Talk:Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu

Content
The article's section titles should be descriptive, eg. "Closure and evacuation" not "Operation Eastern Exit" and "After closure" rather than "United Task Force" (which is not accurate, because it served both UNITAF & UNOSOM II). The term "embassy" refers to the collection of infrastructure that houses the diplomatic mission; thus, it's better to use "Embassy" rather than "Infrastructure". Furthermore, because the embassy houses the diplomatic mission in a host nation, the article should contain information about what has happened to the diplomatic mission to Somalia since the Mogadishu embassy's closure. That's why I've replaced the content about the ambassador with the content about the diplomatic mission (which includes the ambassador). AHeneen (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are not neutral titles. Per WP:HEADER, titles should best represent the content and neutrally. The most neutral and representative titles for the sections are therefore "UNITAF & UNOSOM" and "Operation Eastern Exit", which are the actual names of the main pages. Also, this page is on the actual embassy in Mogadishu, Somalia, not Nairobi, Kenya. The United States embassy in Nairobi is therefore irrelevant, although the actual U.S. Ambassador to Somalia is certainly relevant. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The section titles "Prelude to closure", "Closure and evacuation", "After closure", and "Embassy" are best representative of the contents of those sections. How can they be considered not neutral?? And there was nothing about the embassy in Nairobi! I added a section about the US mission to Somalia; the US mission to Somalia (which is more than just the ambassador!) is what was based at the Mogadishu embassy and it's therefore relevant to mention in this article. Since the US has no diplomatic mission in Somalia, the US mission to Somalia is based at the US embassy in Nairobi...but the content I added was not about the Nairobi embassy, it was about the US mission to Somalia. If there's anything irrelevant in the article it's your addition of the following in the "United States Ambassador to Somalia" section:
 * "The Federal Government of Somalia was later established on August 20, 2012, concurrent with the end of the TFG's interim mandate. It represents the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war. The following month, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was elected as the new government's first President. The election was welcomed by the U.S. authorities, who re-affirmed the United States' continued support for Somalia's government, its territorial integrity and sovereignty. In June 2014, in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would soon name a new ambassador to Somalia."
 * I've requested a third opinion and am waiting for that before reverting the above issues, but will go ahead and make a few minor corrections. AHeneen (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not even sure what there is to argue about here. Per WP:SUMMARY, headings should be consistent with the main articles they link to. "UNITAF and UNOSOM", "Operation Eastern Exit" and "United States Ambassador to Somalia" are therefore indeed per policy the most neutral and appropriate titles for these sections since those are the actual names of the main articles. It's also strange how you appear to believe that the establishment of the Transitional National Government, the Transitional Federal Government and the Federal Government of Somalia (i.e. the United States' actual diplomatic partners) is irrelevant, yet apparently not Siad Barre's relationship with the Soviet and Chinese, dead bodies, unrest in other areas, and the US Embassy in Kenya. If we can agree that the latter are irrelevant, I don't mind trimming the former. Also, the passage on the number of official US personnel in the city that was reduced from 147 to 37, etc. pertains to Operation Eastern Exit and thus belongs in that section. Please see below for the rest. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way AHeneen, your summary close of the delisting discussion vis-a-vis the former Anarchy in Somalia page was inappropriate as an WP:INVOLVED editor in this dispute. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AcidSnow, as one of the main editors on the Mogadishu page, would you mind sharing your insight here? Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Section headers
On the issue of section headers. Short descriptive headers are what is needed. By titling them with Operation this or that there is no indication of what the section is going to be talking about and therefore are pretty much useless to a casual reader. The links directly below the headers provide operation names and links to more detail. Repeating these as section headers is redundant as well as confusing. The argument that the short descriptive titles are "non-neutral" makes no sense. If the editor making that claim feels strongly about it I would suggest that they make a reasoned argument to that effect rather than a simple assertion. Jbh (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you feel the section titles in this revision are appropriate for this article? AHeneen (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would support those headings. They require no prior knowledge of events and clearly break the time down as before/during/after. As to the 'Embassy vs Infrastructure' debate my thought is 'Embassy' is OK. I would prefer 'Embassy Compound' as it distinguished between the Mission staff and the actual physical plant. Calling it 'Infrastructure' sounds like the section will be discussing water/power/sewer etc. Jbh (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those headings are inconsistent with WP:SUMMARY. Please see above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The linked articles are there for greater detail of what occurred in the time period being defined by the section headers. If a reader comes to the article they are more likely to be asking the question "What happened when the Embassy was evacuated?" not "What was Operation Eastern Exit" if they know what that was they will go to the article. Same for the others. Remember you are writing for casual readers who likely know nothing about the topic. Jbh (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing on what policy stipulates here, which is ultimately what we go by on the website. