Talk:2011 East Africa drought/Archive 1

Drought, food crisis or famine?
The article's title may need to be changed from 2011 Horn of Africa drought to 2011 Horn of Africa food crisis or 2011 Horn of Africa famine if its contents focus on the humanitarian effects of the drought rather than its meteorological causes. -- Arjuno (talk 03:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, food crisis is a better term.  Jim Sukwutput  21:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The focus of the news articles is generally on the drought itself (the most severe in 60 years apparently), as opposed to the drought's various effects . The article's title therefore should probably be retained as is. On second thought, it perhaps ought to be changed to 2011 Eastern Africa drought since the drought affects a lot more than the four Horn of Africa countries; it's more of a general Eastern Africa thing at this point. 174.94.117.3 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be Somalia that has been the hardest hit. Besides, the effect to countries like Kenya is more indirect (refugees) and they are not really affected by the drought itself.  Jim Sukwutput  17:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The drought itself is what is directly causing the flow of migrants. This is because many of the people in the area are herdsmen and there hasn't been rain in a long time (two missed rainy seasons), so they don't have any grazing land in which to take their cattle and camel stocks. Their very livelihood is thus threatened. Also, the drought affects not just the Horn of Africa, but many other countries in the larger Eastern Africa region as well. Even the nascent South Sudan has been affected to a significant degree by the drought and its effects . 174.94.122.219 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * UN will declare famine in southern Somalia on Wednesday. I am preparing to move this article to 2011 Horn of Africa famine. (Not all parts of the region will be technically under a famine, but all are affected by it).  Jim Sukwutput  19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a famine. Thats is the most important aspect of the article, not the drought.  --69.158.0.17 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Authorities all seem to agree that the crop failure is the result of the drought. In any event, it does look like the crisis is moving toward being officially labeled a famine, so the article perhaps ought to be renamed should that happen. 76.65.172.158 (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved and updated.  Jim Sukwutput  06:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I nominated this article for the In The News section on the main page. Chime in here.  Jim Sukwutput  07:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, its a drought, a famine has only been declared in southern regions of Somalia? user:Geord0 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14211905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.100.137 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, a famine in two regions is still a famine. It's somewhat inaccurate to call it the Horn of Africa famine, but then a food crisis is occurring in the entire region and we can't separate this article in two. So either we err on the side of "famine" or we err on the side of "food crisis". It's a matter of personal preference.  Jim Sukwutput  19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Areas affected
I see no mention of Eritrea as being affected - I note incidentally that the map does seem to have eritrea shaded (which is probably correct) as I would be surprised if Eritrea were unaffected

Something to add to the article might be that the US government apparently asked Eritrea to reveal the info on tuesday according to this.

While this says PBS news report that Eritrea is affected.

I also wonder about other adjacent countries/autonomous regions Puntland and Somaliland are they suffering "famine" as defined by the UN (or not?). I think this the article could probably do with a better map (though that will probably be hard to sort out). EdwardLane (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, only two regions of southern Somalia are suffering from a famine, so it is somewhat premature to call this the "Horn of Africa" famine. However, this may rapidly change, and most parts of the Horn of Africa have a severe food crisis, even if they are not technically famines yet. So I decided to move this article here - even though "Horn of Africa food crisis" may be a more accurate name at present.
 * The map shows the Horn of Africa region. It's not a map of the areas affected by the famine, though I wish I could find one.
 * The article at present still needs a lot of work. There are a number of updates that I will soon integrate into the article. I can't do this alone, so help will be much appreciated.  Jim Sukwutput  17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've found a reliable source which says Ethiopia thinks that more than half the population in Eritrea needs food aid. And suggests that Eritrea is hiding its food crisis. Not quite sure where to add this to the main article. Any thoughts Jim Sukwutput ? EdwardLane (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is while it's clearly true that the Eritrean government has given very little information, what we know beyond that is mostly speculation. I think we can put something in the Humanitarian situation section about how the Eritrean government has so far refused to reveal the crisis level in the country, but we should be cautious about putting in any estimations.  Jim  Sukwutput   16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just followed a link and found some more info about the situation in Eritrea, as reported in the Tehran Times. EdwardLane (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * short possibly interesting report about the delay to the rains and planting in eritrea, perhaps there are more like that for various other regions to expand this article.EdwardLane (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Claim & quote
There's a dubious claim in the Humanitarian situation section that is falsely attributed to unnamed reports by World Vision International. The claim goes "According to reports by World Vision International, families are agreeing to give their daughters as young as 13 in arranged marriages just to earn money from the dowry so that they can purchase food". It purports to be sourced to this news article, but the news article does not say this. It instead quotes a pedestrian claiming that this is what some people are doing: "Fatuma Ahmed sat at sunrise frying thin maize pancakes that will be the only food she and her seven children would eat that day. She told of how "in the dark because people don't want others to know", families are agreeing to give their daughters as young as 13 in arranged marriages just to earn money from the dowry."" What one pedestrian claims in passing is not World Vision International's writ and also clearly fails WP:REDFLAG. I have thus removed it. Further down in the International response section, there's another phrase, this time a direct quote from the UNHCR humanitarian coordinator for Somalia, that asserts that he and his organization at the moment ""do not have all the resources for food, clean water, shelter and health services to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Somalis in desperate need"". This is mistakenly attributed to this article by CNN, when it's actually taken from this article from the Guardian. Some of the other material in the Wikipedia article also looks somewhat doubtful; so if independent editors who have not contributed significantly to the article could evaluate it, that would be great. Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you've had any experience working in Africa, you wouldn't call that an extraordinary claim. Anyway, World Vision was quoted making this claim in the article: "World Vision has received similar reports of these early marriages from the other parts of Kenya in which it works."  Jim Sukwutput  23:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Africa is not one great big mass. There many different peoples and cultures there. And the Muslim cultures of the Horn frown on that sort of thing. At any rate, I see why you thought that World Vision asserted that; it still didn't though. It says that World Vision received similar reports about such claims (as in from other pedestrians), not that it issued such claims. And it does not indicate under what context such claims were received i.e. whether or not it is even related to the drought crisis. Seeing as how that particular crisis is pretty new, it's highly doubtful that they are as well. Middayexpress (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I think I will leave that off. Wasn't a big fan of it anyway, seems a bit sensationalist.  Jim Sukwutput  23:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right about the mistaken attribution, though. I lost your edits through an edit conflict. Will add them back.  Jim Sukwutput  23:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some other things about your edit:
 * You attributed the "1-2 month" quote to Bowden. He probably did say something about that, but what was cited was the FEWS NET report, which explicitly stated that given current levels of aid, famine will (not might) happen in 1-2 months.
 * You added a image for the relief effort, which is great. However I happen to have added another image at the same time. I think mine is better, for two reasons - your image comes from 2006, which is way too far off; and it doesn't show much beyond a sack of grain.
 * You also added the last part of "Over 800,000 people have fled from the drought-affected parts of southern Somalia". I haven't added it back, because 1. clearly some of the refugees are not from southern Somalia; 2. there doesn't seem to be any data on how many of the refugees are from southern Somalia as opposed to other regions. The only source we have now says 800,000 people from Somalia.  Jim Sukwutput  23:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, what was cited in the International response section was not the FEWS NET report but a CNN article, as I indicated (see this). But what it should've been attributed to was that Guardian article linked to above. I also don't mind your image and haven't reverted it. Further, if you read the UN coordinator Mark Bowden's comments from the aforementioned Guardian piece, he clearly asserts that it is mainly southern Somalia that is affected by the worst effects of the drought, and that of those southern regions, only two (Bakool and Lower Shabelle) are actually famine-stricken. He does, however, warn that the others might soon be as well if nothing is done: "Mark Bowden, humanitarian co-ordinator for Somalia, said on Wednesday that famine conditions now existed in the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of the country. He warned: "If we don't act now, famine will spread to all eight regions of southern Somalia within two months, due to poor harvests and infectious disease outbreaks[...] The most affected areas of Somalia are in the south, particularly the region of Lower Shabelle, Middle and Lower Juba, Bay, Bakool, Benadir, Gedo and Hiraan, where the UN says an estimated 310,000 now suffer from acute malnutrition." Middayexpress (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What was cited in the last sentence was the FEWS NET article. I don't know if the original way it was written give the impression that it's something Bowden said - it's not. We can probably try to find a way to reword it.
 * The FEWS article stated that "assuming current levels of response, evidence suggests that famine across all regions of the South will occur in the following 1-2 months". This is much stronger than what you wrote:"could expand to also affect the remaining regions". I don't know what Bowden said about that, but the FEWS statement is the primary source here.
 * Also, the IPC system is not the only way to define a famine. We ought to make it clear that the UN is talking about their definition of famine - which is notoriously more conservative than the popular usage.
 * Edit: Okay, so what Bowden said was "will spread" too. Definitely stronger than what you said, and also stronger than mine ("expected to spread")..  Jim Sukwutput  23:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bowden said that "if we don't act now, famine will spread to all eight regions of southern Somalia within two months" -- not that it will necessarily spread. There's a big difference. Middayexpress (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what's meant by "assuming current level of response", in my version. "If we don't act now" is just a way of putting that; it's not technically correct because they're "acting" already.  Jim  Sukwutput  23:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion
 * Here's my original version:

Assuming current levels of response, famine is expected to spread across all regions of southern Somalia in the next 1-2 months.[1]


 * Here's yours:

As of late July 2011, however, the famine appears to be restricted to the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of southern Somalia according to the U.N.. Despite this, Bowden warns that, given the low crop yields and outbreaks of infectious illnesses caused by the prolonged drought, famine could expand to also affect the remaining regions of southern Somalia within a period of two months.[18]


 * I suggest this version:

Given the low crop yields and outbreaks of infectious illnesses caused by the prolonged drought, and assuming current levels of response, famine is expected spread across all regions of southern Somalia within a period of two months.[1][18]

I took off your first sentence because 1. We just mentioned that UN declared a famine in the two regions in the previous paragraph; 2. The definition of this famine is by U.N. definitions and according to U.N. data only; their data can be up to two weeks late, which is not a reflection of what actually happens. Given this, it's possible to say "U.N. declares a famine in certain regions", but not "a famine exists in certain region only". Thoughts?  Jim Sukwutput  23:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Guardian article obviously applies to the present since it came out just yesterday and quotes the UN coordinator Mark Bowden directly (who is based in Kenya; in the trenches, so-to-speak). So something like the following therefore is best: "Given the low crop yields and outbreaks of infectious illnesses caused by the prolonged drought, and assuming current levels of response, Bowden warns that famine could expand to also affect the remaining regions of southern Somalia within a period of two months." Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't Bowden make his statement only after observing the data from the FEWS NET? Anyway, in my new suggestion, I linked both. I don't really have a problem with quoting either.
 * I still don't agree with the "could" part however. As I've said above, Bowden said famine will spread to the rest of the region assuming current rates of response. You said the last part is obvious and need not be included, which might be true, but it's what's qualifying the "will" claim (i.e. if we don't act now). (misunderstood)  Jim Sukwutput  23:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bowden said that if "we don't act now, then the famine will spread" (which is quite likely). He did not say "if we continue acting as we are, then it will spread". This is why "could" is necessary as a qualifier since Bowden is already predicting what might happen in a hypothetical scenario if nothing is done, not "will" happen regardless. Middayexpress (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I interpreted them to mean the same thing. If "we don't act now" is different from "if we continue acting as we are", that means "we don't act now" means "if we suspend all aid now", which is a strange thing to hypothesize about. It seems to me that the "act" here refers to additional aid. This makes the hypothesis actually meaningful, and is also what the FEWS NET report stated.  Jim Sukwutput  00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Bowden is frustrated by the lack of response and feels that very little, or "nothing", is presently being done to contain or reverse the situation. Given this, if the second part of the phrase above is changed to "Bowden warns that famine will expand to also affect the remaining regions of southern Somalia within a period of two months", then the first part clearly needs to be changed to read "assuming the current levels of response remain inadequate". Otherwise, we are failing to capture what it is Bowden is actually trying to communicate. On second thought, the "current levels of response" seems quite vague, so that clarifying phrase probably still ought to be appended to the end of the phrase. Middayexpress (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I changed it. I reversed the clause order because I just realized how difficult it was to read my initial suggestion. I also deleted "a period of" which seems redundant.  Jim Sukwutput  00:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also changed "current level of response" to "humanitarian aid" because 1. you said it's vague; 2. it's shorter.  Jim Sukwutput  00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Middayexpress (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Article title
The article seems to have been prematurely appended "famine". According to the UN humanitarian coordinator for Somalia, Mark Bowden, there's an actual famine going on in only two regions in the country, not the Horn of Africa as a whole. He warns, however, that it could spread within a few months to the other regions in southern Somalia if he and his organization don't get the relief supplies that they require for their operations. Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The UN classification is not the one officially adopted by Wikipedia. We called the 1992 crisis a "famine" even though it was not declared as such by the United Nations. We also have North Korean famine even though the UN never managed to get any data there. Anyway, see my above comments for other reasons for the naming of this article. Jim Sukwutput  23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see why you've chosen to name the article "famine". But it still seems premature. According to WP:POVTITLE (a sub-policy of WP:TITLE, which outlines page naming standards on the website):
 * "'When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL.'"
 * The most common name for this particular topic so far appears to be "drought" rather than "famine". Of course, if things continue the way they are, I think it won't be unreasonable to move the page back to the "famine" ending. Middayexpress (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this. Searching using famine-related terms has been turning up a lot more articles from Google News. Some examples: 12345. There are some that refer to Somalia famine rather than Horn of Africa famine, but this article has to deal with the entire region, and we can't split it into separate articles. I suppose the best way is to make it clear in the article that not all of the region is under a famine (which is the usual case anyway - the North Korean famine didn't struck the entire North Korea). 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)  Jim  Sukwutput 
