Talk:Somalia/Archive 4

Bias in the economic descriptions and other areas
I have looked through the revision history. This article has been edited in a blatantly biased fashion by Middayexpress in particular, but also by a few others as well. This user, and a number of others, carry a clear anarchist or Austrian economic bias. I understand their frustrations, because these ideas are generally left out of evaluations of relevant subject matter, which is not only unwarranted, but often done in a non-civil manner. Nonetheless, that does not justify this kind of misinformation.

On the other hand, a number of edits have also been made by those biased by government, indeed, those who may have never even considered any other viewpoint due to the prevalence of pro-government viewpoints in western cultures that surely dominate this English-speaking page.

Firstly, Somalia is indeed in abject poverty by modern standards ($600 per capita GDP). Economic growth rates are far slower than many other countries that also have less than lucrative economies. Evidently, the Somalian economy is not as strong as this article mentions. Of course, the economy is not a complete failure either, but that does not mean that abridging these facts is acceptable. Stating that the economy is relatively stable is fine, and indeed, more accurate. Certainly, it is also unacceptable to have the nation painted as a chaotic mess that consequently has economic failure (if any point along a pro-government viewpoint could be made, it is that a capitalist, national government system would produce more economic growth for the country as a whole).

At the very least, anarchists should acknowledge that Somalia has a failed state, because state is another word for government. On that note, the notion of the failure of a state being the measure of success of a society is also clearly fallacious. However, somalian society has also failed in the sense that there is war in the south, extreme poverty, and only mild growth. Accounts that do not acknowledge the partial success of the Somalian system are in error. Regardless, the society is not abdicated of its failures because its partial success.

A few other things to look into are: whether or not investment is low because most businesspeople do not believe in anarchy, and whether that could be a source of minimal growth; whether there is actual growth after accounting for inflation; whether there is any more in-depth analysis of the economy of Somalia, and not just from Austrian economists; and just how strong the economic growth is in the north.

A more accurate viewpoint than simply viewing Somalia as either a chaotic failed nation or an imperfect success story of anarchism with an only so far unresolved southern civil war would be to realize that it is more like two nations than one. We also should recognize that at the level of the entire world, there essentially is anarchy (no government that controls the whole world. The UN has very minor power, and that's it). There is no anarchy in Somalia, no more than the world, and we are really just talking about different levels of government on a hierarchy of size and power. Many other "nations" have had civil wars in parts of itself, systems sort of like anarchy, weak federal governments, economic prosperity in sections with failures somewhere else. In fact, central governments are not all encompassing, and the same kinds of divisions exist even in countries we see as run by a government. Often, even in highly centralized nations, the government is powerless in a number of ways. Limitations of government power written into law in many Western "democracies" also help to ensure that in those nations.

Still, there are major failures, and downplaying the failures of Somalia is obscuring the suffering of people in Somalia, preventing sympathy or action. Knowledge is in the first place something we have to benefit humanity. Obstructing that benefit in one case generalizes to all cases. Doing so for just for the sake of an argument on government systems is very selfish.

Further, regardless of whether or not this article is empathetic enough given the purpose of knowledge, the editorial standards of Wikipedia require neutrality. This article is not neutral. It needs to be made neutral. That means a solution that is neutral both to anarchist and government viewpoints, instead focusing more on empirical realities of Somalia. An editor that can see outside their own viewpoint needs to step up and revise this article, or a current editor needs to learn how to step outside their own viewpoint. Further biased edits by either side should be considered as vandalism.

Nikurasu (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you could possibly know what my edits are or are not without having ever even interacted with me. Judging by your choice of article, aggressive posting and writing style, comments and scant editing contributions, I am almost 100% sure we already have interacted and several times before in some form or another. You write above that the edits pertaining to the economy are "biased". This is a red herring since nowhere are any such economic sources cited. The actual figures and general economic trends discussed herein all originate with reliable sources such as the CIA. It's the CIA itself that indicates that Somalia has a healthy informal economy based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications; the GDP's growth figures are also taken from this source. There's also no point in attempting to insinuate that all of Somalia is a 'failure' when in reality only parts of the south are affected by war, not the autonomous Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug regions in the north i.e. the bulk of Somalia. This too is already clearly explained in the Law section, in particular, where the three-tier legal system (civil law, religious law, and clan law) is discussed in detail. Middayexpress (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what your edits were because I looked in the edit history and discussion page. They are features on Wikipedia that let you look at prior edits. I don't have to interact with you to know your edit history. That's blatant deflection, without even an attempt to be truthful. You don't have to be so defensive. I didn't attack you. I said your edits were biased. I reached out to you, too. I said you were right in certain cases. You were. I didn't just criticize you. The way you reacted is not very fair.