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand where you are coming from, however service to the reader is primary. In this case the article has a bit of a focus issue. The intro defines the article as "The Embassy of the United States of America to Somalia was a diplomatic mission of the United States of America inMogadishu, Somalia from 1960-1991" ie the Diplomatic Mission not the physical plant. Reading the headings things are divided by location and by 'operation' which is confusing. Breaking up the sections by time gives consistency. As it stands a reader will likley face these issues: 'Old Compound', 'New Compound' is this a division of time or place - what is the topic; the 'operations' are these serial or simultaneous, if serial are they contiguous in time or separated by other events. While these may be obvious to an informed editor that is not the case for a reader with no familiarity with the subject. Jbh (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, but that US diplomatic mission was suspended in 1991. That's why Wendy Sherman indicates below that the mission itself would reopen "soon"; so the focus needs to remain on the mission presence in Mogadishu itself. That said, I can see how readers may perhaps be confused by "Old compound" and "New compound" vs. "Embassy compound". That is why I think "Infrastructure" worked better, as that section pertains to the embassy's actual grounds and facilities. Perhaps "Premises", "Grounds" or "Facilities" would work better there? Middayexpress (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I think we may see a similar problem but differing solutions. In my experience if an Embassy is free standing it is referred to as "the Embassy" if it is walled it is "the Embassy Compound" but the main working area is still "the Embassy". Collectively the staff and/or the legal entity are referred to as "the Mission" or sometimes "the Embassy" but the latter is more old fashion. The issue with 'Old Compound' is that the article is really talking the "Mission to Somalia" from 1957-1989 and less about the building the Mission was housed. The same for 'New Compound' is more about the Mission from 1989-1991, after they incidentally moved to another location. Finally we have Eastern Exit when the Mission ceased to be resident in the embassy compound. I would end Section 1 there. I would then make a new Section 2. Here the history of the Embassy Cy ompound and the Mission split. The new home of the Mission in Kenya can be discussed and the re purposing of the compound for UNITAF and UNOSOM can be discussed. Jbh (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "US Mission to Somalia (1957-1989)" and "US Mission to 1989-1991" seem like adequate alternatives to "Old compound" and "New compound"; thanks. However, the next three sections should be titled in accordance with their main articles per WP:SUMMARY. So that would be "UNITAF and UNOSOM", "Operation Eastern Exit" and "United States Ambassador to Somalia"; the mission in Kenya isn't a formal diplomatic mission to Somalia per Sherman. The "Embassy compound" section discusses something altogether different i.e. the embassy's actual infrastructure/grounds. It is also chronologically independent, so for these reasons I think it should remain separate from the preceding sections. Middayexpress (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

How about something like this: I have no idea how to format indented text hence the outdent =History=

UNITAF and UNOSOM
=Embassy Compound= Jbh (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)PS The only objection I have to 'US Ambassador to Somalia' as a section title is is is confusing in context. Jbh (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not bad. However, I think Operation Eastern Exit should be on the same level as the preceding mission sections. It should also be juxtaposed with UNITAF & UNSOM, as they were all during the period between when the US mission ended in 1991 and the diplomatic reengagement with the Somali transitional authorities and then federal government beginning in 2000. So perhaps something like the following would work best:

Embassy compound
Middayexpress (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with that. Both UNSOM(1992/1993-95) and UNITAF (1992-93) were after the Mission was evacuated and the compound was decomissioned as an 'Embassy'. Eastern Exit (1991) fits properly under the 89-91 Mission because that is what terminated the US diplomatic presence in Somalia ie a subsection of the Mission 1989-1991 section. What I am trying for here is a set of clear chronological periods since it is a History section. The other reason I do not like UNSOM/UNITAF as you have above is that they are associated with the Compound not the Mission. From 1957-1991 we have the history of the Mission to Somalia terminated by Eastern Exit. After 1991 there is the Mission for Somalia in Kenya and the use of the embassy compound by UNSOM/UNITAF. The character of what is being discussed changes but there is no indication in the table of cotents. A bit pedantic true but the headings are what the help request on the Project page was for...