 * Per the UN, there are currently only two regions of Somalia experiencing famine, so the article obviously cannot be titled after them. A Google search also clearly shows that the crisis is exponentially more often referred to as a "drought" than as a "famine" (1,420,000 results versus 124,000 results). So a page rename to "drought" definitely seems warranted. Perhaps later, if the famine does actually spread to more areas besides two regions in southern Somalia, then it would make sense to rename the page to "famine". Middayexpress (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The famine was declared for two days, the drought has been here for a year (and your search includes all the results from previous years!) News articles is a better indicator here. And, as I've said, we don't name articles solely according to U.N. criteria. Renaming will also be technically impossible now that this is on the main page. Jim Sukwutput  00:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the situation repeats itself again in a news search of just this month's articles: 110 results for "drought" versus only 11 results for "famine". I agree that the article should not be named according to UN criteria (or even Wikipedian criteria for that matter). It should be named according to the actual Wikipedia policy that dictates the best standards governing this issue. And that policy, cited above, clearly stipulates that the most common name for a given topic in reliable sources is what an article should be named after. In this case, that would still far and away be "drought" as opposed to "famine". Middayexpress (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "This month". This article was created less than a week ago. (I can't access the links by the way, but I'll assume you're correct.)
 * The policy you cited was for "POV" titles. I don't see a POV difference between drought and famine (especially since you're using statistical criteria here). But anyway, there's also the problem with other users here - I only made this move after 3 users requested it; you and another user opposed after the fact, but it's still a 3-2 here. I don't really mind either name, but perhaps we should wait for more users to comment and see if the consensus sways one way?  Jim Sukwutput  00:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the links. And the WP:UCN policy actually applies to all page names: "Titles are often proper nouns, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." I don't mind waiting to see what others have to say about it, of course. But they too must appeal to actual policy; Wikipedian opinions can't override policy per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Middayexpress (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Out-dated figures
Just a note that some of the figures in the article are from last week and are probably out-dated, especially the figures for humanitarian assistance from different countries and NGOs. If anyone has seen newer numbers, please update. Thanks.  Jim Sukwutput  01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo
The child in the photo under "Humanitarian situation" has two left feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.254.46 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What an observation. So? 201.51.39.53 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC).
 * So, it's not actually possible to have two left feet. The photo might be doctored. 96.245.254.46 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There might be a kid on her back. You can see a head there. I got this photo from Oxfam, and they don't seem like the kind of charity that would doctor photos, given their size and reputation.  Jim Sukwutput   17:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisions
I am still wondering what caused User:Jim Sukwutput to revert my last two edits to this article. I have searched through MOS:ABBR (which, as far as I can tell, is the relevant page here, not the main MOS page as this user provided in the reversion edit summary) but I have found nothing there that disputes my edits. Certainly, there's nothing in there about having half an article say "UN" while the other half says "U.N." And, besides, I don't see how this edit does anything but clarify a potentially confusing passage. Bobnorwal (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That edit contained some erroneous information. The first part stated that "This is the first time the U.N. has declared a famine in Africa since...". This is true, but it's also the first time the U.N. has declared a famine across the world since that time. So the change takes away some of the information.
 * The second part states "New data from the UN's food security and nutrition analysis unit shows..." Minor complaint here, but the data was new at the time, and certainly outdated by now. Your edit doesn't seem to convey this, so I reverted it.
 * I do agree, however, with inserting that it's the first time the UN declared it, and I added it back. You're also absolutely right about the abbreviations, and it was a stupid mistake of mine. I just changed them.  Jim Sukwutput  18:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My small edits
To head off at the pass any future revisions, I'll stake my (rather small) claim here. Bobnorwal (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I reworded a sentence from the passive to the active voice... Doesn't sound Earth-shattering. Who knows? Maybe it is.
 * 2) I removed the CBC News reference, because it does not support the claim. It simply states, "The last time a major famine was declared in the Horn of Africa was 1984-85, when a catastrophic drought in Ethiopia left more than one million people dead." (italics added) Which does not support the broader claim that this is the first time the UN has declared a famine since that time. Period.
 * Agreed, and well-spotted. Middayexpress (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ITN discussion
This article has been nominated to appear on the In the News section on the main page again. Right now there seems to be some disagreement about which particular development we should post or whether we should make this a sticky. Any opinion will be much appreciated.  Jim Sukwutput  19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Al-Shabaab
The Al-Shabaab group has issued a statement responding to some of the news reports alleging that it has banned food aid distribution. On July 5, 2011, the group's spokesman Sheikh Ali Dhere indicated that his organization had no issue with allowing both Muslim and non-Muslim individuals from helping the drought-impacted people as long as those groups harbored no ulterior motives in doing so. Dhere added that his organization believes that many aid agencies are exaggerating their relief requirements so as to satisfy their own selfish objectives. He also suggested that the actual nature of many of the relief operations are twofold: first, some of the aid workers are in effect attacking as "spies", while others, including the UN, he charged of harboring a tacit political agenda not in keeping with what they claim to be doing. In addition, Dhere alleged that aid agencies that are providing assistance in neighboring countries are attempting to siphon away the various Muslim peoples of Somalia in order to more easily indoctrinate them into Christianity. Al-Shabaab members have been reported to have intimidated, kidnapped and killed some aid workers, leading to a suspension of humanitarian operations and an exodus of relief agents.

