Talk:Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed/Archive 1

Corruption allegations
User:Bot3skfjs has added a paragraph simply titled "Corruption" suggesting that foreign investment money earmarked for local fighting piracy, among other things, had gone missing and that the Finance Minister Hussein Halane indicated that Prime Minister Mohamed "may have an idea where some of the cash had gone". However, this is not at all what the cited article states. Halane made no such "suggestion"; all he indicated is the following:

"'Somali Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed told AP in an interview in Mogadishu in April that his government received one payment of $5 million dollars from a Middle Eastern country this year that he “believed” to be the United Arab Emirates. But Finance Minister Hussein Halane told AP in April that he accompanied the prime minister twice to Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, this year and had seen Mohamed personally receive $5 million in cash each time'"

Missing funds which Halane later accounted for as follows:

"'not all cash was necessarily deposited in the government’s account because some was spent on “legitimate and documented” expenses by officials before being deposited'"

Given the foregoing, I have removed the paragraph, as it is original research and makes no clear mention of corruption charges by Halane. Quite the opposite as it turns out. Middayexpress (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cherry-picking at its best. The Prime Minister has denied the existence of a second payment of $5 million, there is no documentation for this payment ( even though the Finance Minister says there were two payments of $5 million) and the payment still remains unaccounted for:


 * "'Somali Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed told AP in an interview in Mogadishu in April that his government received one payment of $5 million dollars from a Middle Eastern country this year that he “believed” to be the United Arab Emirates.But Finance Minister Hussein Halane told AP in April that he accompanied the prime minister twice to Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, this year and had seen Mohamed personally receive $5 million in cash each time. After more than 50 phone calls and e-mails from AP over six weeks, the government produced documentation showing that only one payment of $5 million was deposited into the country’s Central Bank. The other payment remains unaccounted for.'"


 * The part you quoted is from the second page and has absolutely nothing to do with the missing $5 million in question, but is about the other missing $ 65 million. Read the article in its original context instead of creating your own interpretation of it. If anything, what you presented was original research.


 * (Bot3skfjs (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC))


 * I'm afraid you are mistaken. The two quotes I presented above are from the first and second pages, respectively, of the Washington Post article. By contrast, your quote is only from the first page and completely omits Finance Minister Halane's actual explanation of how the missing $5 million was likely spent:


 * "'not all cash was necessarily deposited in the government’s account because some was spent on “legitimate and documented” expenses by officials before being deposited'"


 * Your edit claims that "Finance Minister Hussein Halane indicated that the Prime Minister [accepted] two separate $ 5 million payments from the UAE on behalf of the government but only $5 million was deposited into the Central Bank. It's still unclear where the other $5 million has gone." However, the part that you highlighted in your post above, indicating that "the other payment remains unaccounted for", is coming from the Associated Press journalist. It is most certainly not coming from Finance Minister Halane. Unlike the journalist, Halane does have an idea where that money went and he describes it too. That is, according to Halane's own words, the money was "spent on “legitimate and documented” expenses by officials before being deposited".


 * Halane unfortunately does not claim anywhere that Prime Minister Mohamed personally pocketed that money (which is what your edit insinuates with its "Corruption" title). In fact, here's what the Associated Press journalist himself states as to what the government indicated regarding how it spends the donor money:


 * "'The government says it uses the money to win over citizens like Ahmed by providing services and security.'"


 * Per WP:NOR, "even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research"; and per WP:BLP, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". By the way, calling out other editors in one's edit summaries (viz. "user middayexpress removing links and information without valid reason" ) is considered poor form and is a breach of WP:CIV. Kindly do not do that again. Middayexpress (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, the part you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with the $5 million that went missing, but the other $65 million that is missing ( that is what most of the article is about). Farmajo claims there was only 1 payment of $5 million,whilst Halane claims that there were two. The AP investigated the issue and found that only one payment was in the Central Bank and the other is unaccounted for. Farmajo denies the existence of a second payment, so how the second payment be used for "legitimate and documented expenses" if he says there wasn't a second payment at all? Read the article in its entirety instead of randomly selecting quotes and trying to paint your own picture of the events. You seem to have an issue with me and are going after my contributions on this website for reasons that are unknown to me. I have tried to reason with you before and it never worked. You need to stop deleting my contributions because you do not like the information that I've presented. You are breaching several rules by doing so and if you continue I will get an Administrator involved. (Bot3skfjs (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

My reading of WP:BLP is that, regardless of the merits of the case, the contested material must be removed until consensus is reached, here or on the Noticeboard. I'm doing so. Any WP:STALK allegations should be handled separately. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well Middayexpress and I will not reach a consensus because he is not interested in having a constructive discussion of any sort with me. Rather, he has been stalking my edits and reverting them and is constantly picking arguments with me. Thank you for the advice. I will take my complaints about him to the appropriate place. (Bot3skfjs (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Consensus in the context of Wikipedia is not necessarily unanimity. If half a dozen people come along and all agree that one of the editors in the original disagreement doesn't have a leg to stand on, that counts as consensus even if the person still won't budge an inch.  On whether to include the section, the WP:Burden of evidence is on those who want to include it.


 * I think the passage needs some rewriting, but then can probably be included. For example, the passage says "On May 24, 2011 the Associated Press reported that more than $70 million that was given to the Somali government by Arab nations for the purpose of fighting piracy, terrorism, and hunger had gone missing."  But the AP actually reports the allegations by Fartaag and Halane, rather than reporting the missing money as a finding of its own investigations.  The AP's own investigation only finds "that cash payments from Arab nations continue amid a lack of transparency over how much money politicians accept and what happens with it."  Corruption allegations are sometimes used against political enemies rather than on the merits, even by those officially charged with investigating corruption.  We don't have a source addressing that possibility one way or the other, so we should phrase our coverage in a way that doesn't rule it out prematurely.  It's hard to do that in a situation where everyone has abundant incentives to lie, and investigations by the media are limited. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", and per WP:VER "sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". That said, the fact remains that none of the government sources that the AP article cites (whether Halane or Fartaag) directly accuse Prime Minister Mohamed, the subject of this Wikipedia article, of having pocketed the donor money/theft. As quoted above, Halane actually offers an explanation as to where the money that wasn't deposited in the Central Bank likely went, and he suggests that it was spent on legitimate public expenses ("not all cash was necessarily deposited in the government’s account because some was spent on “legitimate and documented” expenses by officials before being deposited"). Similarly, the AP quotes a general government source indicating that it spends the donor money on security and public services ("The government says it uses the money to win over citizens like Ahmed by providing services and security"). Bottom line, neither explicitly accuse Prime Minister Mohamed -- who was appointed to office only a few months ago as was his new technocratic Cabinet, both well after Fartaag's investigation first began in 2009 -- of any impropriety nor does the AP. Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Update
User:Bot3skfjs has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts/socking (c.f. ). Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Reference named "Nspmusc": From Transitional Federal Government: New Somali Prime Minister Unveils Smaller Cabinet From Somali Council of Ministers:  From Somalia:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I haven't looked much at the webhook stuff, but my understanding is that t Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo → Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed – The subject's real name and the page's original title. This is also the WP:COMMONNAME (c.f. Ewumiqf.&channel=fe&fp=4abcb7c7e98f1287&hl=en&q=%22Mohamed+Abdullahi+Mohamed%22, ). Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2013 (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.

