Talk:Somali passport

Untitled
Are other somali passports than machine readable ones, produced in Dubai(?), recognized as travel documents?

My name is deka yonis dahir. I live in Somalia. I have passport Somalia, how can I get visa !?? Deka yonis dahir (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bogus passports
I added the following:

"Bogus Somalie passports Reports indicate that given the absence of a functioning government in most parts of Somalia, Somalian people buy their passports from private suppliers rather than applying to any State agency."

Although sourced and, to my mind, very relevant, it was deleted. I have put it back in but welcome input on why (if needed) why it should be left out. 84.203.72.5 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Youtube videos aren't considered reliable sources on Wikipedia; c.f. WP:QS. Also see WP:PRIMARY for editor-based interpretive claims of primary sources ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"). Middayexpress (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think its an issue of unreliability, but a clear copyvio of a BBC documentary. The documentary itself should be considered a reliable source, but the YouTube link clearly has to go. I'll attempt to ref the info without the link. RashersTierney (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:YOUTUBE is a sub-division of the WP:EXT guideline, which pertains to external links. While Wikipedia doesn't object to Youtube external links under certain circumstances, Youtube videos aren't reliable sources for the reasons indicated/linked to above. At any rate, I've added a reference to the counterfeiting that the IP was referring to, but put it into its proper context w/ reliable refs. Middayexpress (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a YouTube video in the sense of being self published. Its a BBC documentary, and as such as reliable, or not, as anything else they put their brand to. In general they are considered reliable. RashersTierney (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but WP:PRIMARY's instruction that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" still applies here. It's there because if it weren't, any Wikipedian could locate any random quote or snippet featured in any video of his or her choosing to justify any cause/argument. That's why secondary sources are necessary.WP:Video links explicitly states this too:
 * "'Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This prevents editors from engaging in original research. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content. If the material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia.'"
 * The shootandscribble link to the documentarian's personal website also does not qualify as a secondary source, while it makes claims about third parties in its promotional material. Per WP:SPS, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as [...] the material is not unduly self-serving[...] it does not involve claims about third parties". It also states that Wikipedians must "never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
 * Given the above, I have removed the interpretive passage. Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There is no analysis here, just simple reporting on a primary source. The award-winning documentary series is as reliable or more than any written source on the free availability of black market documents. There is no valid reason for this deletion of material directly pertinent to the situation that applied re Somali passports in 2005. I think we may need to invite outside opinions here. RashersTierney (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple. You quoted a passage from a documentary making claims about third parties and linked those claims to a promotional website (shootandscribble.com) by the same documentarian, one Simon Reeves. This is problematic because:
 * The passage was not used on the gentleman's own Wiki page but rather on the Somali passport article itself. This is a breach of WP:SPS, which indicates that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as [...] the material is not unduly self-serving[...] it does not involve claims about third parties". It also states that Wikipedians must "never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
 * The quote in question has only been reproduced in three online webpages, webpages that are simply mirroring the same stock promotional text that is cited on the documentarian's personal website . That's not secondary source coverage, which is defined as "second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research". This lack of actual secondary source coverage, in turn, means that the passage also fails WP:UNDUE.
 * The quote is not coming from a neutral third party. Rather, going by his own statements, Simon Reeves appears to be a supporter of the Somaliland region's bid for international recognition (a region that issues its own unrecognized passports ). According to him, "I think Somaliland is a likely candidate for international recognition. The government and the people there have done so much to build a functioning country that it does make you wonder how the rest of the world can ignore them." Per WP:RS, this affects the reliability of the source since the actual creator of the work (Reeves) is also included in the definition of a reliable source:
 * "'The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability.'"
 * As I wrote, I am not in principle opposed to mentioning counterfeiting of the Somali passport. In fact, I already added a passage in the article to that effect. What I am opposed to is the undue use of seemingly promotional material from a non-neutral source when there are other actually neutral secondary sources that are available and can be used for the purpose. Middayexpress (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Waffle. This must be one of the most blatant examples of attempting to control editing by wikilawyring I've seen for a very long tome. The observation made in the documentary, and introduced by the IP above, is perfectly valid and deals directly with the dilemma of obtaining a Somali passport at the time in question. RashersTierney (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's the big deal here. The counterfeiting issues have already been mentioned, and besides, the old passport has been replaced by a more secure biometric one. Wadaad (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Middayexpress and Wadaad, the whole passage about the BBC documentary is really irrelevant, and I see no reason as to why an entire passage detailing that doc specifically should be included over a myriad of other respected/award-winning media-specials and books that have all in the past highlighted the counterfeiting that occurred with the old Somali passports. This would turn the article about the passport itself into one of counterfeiting exclusively, a situation like that should be prevented at all cost. The mention of counterfeiting is already done(see;In response to widespread counterfeit Somalian passports that subsequently flooded the black market), and this is in my opinion neutral and sufficient enough. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing
Following blatant canvassing by User:Middayexpress, (User:Wadaad, User :Somaliweyn10 and User :Runehelmet), it is obvious that further discussion on the subject with a handpicked audience is a waste of effort. RashersTierney (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no it isn't. WP:CANVASS states that appropriate notification includes the following: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following[...] On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." The users I contacted are among the most active members on the Somali-related articles. And I clearly indicated as much in my polite, brief, neutrally-titled and neutrally-worded message: "as one of the main editors on the Somali-related articles, there's a discussion on the Somali passport going on here where your input would be appreciated". For the rest, please see WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Middayexpress (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Muhidiin ali mohamud
102.69.234.122 102.69.234.122 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)