That said, the part of the text above regarding Al-Shabaab's specific charge that the UN and other relief organizations have "a political agenda, doing nothing like what they were claiming" -- which, for some odd reason, was removed from this article -- has been re-added. Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That part of the statement/article was quite confusing, and I couldn't tell if that was exactly what they were saying.
 * Anyway, to continue the discussion from Talk:Al-Shabaab, here was the relevant claim I was talking about: "Only when WFP refused buying local food (on dubious grounds, partly under perceived pressure from US), they banned the existing operations. 3. Now that local food production can not cope due to drought, Shabaab lets WFP back in." - according to User:Pieter Felix Smit. Do you know of any news article that mentions this?  Jim Sukwutput  03:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't say that I do. Middayexpress (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FEWS map & other issues
I have partially restored the original layout that was modified during a series of major, undiscussed changes to the article. The image that was added to the infobox in the FEWS map's place is inappropriate because it shows only a few people in one particular camp in Kenya. The image is thus better suited to the humanitarian crisis section (where it originally was). The entire article is on the larger Eastern Africa crisis, not just on one particular area; and the FEWS map shows a broad overview of this. Per the bold initiative in WP:BRD, I have also added an image of the Al-Shabaab group's war flag to the security section where the group is discussed. Middayexpress (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the original FEWS map is that it is a projection, not the current status. Since I found a better image that shows the current status, I thought I would replace it. However, it was too wide for the infobox, so I switched it with the image in the humanitarian situation article. I didn't think it would be a problem, as here is no consensus on Wikipedia on what the infobox ought to include - a specific image or a representative one. For example, the Spanish version of this article once used the layout I just had 1. But since you oppose this change, I'll concede.
 * Good addition, by the way. It is difficult to discuss every change to the article, considering that this talk page is quite poorly attended. Am I not entitled to WP:BRD as well? ;)   Jim  Sukwutput   19:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you and every other editor is entitled to WP:BRD. However, if you read that policy, it states that once the bold initiative has been challenged, then the consensus process begins. And the bold initiative was indeed challenged in this case. Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I conceded, because this change was not that important to me. My point was that there is no need to continuously remind me that my edits were undiscussed when both of our edits are so.  Jim  Sukwutput   20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the rainfall anomaly reported in the final FEWS map in this document is a forecast - looks like just a pretty accurate set of values, for the period before the document was made. Not sure if it's any use to you but I thought I'd flag it up anyway. EdwardLane (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkana situation
There was a bit in the article from the Red Cross warning of a looming humanitarian crisis in the Turkana province of Kenya due to neglect on the part of humanitarian agencies. The fact that this (and probably other) pieces of information that were originally in the article got 'lost' in the recent shuffle illustrates the importance of actually discussing one's changes first (particularly when they are major), and trying to obtain consensus for them before implementing them. Middayexpress (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it intentionally, as it does not fit into any particular section and its relevance is in doubt. I'm trying to make the humanitarian situation section less cluttered by focusing on the refugees, the health, and the security issues in depth, while having a general overview of the crisis across the region. However, the discussion on the Turkana region is geographical rather than topical. In this sense it has significant overlaps with many parts of the article; for example, we already mentioned the number of people in Kenya that needs food aid, as well as the malnutrition rates of the entire country, and it makes little sense to then focus on the situation in that specific region. I imagine if we expand the article significantly so that each country is covered in depth, it might makes sense to include details in each region. Right now, however, it is just out of place, especially when you put it in the refugee crisis section, of which it is unrelated. Shall we save it for later?  Jim  Sukwutput   20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The warning is an official one and its coming from the Red Cross. The Red Cross appears to be warning of a looming humanitarian crisis in the Turkana province of Kenya (a separate area from the Dadaab region) specifically due to inattention on the part of aid agencies and overfocus on the Dadaab camp. In other words, the crisis appears to be spreading or it already has spread to Kenya as a whole (much like a repeat of the 2009 famine that affected mostly central and southern Kenya). This hasn't been discussed anywhere else in the article as far as I'm aware, nor can it be dismissed as non-notable given the organization that's making the assertion. Middayexpress (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of the source comes from the Red Cross? From what I understand the Red Cross simply said that the region may reach famine-level soon if no immediate action is taken - which is the same thing that it has said about many regions across the Horn of Africa. The claim that the crisis is due to attention in Dadaab is not attributed in the article to the Red Cross. We ought to be wary of such claims from Kenyan newspapers, given the widespread anti-refugee sentiment. Do you have a source showing that it was indeed a statement from Red Cross?  Jim  Sukwutput   20:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the article's lead-in: "Kenya Red Cross is warning of a humanitarian catastrophe in Turkana region if urgent efforts are not put in place to mitigate the effects of drought and the influx refuges from neighboring Somalia to Dadaab camp". It's also hardly the only article covering the dire situation in the Turkana area; so is, among others, the UK-based The Independent (c.f., ). And they too indicate that "While the world focuses on Somalia and the starving refugees pouring across the Kenyan border, Kenya is on the brink of its own famine, with 3.5 million people at risk of malnutrition". Middayexpress (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement from the article did not say that the conditions in Turkana are due to attention to the Dadaab refugees. In fact, it could be interpreted just as well to say that more attention is needed in the Dadaab camps. And we don't know how much of it is the original statement and how much of it is the author's interpretation.
 * Neither of the article you cited attributed the problem in Turkana to the Dadaab camps. They merely said that Dadaab is getting a lot of attention and Turkana should be getting more. But humanitarian assistance is not a zero-sum game - if humanitarian groups didn't help Dadaab, that doesn't mean that they would help Turkana. In fact, one of the articles you cited said this: "Unlike Dadaab, the world's largest refugee camp, where some 400,000 victims of drought are concentrated in one place just nine hours drive from Nairobi, Kenya’s hungry are out of reach, scattered across an isolated region more than 24 hours away from the country’s capital." This clearly indicates that geographical conditions is a large reason for why the Turkana region is not getting more aid. Which is why I am extremely skeptical of any statement that tries to establish a causal link about the refugee crisis in Dadaab and the food crisis in Turkana.
 * I would welcome, however, putting in some specific details about the Turkana region, as it does seem to be particularly badly affected.  Jim  Sukwutput   20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're mistaken. The articles all clearly blame the lack of attention paid to the Turkana area as compared to the Dadaab area for the growing humanitarian crisis there:
 * "The aid agency is now estimating that over three quarters of the population in the area is need of relief food with the international community trying to mop up funds to assist the Horn of Africa that is said to be facing the worst drought in 60 years." (Kenya is not in the Horn of Africa, so the funds that they are trying to 'mop up' aren't for Kenya).
 * "While the world focuses on Somalia and the starving refugees pouring across the Kenyan border, Kenya is on the brink of its own famine[...] Unlike Dadaab, the world's largest refugee camp, where some 400,000 victims of drought are concentrated in one place just nine hours drive from Nairobi, Kenya’s hungry are out of reach, scattered across an isolated region more than 24 hours away from the country’s capital. Some 37,000 people – most of whom are going hungry – spread across Kenya’s largest district: 35,000 square kilometres of harsh, inaccessible land."
 * If you disagree with those assertions, by all means, produce other quotes from those same articles that support your contention as I have done with mine. By the way, schools in the Turkana region of Kenya have also now been forced to close down "because there is no food for the children". Middayexpress (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The first statement said that the international community is trying to mop up funds for the entire Horn of Africa region. It did not say anything about Turkana or Dadaab. It merely said that there is a lack of funding.
 * The second statement, which I quoted above (after an edit), did not say that the attention on Dadaab caused the problems in Turkana. It said there is a lack of response, yes, but then it attributed that largely to the "isolation" of the Turkana region, that they are "out of reach". This is a direct contradiction of what you said, which is that the problem is a misguided focus on the refugees rather than geographical constraints.
 * To restate what I said, yes, there is a dire situation in Turkana and there is a lack of attention paid to it. But that is not the logical equivalent of saying that the attention on Dadaab caused the dire situation in Turkana. If humanitarian agencies did not support the Dadaab refugees, that does not translate into greater support for the Turkana region. The blame-the-refugees attitude makes no logical sense, and expectedly there is no official statement supporting that view. In particular, the article as it stands currently attribute that statement to the Red Cross, but we do not have an actual statement, rather your interpretation of another secondary source.  Jim  Sukwutput   20:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are again mistaken. From the same Telegraph article: "Dr U Aye Maung, an emergency response health manager for Merlin, said aid is more focused on the refugee influx in Somalia; Turkana is not taken care of. The malnutrition rate here is one of the worst in the world. The death rates could be huge. We have no idea, because we get records only when they come to services." Middayexpress (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "aid is more focused on the refugee influx in Somalia; Turkana is not taken care of." (emphasis mine). That is a statement saying that more aid should probably be diverted from the refugees to Turkana. That is not a statement saying that the Turkana problem is due to the refugees. Do you see the difference?
 * Two additional issues I've raised above - the statement is not by the Red Cross, and the entire thing is on the wrong section. I'm going to remove the claim that Red Cross (or rather Kenyan Red Cross) made the statement unless you can find a quote. I will also move it to the proper section.  Jim  Sukwutput   21:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, your denials are most puzzling. The sources clearly indicate that a) funds are being 'mopped up' for the humanitarian needs of the people entering the UNHCR base from the Horn region (the latter of which does not include Kenya), b) the needy people in the Turkana area -- the largest district in Kenya -- are as a consequence not being taken care of. That's why one of the articles is titled Kenya is on the brink of its own disaster. Middayexpress (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All the images and sources we use in the article consider Kenya to be part of the Horn of Africa. See the UN Full Report at the External Links section, for example.
 * I did not realize that was your interpretation of what the "mop up" part said. Let me re-read the article. Edit: Okay, I honestly could not determine what the article is trying to say. Here is the full quote:

"The aid agency is now estimating that over three quarters of the population in the area is need of relief food with the international community trying to mop up funds to assist the Horn of Africa that is said to be facing the worst drought in 60 years."
 * Notice the numerous grammatical errors - "is need of relief food" "assist the Horn of Africa", et cetera. This hardly seems like the statement that the Red Cross would make. In any case, it is a poor secondary source, and we need the original source. If the Red Cross did make such a statement, that would be pretty easy to find. What I can't comprehend is why we need to use this opinionated, unreliable and in many cases incomprehensible article as our source. To show you how interpretations can differ, what I understood initially when reading the part was that the international community was trying to gather the funds needed to support the entire region, which by UN definitions includes Kenya. I'm not convinced that your interpretation is a better one than mine, and that shows what a poor source this is. Jim  Sukwutput   21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I agree with your latest edit to the article, and I think that's what both of us should be doing rather than debating this rather minor point. The article at its current stage requires a lot of work. In particular, the health section needs a significant expansion, and the security and international response section both need to be updated. Can we drop this issue for the moment (and see if any other user wants to join in) and focus on updating the rest of the article?  Jim  Sukwutput   21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kenya is unfortunately not at all commonly considered part of the Horn of Africa. The latter only includes Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti -- areas where the people share similar languages, cultures, ethnicities and geographical endowments. The reason why the crisis is often called the "Horn of Africa crisis" or something to that effect is because that's where the drought has had the greatest impact and since that's where most of the peoples entering Kenya are coming from. That's why the Independent article is titled Kenya is on the brink of its own disaster in reference to the now-affected Turkana region and other areas outside of the North Eastern Province (the latter of which is traditionally inhabited by Somalis and other Cushitic pastoralists). Further, that assertion you allude to above is not a direct quote from the Red Cross, but a statement attributed to it; so the typos are obviously the journalist's, but the actual assertion is not. Middayexpress (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how do we know that the original statement is from Red Cross and what it actually was? Given the poor quality of the article, it is entirely likely that they either 1. misunderstood what Red Cross said; or 2. misrepresented what Red Cross said due to poor grammatical usage. Simply find the original statement and the entire problem will be solved.
 * The UN report cited throughout the article considers Kenya part of the Horn of Africa link (for example: "the four affected countries of the Horn of Africa" on p.4, referring to Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti), and that is the way we have been using the term for the entire article. How some particular journalists define the term is irrelevant; and even then, the article you cited did not contrast Kenya with the Horn of Africa, but with Somalia.  Jim  Sukwutput   21:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong or confusing about the assertion and it is indeed coming from a reliable source -- the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, Kenya's state-run media organization. Moreover, Kenya is, again, not considered part of the Horn of Africa. That term is only reserved for the four countries listed above, areas which share related peoples and cultures. Aside from a Cushitic minority in its North Eastern Province (where the Dadaab camp is situated), Kenya doesn't. Middayexpress (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The UN considers Kenya to be part of the Horn of Africa, and as far as I'm considered that makes it the official definition. Can you think of an agency that uses your definition?
 * The state-run media organization of a Third World country is not necessarily reliable, and I'd argue that they more often than not do not qualify. For example, we do not consider Xinhua to be a reliable source for articles on China in Wikipedia.
 * Look, we've been debating for two hours about our various interpretations of a poorly written article. Just find the original statement and we'll see who's right. Please?  Jim  Sukwutput   21:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the UN does not consider Kenya to be a part of the Horn of Africa. The UN recognizes something called the 'Eastern Region' in its official geoscheme, and Kenya is included in that. The notion that Kenya is a part of the Horn of Africa is fringe. Further, the suggestion that the Kenyan Broadcasting Corporation is an unreliable source simply because Kenya is a Third World country (whereas the state-owned BBC is somehow not) smacks of a double standard. At any rate, the source is reliable per WP:RS, so we'll just leave it at that. Middayexpress (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not bias, it's objective fact. Countries at a lower stage of development have a less transparent media. Check, for example, the rankings of Reporters without Borders. Nothing in your cited WP:RS page claims that the state-owned media of Kenya is a reliable source. If you would like to establish that, go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * The UN in its official definitions does designate an Eastern Africa region. However it also recognizes that there exists a Horn of Africa region. The source I cited above will show you this. Your repeated refusal to acknowledge this simple fact is irritating and borderline disruptive. Did you see the source or not? Would you like me to provide you with the link again?  Jim  Sukwutput   22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the statement I quoted: "the four affected countries of the Horn of Africa" on p.4, referring to Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti
 * If you insist on saying that the UN does not recognize Kenya as part of the Horn of Africa, in spite of such an obvious statement, I am afraid there is no point of continuing this discussion. Seek mediation if you wish, but I am at the end of my patience, and like any other rational editor I will consider your edits to be disruptive from now on and revert them as I see fit.  Jim  Sukwutput   22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please settle down. I (and BobNorwal, among others) could easily have considered your many edits on this article to be "disruptive" at any given moment, but instead chose to assume good faith and tried to overlook them in favor of working in an actually collaborative manner (rather simply editing the article as one pleases/page-owning and reverting others at will). Just so it's clear, I'm also not trying to restore the assertion that the Turkana region suffered as a consequence of over-focus on the Dadaab area. I'm indicating that what the KBC asserts with regard to the Red Cross vis-a-vis the Turkana region (i.e. what is actually indicated in the phrase in question now) is obviously accurate and well-sourced. Case in point, here is the report by the Red Cross indicating that the Turkana region has been neglected; from Patricia Strong the Senior Programmes Manager with the Canadian Red Cross: "More lives will be lost if the world fails to give attention to the humanitarian situation in the Northern Part of Kenya". Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you accuse me of being "disruptive", and yet I have in fact written the entire article. How does one become disruptive by changing his own writing? Let me note that I do not wish in any sense to "own" the article; to the contrary, I beg for other users to help me update it rather than starting pointless debates. The unfortunate fact is that I am so far the only person (besides User:Arjuno3) that is actually adding content to the article, while users like you choose instead to pick pointless fights over minor edits that I have made. That is what I meant by disruption.
 * Let me qualify my statement. I appreciate your many contributions to articles similar to this, and I understand that you are acting in good faith. However, the manner in which you engage in discussions and refuse to acknowledge an opposing viewpoint is simply disruptive. I don't see you once acknowledging that you might be factually incorrect, despite the numerous times you have been proven so. Your insistence on your own infallibility is clearly preventing you from contributing actively to the article. With the time we wasted in this pointless discussion, and the other two started by you above, we could have updated the article significantly and each be off to our own business. Given that you've been blocked three times for edit warring, you should have made yourself familiar with how to collaborate efficiently with other users long ago. But you insist on wasting both of our time by refusing to acknowledge what I state. I simply see no point of continuing this discussion as long as this disruptive behavior continues. Let us end this discussion and go back to contributing to the article constructively.  Jim  Sukwutput   22:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you did not write the entire article. And to state that you did is untrue because it takes credit for all of the other work put into this article by other editors (myself included). The article belongs to the Wikipedia community as a whole and anyone can edit it at any time. Trying to cast aspersions on my edits by linking to my block log pertaining to old discussions on other pages that you weren't even a part of and know nothing about unfortunately won't change that (one of those users involved in those discussions has since been indefinitely banned, btw). It's also patently false that I have not compromised with you. As can easily be seen through our various discussions above, I have done a lot of that and been very patient too. In fact, I recall you knee-jerk reverting material that I added (including images) during my very first edits to this article. Whatever the case, I'm, as always, prepared to let bygones be bygones, as long as it is understood that no one owns this page and people must work collaboratively in order to improve it. Let us indeed end this discussion and go back to contributing to the article constructively. We're both going to edit this page anyway, so it's better for readers' sake if we at least maintain civil relations in doing so. Middayexpress (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will retract that statement. In my haste I forgot that you have, in fact, added a few sentences to the article. That is the kind of edit you should be doing more of. Since I have things to attend to very soon, may I ask you to update the article with respect to this event if you have the time? Much appreciated.  Jim  Sukwutput   23:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do that (assuming of course that you're referring to the "wet weather adds to misery of thousands camped around Mogadishu" in the lead-in). Middayexpress (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ease it back there folks. No need to get heated about this. I'll start now by saying that I don't know anything about the particular situation in Turkana. But based your discussions above, it sounds like the Turkana region could do with more aid, but that the people are spread out so it's difficult to deliver that aid. If I (hypothetically) was an aid agency with limited resources then delivering aid to a large bunch of needy people in one place - or trying to drop the same aid to the same number of people scattered over a large area would mean that the people at the camp would probably get the aid. It would not mean that the camp was to 'blame' for the hunger of the scattered people, just that aid agency could feed the people at the camp where it couldn't feed the scattered people. If my hypothetical aid agency had more resources it would no doubt deliver aid to both sets of people. I think the only time a camp could be to 'blame' for hunger elsewhere would be if they were 'taking resources' that had previously been allocated to the scattered people due to the numbers of arrivals at the camp, but if the camp didn't exist and those arrivals had not arrived - the scattered people might perhaps be fed and the ungathered refugees would just not get aid. I think it's probably a question of scant resources and centralizing supplies.