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/somalia-president-appoints-new-prime-minister
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/UN_Special_Envoy_to_Somalia_meets_TFG_leaders_in_Mogadishu_over_PM_rift.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7OaI4_kjeHA-o4UhlmP7vlWmrrwD9IRK9T81?docId=D9IRK9T81
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140105060056/http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Jan_11/15Jan18.html to http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Jan_11/15Jan18.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515182825/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/articles/90029659?Somali_PM%3A_Anyone_in_gov&%23146%3Bt_who_commits_corruption_will_be_brought_to_justice to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/articles/90029659?Somali_PM%3A_Anyone_in_gov%26%23146%3Bt_who_commits_corruption_will_be_brought_to_justice
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Opinion_20/Somalia_Kampala_Accord_A_setback_for_the_TFG_and_the_International_Community.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511194929/http://english.alshahid.net/archives/15120 to http://english.alshahid.net/archives/15120
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924103758/http://www.somaliareport.com/index.php/post/2999 to http://www.somaliareport.com/index.php/post/2999
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Somalia_Federal_Parliament_elects_Hassan_Sheikh_Mohamud_as_President.shtml

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) 12:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Date discrepancies
Help Is his birthday on the 12 or 11 of March? Because in the Somali language Wikipedia it has 5 of March. Farmajo also has two birth years which one is his correct birthday ? Please fix it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.148.100 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't use the help template for normal content discussions. You didn't note the discrepancy on the date he assumed office, for which the source is unclear. Better sources need to be provided or these details will have to be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:52, 3 March 2020‎ Jmcgnh (talk • contribs)
 * I see that you made changes to the article but neither the before nor after version of the article contain suitable references that support the dates you have given. We have a good source for the date of election, no good source for the specific date of inauguration (just saying "Wednesday" leaves enough ambiguity to fail), and, when I looked, the sources given do not support even the birth year, much less a date of birth. The article on Somali Wikipedia is unsourced, so gives no hints as to where to look for better sources.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing Siad Barre as uncle
BLP noticeboard There is currently a disagreement on whether the statement "The deposed Somali dictator Siad Barre was Farmaajo's uncle." in the opening paragraph. There are a few issues with this: (1) "Dictator" seems to be pushing POV a bit; yes, there are good sources that describe Barre's governance as "increasingly dictatorial," but it seems more neutral to simply describe him as "President"; the article about him has more details. (2) There are only a few Somali sources that describe uncle/nephew relationship. Most sources that mention both men do not describe any familial connection (e.g., , ). None of the sources that do use the word "uncle" describe exactly how they are related (via his father or mother?); every source that uses the term "uncle" uses it in the context of criticism. It seems possible that "uncle" is being used here in a more loose sense (i.e., Fictive kinship? (3) we have a mixed precedent for mentioning notable relations in the first paragraph, e.g. George W. Bush (yes), Bam Aquino (no), Arthur Balfour (no). Google search note: complicating efforts to track down sources are the spelling variations here: Farmajo/Farmaajo, Said/Syed, Bare/Baare/Barre. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The opening paragraph for Siad Barre Wikipedia page describes his 'increasingly dictatorial rule', which is the reason for his deposition. There are sources which describe Farmaajo as having been 'groomed' by his uncle Siad Barre for his current role. There are also sources which claim his relationship to his uncle Siad Barre are reasons for anger which he is taking out on certain regions of the country. There are sources which describe him as a 'relative' of Siad Barre, which shows that they are not referring to a 'fictive kinship'. The fact that sources refer to Siad Barre, who was a Somali dictator deposed by civil war, as being Farmaajo uncle, is important information which puts the page in context so should be included in the initial paragraph. Amirah (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I already acknowledged that Siad Barre used the term "dictatorial" to describe his role; I don't think it's necessary to mention that in the sentence describing the relationship. Can you point me to the source that describes them as "relatives"? All of the sources that mention the word "uncle" are Somali-based critical articles about him; I have yet to see any international sources that mention such a relationship. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I do think the adjective 'dictator' is necessary to convey the implications of the statement. Both Siad Barre and Farmaajo are Somali, that is why the sources which mention his relationship to Siad Barre are Somali. The sources are critical because they are talking about Siad Barre's influence on him. Siad Barre was a dictator who 'had one of the worst human rights records in Africa' according to Wikipedia. This would explain why articles comparing him to Siad Barre or talking about Siad Barre's influence on him would be critical. The following article states that he was 'a close family member' and the title of the article describes him as 'uncle'. 'The current President of the Somali federal government Mohamed Farmajo, who is a close family member of the former Somali dictator Siyad Barre is yet to respond to Abey Ahmed’s statement.' https://www.somalidispatch.com/featured/president-farmajo-silent-on-abey-ahmeds-criticism-on-his-uncle-siyad-barre/ Amirah (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Somali Dispatch is questionable in terms of being a reliable source; while purporting to be neutral, it doesn't appear to be connected to any sort of news agency, and is rather a self-published opinion website out of Canada (all of the articles are either attributed to "Admin" or a "MOHAMED ADAN"). I also find it odd that this article from Africanews nor this one from AllAfrica (both sources that more easily meets WP:RS guidelines) cover Farmaajo's admissions of the excesses of the Barre regime without mentioning any familial connection. There's certainly a lot of opposition and challenges to Farmaajo, which leads me to believe that the limited sources describing the "uncle" relationship are attempts to discredit him by linking him to Barre. If Barre was indeed his uncle, why does it seem like only opposition articles are mentioning it? OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This disagreement is over as the disputed material has been removed from the page Amirah (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the neutrality tag regarding the last few edits; I added it regarding additions to the article in the last month. I'm concerned that it's heavily weighted on criticism of the subject; it reads like a running tally of every criticism ever leveled against him. Obviously any elected official is going to have criticism leveled at them, but I'd like others to weigh in on the overall balance of this article, especially editors with more knowledge of Horn of Africa politics. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am all for that too. I have been checking the news daily using Google searches and if there is any positive news which shows any achievements which Farmaajo has made since he has been in power I agree wholeheartedly that if appropriate it should be added to the article. At this time so close to elections you would think there must be some positive news of his achievements, wouldn't you? Amirah (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

In an effort to try to find something positive to write about Farmaajo, I have just done a Google search on the keywords, 'Farmaajo achievements'. The following article comes up the top of the list. It contains several issues which are very important to the Somalia people and not even mentioned on this page.

I think it is important to reflect accurately what is written in the press, taking account of the validity of the sources and the applicability to the topic, of course. That is why I agreed to the 'uncle' comment deletion, because another editor did not trust the sources. But if what is written in the press is overridingly negative, then it would not be editing in a 'neutral' manner to try to portray it otherwise, would it? Amirah (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There has also been nothing said on the page about the uproar over the 'child marriage bill', even though there is a petition to Farmaajo himself against it, and Reuters points out that the bill was presented to parliament by a 'presidential ally' for approval. Amirah (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