 * My preference is what I outlined above but I can see:

Embassy compound

 * As a valid alternative. Jbh (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right about Operation Eastern Exit, as it was in late 1990 rather than late 1991. I also agree that UNITAF & UNOSOM were separate from the actual US diplomatic missions to Somalia; this is why I noted above that they were between these missions. At any rate, those headings seem adequate. Middayexpress (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Would you care to do the honors? :) Jbh (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Middayexpress (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:SUMMARY that says the section title needs to reflect the main article's title. In fact, the example given for WWII contains "Chronology" for the main article "Timeline of World War II", "Background" for the main article "Causes of World War II", and "Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935)" for the main article "Second Italo-Abyssinian War". The new headers aren't bad, except "Operation Eastern Exit" and "UNITAF and UNOSOM" should be given better titles for the reasons expressed earlier in this discussion...they should convey the subject of the section to the casual reader. As such, I suggest "Closure and evacuation" and "After closure" as better titles. AHeneen (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, those very headings you note are consistent with the link-through pages. "Chronology" with "Timeline", "Background" with "Causes", "Italian invasion of Ethiopia" with "Second Italo-Abyssinian War", and "Spanish Civil War" with "Spanish Civil War". "Closure and evacuation" is less descriptive than the operation's actual codename, "Operation Eastern Exit". "After closure" is even less appropriate, as it places the emphasis on the earlier embasy closure rather than on UNITAF and UNOSOM. That said, WP:HAT stipulates that for more pages on the same topic ("Further information ..."), is used to make summary style explicit, when used in a summary section for which there is also a separate article on the subject:
 * The headings therefore should indeed be consistent with the main pages they link to, as they are now. Middayexpress (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keywords are subject and topic, "Closure and evacuation" is descriptive of the subject Operation Eastern Exit. The content of the "UNITAF and UNOSOM" section is on the topic of what happened at the embassy compound after the embassy closed, although I now think the title isn't too bad. However, "Closure and evacuation" instead of "Operation Eastern Exit" is still better for casual readers to understand the subject of the section at a glance. AHeneen (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Eastern Exit is now a subtopic within the 89-91 Mission history I see no real need to change it. It is the operation that ended the 89-91 Mission. About the only change to headers that might be useful is another major heading talking about what happened after the Mission ended in 91 like I described above. However I see no particular enhancement to the article by doing that right now. As it stands Section 1 is structured as a chronology and Eastern Exit is an event within that chronology, Jbh (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Operation Eastern Exit and the other headings are indeed adequate. Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Operation Eastern Exit and the other headings are indeed adequate. Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Mission
This removed content seems useful:"In 1989, after three decades located in a building near the center of the capital, the embassy relocated to a new compound on the outskirts of Mogadishu. As unrest enveloped Mogadishu around New Year 1991, the embassy was closed and hurriedly evacuated on January 5-6 and has remained closed ever since. The former embassy subsequently served as a headquarters for US personnel within Unified Task Force and, after control of the mission was transferred to the United Nations, a base for UNISOM. The US mission to Somalia is currently based at the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. The US hopes to reestablish an embassy in Mogadishu once the security situation permits." In my opinion it should be replaced. I struck part that I think needs a citation. Otherwise it is an improper comment in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Jbh (talk)
 * I presume that is from the lead and you think that's a better wording than the current revision? The sentence that you struck is not an opinion, but from the US State Department press release about the nomination of the new ambassador: "As security conditions permit, we look forward to increasing our diplomatic presence in Somalia and eventually reopening the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu." (White House Nomination of United States Ambassador to Somalia, Feb 2015) AHeneen (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, as long as there is a reference for it I have no objection. Jbh (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The passage is inaccurate, as the embassy was not "closed ever since" January 1991. It was in fact subsequently used as a base for UNITAF and UNOSOM, both of which are already noted. Please see below for the rest. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the Mission is gone the 'Embassy' is closed. The 'Embassy Compound' may be in use but its no longer has the legal protection of being an 'Embassy'. Please correct me if I am wrong in this understanding. Jbh (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The United States' diplomatic mission at the embassy ended, but not US operation of the embassy compound. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Other issues