I don't think the aid agencies care whether kenya is horn of africa or not, someone starving is someone starving, resources for the famine in the 'horn of africa' are almost certainly sent to the camp and not to the scattered folk, but if the camp was a few miles inside the kenyan border I think it would still go there :) EdwardLane (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. The matter has already been resolved though. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidents of sexual assault, in camps themselves or primarily in transit?
Our section on Refugee crisis currently states (last sentence of first paragraph):

"There is an upsurge in sexual violence against women and girls in the refugee camps, putting them at high risk of HIV/AIDS."

with this reference. ..

UN report, Humanitarian Requirements for the Horn of Africa Drought, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Full_report_216.pdf, page 10 “ .  .  .  several hundred people crossing into Ethiopia and approximately 1,300 into Kenya daily. Overcrowding in Dadaab, the largest refugee settlement in the world, is severe and resulting in refugees not getting the assistance they need. There is reportedly an upsurge in sexual violence against women and girls, putting them at high risk of and exposure to HIV/AIDS. Some 60,000 people are currently settled on the outskirts of the main camps where access to services is minimal. Increasing tensions between the refugee population and local communities, particularly in Dadaab, threatens to exacerbate the situation by increasing insecurity and creating additional protection concerns. . .  ”


 * To me that is unclear where most of the assaults are occurring, and thus where we should spend most of our prevention efforts.  Cool Nerd (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

CBC News (Canada), Famine refugees face increased violence, aid groups say, Lily Boisson, Jul 25, 2011.

“ .  .  .  A UNHCR report says sexual and gender-based violence against women in Dadaab has quadrupled in the past six months. This year 358 cases were reported from January to June. Last year 75 cases were reported in the same time period. “Alexandra Lopoukhine of CARE Canada says women are especially vulnerable during the journey to the camps, when they often travel with only their few belongings and their sick children. It is then that many of them are robbed or sexually attacked. . .  ”

“ .  .  .  Because land is scarce in the already overcrowded camps, new arrivals are forced to settle on the outskirts of the camp, leaving them vulnerable to attack. “These women are particularly at risk when they leave their homes in the camp to search for firewood. “ "There's a fear of going to the bush because they think they are going to encounter violence," Murray says. "Many women say that there are men in the bush and these men have guns and they're going to attack." “The search for firewood, which is used for cooking, can take all day. . .  ” “Erin Patrick of the Women's Refugee Comission says the refugees are often competing with local residents for scarce resources. . .  ”


 * So, it's both. Plus, it's new refugees having to settle on the outskirts of the refugee centers.  And, as always, because of the stigma society attaches to the victims of violence, these crimes are usually under-reported.  Cool Nerd (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I just removed "in the refugee camps". We should probably expand that part - seems like a pretty serious problem.  Jim  Sukwutput   19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I went ahead and including some of the above and cited the CBC source.  Cool Nerd (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reformatted the citation and changed the sentence a little bit. Hope that's okay.  Jim  Sukwutput   01:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just expanded the section with some other details from that source. What a disturbing story.  Jim  Sukwutput   01:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the changes that you made. And yes, it is a disturbing story, and one that's important to cover.  Cool Nerd (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Defeat of Al-Shabaab in Mogadishu
According to Reuters, the Transitional Federal Government's troops and their AMISOM allies reportedly managed to capture all of Mogadishu from the Al-Shabaab militants. Witnesses reported Al-Shabaab vehicles abandoning their bases in the capital for the south-central city of Baidoa. The group's spokesman Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage described the exodus as a tactical retreat, and vowed to continue the insurgency against the national government. Observers have suggested that the pullout may at least in part have been caused by internal ideological rifts in the rebel organization. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes
According to the news that I looked, the are some big changes in the article. Please leave a message if you think this isn't correct. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't you just add in the euro equivalents? See MOS:CURRENCY. Euro and/or pound sterling equivalents may be provided if there is a conversion of a less familiar currency. Here, the original source uses USD, in which case no conversion is necessary.  Jim  Sukwutput   00:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Early warning
What warning was there in the run-up to this? It seems that several sources are saying it was predicted for months, but I can't find concrete predictions anywhere before it hit the news - can anyone else? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The UN has been monitoring the region for years, and by early December last year (after the rains failed) there were predictions that the conditions were going to deteriorate significantly. I think some regions have reached "Crisis" levels on FEWS NET by the start of the year.
 * The problem with "predicting" humanitarian disasters in these regions is that conditions are always so bad, even in an ordinary year. It's mostly the differences between a lot of people dying and a moderate amount of people dying.  Jim  Sukwutput   01:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Aug. 13: al Shabab still controls most famine-affected areas, Somalia PM announces new 300-man security force for convoys
Somalia famine: PM Ali sets up aid protection force, Mary Harper, BBC News, 13 August 2011 Last updated at 12:54 ET:

"Somalia's prime minister has announced the creation of a special force to protect convoys delivering aid to people affected by drought and famine.

"Abdiweli Mohamed Ali said the force would comprise 300 trained men, helped by AU peacekeepers who are currently providing security in Mogadishu. ..

" .  .  .  Most of the famine-affected areas are still controlled by al-Shabab, which has often been reluctant to cooperate with international agencies.

"The UN said earlier this week that aid was only reaching 20% of the Somalis who need it."


 * I've posted a summary of this article in our Security section. AU probably means African Union, but I'd want a reference or two saying this.  Cool Nerd (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, AU refers to African Union. Look at their website for example: au.int.  Jim  Sukwutput   00:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cool Nerd (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)  And I see tomorrow Monday is the ..
 * “ONE AFRICA – ONE VOICE AGAINST HUNGER” DAY
 * 15TH AUGUST 2011
 * http://www.au.int/en/content/%E2%80%9Cone-africa-%E2%80%93-one-voice-against-hunger%E2%80%9D-day-15th-august-2011-0

Plunder
Hello,

I get telephone reports from Moga that small groups of government soldiers have plundered drought refugees (IDP's) in several locations in and around Mogadishu.

I could find nothing about it on the main newsnets, except for something on http://www.shabelle.net/article.php?id=9722.

This is exactly what happenend in the early 1990's and many times since, in area's controlled by war lords: They 'tax' IDP's for being on 'their' territory and having received food aid. Or their subjects do.

I think for relief distribution in and around Moga, plundering soldiers are now a much more serious threat then Al-Shabaab. So I think they deserve being mentioned high up in the security paragraph. But I don't have good resources, and wouldn't know how to fit it in. Any suggestions?

P.S. Sorry for not reacting to questions from you guys, I still have to learn my way around Wikipedia and I don't always have internet. About my earlier contributions: Much of the things that you threw out for having no sources, came from my own conversations with WFP - top and Somali's around East-Africa. I will try to to find sources, although one problem is that with very few independent journalists and researchers on the ground, there is very little that comes out, other then what interested parties want to get out. (Many Somali journalists are good, but a handful were murdered for writing the 'wrong' things, so they are very careful in bringing news.)