 * Yes, largely because you've removed anything positive about the subject and added nothing by criticism, creating a decidedly unbalanced article. Looking at the edit history, most of the article's current content under Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed has been added by you, and is entirely negative.  At the same time, you've removed (first large tracts of text with canned edit summaries that included positive information. Examples of improper removal of positive content:
 * Here, you removed the entire "Reforms" section with the edit summary "Immediate removal of unsourced contentious material about a living person according to Wikipedia guidelines." That's a complete misapplication of BLP policy; that section was reasonably sourced, and had absolutely no BLP violations.
 * Here is another example of the same; you've removed a sourced quote from an Italian politician supporting Mohamed's position on the Kampala agreement. Please explain to me how that violates WP:BLP.
 * The entirety of the material you improperly gutted from the article can be seen here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored most of this content to the article. The Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed section is still heavily weighted towards negative material, so I think the disputed neutrality tag should stay on until someone can revise it to present a more balanced view. Rublov (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed; that section still feels rather lopsided in terms of criticism. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because a section is weighted toward negative material does not necessarily mean that it is bias. "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" WP:NPOVD As you have agreed that the rest of the page has been restored and it is now only this section which you believe to be weighted I suggest the tag is removed. Yes, I did write most of what is under the section (2017-present). The article was in much need of being updated, as the elections are due and there had been no updates on the current presidential term. I believe I have made these updates fairly reflecting what is in the press. You have not made any updates to the section yourselves. If you believe there are positive views which have been missed then you are still at liberty to add them to the section. Amirah  talk  23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry to remove the tag; there are other editors who have expressed similar concerns, and the article still feels weighted toward a negative bias. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that removing the neutrality tag is not yet warranted. The section is little more than a laundry list of negative comments about Mohamed. Rublov (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I find it insulting for you to refer to my editing as a 'laudry list' Rublov. I consider my contributions to the section to be NPOV and you have yet to prove otherwise. As far as I am aware, the NPOV Dispute has been between the two of you and myself and it is only your two opinions that the section is bias. OhNoitsJamie, you say in your comment that the article 'feels' weighted toward a negative bias, but it clearly says in WP:NPOVD that "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag", I would put your 'feels weighted' comment down as an opinion, so it gives me no reason not to remove the tag. Amirah  talk  01:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The concerns have already been described; specifically, that all of your additions to this article have been critical commentary, which has created a lopsided article. Recent example: You added a section about an aborted attempt to impeach the subject without describing the context of the action that was well-documented (e.g., clan/opposition rivalries, etc). Those sources also note that Mohamed has received some plaudits, and that supporters demonstrated against the impeachment announcement. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary the Reuters article states 'both his supporters and the government stress that his detention is political, rather than a clan issue' Amirah   talk  02:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The context of the action would not have made the action look an more positive for Farmaajo. The fact that it followed the raid of an opposition leader in which five people were killed by Somali security agents. A fact which you neglected to mention in your edits too. Amirah  talk  02:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You also failed to mention, as it has also been extensively reported on that the opposition leader, who was not charged or convicted with any offence following the raid in which he himself was also injured, received an apology from Hassan Ali Khaire who had been Prime Minister at the time it happened. [] Amirah   talk  02:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

But in talking to you in the same tone and manner that you talk to me I'm making myself just as bad as you are, aren't I? Amirah   talk  02:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Naturally, an attempted impeachment is by rivals and opposition, isn't it. It is also a fact that many of Farmaajo's own supporters turned against him over the illegal rendition of Qalbi-Dhagax to Ethiopia, which also happened before the attempted impeachment. If you would like me to expand on context I can do, but there is no need to delete my work and insult me because according to your opinion something more could be added to what I have said. Amirah   talk  14:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Previously, when I reported on peaceful protesters having been shot at by Farmaajo's security forces, you deleted my edit saying that it was not newsworthy, and now you have deleted my edit because you say I had not added background information which was about people being shot and killed by Farmaajo's security forces. It looks to me like a contradiction and I do not understand why you are continuing to delete my work and insult me. I have asked for explanation to clarify these issues and am still waiting for response. Amirah  talk  15:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am saying that there is very little in the news about Farmaajo which is positive and my edits are not bias. I had good reason for deleting previous material from the page, which was uncited, and that material has now been restored with citations. Perhaps you don't consider it controversial that there is uncited material on an article about a living person, a politician, shortly before an election, which gives him an advantage over other politicians, but I do, and for that reason I consider it valid to use the BLP rules and delete the material immediately without discussion. I am not adverse to the fact that some of it has been re-instated with proper citations. If I deleted any material along with it which was cited, perhaps this was a mistake or perhaps I had other reasons such as that the material was not newsworthy. It is some time ago now. The paragraph on 'Reforms' needs extra citation because it relies solely on a source which is the text of his own speech. This is the main paragraph on the page which says anything good about his political achievements, and it has been restored with a request asking editors to find additional sources which can be cited to say he did these things. I cannot find any sources myself other than his own speech. Amirah  talk  15:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Summarizing 2017 presidential term
Amirah sought clarification on my talk page regarding my attempt to summarize Mohamad's supporters/opposition in terms of geographic regions, administrative states. In reviewing sources and maps, that summary likely needs some tweaking.

The section on the 2017 presidential term should summarize the ups and downs of the term; currently, it reads more like an exhaustive list of criticism. . While reviewing sources in an attempt to do so, from solid sources is (1) Mohamed's term began with a fair amount of support, both domestically and internationally, and (2) in the last four years, while he still has supporters, the opposition has grown in strength with along clan and geographic lines in reaction to his efforts to unify the country, efforts which may have backfired. The major criticisms seem to be his heavy-handed approach to unification which for one has put-off Somaliland, and also his extradition of ONLF leader Abdikarim Sheikh Muse ,. Accusations of vote-stacking regarding the upcoming election have also been mentioned in several strong sources. Recent positive appraisal includes his appointment of Mohamed Hussein Roble to PM, who is "seen as nonaligned in the Somalia political landscape". OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with most of the points you have made here Jamie. I would say opposition has grown particularly along geo-political lines. His efforts to centralise power have backfired, this is true.

'South-Central' does not describe a region, so I prefer to talk in terms of regional opposition, than geographic areas. There are five or six federal member states in Somalia; Galmudug, Hirshabelle, Jubaland, Puntland and South West and Somaliland which is also known as a de facto independent country with limited recognition.

There have particularly been issues with Jubaland and Somaliland. Both of these states have had strong British colonial influences historically; Somaliland being a former British protectorate and Jubaland because of it's borders with Kenya which was colonised by the British. Other parts of Somalia were colonised by Italy. This colonial history plays a role in why Somalia has developed into a Federal country in which it is difficult to centralise power, and I agree with you that Farmaajo's approach has been heavy-handed to say the least. My personal understanding is that the historical colonial divisions of the country are causing more issue than clanism. However, this article by David Goldman the Director of Counter Terrorism, National Security, and Intelligence Analysis at Strategic Intelligence, does go some way to explaining the dynamics of clanism concerning Farmaajo's strategy in Jubaland. 

