willing to let the decentralization point go, as it's moot I suppose. Middayexpress (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress, can you tell me what section of the CIA source supports the material you added about there being a return to customary and religious law after 1991? I can't find that in the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's under the Judiciary tab, as I indicated above ("most regions have reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, either secular, traditional Somali customary law, or sharia Islamic law" [42]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Just so you know, that's not the page cited when the CIA is mentioned in the intro - hence my confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't say when they started to return to these. The only date it mentions is 2004. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's referring to the general post-1991 period. Hence, "reverted to local forms". This is the main point (as opposed to mane... [43]). Also, no page is cited; the CIA Factbook itself is instead directly linked to. Middayexpress (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference 10 is to this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the linked webpage. It's under the Government→Judicial branch tab. Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's there and I can see it. AcidSnow (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I've got it now too. Thanks. I think it would make more sense to reference the page directly, rather than making readers who follow the reference have to search around for a link on to another webpage. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Most certainly. Something like a "note" in the reference. AcidSnow (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A direct reference to the precise webpage would probably be simplest, although I still think a better source needs to be found (one that dates this development to 1992), for the reasons outlined above. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Middayexpress (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Linda Nchi

The meeting between the Somali military and Kenyan military regarding Operation Linda Nchi on the weekend before that incursion took place in the town of Dhobley [44]. It was not held in Mogadishu, as the text was altered to insinuate. The operation was also multinational, not just between the Somali and Kenyan militaries. Middayexpress (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not referring only to the Dhobley meeting. Cables released via the United States diplomatic cables leak make it clear now that discussions were underway for some time before, including at the President/Prime Ministerial level. Once I've altered the text again, you will have to find very specific sources that Linda Nchi officially included involvement beyond Kenya. All the information I have access to, including the International Crisis Group and Rasna Warrah's 'War Crimes', suggests it was a Kenya only operation, though they warned and coordinated with local militias/groups supporting the TFG, and also at the state level in Mog. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the weekend meeting prior to the incursion:

• A Kenyan security official indicated that the operation would officially be a joint mission: "A team comprising Kenya Army and Rapid Deployment Unit [police] officers left our border last evening and went to Dhobley. They held a meeting with top officers of the TFG [Somali] forces for about two hours before they came back[...] The meeting was to prepare a joint operation between the two forces which is meant to launch an offensive against Al-Shabaab rebels who are scattered in different parts of southern Somalia" [45].
• This was confirmed on 18 October in an official Joint Communique signed in Mogadishu by Somalia and Kenya government representatives, and announced by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development: "the Council[...] welcomes the agreement between the Government of Kenya and the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) to cooperate on all aspects of the operation, and endorses the Joint Communique from the meeting between the Government of Kenya and the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia in Mogadishu on 18 October 2011" [46].
• That the operation was officially a joint mission was also reaffirmed in another official Joint Communique signed in Nairobi by the Prime Ministers of Somalia and Kenya on 31 October, with the Somali government confirmed as the leader of the operation: "Al Shabaab constitutes a threat to both Somalia and Kenya and is therefore a common enemy for the entire region and the world. This threat must be fought jointly by the two nations with support from the international community[...] the current operations are being led by the TFG of Somalia Forces with the support of the Kenyan Defence Forces in pursuit of legitimate Al Shabaab targets" [47].
• An agreement signed in Ethiopia on 17 November by the Somalia, Kenya and Uganda leaders likewise reaffirmed that Linda Nchi was a joint operation, with the multinational AMISOM force thereafter officially part of it per an AMISOM spokesman: "Lt Col Paddy Ankunda told Daily Monitor that the meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia discussed the modalities of a joint operation between the Kenya Defence Forces and Amisom to rout the militants[...] the meeting, Lt Col Ankunda said, was a follow-up on last week’s agreement by the leaders of Kenya, Uganda and Somalia to launch a joint onslaught against the militants" [48].