As a result, misbehaving by government allied troops, while off the record quickly admitted by many in the aid organizations, gets enormously underreported. Also, many statements by Mogadishu government side, even if they are obviously gross misrepresentations of facts, get uncritical reproduction throughout world media. And Al-Shabaab is not good in getting their side of the story out, even less now they are falling apart in regions. I don't know how to get around that, will give it more thought. Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pieter Smit, Amsterdam.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your effort. Standards for "reliable sources" on Wikipedia can sometimes be impractical, meaning that a lot of significant events that are not widely covered by the mainstream media often do not stand a chance here. If you want to get that information in the article, I think the first step would be to get some Western newspaper to take notice. But that as always is immensely difficult. The media don't like stories that don't fit into a particular narrative.  Jim  Sukwutput   16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A slight correction: The source does not say that government soldiers plundered, pillaged, etc. the IDPs. It says that "some armed men dressed in Somali government military uniforms" were accused of having done that. That's a significant specification because it's a common propaganda technique for the Islamist groups to dress up as government soldiers, do something untoward, and thus turn public sympathy and trust away from the federal government and its AMISOM allies and toward their own organization; in fact, the group itself has openly admitted on occasion to having committed various terrorist acts that were attributed to men dressed in government uniforms. Doing so also obviously helps distract attention away from their own activities and makes it easier for them to carry out said operations, including suicide bombing (e.g., , ). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved, due to Human right watch report and statements. (I added them to main page security). To Middayexpress: See also What I get from people in Mogadishu is that Al-Shabaab fighters in Mogadishu used much less drugs (Khat) and are generally better disciplined. The pillage of refugees, which was a constant given under government and war lord militia control after each food distribution, almost stopped under Al-Shabaab control. I've heard this claim many times, also from Somali's in Ethiopia and Kenya, also from Somali's who hate Al-Shabaab. However, with Al Shabaab now disintegrating into at least two sections, their relative discipline against the local poor might also erode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, people in Mogadishu and elsewhere in the country appear to fear and despise Al-Shabaab. It is believed that the group's amputations of people suspected of theft as well as public floggings, assassinations and beheadings of perceived wrongdoers may have something to do with that (c.f. ). It's also a bit strange to complain about Somali sources/journalists when that's precisely what the link in that post above references. At any rate, please have a look again at this article, where Al-Shabaab's spokesman openly admits that his group was responsible for a suicide attack involving Al-Shabaab militants in government uniforms (other non-Somali sources covered it too). Please see below for more. Middayexpress (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Security: Other armed actors are hardly mentioned, Shebaab split also improves security in large parts
The security section largely focuses on Al-Shabaab not letting aid in (also mentioning lots of interesting, but outdated and now partly irrelevant details). But the situation is changing rapidly: Shabaab is now split, with Sheikh Aways in favor of letting aid in. Aways his militia control large parts of the famine area, and because of the split, they will likely no longer allow in Shabaab fighters from Kismayo region. (They have the International fighters in their ranks, and they are much more hostile to the aid operation.) Effectively, large parts of central Somalia are opening up, for any aid agency who has the guts to phone up Sheikh Aways.

The remarks of Human Rights Watch cited by Reuters Alertnet and the reporting in The Telegraph make it clear that any aid operation has at least as much to fear from government controlled and government allied militia's, as from Al-Shabaab, especially seen the loose 'coalition' of warlord militia that operate outside government control. This coalition was held together by the common enemy Al-Shabaab, so with Shabaab falling apart, the coalition likely also will. (Speculation based on my own experience and contacts in Mogadishu, Somalia and the region) This might ask for a revision of the first paragraphs, balancing the mentioning of the several (potential) problem-makers, and mentioning the possible opening of Shabaab-Aways-controlled area. Anyone want to do it?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation does not appear to be that clear-cut. For starters, the abuse allegations that the Human Rights report documents, including the claims of indiscriminate firing in civilian held areas -- which, incidentally, it largely attributes to Al-Shabaab militants firing mortars from civilian areas and then fleeing the scene when government and AMISOM troops fire back; it also indicates that the latter have made efforts to avoid injuring civilians whereas Al-Shabaab insurgents have not -- all date from before the drought crisis (c.f. ). As for the current allegations that some government soldiers are robbing IDPs, that is rendered moot by this Voice of America article, which reports that "men dressed as government troops began stealing food at the Badbaado camp" in Mogadishu, and that according to witnesses, government troops that were guarding the food then opened fire on the looters. The government also denied that it is responsible for any looting. Previously, it claimed that terrorist attacks carried out by people in government uniforms were in actuality carried out by Al-Shabaab militants disguised as such (at least one attack of which Al-Shabaab has indeed claimed responsibility for ); AMISOM has also leveled a similar charge regarding other incidents . Separately, according to the UN, al-Shabab militants are still preventing people from seeking aid in neighboring countries . That seems to be the status quo. Middayexpress (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing that we should keep in mind is that the section should be directly related to the famine and to humanitarian aid. Incidents of conflicts between government forces and Al-Shabaab that are not related with the humanitarian aid efforts should mostly be left in the War in Somalia (2009–) article.  Jim  Sukwutput   07:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Middayexpress, The VOA article you mention, reports on lootings that predate the looting that my sources, the Telegraph and Human Rights Watch mentioned. (Looting from several days AFTER Shabaab-Kismayo left Moga, i.e several days after august 6th.) Therefore I would think it is not relevant at that place, so maybe we can delete that addition?

It might be possible that IF people wear government soldier uniforms while looting, they indeed are government soldiers while looting. This seems to be confirmed inter alia by Somalia' s prime minister, see http://www.shabelle.net/article.php?id=9823. If older info is relevant, then there is a good UN-report from last year, seen by the New York Times, which states that government forces are as involved in looting aid as any other armed actors in Somalia. Reading the fine print, it seems the UN auditors thought that Shabaab was looting aid MUCH LESS then other armed actors. Taking a denial from the guy, responsible for the alledged looting soldiers as the definite source on looting-truth is a bit tricky, especially since we have seen many statements and claims by Somalia's top officials quickly changed or denied or proven false.

Also, we have a problem about which Shebaab we are quoting. Since Shebaab has effectively split up and returned to their respective 'homelands' (this explains the sudden withdrawal of Shabaab from Mogadishu on august 6th) it would maybe be helpful to refer to either Shabaab-Kismayo or Shabaab-River valley. The first Shebaab-clan is staunchly opposed to most foreign aid, the second Shebaab-clan (controlling much more terrain in famine stricken Juba and Shebeeele river valley) is not.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As explained above, the abuse allegations that the Human Rights report documents all date from well before the drought crisis (c.f. ). As for the allegations that some government soldiers are looting, that is still rendered moot by this Voice of America article from just a few days ago and which provides greater detail on the same alleged looting incident that the Telegraph article you've footnoted above discusses. That article citing the Prime Minister also does not quote him accusing government soldiers of looting. It simply states that his government has "zero tolerance" for looting; the government has actually officially denied any looting on its troops part (see above). For the rest, please refer to Jim's comments above regarding discussing matters only directly pertaining to the current drought situation. Middayexpress (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Some mention of Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS) and other health issues?
I AM NOT A DOCTOR. I want to put that first and foremost. All the same, I do think we can include at least some information as well as refering people to good sources.

THE TREATMENT OF DIARRHOEA, A manual for physicians and other senior health workers, World Health Organization, 2005 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241593180.pdf (page 3) " .  .  .  Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS) are dissolved in water to form ORS solution  .  .  .  " (page 10) "  .  .  .  By giving zinc as soon as diarrhoea starts  .  .  .  " (page 10) "  .  .  .  The infant usual diet should be continued during diarrhoea and increased afterwards. Food should never be withheld and the child's usual foods should not be diluted. Breastfeeding should always be continued.  .  .  "

There is also the issue of the 'old' vs. 'new' recipe for ORS.

Treatment of DIARRHOEA WITH SEVERE MALNUTRITION at the same time is somewhat different
See above source, the chapter on “MANAGEMENT OF DIARRHOEA WITH SEVERE MALNUTRITION," pages 22-24 (26-28 in PDF file). http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241593180.pdf

This situation can be trickier to diagnosis, for example, between severe dehydration and merely some dehydration, and also between septic shock and severe dehydration.

And for this child or adult who is both dehydrated and has severe malnutrition, the treatment is somewhat different.