There have also been issues with Puntland which have yet to be mentioned. .,. In the remaining states, Galmudug, Hirshabelle and South West there have also been accusations against him interfering in elections and placing his own supporters in state government. So the opposition to him is spread over the entire country, not just in the one area. There have been comments in the press that these political tactics are reminding people of the methods used by Siad Barre, who placed his own people (Marehan Clan) in positions of political power to the exclusion of other clans. At least Farmaajo's selection of Roble for Prime Minister did not appear to follow this same pattern. Amirah  talk  18:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you would like to attract other editors to contribute to the article  and wish to leave the neutrality tag there for a while to invite them to do so. I have also added internal links to Farmaajo's clan and sub-clan and an external link to his thesis, which again is his own words, but can help readers to understand his own views and what his intentions were in politics at the time he wrote it. The thesis has also been criticised in the press by his opponents (who consider that he shows support for the Siad Barre regime and demonstrates a lack of sympathy over the Isaaq genocide). I have not added these criticisms to the text of the article. There have also been press articles more recently which say he has made apologies on behalf of Siad Barre for the massacres and genocide of people from Somalia and Somaliland which he was guilty of. Anyone who has sufficient interest to read Farmaajo's thesis and an understanding of Somali politics and history can read it and judge for themselves. There may also be points in the thesis which are in Farmaajo's favour. There may be articles which give positive appraisals of it too, which I have missed. I can only hope that nothing contentious would be added to this article which would cause harm to people who have already suffered so much and desperately wish for peace to return to their country. I suggest that we try to come to an agreement for a timespan that the tag should be left if, there is no further action on it or discussion on the talk page. Otherwise, after some time has elapsed, I will consider that the discussion and action provoked by the tag is over and that I should be at liberty to remove it without being made to fear that I would be banned from Wikipedia for doing so and I will assume that silence indicates consent to me doing so. Amirah  talk  14:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In the section 'Early Life' there is a claim that Farmaajo worked for human rights organisations while he was working for the Somali embassy in Washington. The source does say that he had experience with human rights organisations, but does not clearly say when. It is also clear further down in the section that he later worked in a human rights capacity with local government, particularly equal opportunity in employment rights. It would help to shed light on which human rights organisations he worked with and when, in what roll, any notable achievements made here. As I can't find any other reference to his work with human rights organisations I am wondering if this is a mistake in translation and that what the source actually meant to say was that he had worked in a human rights role with local government. Amirah  talk  19:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I consider myself to be a neutral observer to Somalia politics, but I'm empathetic to the stability/security issues and the challenges that the country faces. The article doesn't have to be perfectly 50/50 balanced between positive and negative commentary; if that majority of reliable sources are critical, it would be OK for the article to reflect that. I feel like we're making progress in balancing the article, but it could use a little bit more refactoring; the contested section still resembles a chronological list of grievances against Farmajo. Regarding your questions about the neutrality tag; let's at least give it a few weeks. It certainly doesn't need to remain indefinitely, but there isn't a consensus to remove it yet. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I will go with that. Amirah  talk  18:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021 (2)
This entire page is fake and is spreading propaganda.The amount of inreliable sources is disgusting. I would like to gain access to clean up all your mess. 3MohammedYasir12 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an edit request. Please read instructions for making an edit request. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021
The entire page is full with negativity and it does not mention his achievements at all. Its pure propaganda. I would like to gain access to point out his achievements 3MohammedYasir12 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DanCherek (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Footnote to infobox
I added the above footnote to the infobox and would like to open a discussion about it here so that a consensus can be reached on it's accuracy and that it is a true and unbiased reflection of valid media reports, as it has already been reverted a couple of times by a new User: CrazyMoMoCheese without discussion or edit summary. Amirah  talk  17:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
I made some recent changes to the intro paragraph and would like to open a discussion about it here so that a consensus can be reached on it's accuracy and that it is a true and unbiased reflection of valid media reports, as it has already been reverted a couple of times by a new User: CrazyMoMoCheese without discussion or edit summary. Amirah  talk  17:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox - Presidential term end date
Mohamed's presidential term expired on 8th February 2021. Although his term has expired he has not left office. I have added this discussion in order to reach a consensus as to whether the term end date should be included in the info box. Amirah  talk  00:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He is still the acting president, regardless of when his term was supposed to end; as such, the end date should be removed from the infobox until someone else assumes the role of president. It's fine for the article to note when his term was supposed to end. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Attempted motion for impeachment
Some of the content in this sub-section has been removed by User:ScottishFinnishRadish on the ground that there is 'No need for that much detail on a document that was put forward with fake signatures.' The document was first put forward by the authors and then it was signed by those who agreed with it. Many people agreed with it whose signatures were not fake. The fact that 14 people later said they hadn't signed it doesn't prove that their signatures were fake, but even if they were fake nobody knows who faked these signatures but these signatures don't detract from the importance of the document and the right of those who authored it to make their voices heard in my view. Amirah  talk  13:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The section still had too much detail for a failed and "invalid" impeachment document that was never voted on or brought to the floor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, you are entitled to your opinion. I beg to differ. I also can't understand your reason for the edit summary which says 'Don't need to quote the same person multiple times in one section.' What is wrong with quoting the same person twice in one section, unless it is repeatition? Besides, the quote you removed was by 'opposition leaders' not by an individual person. Amirah   talk  13:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * “What the president is doing is unconstitutional. He is like a man who is still living with and having children with his divorced wife. The current government is the same, it is an illegitimate government,” the former president said. and Former Somalia President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has accused incumbent Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo of openly disregarding provisions of the constitution. Same guy, two quotes, undue weight. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would also like to draw your attention to The three revert rule, you have made six edits in under an hour which remove content I added to the article. Amirah   talk  13:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please fully read any policy you're quoting, otherwise you may appear that you're just trying to stop changes to an article you believe you WP:OWN. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ' An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. ' Amirah   talk  13:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am asking you to slow down. If I believed I 'owned' the article as you say, then I would not have invited discussion and input from previously uninvolved editors such as yourself.You are now being confrontational telling me that I think I own the article. It is not true. I do not 'own' the article and I am perfectly aware of the fact that I don't 'own' it. Amirah   talk  13:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You just accused me of edit warring, saying I broke 6RR and you say I'm being confrontational? What do I need to slow down? I haven't made any drastic changes at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)]
 * I am holding back from editing the article myself, to give others a chance to edit it, but the rapidity with which you are removing previous edits I have made is concerning me. I drew your attention to the 3RR, I did not accuse you of breaking it. Again, I feel you are being confrontational. Amirah   talk  13:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I could have done it in one large edit, but I feel that smaller edits are easier to read, understand and discuss. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's not a problem. I agree with you about that. Amirah   talk  14:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Announcement of flag lowering and three days of national mourning
ScottishFinnishRadish removed this section. I felt it should be on this page because such an announcement is a decision which is usually made by a head of state. As interim president I felt that it went in his favour that he did this and helped to balance opinions expressed elsewhere that he supported Siad Barre regime. Amirah  talk  15:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty solidly undue. It is a routine task by an acting head of state. Doesn't need mention in the article about the person Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * However, having flag at half-mast for people contributing to the nation in a major fashion is a routine event. Likewise, for making statement on the death of a former head of state by a sitting head of state, be it interim or permanent one. as what indicated, this shouldn't be in here. Rather it fits better in Ali Mahdi Muhammad's page. – robertsky (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can accept your opinions on this.There is no 'edit conflict', just a discussion. Amirah   talk  16:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict means two people tried to edit at the same time. Doesn't have to do with conflict between two editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's the first time since editing Wikipedia I came across an 'edit conflict', wasn't sure what it was.  Amirah   talk  16:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Somali election impasse
I agree that it does make sense to merge or copy information in this section to the main article on the subject, as there are also events being reported in the media such as meetings between the Prime Minister and the opposition candidates which are not covered in this article, so the main article will give a more complete picture concerning all stakeholders. In some media sources opposition candidates have been reportedly expressing concerns that Farmaajo may be sabotaging the talks between themselves and PM Roble. I haven't added these to this article as I had been searching with the hope of finding some positive developments regarding the impasse to add to this page. For example: Puntland and Jubaland issue fresh ultimatums over Somalias dialogue. Amirah  talk  17:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021