That is the official status of the operation per the governments. Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The official status of the governments is dated after Kenya joined AMISOM. Up until that point, the Kenya Army was fighting towards Kismayu with some coordination with local forces in the districts they were operating in, and communication with the government in Mogadishu. This is what Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, WP:THIRDPARTY, sources indicate. These sources supersede the official sources you appear to invariably quote. Now, we can either go with WP:THIRDPARTY sources, or we can go with avenues of dispute resolution beyond this talkpage. It's really up to you. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, per AMISOM, Kenya only agreed to rehat its troops in November 2011. It formally joined AMISOM later on 22 February 2012, when the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2036 [49]. That's indeed well after all of the official intergovernmental agreements, as can be seen above with their respective dates. Middayexpress (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

CIA & sequence of events

The CIA doesn't indicate "factional fighting and turmoil followed, especially in southcentral Somalia" with regard to the period after the peacekeeping mission. This assertion instead pertains to the period immediately after the collapse of the central government ("After the regime's collapse early in 1991, Somalia descended into turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy" [50]). Also, it doesn't assert that "slowly, warlord influence was lessened as secular and customary practices gained purchase, including through the stabilizing influence of the business community[...] Later, Sharia law began to have influence." Rather, it indicates that "most regions have reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, either secular, traditional Somali customary law, or sharia Islamic law" [51]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not use the CIA as a source for any of this data. I carefully moved the CIA source reference to the secular and customary practices line, not associated with the business community phrase. I have not yet had time to pull all the references down. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The lede passage was already reliably sourced to the CIA; the altered wording had the effect of making it suggest something that it did not. I fixed that, so no prob. Middayexpress (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that the CIA source supports the wording used in this edit, Middayexpress. Where does the source talk about the "ensuing period" (after 1995)? The only date the source mentions is 2004 and the TNC. It says "most regions have reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, either secular, traditional Somali customary law, or sharia Islamic law", but doesn't say when this happened. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The CIA is indeed referring to the general period after the collapse of the central government. It specifically indicates as much in its 2003 edition, prior to the adoption of the Transitional National Charter in 2004. I've pointed it to that instead for disambiguation. Middayexpress (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It may well be, but the lack of an indication of time period made that difficult to verify. The new reference is better, and the source states that "following the breakdown of national government, most regions have reverted to either Islamic (Shari'a) law with a provision for appeal of all sentences, or traditional clan-based arbitration". That looks like a better source to me. What do you think, Buckshot06? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's the same reference, but a different edition. Clearly, that is what the CIA meant either way. What do you think, AcidSnow? Middayexpress (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't go by what we assume the CIA means though - we go by what is verifiable. The edition previously cited did not verify the material included in the article, but the older edition looks like it does. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The CIA was referring to the general period after the collapse of the central government. It didn't specify any date, but did indicate that people returned to forms of local governance. This was confirmed in the older edition. Middayexpress (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The CIA WFB is not specific enough for what we need here. However, there was a significant amount of heavy fighting apparent in the southcentral area (which I define for general discussion's sake as south of Puntland), which did diminish briefly for a couple of years (as apparent from the SIPRI reference). I would agree with Cordless Larry's quote, which emphasises the role of traditional clan-based arbitration, which is of major importance. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This might be a good source to draw upon. It describes both the failure of the central state and the partial success of more local governance mechanisms. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there was some fighting in the south-central area. Menkhaus notes that armed conflict generally subsided after the early 1990s, and that the fighting in the south between then and the late 2000s was intermittent and of a much lower scale and intensity i.e. skirmishes. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My standard research starting source for the southcentre was this. The charts on pages 23-5, 37, 54-58 demonstrate how inaccurate using the word "some" to describe the nature of the fighting was. There was constant fighting from 1990-95. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Another issue is that, discussing the mid-2000s, the intro states "During this period, due to the protracted lack of a permanent central authority, Somalia was characterized as a "failed state"". The sources cited make it clear that Somali was considered by many as a failed state back in the 1990s. I'm not sure whether this just needs to be reworded, or the failed state mention moved earlier in the introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The constant fighting during that period was in the south, not the north. Middayexpress (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Somali Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222044942/http://www.interpeace.org/publications/somali-region/60-a-history-of-mediation-in-somalia-since-1988-english/file to http://www.interpeace.org/publications/somali-region/60-a-history-of-mediation-in-somalia-since-1988-english/file