 * Oh? So you are going to paint me as a troll to try to get me in trouble because you don't feel comfortable with my criticism of your edits? Trolls are not the only people who are aggressive, you know. I am not being that aggressive, anyway. I am being blunt, and honest.


 * Scant editing? This is a years old account with occasional edits (also, the fact that you looked at my edit history shows that you even know that were being dishonest before about me having to interact with you). There is no indication of trollish behavior in my history. In fact, rather the opposite. Saying I have done scant editing a blatant misrepresentation of my account to try to paint me as a troll, and get me banned. You should really not go so far every time. Exhausting every means to support your viewpoint straight off the bat is pretty nasty. You are completely out of line. A personal attack irrelevant to the discussion, indeed, in place of it, is wholly inappropriate. My interest is the neutrality of this article, and if simply pointing out that you are a prolific editor of this article and edit it to be biased with frequency is this offensive to you, you should not be editing this article. I suppose it follows from the fact that you are willing to make biased edits, though. I didn't say to ban you or remove you from this article originally, though. I said that ALL biased edits should be counted as vandalism, from both sides. I asked for a shift in the editing paradigm of this article so that biased viewpoints did not win out. I thought you might even agree with that, because there were editors doing the same thing opposite of your viewpoint anyway.


 * You, on the other hand, are engaged in blatant edit wars in at least one article on Wikipedia, and are always editing in favor of one viewpoint. I would never suggest that you be banned, though, only stopped from writing your bias from Wikipedia where you do. That is Wikipedia policy in the first place.


 * I worried about this from your edit history. It seems you are unable to have a civil discussion.


 * "This is a red herring since nowhere are any such economic sources cited. The actual figures and general economic trends discussed herein all originate with reliable sources such as the CIA."


 * It's not a red herring. The facts don't say what you think they say. For example, the per-capita GDP is $600. Most prominent fields of thought (see Neutral_point_of_view) do not consider that a healthy economy. Furthermore, the Austrian interpretation is not one of the main schools of thought on Somalian economics, rather than a fringe. I think it would be fair to have an Austrian section, but certainly by the rules of NPOV the article cannot follow the Austrian interpretation as the primary one.


 * The edits you made exactly match the Anarchist viewpoint. The only way that could possibly happen is if you were an anarchist, and pretending otherwise to try to pass off your edits as biased is extremely inappropriate. You also cite the Mises institute, a non-neutral Austrian economics website that often, as well as a series of Libertarian or Anarchist sources. The CIA was the only neutral source. You are clearly not neutral. Also, I can't believe you just claimed that no such sources are cited.


 * To any neutral observer it is obvious that you are biased, though. I guess I should have not tried to engage you in a discussion in the first place. This article needs to be marked as biased and dealt with.


 * "It's the CIA itself that indicates that Somalia has a healthy informal economy based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications;"


 * This is a blatant propaganda line. One statement the CIA made evaluating its statistics is not fact. The CIA also is not an organization of economists or historians. Their descriptions are also meant to be basic, not entirely accurate or comprehensive. That statement is also essentially contradictory with the fact that the people in Somalia live in abject poverty. That there is successful business in Somalia does not mean that the entire social system is a success. It does not mean the economy is a success, either. Many very poor countries with what most viewpoints would consider bad economies have some successful business.


 * If you cannot tell your own viewpoint from the truth, or separate them, you should not be allowed to edit this article.


 * "the GDP's growth figures are also taken from this source. There's also no point in attempting to insinuate that all of Somalia is a 'failure'"


 * I didn't say all of Somalia was a failure. Obviously, the north is relatively successful. I pointed out that anyone who did not include that is not neutral. I said the society as a whole could not be called a success because parts of it had major failings.


 * "You are ignoring ...h are affected by war,"


 * I did not ignore that.


 * "not the autonomous Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug regions in the north i.e. the bulk of Somalia. This too is already clearly explained in the Law section, in particular, where the three-tier legal system (civil law, religious law, and clan law) is discussed in detail."


 * Ok, I will agree that they are most of the population. That does not mean that 1/4 of the nation failing is a minor societal failing. You also ignored the $600 per capita GDP, and other problems.


 * The very language in the Xeer law section is pulled from an Anarchist article on Irish Anarchy that you can find cited in the main article on Anarchist governments, if that still exists("Somalis have for centuries practiced a form of customary law," specifically).