Recent additions to this article are biased viewpoints and spread dangerous disinformation. The 2017 Presidential term section must be edited and the sources that are used are not credible sources, this section seems more of a gossip or opinion section rather than a neutral and informative one. Charlottecracker (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ER for instructions on how to make an edit request. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – robertsky (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please say which sources you do not consider to be credible and it would also help to say why if you can. If you wish you can use Reliable Sources Noticeboard to assist. I removed some text from the article myself yesterday after checking with RSN about it. Amirah   talk  11:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Somali Armed Forces
ScottishFinnishRadish has cited the following source on this page as evidence of Farmaajo's achievements while in office, and I would like to open a discussion about the topic of Somali Armed Forces here and whether it should be added to the article. Farmaajo’s biggest achievement and what he will be remembered for long after he is gone is the fact that he secured debt relief for Somalia. The topic of Somali Armed Forces has also been mentioned in other articles such as Somalia politicians strike at last minute deal but fears of conflict remain high “Farmajo sees the armed forces and intelligence services, and even police, as a personal instrument...'  Amirah   talk  14:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Debt Relief
ScottishFinnishRadish has cited the following source on this page as evidence of Farmaajo's achievements while in office, and I would like to open a discussion about the topic of debt relief here and whether it should be added to the article under a new paragraph heading. Farmaajo’s biggest achievement and what he will be remembered for long after he is gone is the fact that he secured debt relief for Somalia. The topic of debt relief has also been mentioned in other articles such as UN calls on Somalia to hold delayed polls as soon as possible “If Somalia’s leaders fail to come to political arrangements, al-Shabab and other spoilers will benefit” and “the gains made to move Somalia to debt relief also risk being squandered”, said Laranjinha.' and Anxiety rises as Somalia dithers on team, venue for delayed polls “The political gridlock of the past year has resulted in a disappointing lack of progress in fighting the al Shabaab and improving security, advancing economic development after achieving the first stage of debt relief, and effectively addressing the food insecurity and natural disasters that threaten far too many of Somalia’s people,” said Donald Yamamoto, the US ambassador to Somalia, in a statement.“Quickly resolving the current electoral impasse is critical to Somalia’s future,” he added. Amirah  talk  14:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Al Shabaab
ScottishFinnishRadish has cited the following source on this page as evidence of Farmaajo's achievements while in office, and I would like to open a discussion about the topic of Al Shabaab here and whether it should be added to the article under a new paragraph heading. Farmaajo’s biggest achievement and what he will be remembered for long after he is gone is the fact that he secured debt relief for Somalia. The topic of Al Shabaab has also been mentioned in other articles such as UN calls on Somalia to hold delayed polls as soon as possible “If Somalia’s leaders fail to come to political arrangements, al-Shabab and other spoilers will benefit” and “the gains made to move Somalia to debt relief also risk being squandered”, said Laranjinha.'  and Anxiety rises as Somalia dithers on team, venue for delayed polls “The political gridlock of the past year has resulted in a disappointing lack of progress in fighting the al Shabaab and improving security, advancing economic development after achieving the first stage of debt relief, and effectively addressing the food insecurity and natural disasters that threaten far too many of Somalia’s people,” said Donald Yamamoto, the US ambassador to Somalia, in a statement.“Quickly resolving the current electoral impasse is critical to Somalia’s future,” he added. Amirah  talk  14:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama
ScottishFinnishRadish has cited the following source on this page as evidence of Farmaajo's achievements while in office, and I would like to open a discussion about the topic of Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama here and whether it should be added to the article under a new paragraph heading. Somalia President Mohamed Abdullahi “Farmajo” will mark his one year in office on February 8, celebrating a few successes that eluded his predecessor. That source contains President Farmajo has made progress in breaking the Galmudug deadlock after Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama, based in Dhusomareb, made concessions to work with Mogadishu. Source Clashes break out in Somalia, slowing fight against al Qaeda-linked insurgents, also mentions the situation between FGS and Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama ASWJ leaders said the first provocation came from the government. “We sacrificed our wealth and lives to liberate these areas from the terrorist al Shabaab... (but) the Somali government forces openly attacked Inji house, which is a home for ASWJ leaders,” ASWJ leader Sheikh Mohamed Shakir Ali Hassan, who also says he is leader of the state, said late Thursday. “We have one enemy and that is al Shabaab. Let’s jointly fight the terrorists.”  Amirah   talk  15:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Corruption
ScottishFinnishRadish has cited the following source on this page as evidence of Farmaajo's achievements while in office, and I would like to open a discussion about the topic of corruption here and whether it should be added to the article under a new paragraph heading. Somalia President Mohamed Abdullahi “Farmajo” will mark his one year in office on February 8, celebrating a few successes that eluded his predecessor. That source contains He has also made efforts to reduce corruption, which was one of his main campaign slogans. He eliminated ghost workers and reduced wastage in the finance ministry. There are also other sources which mention corruption such as Veteran seeks to build consensus on statehood which says Farmaajo's government has argued it eliminated ghost workers in the military and put the country on the path to debt forgiveness, allowing Mogadishu to borrow again from international lenders. The problem? Abdishakur argues there are missing links, especially in the justice system and financial sector, where he argues the government has ignored pleas for reforms, allowing Al Shabaab to fill the void. Amirah  talk  15:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Economy
ScottishFinnishRadish has cited the following source on this page as evidence of Farmaajo's achievements while in office, and I would like to open a discussion about the topic of economy here and whether it should be added to the article under a new paragraph heading. Farmaajo’s biggest achievement and what he will be remembered for long after he is gone is the fact that he secured debt relief for Somalia. From that source Since Farmaajo was elected, Somalia’s revenue has been on an upward trajectory. The topic of the somali economy since Farmaajo was elected has also been mentioned in other articles such as Al-Shabab 'collects more revenue than government' which says that Acting as a quasi-government, al-Shabab is the only entity in the country which collects revenue in rural areas. Amirah  talk  17:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reforms Sections
It would be helpful if any editor can find secondary sources for this section. Amirah  talk  17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Renunciation of U.S. citizenship
ScottishFinnishRadish removed the text which stated that Farmaajo did not explain why renounced his U.S. citizenship. There was a clear cited source given which said this. There was also speculation in many media sources as to why he renounced his U.S. citizenship. Although he was not obliged to give a reason to the public, doing so would have demonstrated transparency, particularly as he held U.S. citizenship at the time of his election and had earlier claimed political asylum in the U.S. As the speculation for his reasons are only ideas and opinions they were not added to the article, but that he gave no explanation as to why is a fact. None of the sources which speculate as to why he did it state that he actually gave any reason himself. Amirah  talk  15:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And therefor we don't say anything about why he renounced his citizenship. All the AP said was The office of Somalia's president says he is giving up his United States citizenship but it is not immediately clear why. The second source makes no mention or commentary on it aside from a decision seen by some compatriots as an attempt to win support ahead of a run for a second term. It's simply undue to add a hanging "he never explained it" in an encyclopedia article about him unless there is secondary sources providing commentary on why that matters. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The following sources gives insight into some legal facts as to why it matters |publisher=Hiraan Farmaajo to attend UNGA after renouncing US citizenship Amirah   talk  16:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't discuss him "not explaining" why. It just gives a few reasons why someone might do it. You could add a "he never explained it" to anything the guy has ever done that anyone has ever speculated on the motives of if we accepted your reasoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the cited source did say that it was unclear why he did it. If you feel strongly that this doesn't belong in the article then I am ok with it too. Amirah   talk  16:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The following is a secondary source which provides commentary on 'why that matters' Did Farmajo Renounce His U.S. Citizenship Voluntarily? and states that The question many people are asking themselves is why at this time as the President did not give further explanation of the reason he renounced his U.S. citizenship. And does the process take two and a half years to finish? referring to the fact that The President was not able to attend the 72nd and 73rd Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly which was held in the U.N. Headquarters in New York in the years of 2017 and 2018 due to his U.S. Citizenship. Amirah   talk  21:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a dubious source; it looks like an editorial piece. I'd argue per WP:WEIGHT that it's not particularly relevant either. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021 (2)
Not understanding why the admins of this page closed editing to the public but allowed 95% of editing to be one individual with biased publishing all within the last few months. This seems like a political hit job rather than the publishing of unbiased and neutral information. Compare this page to the previous President such as Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, which was also edited by the user AmirahBreen but with a more positive and neutral tone. This seems like a deliberate smear campaign. Regardless, open the page for public editing or remove the contentious information that was brought to attention. This type of page is unacceptable, additionally, the introduction is heavily opinionated and biased indicating the unprofessionalism of the editing. This page is controversial and it's best to revert it back to before it underwent a massive smear campaign by a single user. Charlottecracker (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Unclear as to which specific revision you want to revert to. no comments to the commentary before the last line. Note, if even there is specific revision identified, it is unlikely that the reversion will be carried out (at least by myself) since between then and now, there have been contributions by many other editors as well to bring a balance of views to the article. – robertsky (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments regarding this article. The reason why admins closed editing of the article to the public is that editors were persistently removing material from the article without valid explanation and adding material without quoting sources. When they were asked to discuss their edits on the talk page they either declined, or the nature of the discussion has not followed Wikipedia guidelines. I am not sure what you mean by 'the admins of this page', as admins are not assigned to a particular page.