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 24 external links on Somali Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222200912/http://ipss-addis.moodle-kurse.de/file.php/2/Reading_Materials_Module_3_Block_1_/Fragile_States_and_Insecure_People_2007.pdf to http://ipss-addis.moodle-kurse.de/file.php/2/Reading_Materials_Module_3_Block_1_/Fragile_States_and_Insecure_People_2007.pdf#page=73
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120511090753/http://wardheernews.com/Articles_2010/October/Ahmed_Silanyo/Proposal_to_SNM.pdf to http://wardheernews.com/Articles_2010/October/Ahmed_Silanyo/Proposal_to_SNM.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222044942/http://www.interpeace.org/publications/somali-region/60-a-history-of-mediation-in-somalia-since-1988-english/file to http://www.interpeace.org/publications/somali-region/60-a-history-of-mediation-in-somalia-since-1988-english/file
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120520050207/http://www.garoweonline.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=575:somalia-puntlands-experience-in-peace-building-and-state-building&catid=55:somalia&Itemid=79 to http://www.garoweonline.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=575:somalia-puntlands-experience-in-peace-building-and-state-building&catid=55:somalia&Itemid=79
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130729014609/http://fotw.us:80/flags/so-sws.html to http://www.fotw.us/flags/so-sws.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110821014130/http://www.africa-union.org:80/root/au/auc/departments/psc/amisom/AMISOM_Background.htm to http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/auc/departments/psc/amisom/AMISOM_Background.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222221742/http://www.africa-union.org/News_Events/Calendar_of_%20Events/29%20psc/Report%20-%20Somalia.doc to http://www.africa-union.org/News_Events/Calendar_of_%20Events/29%20psc/Report%20-%20Somalia.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222200912/http://ipss-addis.moodle-kurse.de/file.php/2/Reading_Materials_Module_3_Block_1_/Fragile_States_and_Insecure_People_2007.pdf to http://ipss-addis.moodle-kurse.de/file.php/2/Reading_Materials_Module_3_Block_1_/Fragile_States_and_Insecure_People_2007.pdf#page=73
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140224055138/http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Power_vacuum_in_Somalia_as_factions_fight_gazette.shtml to http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Power_vacuum_in_Somalia_as_factions_fight_gazette.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110514131633/http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Somalia_Guide_to_Puntland_Election_2009.shtml to http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Somalia_Guide_to_Puntland_Election_2009.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100619183438/http://horseedmedia.net/2010/05/un-boss-urges-support-for-somalia-ahead-of-istanbul-summit/ to http://horseedmedia.net/2010/05/un-boss-urges-support-for-somalia-ahead-of-istanbul-summit/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514131640/http://www.garoweonline.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=558:somalia-president-parliament-speaker-dispute-over-tfg-term&catid=55:somalia&Itemid=79 to http://www.garoweonline.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=558:somalia-president-parliament-speaker-dispute-over-tfg-term&catid=55:somalia&Itemid=79
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140105060056/http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Jan_11/15Jan18.html to http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Jan_11/15Jan18.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120314153558/http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/agriculture/InsidePage.php?id=2000045933&cid=4& to http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/agriculture/InsidePage.php?id=2000045933&cid=4&
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140112223912/http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Kenya_Defense_Minister_appointed_as_acting_Internal_Security_November.shtml to http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Kenya_Defense_Minister_appointed_as_acting_Internal_Security_November.shtml
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://dalsanradio.com/articles/2197/Somali-government-welcomes-Ethiopia-AMISOM-integration
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140221184545/http://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2014/02/14/comment-on-ethiopian-troops-formally-join-amisom-peacekeepers-in-somalia-by-january-2014-update-us-covert-actions-in-pakistan-yemen-and-somalia-the-bureau-of-investigative-journalism/ to http://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2014/02/14/comment-on-ethiopian-troops-formally-join-amisom-peacekeepers-in-somalia-by-january-2014-update-us-covert-actions-in-pakistan-yemen-and-somalia-the-bureau-of-investigative-journalism/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140216193544/http://horseedmedia.net/2014/02/15/somali-government-official-denies-u-n-arms-diversion-allegations/ to http://horseedmedia.net/2014/02/15/somali-government-official-denies-u-n-arms-diversion-allegations/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222212518/http://goobjoog.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1608:federal-government-of-somalia-denies-the-report-issued-by-un-monitoring-group&catid=124:local-news&Itemid=653 to http://goobjoog.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1608:federal-government-of-somalia-denies-the-report-issued-by-un-monitoring-group&catid=124:local-news&Itemid=653
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140311152532/http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Somalia-Federal-Govt-AMISOM-troops-clash-with-Al-Shabaab_printer.shtml to http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Somalia-Federal-Govt-AMISOM-troops-clash-with-Al-Shabaab_printer.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140906201659/http://www.wsvn.com/story/26458182/pentagon-confirms-death-of-somalia-terror-leader to http://www.wsvn.com/story/26458182/pentagon-confirms-death-of-somalia-terror-leader
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081230075031/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/indepth_coverage/africa/somalia/index.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/africa/somalia/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080723194710/http://www.netnomad.com/heritage.html to http://www.netnomad.com/heritage.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080920040214/http://heyetnet.org:80/en/content/view/2346/30/ to http://heyetnet.org/en/content/view/2346/30/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Somali Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222044942/http://www.interpeace.org/publications/somali-region/60-a-history-of-mediation-in-somalia-since-1988-english/file to http://www.interpeace.org/publications/somali-region/60-a-history-of-mediation-in-somalia-since-1988-english/file
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://dalsanradio.com/articles/2197/Somali-government-welcomes-Ethiopia-AMISOM-integration