I removed the adjective 'bloodless' describing the 1969 coup. Without reference it is a POV term. I have some other non-specific concerns that this article might have some NPOV issues but I need to spend more time looking it over to see if that is actually the case or not. Jbh (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks and yes, more input would be appreciated. The other major point of disagreement is the inclusion of a section mentioning the status of the mission to Somalia (which includes the ambassador, reasoning is above & my version is in the linked revision) or a section about just the ambassador (see what is in the current revision of the article). AHeneen (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at that. Jbh (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly something like this? "The United States never severed diplomatic relations with Somolia. It has maintained relations with Somalia's Transitional National Government and its successors the Transitional Federal Government. and the current Federal Government of Somalia although the US Mission to Somolia is housed in the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. In February 2015, US President Barack Obama nominated Katherine Dhanani as the new United States Ambassador to Somalia; if confirmed, she will be the first US Ambassador to Somalia since Ambassador Bishop in 1991. The Department of State hopes to increase its diplomatic presence in Somalia and reopen the embassy in Mogadishu when the security situation permits.."
 * I am sure the wording needs tweaking since all I did was combine information from the two versions. I removed the excess wording about the Somali Government. The June 2014 comment seems unnecessary but I have no strong objection to it. Maybe title it something like "US Mission to Somalia post-1991" or some such. Jbh (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That the coup that brought Siad Barre to power was bloodless is common knowledge . At any rate, the paragraph above is slightly better then AHeneen's in that it at least notes the US' actual diplomatic counterparts in Somalia. However, it too omits the nature of the US government's relationship with those Somalian authorities. This is certainly more relevant than that between the former Soviet bloc and the Barre government, which is also noted. Moreover, Wendy Sherman's announcement in June 2014 that the United States would soon name a new ambassador to Somalia is important, as that's when she explained that it was specifically intended as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts ("President Barack Obama plans to nominate the first U.S. ambassador to Somalia in more than two decades, a top State Department official said Tuesday. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman called the decision "a reflection both of our deepening relationship with the country and of our faith that better times are ahead[...] "I would hope that in years ahead ... that we will see a full presence both in Somalia and by the Somalis here in Washington," Sherman said. "It'll take some time, but we take this in a step-by-step approach."[...] The United States and its European allies have strengthened diplomatic ties with Somalia since Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, a civil activist, was elected president in September 2012. The United States officially recognized the Somali government in August 2013" ). The passage should therefore read:
 * Over the ensuing interim period, the U.S. authorities maintained relations with Somalia's newly established Transitional National Government and its successor the Transitional Federal Government. The Federal Government of Somalia was later established on August 20, 2012, concurrent with the end of the TFG's interim mandate. It represents the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war. The following month, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was elected as the new government's first President. The election was welcomed by the U.S. authorities, who re-affirmed the United States' continued support for Somalia's government, its territorial integrity and sovereignty.


 * In June 2014, in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would soon name a new ambassador to Somalia. In February 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama appointed Foreign Service veteran Katherine Simonds Dhanani as the new Ambassador of the United States to Somalia. She will be based at the American diplomatic office in Nairobi, Kenya until security conditions permit the US embassy in Mogadishu to reopen. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Over the ensuing interim period, the U.S. authorities maintained relations with Somalia's newly established Transitional National Government and its successor the Transitional Federal Government. The Federal Government of Somalia was later established on August 20, 2012, concurrent with the end of the TFG's interim mandate. It represents the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war. The following month, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was elected as the new government's first President. The election was welcomed by the U.S. authorities, who re-affirmed the United States' continued support for Somalia's government, its territorial integrity and sovereignty.