 * Wikipedia editing and adminship is mostly voluntary. If anyone is paid to edit a page they should declare it. So you are accusing unpaid voluteers of unprofessionalism, but by their very nature they are not professionals. Nevertheless, I agree that people should try to the best of their ability to edit Wikipedia in a professional manner. A page will be edited if members of the public have the motivation to do it.


 * Under certain circumstances, such as if an article is protected, only certain people can edit it. Even under these circumstances, those who are unable to edit the page can still voice their opinion on the talk page. All too often, such people make comments on the talk page and when they are advised the procedures to follow, they do not continue the conversation.


 * As you have accused me of biased editing, offering to help myself may not be fruitful, because there may be a lack of trust. But I am willing to try to help if you wish, especially as it is my editing you are complaining about. If you would prefer to try to get other editors to help, there are ways of doing that too, but whether or not it succeeds is down to the willingness of those editors to participate. For example, you could try contacting members of the Wikipedia project on Somalia, but some of the members have either been banned or inactive for a long time.


 * The fact that a page is 'controversial' is not a valid reason to revert it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do contain controversial material. What is more important is that the page should be a fair reflection of reliable media sources.


 * I also feel that some admins and editors, could be more encouraging to editors with less experience than themselves, and explain things in a less dogmatic tone and also it is important to assume that edits were made in good faith even if they were not done according to Wikipedia guidelines, unless it is absolutely clear that the contrary is true.  Amirah   talk  12:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, please see the Wikipedia guidelines for Neutral Point of View which state: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Amirah   talk  09:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ousting of prime minister
ScottishFinnishRadish removed the text The announcement was made shortly after he brokered an agreement with regional leaders for an election model which would abandon one person, one vote model, which he had earlier promised to deliver cited source Somalia names new prime minister, unveils plan for elections from the article with the edit summary: rm floating sentence. rm info better suited to election section. If this was the case he could have moved it rather than deleting it. I am disputing the edit summary as the timing of the announcement was relevant to the context and the failure to implement one man one vote elections was also relevant to the removal of the prime minister. Amirah  talk  23:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The article is about the person Mohamed Abdullah Mohamed. The section already has more than enough detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of the press
ScottishFinnishRadish removed the text In May 2020 the International Press Institute wrote an open letter to President Mohamed expressing concern at harassment, intimidation and arrest of independent journalists and media outlets. from the article with the edit summary: 'rm statement sourced to primary source. No secondary sourcing showing that this letter had any coverage.' I am disputing this as the International Press Institute did not write the letter about themselves, the letter was about independent journalists and media outlets, therefore it is not a primary source and there is no reason why a short summary of the letter should not be included in the article. It was an open letter to the President which was also published in full on their website. Amirah  talk  23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The letter is definitely a primary source because you're using it to quote the opinion of the group who wrote it. It just says more of the same of what is already covered in the section. Any additional detail should be in the Freedom of the press in Somalia article linked in that section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok Amirah   talk  02:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Germandering of Federal State Governments
I suggest that the short piece of text which has raised a copyright violation be retained as a quote or re-worded. There are other sources which back this up such as Farmaajo meets friendly fms leaders in villa Somalia at night Amirah   talk  16:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Rfc on neutrality of article, is it a fair reflection of reliable sources, particularly the section on Presidential Term (2017-2021) and the introductory paragraph. Amirah  talk  02:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)  Amirah   talk  02:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed/Archive 1 section above, as well as recent edit requests; the Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed section of the article is a nothing but criticism, as it's been written mostly by an editor who seems to have a bias against Mohamed. This is in sharp contrast to the article about Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, one of Mohamed's rivals for the presidency; that article contains no critical material as far as I can see.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 04:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am also asking for opinions as to whether the article is a 'fair reflection of reliable sources'. As far as I am aware the purpose of RFC is to invite discussion from editors who have so far not been involved. The instructions for making an RFC also state that it should be made in a neutral manner. User:Ohnoitsjamie has been involved in previous editing and discussions on this article, which is one of the reasons I have submitted an RFC. Everything which he has said here he has already said in previous discussions and I do not wish to be drawn into repetition of arguments which have already been made with him.  I would like to hear opinions from editors who have so far not been involved please.  Amirah   talk  05:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm here in response to 's contacting me for a opinion. This looks like a long term issue, with an appearance of WP:OWNERSHIP. A lengthy section of primarily negative incidents, added exclusively or nearly so by a single editor, ought to raise a red flag. I'd suggest that both parties take a break from editing this, and allow for a broader consensus to form, which may be hastened by opening a thread at either the ANI or BLP noticeboards. I'm going to ping another editor whose experience with biographies I value, . 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Melcous I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to help with this. Amirah   talk  05:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not Melcous, but am requesting their thoughts. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, you too User:2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, the comments you made on your talk page about checking the validity of sources would be very helpful. I have tried to use reliable sources throughout, and where I am not so sure I have added multiple sources if possible. It would be very useful for someone to go through the article and double check that the sources themselves are not bias. Thank you. Amirah   talk  05:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I first saw this page when patrolling requested edits and immediately thought that whole presidential section was just a list of issues someone had with him. There is definitely sourcing for accomplishments during his presidency, and not just stark criticism. Farmaajo’s biggest achievement and what he will be remembered for long after he is gone is the fact that he secured debt relief for Somalia. Also from that source According to Africa Command Director of Public Affairs Col. Chris Karns, at one point in time, 80%-90% of Southern Somalia was overrun by the al-Shabab terrorist group. Today less than 20% of Somali territory is under their control. The reformation of the Somali Armed Forces has been without a doubt a priority for all previous administrations; however, Farmaajo has made rapid progress. Also Despite the COVID-19 outbreak, the World Bank reported that Somalia’s economy is projected to grow by 3.2%, the highest it has been in four years. Since Farmaajo was elected, Somalia’s revenue has been on an upward trajectory. Another source opens with Somalia President Mohamed Abdullahi “Farmajo” will mark his one year in office on February 8, celebrating a few successes that eluded his predecessor. That source also contains President Farmajo has made progress in breaking the Galmudug deadlock after Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama, based in Dhusomareb, made concessions to work with Mogadishu. He has also made efforts to reduce corruption, which was one of his main campaign slogans. He eliminated ghost workers and reduced wastage in the finance ministry. So all in all the current section about his presidency is non-neutral and not a reflection of available sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this ScottishFinnishRadish I would also like to point out that although you just removed content from the article giving grounds in the edit summery that 'the statement was sources to the primary source', the whole of the 'Reforms' section is also sourced solely to the primary source. It would be helpful if anyone can find secondary sources which would back up this section. Otherwise, it may also be removed.  Amirah   talk  12:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Secondary source added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @, in that case do you agree that we should be removing anything sourced to a primary source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. Amirah   talk  13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Although you say you have added secondary sources to 'Reforms' section, there have been no secondary sources added. I would like to reiterate my request to any editor who can find them to add reliable secondary sources to this section. Amirah   talk  13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Please also see the discussions below on how to implement the suggestions here. Amirah  talk  17:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing/copy pasting
There has been significant copy/pasting from sources, so currently I'm trying to go through, find and remove them. Currently the oldest I have found is here. I'm going to continue going back as I'm able to see if any more pop up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"Cheese"
Editors, please do NOT put this stuff back in the lead. I have serious doubts about whether it should be anywhere, but this in the lead, in the opening sentence, trivializing a president of a country, that is a BLP violation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Its probably not fit for the lead but it should be somewhere. Somali President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, also known as FarmajoAP, Somali journalists and rights groups are criticizing President Mohamed Abdullahi FarmaajoVoice of America, Immediately after the voting, Somali President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (also known as President Farmajo)VoA again, since President Mohamed Abdullahi ‘Farmajo’ took office in February 2017.Amnesty International. What's more wild is that it seems that almost all of the African news sources just call him "President Farmajo." I never thought I'd learn this much about Somalia when I was just patrolling edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Reuters and the BBC use it as well; ,. I get the impression that the nickname is common enough to not carry pejorative connotations. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So does United Nations use it when introducing him. Farmaajo is a Somali word, and I agree that it does not need the explanation in the lead paragraph of the meaning and root of the word coming from Formaggio which is Italian. Perhaps this explanation should also be removed from the early life section too, but you can see if you click on the reference beside it there, that the name 'Farmaajo'  also appears on his election campaign posters. Yet this reference in the Early Life section is unreliable, it says his former boss was President Sheikh Sharif Hassan, which is a combination of the names of two former presidents. It  It is not really important to the article to explain the nickname, just as neither would it be necessary to explain the literal meaning of a person's given name. I can understand your concern that right at the top of the intro paragraph, all this explanation of the nickname is unnecessary and using such an important place in the article to expand on something so trivial, it did show an attitude of disrespect.  Amirah   talk  18:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Recentism and NOTNEWS in the lead.
"He has expressed willingness for negotiations with stakeholders to address the controversy in order to find a solution." is definitely not necessary for the lead of a person. It's just another part of the election shenanigans that should be covered in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI Discussion