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Somali Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131202223116/http://dalsanradio.com/articles/2197/Somali-government-welcomes-Ethiopia-AMISOM-integration to http://dalsanradio.com/articles/2197/Somali-government-welcomes-Ethiopia-AMISOM-integration

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

January 26, 1991, the beginning of the civil war in Somalia

From 1986 to 1991 were less insurgency and guerrilla attacks with occasional breaks. Since the overthrow of Siad Barre's regime, there was a total chaos and a real civil war with hundreds of thousands of people. Civil war continues to this day.--Baba Mica (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed above. You'll need consensus to change the start date given in the infobox. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

How can the twentieth and twenty-first century to start a war, but he did not know the end or beginning. Now modern technology in perfect intelligence services worldwide. By 26 January 1991, it was at least somewhat under control, since the fall of Siad Barre began a bitter struggle for power and distribution of weapons. It continues today i do not see the end. Part of this message will switch to the talk page. --Baba Mica (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Editorializing

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_Civil_War&diff=751693393&oldid=751392683

I must protest the insistence some have on editorializing. I did not question the alleged truth of the idea that the UN has authority, I questioned the idea's objectivity. Because the removal of editorializing was marked as unexplained, I had to explain it as removing editorializing.

User_talk:Buckshot06#Editorializing_in_article_about_Somali_Civil_War

As you can see, I've already been through this with Buckshot06. 130.105.196.215 (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you see as editorialising? Things like replacing "central authority" with "State" (why the capital S) don't seem to be about removing editorialising to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This is going to be a long post. You did ask for an explanation, after all.

I hope this is an answer to your question: maybe editorializing is not the thing wrong with "Things like replacing "central authority" with 'State'", but a Wikipedia article content page is still definitely a wrong venue for taking sides. Calling it an "authority" means that it has the right to do what it's doing, and if it's abused and exceeded its authority, then that's an abuse that somehow isn't really an abuse. Whichever of multiple similar rules apply here, the rule or rules definitely forbid using judgemental language. For example, you might as well call Siad Barre's administration "the heroes" as call them "the villains" or "the regime", and you might as well call UNOSOM "the rescuers", "the war machine" or "the foreign interlopers" as call a State "the authorities" or "central authority". It's a package deal - once you allow an administration to be called a "regime", or a State to be called an "authority", central or otherwise, so many people will so passionately try to put their POV in there, you might as well just lock any page that says anything about politics or the State so only admins can edit it. So Barre's administration is called nothing more or less than that - his administration. It's not as if you can't have your opinion about his administration, and it's not as if there aren't public venues where you may express that opinion to an audience. I have an opinion about it too - which is why I don't have to be reminded of it.