 * This discussion is essentially over, though. You will not admit your bias, and that is the end of it.


 * Nikurasu (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have been needlessly accusatory instead of assuming good faith, which doesn't inspire confidence. Right off the bat, you accused me of being an anarchist and claimed special "knowledge" about my edits and viewpoints when, oddly, you have (at least ostensibly) never even interacted with me before. You claim that you gleaned this knowledge from the article's editing history, but this is doubtful since not one of my recent edits to the article have been in any way major or controversial. Further, the heated discussions you allude to aren't particularly relevant since much of the article has been rewritten since they first took place. A GDP per capita of $600 is indeed not impressive when compared to Western countries in particular. However, that is not a fair comparison to make in the first place given Somalia's very different living circumstances and requirements. The only truly realistic comparison that can be made is therefore relative to Somalia's own living standards from before the war erupted, and this has been done. Your 'anarchist' gripes regarding the Ludwig von Mises Institute and others are also indeed irrelevant since, as I've pointed out before, the actual figures and general economic trends discussed herein all originate with reliable sources such as the CIA, the Wallstreet Journal and the African Executive ; the von Mises Institute and others just relay them. Moreover, it is most certainly not a "blatant propaganda lie" that the CIA itself indicates that Somalia has a healthy informal economy based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications; it actually states this outright: "Despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications."  It's also the CIA that indicates that governance is now divided along three lines; civil law, religious law and customary law. I'm glad, however, that you at least acknowledge the basic fact that the bulk of Somalia is not actually strife-torn. Even the southern regions, however, have made important strides; businesses there just have to hire private security to operate normally. What lay observers don't realize is that Somalia as a whole (not just the northern regions) is resurrecting in a big way. Piracy attacks this year in the Gulf of Aden have significantly dropped over the same period last year due to increased policing efforts both on land and sea; the Central Bank of Somalia was recently re-opened for the first time in 17 years; the re-constituted Somali military's troops have almost completed their professional training abroad and now have the backing of significantly more African Union troops with a new peace-enforcing mandate (as opposed to the previous peace-keeping mandate i.e. only shoot when shot at); the UN, inspired by the many strides that have been made, has announced that within the next two months it is also moving back its operations into the country for the first time in 17 years; the first national elections in 40 years are also set for next year. It's therefore not particularly realistic or helpful to act as though nothing has changed or is changing; it most certainly has and is, and this includes the economy. Middayexpress (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F You are absolutely not supposed to remove bias tags unilaterally and without discussion. However, anyone is allowed to mark an article as biased if they feel it is so, and I do. If you feel the tag is unwarranted, you have to discuss it. You may not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. Tags cannot be "unwarranted" and removing for that reason is not allowed by the rules of Wikipedia. Nikurasu (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an essay page, not a policy. See below for the actual Wikipedia policy on this issue and how your unwarranted tagging fails it. Middayexpress (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will grant that that is an essay page. However, my challenge is valid by the policy as well. As I said previously, "Most prominent fields of thought (see Neutral_point_of_view) do not consider that a healthy economy." That is something you entirely ignored. Instead of discussing NPOV policy, you simply posted a page that is already assuming that my tag is unwarranted by NPOV policy, which does not prove that it is unwarranted by NPOV policy. An NPOV justification is required in the first place to declare the tag unwarranted. Obviously, if the tag is not deserved, it is vandalism. Nikurasu (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not support your claims regarding tagging or indeed even address them; it just links to specific templates. The fact remains that the economy section contains many facts, yet you attempt to use what is now only one sentence from it that is sourced to an "Austrian" economist -- and clearly labeled as such -- as an attempt to tag the whole article as unreliable. This is a classic instance of abuse of tags, which is a form of vandalism: "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as afd, delete, sprotected, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." Middayexpress (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You completely ignored my arguments. If you want to have a civil discussion, then talk with me. I cannot discuss with you if you do not converse rather than come up with endless points irrelevant to what I said, and which usually are not very solid. Take your time, address what I am actually saying, and then maybe we can really talk. You also cannot debunk what I am saying without directly addressing it. Creating a separate argument does not change anything, especially if it is as weak as the ones you keep making. As is, you are just filibustering, whether you mean to, or not. Nikurasu (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's define what exactly it means to "filibuster", shall we? According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, filibustering is "the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly". By that definition, it's clearly you that is and always has been filibustering. I hope you realize that tags like the one you've added (and struggled hard to retain) are intended as temporary markers until an actual solution is found, something which you have been reluctant to seek. In fact, you seemed quite content to leave the tag in place and disappear, indicating that "this discussion is essentially over" in a talk page post minutes after you had first placed that tag, as if tagging the entire article as unreliable had been your goal all along. The fact is, you complained about so-called "Austrian economic" sources (and actually accused me personally of being an anarchist), and even suggested at one point that you "think it would be fair to have an Austrian section, but certainly by the rules of NPOV the article cannot follow the Austrian interpretation as the primary one". And when those were reduced by me from a handful of sentences to exactly one sentence (not an "Austrian section"), you still griped that things weren't "negative" enough -- as if a "negativity" is what Wikipedia's neutrality policy mandates. You also complained about GDP per capita not being cited. Yet when a statement from the Central Bank of Somalia was produced indicating that, while Somalia's GDP per capita is only a couple of hundred dollars per year, it is actually higher than many other neighboring countries, the Central Bank of Somalia itself -- the foremost authority on Somalia's economy -- all of a sudden became a "source with a conflict of interest in describing Somalia's economy" and "not an organization of economists" and "not necessarily reliable" (FYI, the former Governor of the Central Bank of Somalia is also the Alternate Governor of the Islamic Development Bank Group). Besides the fact that WP:COI applies to editors, not to a country's own monetary authority, that's like arguing that the Federal Reserve is not a reliable source on the US economy. Absurd. This is the very definition of filibustering, but it's pointless since, as I've already pointed out, tagging is a temporary device. Middayexpress (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly, I am filibustering. I am the one always resorting to long, almost always logically invalid, poorly sourced explanations, after all. My arguments are the ones thrown together in a clear haste. It is me that always create straw-man points. I create imaginary and inapplicable criticisms of arguments. Not only that, but I defend points, no matter how blatantly the flaws are pointed out. I repeat them as many times as I need to. All corrections I make do not actually change the bias. They obscure it by hiding the sources it comes from, or by posting some of the information requested while making the opposite point (see where I edited in information about GDP, and claimed I incorporated the criticism of the person I disagreed with). Most of all, I create an endless stream of arguments with only a vague relation to the points of the person I am replying to, and the larger issue in general.