 * In June 2014, in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would soon name a new ambassador to Somalia. In February 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama appointed Foreign Service veteran Katherine Simonds Dhanani as the new Ambassador of the United States to Somalia. She will be based at the American diplomatic office in Nairobi, Kenya until security conditions permit the US embassy in Mogadishu to reopen.
 * I do not have any real objection to the content as described here. For ease of reference I struck, above, what I think is excess. We do not need three seprate statements that the US is happy about the new government. It reads as very PRish and the election in and of itself does not have a direct link to the Status of Mission. I would then replace the struck-underlined text with a new sentence which says.  The United States has no plans to re-open its Embassy in Mogadishu and the new Ambassador will run the Somali Mission from the Unites States Embassy in Nairobi Kenya until security conditions permit the Embassy in Mogadishu to reopen.  Jbh (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that's much better than the previous suggestion. However, as long as the relationship between Siad Barre and the US is noted, I think that between Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud (the first president of a permanent government since Barre) should also be noted for balance. Also, Wendy Sherman officially announced that the US government intends to reopen its embassy in Mogadishu "soon", during the same period when she indicated that the US authorities would appoint its ambassador. Since the latter diplomatic appointment has come to pass, the last sentence should note the pledged embassy opening as well ("Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, didn't specify exactly when the mission would reopen but said it would be “soon"." ). Middayexpress (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Soon' is pretty vague I would say it is UNDUE per CRYSTAL unless and until some concrete plans are announced. I have no objection, in principal, to mentioning the new President maybe like ...The Federal Government of Somalia was later... ==> ...The Federal Government of Somalia, now headed by Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud, was later... Jbh (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That "the Federal Government of Somalia, now headed by Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud, was later..." phrase seems like a fair compromise. "Soon" is pretty vague, but that's what Sherman indicated. Perhaps, then, we should drop it so that the sentence reads "in June 2014, in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would name a new ambassador to Somalia at an unspecified future date." Works? Middayexpress (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is still awkward considering the next sentence is " In February 2015, U.S. PresidentBarack Obama nominated Foreign Service veteran Katherine Simonds Dhanani to become the new Ambassador of the United States to Somalia." My preference would be to strike the entire ...2014... sentence but I thought you wanted the "...gesture of the deepening relations..." material. Personally I think it is unnecessary considering how short the section but that is a style not content objection. Jbh (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts" explains why the US government decided to appoint a new ambassador after all these years, so it is key. The next part of the phrase is indeed awkward; it should have read "U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would reopen its diplomatic mission in Mogadishu at an unspecified future date". Works? Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well enough... no objection. Jbh (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great; done. Middayexpress (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a source for 'bloodless' Payton, Gary D. The Somali Coup of 1969: The Case for Soviet Complicity The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 493-508. I have no objection to adding it back in. Jbh (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I already linked to one above from the Central Bank of Somalia . Middayexpress (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that, I just found a link to a busy page of a State institution to be iffy. A state always has an interest in putting things in the best light. It makes no difference to me for the inclusion but a journal is better than a website in my opinion but like I said no big deal either way. Jbh (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. Middayexpress (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The repeated removal of variations of the following italicized text is not necessary: "The three-year-old embassy compound was at the time in shambles: dead bodies were located around the compound, buildings were stripped bare, and a foot (0.3 m) of trash and debris covered the floors of the chancery." It speaks to just how bad the embassy compound had become when it was reoccupied in 1992. AHeneen (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not directly relevant to the US diplomatic mission based in the compound; that the embassy was at the time in a state of disrepair is sufficient. The passage also notes that "the staff quickly went to work cleaning out work areas and living spaces to establish a camp", yet this more relevant renovation work by the personnel themselves was somehow overlooked. Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu. 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://web.archive.org/web/20150226051736/https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2791021100.pdf to https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2791021100.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)