Another thing going on here is that Buckshot06 seems to be treating accuracy as the same thing as objectivity, as if all truths were objectively true. I am not sure that he knows I questioned only the alleged objectivity of the statement that the UN gave authority to the troop movements to take place, rather than the alleged truth of the statement. I tried explaining it to him at length, and as I post this, he has not yet responded. This will be what passes for clear upon visiting the section of the talk page I sent you.

This is going to be a long, caffeinated, meandering explanation the length, caffeination, and meandering of which and its presence in a conversation in which so far people have had an unexpected and severe difficulty in communicating with each other necessitates an explicit, kind of bizarre but, on its own terms, quite logical writing style. Where applicable, the explanation's information structure is given a rudimentary, explicit marking with the "[FOCUS] _f" syntax. Consider the all-caps text in the square brackets followed with the sub-scripted letter FOXTROT to be in focus. Otherwise, consider the text in those of the square brackets that do not make the contents into a link, to be the nonce attitudinal.

[The following sentence [ESTABLISHES THE REASON WHY WHAT'S LEFT OF THE EXPLANATION IS BEING MADE] _f.] You also asked about the reason for the upper case letter Sierra.

[The following sentence [IS THE THESIS] _f.] The reason [IS CLARITY] _f.

[The following paragraph [IS A SUPPORTING ARGUMENT FOR THE THESIS] _f.] [WHEN THE FIRST LETTER IN A SENTENCE IS LOWER CASE, WHEN THE WORD "State" IS AT THE FRONT OF A SENTENCE, AND WHEN ALL THE LETTERS ARE UPPER CASE] _f, the word "State" is ambiguous. It could have the meaning often shared by words such as ["STATUS" AND "CONDITION", OR IT COULD MEAN "A SINGLE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT", BY WHICH WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT MEAN "ADMINISTRATION"] _f. This is opaque in English because [IN AMERICAN ENGLISH, THE WORD "GOVERNMENT" MEANS 'State', BUT IN OTHER DIALECTS OF ENGLISH, THE WORD "GOVERNMENT" MEANS "ADMINISTRATION"] _f . For an example of the State-administration distinction, when Tony Blair left office, his administration ended, but not because of any armed insurgency that would have taken the countryside and cities that aren't London by force of arms. But Barre's State ended because he was no longer hypocritical enough to sustain the clan loyalty he exhibited that kept him loyal to his power base despite making clan loyalty illegal, but more relevantly his State ended because his power base retaliated against his State by no longer being his power base and by coming to support one or more of the active armed insurgencies that took the countryside, and ultimately the country, by force of arms. But when the first letter in the word "State" is upper case and the other letters in the word are lower case and the word is not the first one in the sentence, then it is much more likely to mean the latter.

[The following paragraph [IS WHERE THE EXPLANATION MEANDERS IN EARNEST, BY BEING NOT STRICTLY RELEVANT] _f.] In English, this kind of opacity and complexity is routine, [BUT IN ESPERANTO, THIS PROBLEM IS RARE BUT DOES HAPPEN] _f. For example, the meaning "status" and "condition" share with "state" [IS DENOTED BY "STATO"] _f, but the latter meaning [IS DENOTED BY "REGISTARO" OR "ŜTATO"] _f. The little hat on the letter Sierra [MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE] _f.

[The following sentence [IS THE CONCLUSION AND IS MEANT HALF-SERIOUSLY, AND HALF-INDIFFERENTLY TO WHETHER IT IS FUNNY, NOW THAT THE "COST DRIVERS" SPEECH, WHICH HAS A SIMILAR ENDING, WAS MADE] _f.] Was that [CLEAR] _f, or would you like [FOR ME TO TRY AGAIN] _f? 130.105.212.112 (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing two meanings of the word "authority", IP editor. As for your explanation of the capitalisation of state, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to argue. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it. Which two meanings? As for my explanation of the capitalisation of "state", which part do you want for me to clarify and why was it unclear? 130.105.197.204 (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If you follow the link I gave to a dictionary, you'll see "the moral or legal right or ability to control" and "a group of people with official responsibility for a particular area of activity". Regarding the capitalisation of state, I didn't get any of your explanation. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters that suggests that it should be capitalised. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