 * Can you not see the one common element between all of these tactics, delay? I suppose you have. That is why you have exposed me as the filibusterer that I am.


 * Tagging is a temporary device posted until the dispute is resolved. I fully agree. However, my dispute is not with you. Your purpose is to divert, not to revise, or discuss. I would be more inclined to discuss with a number of editors interested in actually revising this page. That includes those who favor the current bent, but are willing to discuss. Nikurasu (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have described many of your posts very well. And you are correct in noting that tagging is a temporary device. Unfortunately, you still misunderstand the criteria for tagging an article in the first place; it has nothing to do with what you or other editors believe or wish, but what actually is. From the relevant Template:POV page: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." You have questioned the credibility of the Central Bank of Somalia -- the highest authority on Somalia's economy -- so this shall be sorted out shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You know I was being facetious, and describing what you were doing. What I said does not apply to my own posts. You are trying to get me angry, probably to try to get me to violate policy and get in trouble so you will go unopposed. Also, you are still trying to filibuster. As stated in the editing notes, most economists disagree with the CBoS description, so most significant viewpoints are not represented. Nowhere in NPOV does it state that "highest authority" is a relevant criteria. Reliability is, and a source cannot be considered credible in describing something if it has a vested interest in portraying itself in a positive light. If someone took information off of a corporate website and used that to describe a company, that would also be inappropriate. An honest evaluation would require third party sources as well. More importantly, there are many reliable sources that disagree with the CBoS, and that are not represented by this article. The most prevalent viewpoint in reliable sources is not represented.
 * These points are entirely obvious. If you cannot even acknowledge such clearly valid points, your bias will be evident. You are playing a dishonest game. You will not succeed. Believing that you will is a mistake. Even more than that, believing that you need to is a mistake. You do not, and would have a lot more success if you were honest and pro-social. As is, you will eventually be removed from editing. The question is when an administrator will realize how necessary it is. The complexity of your deception is great, so it may not be immediate.
 * Also, the tag will stay. You have no administrator in agreement with you. The mere fact that you disagree with me on the fact that the article is neutral is not a reason. That is what a dispute is. The neutrality is disputed, and there is no way to change that, as much as you might want to. I also have a good reason, which you can never change, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. Beyond that, you have failed to even come close to debunking my reason.
 * Anyway, I made a wonderful case against you, but I will take it to an administrator rather than provide it to you. All talking to you will do is allow you to create a more convincing facade. Nikurasu (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not stated anywhere in any reliable source that "most economists disagree with the CBoS description". This is something you have literally invented (nevermind proven), and is a reflection of your own personal beliefs, not actual authorities on Somalia's economy. Per the Template:POV tag that you yourself added, it also makes no difference whether you personally believe an article is not neutral; your opinion does not determine what is NPOV -- actual sources do: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." To this point, I have already queried whether the Central Bank of Somalia, the CIA and the British Chambers of Commerce are reliable sources on the economy of Somalia, and of course, an administrator (a member of the ArbCom, no less) indicated that they indeed all "are considered reliable sources for these purposes". That unfortunately makes your attempts to invalidate their assertions a failure, and your tagging the article indeed unwarranted. Middayexpress (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is stated in almost every reliable source, essentially. The BCC, which is indeed reliable, says "Despite the bleak picture painted by income and social indicators." The World Bank, as I have already pointed out, speaks about the poverty of Somalia (by the way, why did you remove it? That's pretty deceptive). Only the CBoS and Anarchist sources disagree. I will have to talk to that administrator, because I have a feeling he or she did not look at the page of the CBoS. Also, you misrepresented what the administrator said. The administrator said only the first two were considered particularly reliable. Beyond that, the statistics on the CBoS website may indeed be reliable, or good enough to be considered a reliable source, but the way the CBoS characterizes the economy is still not a majority opinion in sources. "your opinion does not determine what is NPOV" Ok, you are right that I should not make judgments of bias, but to say "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources" is clearly attempting to incite me, because I have been saying this for over a week, and the most common viewpoint includes the fact that Somalia is in poverty. You also are not supposed to remove the tag without reaching a consensus, and an administrator agreeing with the case only you presented is not a consensus. Also, stop edit warring. Nikurasu (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you a few basic questions though. Is Somalia in poverty? Is that a fact? Should all facts on the economy be mentioned in the economy section? Nikurasu (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the British Chambers of Commerce clearly indicates that "Despite the absence of a state structure, many sectors are operating successfully and entrepreneurs are making good in Somalia". That is its summary of Somalia's economy; it also goes on to describe that growth. The sentence fragment you quoted likewise reads in its entirety "Despite the bleak picture painted by income and social indicators, the private sector has grown in recent years, especially in service activities", which hardly contradicts the Central Bank of Somalia's assertions. And the "income... indicators" the BCC refers to are GDP per capita and the