I've started a discussion at ANI about behavior on this article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Council of Presidential Candidates
I removed this section because having a whole heading dedicated just to dumping the criticisms of an opposition group into the article is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Opposition reactions should only be included in sections when it is given significant weight by multiple secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Khat
In May 2020 there was a BBC article about the banning of khat due to Covid-19, which at the time was mostly coming from Kenya. Somalia's coronavirus khat bans leaves chewers in a stew, an April 2021 article in Garowe Online Somali PM's cabinet reshuffle linked to corruption now claims that the drug has been being imported from Ethiopia. The source mentions Hassan Farmaajo, Mohamed's brother, who anonymous sources have implicated in the importation, saying that his role was to obtain the necessary documentation from the President. Has anyone come across any other sources which back this up or not? Amirah  talk  04:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This article suggests the ban was lifted in November but due to the cutting of diplomatic ties with Kenya they are not able to get the import licenses which are now required. Somalia lifts ban on miraa imports from Kenya. Sources also point out that the cost of khat has sky rocketed since the import ban, and it's supply or lack of would have a strong effect on the mood of the people. According to the Wikipedia article on khat it is a stimulant which makes people very talkative and induces mild euphoria and possibly psychosis and mania and may also be an appetite suppressant. According to CARE 4.8 million people are suffering from food insecurity. Somalia Food Insecurity Crisis.    Amirah   talk  05:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen nearly enough coverage that links this to the article subject, so it seems completely WP:UNDUE to include it. It's just another "fallout from covid-19" story. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Revert of 30 April, 2021
Please provide the substantive rationale for your reversion. Amirah  talk  01:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to others if you could link to the revert in question, given it is a month old. CMD (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the date, I am referring to the following revert which took place on 30 April, 2021  Amirah   talk  10:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I, and several others, have reverted this because it is an WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH addition to the lead. The lead is meant to be a quick summary of the key points of the article, which it already is. He was elected, he has been acting president since the term ended, these groups do not recognize him as president. By adding "but he refuses to step down" or "refuses to resign" or other wording at the end of the sentence about the groups that don't recognize him you're basically saying in wikivoice "All these people don't recognize him and he should step down but refuses to." This is not what the weight of the sources, or the article itself says, therefor it shouldn't be in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please tell me which sources say he is acting president as you claim above, and why, if he is acting president, does the infobox still say he is the incumbent president? By definition, an acting president is not the incumbant president. The article itself says that 'acting prime minister would not be able to perform certain constituational duties'. I am not an expert on the Somali constitution, but I would consider it likely that the situation would be similar for an 'acting president'. We need to be clear if the article is about an acting president or an incumbant president, and other Wikipedia pages should also be updated if what you are saying is correct.   Amirah   talk  12:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , all the sources refer to him as the president and most note that his mandate expired. Somalia's President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, Somalia's president has moved to ease tensions in the capital, Mogadishu, by calling for fresh presidential polls., Somalia’s President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed announced, The September agreement allows for the president and others to stay in office after Monday’s election date if needed. All those sources are in the article, or were until you removed the prose about the September agreement allowing Mohamed and others to remain in office if needed.
 * As for being the acting president, his mandate expired. In law, a person is acting in a position if they are not serving in the position on a permanent basis. This may be the case if the position has not yet been formally created, the person is only occupying the position on an interim basis, the person does not have a mandate, or if the person meant to execute the role is incompetent or incapacitated. Acting (law)
 * As for acting versus incumbent, you're incorrect. Whoever is filling an office is the incumbent, whether they are acting, appointed, installed, or ending their elected term normally. For example, in an election for president, the incumbent is the person holding or acting in the office of president before the election, whether seeking re-election or not. It's actually an example used in our own article on incumbency which is linked via incumbent in the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Somalia has had 4 acting presidents and all their profiles state 'acting' or 'interim' in the infobox. See List of presidents of Somalia for links to their profiles. The word 'acting' is also noted in the infobox on this page after several officeholders. If Farmaajo is 'acting president' then '(acting)' should be added after 'Incumbent' in the infobox. I don't think the explanation for why (that his mandate expired) needs to be in the infobox, if it is clear he is now serving on an interim basis. Perhaps a better way of doing it is to put a term end date and a new start date for the 'acting' period, to make it clear this label does not cover the entire term. Also, please tell me, are you talking about Somali law or International law above? Amirah   talk  13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Refused to step down" is clearly WP:SYNTH and pov-pushing. The onus is on you to get a consensus to re-add it, not an us to provide a "substantive rationale" that satisfies you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When not implicit as silent agreement, concensus is not something you 'get', it is something you reach through discussion, which may involve explanation and perhaps compromise. When an editor reverts someones work, they should provide a rationale for doing so in the edit summary. 'No consensus' is not rationale for reverting someones work. I am at liberty to ask the rationale behind the reversion. The onus is on the editor who made the reversion to give it. I am here now hoping to work with the editor, and anyone else who wishes to join the discussion, toward consensus. Can you explain to me  please   what you mean by WP:SYNTH and pov-pushing and how it relates to the words "Refused to step down"? I am trying to hold a constructive discussion, but I don't expect to have alphabet soup thrown at me.  Amirah   talk  17:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please could you provide the diff where you say 'I removed the prose about the September agreement allowing Mohamed and others to remain in office if needed'. Amirah   talk  22:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, wherein you also removed expert analysis as speculation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, the revert is goodfaith, but seeing as you have contested it wil take a closer look. I have looked into WP:CRYSTALBALL and see that expert analysis may be allowed. I can also see that you have joined two sources with - despite A experts believe that B could happen. Source 'B' doesn't mention 'A'. and source 'A' says,'James Swan has warned that going beyond that day brings “an unpredictable political situation in a country"', directly after what you reported about September agreement to allowing Mohamed to remain in office. Surely, James Swan is also an expert, and he is referring directly to Mohamed staying in office. He says the situation would be unpredictable. I don't understand why you have combined the two sources in order to say something different. Why did you ignore the expert advice of James Swan to predict violence instead?  Amirah   talk  23:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Somalia extended elections in both 2012 and 2016 without severe political fallout. Somali watchers fear, however, that this time is different because of the extreme lack of trust between President Farmarjo's government and the federal states and opposition groups. Fears that constitutional crisis could trigger violence ..."We are living in a very fragile and fragmented nation where clans are armed, where there are armed groups, which are more powerful than the government, controlling most of the country."
 * The September agreement allows for the president and others to stay in office after Monday’s election date if needed, but United Nations special representative James Swan has warned that going beyond that day brings “an unpredictable political situation in a country where we certainly don’t need any more of that.” The uncertainty is ripe for exploitation by the Somalia-based al-Shabab extremist group, which has threatened to attack the polls
 * I guess I could have also written "Despite elections in 2012 and 2016 being extended without severe issues and the September agreement allowing for the president and others to stay in office..." but they're referring to the same issue and the same fallout. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. Or you could place the reference for 'A' part way through the sentence, and the reference for 'B' at the end, making it clear which part of the sentence comes from which source. There has already been violence, as predicted, but please God it will not happen again. Amirah   talk  15:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The September agreement allows for the president and others to stay in office after Monday’s election date if needed, but United Nations special representative James Swan has warned that going beyond that day brings “an unpredictable political situation in a country where we certainly don’t need any more of that.” The uncertainty is ripe for exploitation by the Somalia-based al-Shabab extremist group, which has threatened to attack the polls
 * I guess I could have also written "Despite elections in 2012 and 2016 being extended without severe issues and the September agreement allowing for the president and others to stay in office..." but they're referring to the same issue and the same fallout. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. Or you could place the reference for 'A' part way through the sentence, and the reference for 'B' at the end, making it clear which part of the sentence comes from which source. There has already been violence, as predicted, but please God it will not happen again. Amirah   talk  15:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. Or you could place the reference for 'A' part way through the sentence, and the reference for 'B' at the end, making it clear which part of the sentence comes from which source. There has already been violence, as predicted, but please God it will not happen again. Amirah   talk  15:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Amirah is violating Wiki-policy as a close associate of a current Presidential candidate (Sharif Sheikh Ahmed), she has therefore a vested interest in portraying the president in the most negative manner possible, despite being without question the most popular and effective civilian Somali president since the admins of Sharmarke and Aden Adde. The last paragraph of the article doesn't even make sense because he is the President by law until a new administration is sworn in, the law passed by parliament in September 2020 made it clear that legally there won't be a 'vacuum', which is why his administration is still in charge, and recognised as such in the international community. Its like adding Trump's opinion on President Biden in the lede of the latter's article. It would never happen, so why is it okay here? BTW Amirah's obvious conflict of interest (which based on her extensive editing history of Sharif Sheikh's wiki-article looks more like a paid gig) was pointed out by several contributors in the past but |but it was since purged from her talk page.
 * The last paragraph of the article is the Awards and Honours section, which I added myself. How many civilian presidents has Somalia had? Isn't the President the commander in chief of the Somali Armed Forces? No, I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia, what you are saying is untrue. What do you mean, a paid gig?   Amirah   talk  05:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Anti-corruption candidate
Two of the sources on that section directly support that language, so I'm not sure why there's an issue. Both sources are very high quality.