About the two meanings: I misread the page and assumed that there were more than two meanings. I didn't really agree with the definition. The problem is partly with lexical definitions, such as what you'd find in the dictionary. I prefer theoretical definitions, such as in encyclopedias, textbooks, or some sort of simulation. But to accept both that the definition is lexical and to further accept the content of the definition "as it were", when you call someone or something an authority or the authorities, that is the same thing as saying they have authority. When you call a State by the word for "a group of people with official responsibility for a particular area of activity", it is editorializing or POV or something because it calls the State a group of people with official responsibility for a particular area of activity. In the dictionary, it's two entries with two different wordings, but in practice in cases like this, "official responsibility" is the same thing as "the moral or legal right or ability to control". The statement that the State has official responsibility materially implies the statement that the State has the moral or legal right or ability to control. Neither the antecedent nor the consequent in that material implication have any place on Wikipedia, whether it's because of WP:TRUTH, WP:POV, or WP:EDITORIALIZING or anything else. The dictionary defined it like so:

authority, noun

1) the moral or legal right or ability to control

2) a group of people with official responsibility for a particular area of activity

But the dictionary might as well have defined it like so:

authority, noun

1) the moral or legal right or ability to control

2) a group of people with the moral or legal right or ability to control a particular area of activity

or alternatively like so:

authority, noun

1) official responsibility for a particular area of activity

2) a group of people with official responsibility for a particular area of activity

So that's the reason why it's called a "State" or a "state" instead of "authority". As for the reason why it's a "State", a "state", or an "administration" instead of "regime", that also says other States have authority by comparison, and it says that the particular State does not have authority. That's POV or editorializing or something on both counts. When you call a State or an administration a government, it's unclear whether you mean that in the en-US sense, which means "State", or the other sense, which means "administration". As for the reason why the word "State" is capitalised to refer to what in en-US is called the government, the reason is that it tends to stop "condition" and what in en-US is called a "government" or "regime" from being confused with each other.

What was it about my explanation that was confusing? Was it my writing style? 130.105.213.181 (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I can point you to plenty of scholarly sources that use the term "regime" for this case, so it's not about relying on the dictionary. As for "authority", I think we can trust that readers understand the meaning of the term in its context, otherwise you would also have to object to the wording used in Local government in England#Regional authorities, which reflects what reliable sources use. On the capitalisation, you're arguing that "state" needs to be capitalised to differentiate it from government? Is there a precedent for doing that in other articles? We should aim for consistency and reflect consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What are your sources?

As for the word "authority", I indeed also have to object to the same wording in other articles.

As for capitalising the word "State", your wording of "you're arguing that 'state' needs to be capitalised to differentiate it from government?" is wrong, grammatically and otherwise. Try again. 130.105.213.14 (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No thanks, since it is now clear that you are only interested in trolling other editors. You have my support for the current wording, Buckshot06. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not trolling, it's an opinion and a request for information. 130.105.213.14 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: You're making a content dispute a plaything of your offence at someone expressing an opinion that when you present academic credentials, you should say in what topic you got your credentials in. No one was challenging your authority, but that will definitely change if you continue to be this desperate to bury discussion about your credentials. If you flip out because someone asked about your credentials, then it's evidence that there's a problem with your credentials. The longer you stay flipped out, the more it evidences the problem. So go back to being reasonable - and yeah, I just used a glittering generality. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "flipped out" or offended. I just don't see why the subjects I am academically qualified in are relevant here. All Wikipedia editors are equally entitled to edit articles, regardless of their "credentials". 09:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Somali Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20131221151644/http://www.ephrem.org/dehai_news_archive/2007/may-jun07/0819.html to http://www.ephrem.org/dehai_news_archive/2007/may-jun07/0819.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.garoweonline.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=558%3Asomalia-president-parliament-speaker-dispute-over-tfg-term&catid=55%3Asomalia&Itemid=79
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://goobjoog.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1608%3Afederal-government-of-somalia-denies-the-report-issued-by-un-monitoring-group&catid=124%3Alocal-news&Itemid=653
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323131259/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140322/somalia-au-troops-close-key-shebab-base to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140322/somalia-au-troops-close-key-shebab-base

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)