percentage of the population that live on less than a dollar a day, both of which are already discussed in the article via the Central Bank of Somalia. The World Bank source, as I've already pointed out, describes the state of the economy from over seven years ago, not the present. The "scarcity of capital" it alludes to caused by the "absence of any formal banking" sector, for starters, is a thing of the past. The Central Bank of Somalia was of course recently re-opened by the Transitional Federal Government that was established in 2004 (also after the report), and as it itself points out, money transfer operators have acted as informal banking networks: "Besides the outright cash transactions, the payment system in the country is fairly advanced despite the absence of a Central Monetary Authority over the past fifteen years of civil war; thanks to the investments in telecommunications network by the private sector that have enabled operations of private remittance companies to make both local and international monetary transactions possible". Many of these money transfer operators are even "expected to seek for licenses so as to graduate into full fledged commercial banks in the near future and thereby broaden the scope of payments system in the country to include cheques which will reinforce effectiveness of use of monetary policy in the macroeconomic management." So yes, it most certainly is not stated anywhere in any reliable source that "most economists disagree with the CBoS description". This is something you have indeed literally invented (nevermind proven), and is a reflection of your own personal beliefs, not actual authorities on Somalia's economy. It is also a blatant untruth that "only the CBoS and Anarchist sources disagree". As I pointed out to you from the start, the CIA also indicates that "despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications" . The same goes for the British Chambers of Commerce. The administrator also did not say that "only the first two were considered particularly reliable"; this is yet another untruth. He quite clearly indicated that "Material from the CIA World Factbook, the British Chamber of Commerce, and the Central Bank of Somalia would all be considered reliable sources for these purposes, particularly the first two" (1). I suggest you learn to deal with it. Middayexpress (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just meant to point out that it did mention the poverty of Somalia. It does also mention the growth, which is valid. The article is fixed now though, so it no longer matters. I do not understand, however, why you did not acknowledge my point. I do not mean to attack you, but I want to better understand you in order to resolve our discussions in the future (if they happen. Personally, I would like to do a bit more work on this article). I think I should come back to this later, though, because I sound a little frustrated. I honestly do want to improve communication here, and I do not mean to make things any worse.Nikurasu (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I assumed you already noticed that I had added the BCC material . At any rate, no hard feelings. Middayexpress (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nikarasu, I want to point out that a POV regarding free-market economics, etc. was pointed out by myself and others more than five years ago. Note that this precedes Middayexpress' involvement with Wikipedia by several years. I think the article reads better than it did where economics are concerned. Not to say it couldn't be better, just that I don't detect the same slant that once existed. See old discussions at Talk:Somalia/Archive 1 and Talk:Somalia/Archive 1. My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is good to know. I still feel this page is severely biased, though. I did not know about that resolution, and it simply seemed apparently biased. The selection of statements describing the economy is still rather one-sided given the range of evaluations made by economists. I would have to say that it is still in desperate need of a rewrite, and indeed should be marked as biased. I also did not mean to specify Middayexpress as the only source of the bias; nonetheless, if you look through the edit history, he stands as one of the more prominent people maintaining the status quo of a very pro-Austrian economics page, and has made numerous edits specifically preserving Austrian points over more mainstream ones. I see that I may have misunderstood, though, and am willing to drop that. Regardless, what is most imporant is that this page is revised to a less biased form. Nikurasu (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The tag you added to the top of the article is completely unwarranted. As already pointed out above, your charges of "pro-Austrian economics" bias have no basis in reality. All of the actual economic figures and trends are referenced to reliable sources, ones that consistently indicate a rebounding economy. Of the many reliable sources used, only four phrases come from the references that you have presumably been describing as "pro-Austrian" or "anarchist", and these are:
 * "At nearly 3 million heads of goat and sheep in 1999, the northern ports of Bosaso and Berbera accounted for 95% of all goat and 52% of all sheep exports of East Africa. The Somaliland region alone exported more than 180 million metric tons of livestock and more than 480 million metric tons of agricultural products"
 * "Up to 14 private airline firms operating 62 aircraft now also offer commercial flights to international locations."
 * "According to the UNDP, investments in light manufacturing have expanded in Bosaso, Hargeisa and Mogadishu, in particular, indicating growing business confidence in the economy."
 * "The robust private sector has also attracted foreign investment from the likes of General Motors and Dole Fruit"
 * Those are all statements of fact, not "pro-Austrian" value judgements as you seem to be implying. The only phrase that could conceivably be viewed as such is the assertion that "this increased economic activity is attributed to the Somali traditional law (referred to as Xeer), which provides a stable environment to conduct business in", and this viewpoint is hardly exclusive to Austrian economists. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" in this case are actually Austrian economics sources. You do know I can look at the citations, right? The only source that was not a Libertarian, Austrian, or Anarchist website was the CIA. Even if I assume good faith, that is not proper sourcing. That is also evident in the bias of the page towards Austrian economics. Your points about goat and sheep, and airlines are irrelevant, because it is a point about economic size that ignores the actual size of the economy in terms of GDP (which is small in this case, and decidedly subpar based on the fact that it can only provide $600 for each person in Somalia. Somehow you think that saying that this is not important will convince people, or will make me give up on that point. It will not), yet seems to say something about size. That is a clever tactic that debaters sometimes use to try to overwhelm their opponent, but it is also patently dishonest, and false. It will not effect me. I find the depths of your avoidance of the actual point a grievous violations of all good standards, but it will never flabbergast me.