 * Again, not being a doctor, I am simply referring you to this source. It's complicated.  It's right at the edge as far as making meaningful excerpt(s). Cool Nerd (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The ref appears to be from six years ago and thus does not mention the current drought crisis. Middayexpress (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see us include some medical information about responding to famines in general. For example, I did not really know much about this Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS) or Oral rehydration therapy until several years ago.  Cool Nerd (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. However, I think that would perhaps be better suited to the general famine article. Middayexpress (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am hoping to find both. News and perhaps medical articles about this particular famine, and general and background information.   Cool Nerd (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I included the following specific news article: Cholera Outbreaks Spread Across Somalia, U.N. Says, New York Times, filed from Nairobi, Kenya, by JEFFREY GETTLEMAN, August 12, 2011.

And I also included some general information, and hopefully hit that sweet spot of giving enough information without giving too much. I can, as always, use the help and participation of other people. I thank Middayexpress for expressed interest and hope time allows for further participation. This is obviously a very important situation in the Horn of Africa. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your research and writings are great, but I don't think they are suitable for this article. We tend to be quite specific and include only matters that are a fundamental part of the topic, and refer readers to other articles if they wish to seek more information on relevant topics. The logic behind this is that we want a particular piece of information to be in an area where all users who are interested in them can access - for example, information on diarrhoea may be of interest to not just people reading this topic, but also readers who may have diarrhoea themselves, et cetera. Hence why we keep them in one particular article, where it can be verified and updated by other users. Conversely (and this is the more important point here), there are a lot of readers here who are probably not searching for information about diarrhoea treatment and such. So, while your information may be of interest to some particular readers, there is no need for it to take up a large part of the article. Those who are searching for information about diarrhoea can easily do so by accessing the link to that article.
 * A second and related issue is that your edits were written like a manual, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I quote the relevant policy here: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow, How to Wiki or our sister project, Wikibooks." The advice here is good - I think your writings will be a substantial contribution to wikiHow.
 * Anyway, I deeply apologize for not having noticed this discussion before you added the edits, and then complaining about them afterwards. I realize that may seem quite rude.  Jim  Sukwutput   03:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jim, you are well within your rights taking the position you are. I don't view it as rude at all.  You have contributed  as much to this article than anyone, and certainly more than me.  Now, I'm a radical, just straight up.  I didn't plan it that way.  It just kind of worked out that way.  I think we should do our best work without artificial constraints.  For example, if we do our very best work, we might potentially (indirectly) save 10 lives.  And that possibility should be taken very seriously.  And I more emphasize the part of wiki that says no firm rules.
 * Okay, with that philosophy aside, just being there, I hope we can find ample middle ground as far as working together on specifics. For example, I definitely think we should mention that there is such a thing as Rehydration Solution for Malnutrition (ReSoMal) and that the treatment of persons simultaneously suffering from malnourishment and diarrhea is a little different.  Currently we do not mention diarrhea one time, no where in our entire article.  We mention cholera three times, which is fine, but it's not the only cause of diarrhea.
 * So, what I have in mind is three sentences. Please work with me if you can.  Later on, I ask you to consider that we can be somewhat longer at the end of a section because a reader who is not interested can just skip on to the next section.  Cool Nerd (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I kept it to four sentences. I really tried but that's as short as I could make it.  Continuing to feed the person with diarrhea and dehydration is something the above WHO manual really emphasizes.  I dropped some of that to a footnote which I think is kind of an alright way to handle it.  Cool Nerd (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Move back to 2011 Horn of Africa famine

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 East Africa drought → 2011 Horn of Africa famine – The article was moved from "2011 Horn of Africa famine" to here ("2011 Somalia famine") unilaterally by User:PassaMethod. The title of this article has underwent a very extensive discussion in the talk page, and while there were disagreements about whether to call the event a famine or a food crisis, there is universal agreement that the topic should include the Horn of Africa and not only Somalia. That is what the content of the article reflects. User:PassaMethod's move is misleading, incorrect, and against the consensus of every other user.  Jim  Sukwutput   12:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Another argument is that the term "famine" prevails among reliable sources, but that's because the famine itself (again, only part of the larger subject covered in the article) has received the most media attention. The drought has affected the East Africa region (which extends far beyond the Horn of Africa), causing the famine and food crisis conditions. Therefore, 2011 East Africa drought is the most accurate title that I've seen suggested. It is, of course, appropriate to mention the resultant food crisis/famine conditions in the article's lead. —David Levy 22:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The food crisis brought on by the drought is affecting the entire Eastern Africa region. As such, the page move was indeed quite misleading and inaccurate. In the meantime, I've moved the title to the neutral "2011 Eastern Africa drought", but still ultimately support moving it back to its original title as proposed above. Middayexpress (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've changed "Eastern" to "East" (because East Africa is the more common name and our article's title). This, of course, has no bearing on the move request.  —David Levy 22:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose (though 2011 Somalia famine was an inappropriate title). As discussed on my talk page, the "famine" description covers only part of the overall situation.  An argument in favor of its use is that we should emphasize the worst conditions, but this appears to stem more from a humanistic response than from an attempt to select the most accurate title.
 * Comment Ideally we should have let the discussion close before we move the article to yet another title, as the two above users have done. While I agree that the current title is much better than the previous "2011 Somalia famine", we now have a three-way/four-way discussion which I think is not quite the best way to reach consensus.
 * I concur with Middayexpress's opinion that ultimately we ought to move this article back into "2011 Horn of Africa famine" (which, by the way, is the title that this topic uses on more than 20 different languages on Wikipedia.)  Jim  Sukwutput   05:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I'll reiterate that my move served purely to switch from "Eastern Africa" to the more common (and Wikipedia-article-consistent) "East Africa"; it was unrelated to the disagreement discussed above.
 * 2. Please explain how the title "2011 Horn of Africa famine" accurately describes a situation affecting the entire East Africa region (with famine conditions in only some areas thereof).
 * 3. It's common for other Wikipedias to copy article titles used at the English Wikipedia, which is precisely what occurred in this instance.
 * Only two interlanguage links were present before the article was renamed "2011 Horn of Africa famine." When translated to English, one of those articles is titled "Hunger crisis in the Horn of Africa 2011."  The other, called "2011 Horn of Africa famine," didn't exist until after you proposed that title.  An editor expressed support for the move (on this talk page) and created the article 11 minutes later.  —David Levy 07:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The drought is obviously what primarily caused everything in the first place, and it is taking place in the larger East Africa region; the actual famine is restricted to a few areas. As such, it does seem to make the most sense to keep the title in its current "2011 East Africa drought" format. I've amended my post above accordingly. Perhaps, then, the links above should also now read "2011 East Africa drought → 2011 Horn of Africa famine" to reflect the current discussion? Middayexpress (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I changed it. @David Levy - I'm not very much opposed to the current title. It seems less commonly used in the media, but on the other hand I agree that it makes more sense to have a general name for the topic. That's why I didn't actually "respond" to your rationale. Let's see if any other users have a preference for either.  Jim  Sukwutput   13:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Some user just moved the article yet again, from 2011 East Africa drought to 2011 East Africa famine. Since this discussion is ongoing and User:David Levy would obviously oppose this move, I've reverted it and asked the user to join in the discussion instead.  Jim  Sukwutput   03:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim. We can agree, I assume, that "2011 East Africa famine" was a misleading title (given the fact that most of East Africa isn't experiencing famine conditions).  —David Levy 08:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Numerous reliable sources use the proposed term. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...in reference to the famine. This is only one of the article's topics, all of which pertain to the drought (a term also used by numerous reliable sources).  —David Levy 06:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Numerous reliable sources use the current term, and agree with David Levy's arguments above. --Elekhh (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.