NPR "And even though the process was rife with corruption from all sides, a vote for Farmajo is seen as a vote against corruption," as NPR's Eyder Peralta reports from Nairobi, Kenya.

Politico But what really won Mohamed the love of the people was his reputed distaste for corruption... But the reports of a corrupt election have not dimmed public enthusiasm for the civil servant who ran on the platform to clean up the Mogadishu swamp. Celebrations in the streets revealed a populace that was ecstatic to have a president who won their affection years ago—not a blatantly corrupt consensus choice of the clan elders.

This language is and has been sourced since it's addition. There are also tons of other sources for this language, but we don't need to cite bomb non-contentious information.

And that's a big deal here, that parliament elected the popular favorite and the man seen as the least corrupt candidate... The MPs really voted against corruption. It shows you cannot buy the MPs, but the MPs can buy their seats. But when it comes to the presidential election, because the MPs are politicians, they don't look at who gives them how much money. They look at their own interests or the interests of their constituencies.

As she looked at a live stream of the proceedings in Mogadishu, she just shook her head. If the current president won re-election, she says, it would be a huge victory for corruption. But if anyone else did, especially the popular favorite Mohamed Farmajo, it would show her that... President Mohamud conceded, making Mohamed Farmajo Somalia's new president. Mubarak, the anti-corruption activist, says even though all the candidates bought votes, Farmajo's victory gives him hope that maybe, just maybe, the presidency in Somalia does not go to the highest bidder.

So that's the big question. And it's really hard to answer. You know, there are those observers who really like President Farmajo. Remember, he was the popular favorite, the least corrupt of the presidential candidates. And those observers saw Farmajo's election as a huge blow to corruption.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not clearly in the article who saw him as such. Amirah  talk  14:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You just added weasel words. The sources are clear that he was generally accepted as the anti-corruption candidate or least corrupt. No statement of opinion like that is going to have 100% support, but we use the language the sources use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Words used by the sources for who sees him as the least corrupt or anti-corruption "the people" "a populace," "the parliament," "MPs," "the anti-corruption activist," "observers." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that putting an end to corruption was one of his election promises, and if we are to use words such as this in the article, then I suggest that we add a paragraphs under his term outlining what he actually did in order to uphold these promises.  Amirah   talk  15:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)  Amirah   talk  15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't about his election promises, it's about how he was viewed. The sources are clear about him being viewed as the anti-corruption candidate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, he was viewed as such due to his promises, as well as his track record during his time as Prime Minister.
 * See which says "Regrettably, he did the opposite and during his time in office corruption worsened, the economy faltered, and security deteriorated, allowing al-Shabab to regain the majority of the territory it lost before his election."  Amirah   talk  15:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Does that change that during the 2017 election he was seen as the anti-corruption candidate? Also that link is an opinion/analysis piece by someone who's expertise is Climate change, water, food and energy security, international transboundary water treaties, renewable energy, smart infrastructure and sustainable development, environment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Also which says that one year into his term he admitted it existed in his government. But what did he do about it?  Amirah   talk  16:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to change that he was seen as such, I would just like to make clear that not everyone saw him as such. Seeing as you object to using seen 'by some' I have compromised and added 'generally' seen as, which is a word you used yourself above. I am also suggesting, that as it was one of his election promises, we expand on it under his presidential term.  Amirah   talk  16:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally is just another weasel word used there, and it doesn't add anything to the prose except ambiguity. I'm sure there is plenty of coverage of his handling of corruption, including of the anti-corruption law he signed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This appears to have come up again after four months. It's still well sourced, as shown above. I removed the generally, as that's the only weasel word, and it was added by User:AmirahBreen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For the who says template I'll point back to my post on April 28th, Words used by the sources for who sees him as the least corrupt or anti-corruption "the people" "a populace," "the parliament," "MPs," "the anti-corruption activist," "observers." We've been over this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And just to try and nip this at the bud, we don't qualify statements by labeling which country sources are from. That's WP:SYNTH, as you're trying to assign a value to the location of the source. If other sources discuss that American sources are biased, then we can include that with a citation if it's WP:DUE, but otherwise it has no place in the article. The source is either reliable or not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the latest wording back to simply "campaigned as." The phrasing and qualifiers were getting a bit tortured; we have plenty of sources that support the notion that he "campaigned as the anti-corruption candidate."  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)