 * You see, that you would even say "these are statements of fact" is a deceptive tactic. Not a good one, either. Most arguments are based on facts, or have elements of truth. The issue is that you are ignoring certain facts and only looking at others. There is also simply no justification for picking the facts you have. Clearly, the fact that the actual size of the economy is small is more relevant than selected facts that do not summarize the whole economy and are therefore merely trying to make it seem as if the economy is larger than it is. The only reason you have to skew the facts like this is to justify the Austrian economics viewpoint, or justify US failure in Somalia (I lean towards the former because of your choice of sources. The CIA website is an exemplar of the latter). Also, that viewpoint is mostly if not entirely exclusive to Austrian economists. I am unable to find any source that has that viewpoint that is not Austrian. Re-examining historical economies in other cultures and showing their supposed laissez-faire successes originates in the writing of some Austrian economists as well.
 * Do you really think you are hiding your viewpoint by denying that it is your viewpoint and that you are sponsoring it? You add sources from Mises. Do you know what the description on the Mises website says? "You have found the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory." You may think that you can win this argument, but you will eventually falter. Your argument is evidently false, and you already know it.
 * Further, I do not see why you would construct such elaborate arguments to defend the bias of this page if you are not biased. If you plausibly explained this, admitted that this page is possibly or definitely biased (perhaps that it is biased is just a mistake, and not malicious or intentional), and stopped trying to justify it so much I could really assume good faith. Otherwise, I am just going to have to go with what is in front of me. I cannot assume good faith when there is not really room for it in the facts. Nikurasu (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite. While the size of the GDP may not appear large, that is not really an indication of the health of the economy since not all countries are the same size and have the same size populations. The GDP was also a fraction of that size as recently as 1987, just prior to the civil war; it's been steadily increasing since then. It's the GDP's growth rate that matters, and Somalia's GDP in 2009 had an estimated real growth rate (that is, after being adjusted for inflation) of 2.6%. In case you hadn't noticed, this has already been cited in the article, as has the "actual size of the economy" you complain about: "For 1994, the CIA estimated the GDP at $3.3 billion. In 2001, it was estimated to be $4.1 billion. By 2009, the CIA estimated that the GDP had grown to $5.731 billion, with a projected real growth rate of 2.6%." You again bring up Somalia's GDP per capita of $600, suggesting that it is not impressive; this is of course true when compared to Western countries in particular. However, that is not a fair comparison to make in the first place given Somalia's very different costs of living and requirements; for one thing, $600 goes much further there. The only truly realistic comparison that can be made is therefore relative to Somalia's own living standards from before the war erupted, and this has been done. Your continued attempts to employ ad hominem tactics for lack of real arguments have also not gone unnoticed. You keep harping on about "Austrian bias", when even an administrator -- one who specializes in the Somali and Ethiopian articles and has witnessed first hand the growth of these pages over the years -- has already indicated above that the economics section is actually much better and less biased now than before. The economy section contains many facts, yet you attempt to use four sentences from it of empirically verifiable facts (not value judgements) as an attempt to tag the whole article as unreliable. This is a classic instance of abuse of tags, which is a form of vandalism: "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as afd, delete, sprotected, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." It's also clear you don't even really understand what a reliable source is. You again attack the Ludwig von Mises Institute, but this is a red herring because not one of the four sentences in question above is sourced to that reference. You're therefore yet again grasping at straws. Middayexpress (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An edit before you reply: maybe you are not an Austrian economics supporter. From your talk page archives it seems that you simply seem to have made a few mistakes. I will not edit this entire post, but I am willing to discuss the neutrality of the article only, rather than either of us. There still are some valid points in this post about the neutrality of this article; however, you should not take anything in it personally, even if at the time of writing I meant to address you specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikurasu (talk • contribs) 08:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another distraction from the point. My arguments are not ad hominem. Your bias is entirely relevant to your arguments, and in fact, define them. What you want to do is scare me away from addressing the essential nature of your arguments so that you can control the discussion, and that is something I will not fall for. The reality is that you are clearly an Anarchist, Libertarian, or Austrian economics supporter who is trying to hide that that is what they are. That also is indeed relevant, because it is a complete explanation of the pattern of your behavior. You also are editing in favor of this viewpoint. If anything, you are a particularly subtle vandal. The article also does have Austrian bias, and that is relevant, and not even referencing anyone in particular.


 * "However, that is not a fair comparison to make in the first place given Somalia's very different costs of living and requirements;" This is the flaw in your argument. It is a fair comparison to make, and the majority of experts often make it. These economies are most commonly characterized as being less developed, and lacking in the standards that allow great wealth and high growth rates. Somalia should not be an exception, and the only reason to make it an exception is to support a laissez-faire viewpoint. Again, I agreed that Somalia has a relatively stable economy, but a 2.6% growth rate is not stellar, and the GDP is quite low. Also, many countries have had civil wars, but they would still be evaluated "You ... than before." Gyrofrog did not say the page was not biased. If anything, Gyrofrog was agreeing with me to an extent. He was saying that the page was not as biased as before, though, and that you were not the original source of the bias. Also, mentioning "administrator" is a blatant appear to authority, perhaps even an attempt at intimidation, which is also not an argument, not to mention highly inappropriate. It also is not "civil." Passive aggression is not civility. There is also a pretty evident attempt at bandwagoning in your statement (even though it is not actually bandwagoning since there is no evidence most people agree with you, and most do not, since most people are not Austrian economics supporters). This page is evidently severely biased. You would have more luck with arguments that are not so obviously false.


 * "but this is a red herring because not one of the four sentences in question above is sourced to that reference." Right, you got me, I was wrong to say that the Wikipedia article cites Mises and a series of libertarian, Anarchist, and Austrian sources because some of it does not. Let me quote this for you: "According to the CIA, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Independent Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education, despite experiencing civil unrest, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies and telecommunications.[2][21][22][19][23]" Now, let me list those sources: "'Somalia'. World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. 2009-05-14. Retrieved 2009-05-31," "Africa Dispatch: Somalia's Money Men - The Wall Street Journal," "The Rule of Law without the State - Spencer Heath MacCallum - Mises Daily". Mises.org. Retrieved 2010-06-27," "Benjamin Powell, Ryan Ford, Alex Nowrasteh (November 30, 2006). "Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement?", "Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success?". Thefreemanonline.org. Retrieved 2010-06-27." The last three sources are transparently of the type I mentioned. The Foundation for Economic Education is also of this type. The first is not. The second is not Austrian, either. I suppose I made a mistake on that.


 * A lot of the other citations are good sources; however, the evaluations are overly positive. More importantly, they rarely represent the information (or tone) of the article cited, and are therefore false by Wikipedia standards. For example, the statement that references the World Bank says "the private sector grew impressively." However, the actual World Bank article says "Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world, a situation aggravated by the civil war and the absence of a functioning national government for over a decade. The impact of state failure on human development in Somalia has been profound, resulting in the collapse of political institutions, the destruction of social and economic infrastructure, and massive internal and external migrations. Given these conditions, Somalia is at the extreme of the Low-Income Countries Under Stress (LICUS) continuum of countries." It also says "the private sector has managed to grow impressively," as mentioned in the Wikipedia article. It then goes on to say "particularly in the areas of trade, commerce, transport, remittance and infrastructure services and in the primary sectors, notably in livestock, agriculture and fisheries." However, it also says "most of these sectors are now becoming either stagnant or their growth is hindered due to the lack of investment, trained manpower and the absence of a relevant legal and regulatory framework to enforce rules and regulations, common standards and quality control. The scarcity of capital is mainly caused by the absence of any formal banking and financial." So, essentially, the source says that the economy did grow, but is now stagnant, while the Wikipedia page says the economy has grown and is still growing.(by the way, the language on the Wikipedia page is evident plagiarism. It is even more troubling to realize that it is essentially a copy-and-paste spam argument formatted to be a Wikipedia article) Claiming that these series of overly positive statements that just happen to match Anarchist, Austrian, or Libertarian viewpoints, and even are falsehoods created from misquotes of sources, are not biased or do not fit these viewpoints is evidently false. The severity and consistency of this transgression is unacceptable. I have never seen someone lie as blatantly in the face of so much readily available evidence. If anything is in bad faith, it is your arguments and edits that are clearly centered around preserving the Austrian bent of this page. Beyond that, while it is important to follow the standards of Wikipedia, trying to justify bias and subdue opposing arguments by picking and choosing Wikipedia policy in order to claim that you are attempting to preserve the standards of that policy is disingenuous, clearly bad faith, and will not work.


 * Further, given the prevalence of a more negative evaluation in the cited sources, this positive viewpoint is also not a major viewpoint. This also stands whether or not this viewpoint is being used to justify Austrian economics. Such a prevalence of a minor viewpoint also is a violation of NPOV, as articles are supposed to represent the major viewpoints, rather than fringe ones.


 * You are also assuming bad faith in my designation of NPOV, which is not correct. To post something I was writing, but did not get a chance to add: "It was not a matter of good faith, or not. It was not a matter of special knowledge about your edits, which I never claimed I had. I read the Somalia page, and was appalled at the amount of bias I saw. I began looking in the edit history for a pattern, expecting to see a list of random IPs vandalizing this page to fit an Anarchist viewpoint. What I found was mainly you, but also a few other users, editing this page in that way. I was honestly surprised to learn that this page had been even more biased before, and that it had improved, because it seemed so incredibly biased to me upon my arrival. It read exactly like an Anarchist essay in a number of places. It even cited a multitude of Austrian economics sources, with no sources from opposing viewpoints."


 * I address the vandalism claim in my post above.Nikurasu (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another biased statement in the economics section: "This increased economic activity is attributed to the Somali customary law (referred to as Xeer), which provides a stable environment to conduct business in.[18]" This statement is sourced from Peter T. Leeson, who is an anarcho-capitalist. Nikurasu (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As per usual, Midday has dragged this into an unreadably long brawl. I'll just add that I agree with you Nikurasu, there are numerous problems with the article including an overly rosy economic picture, undue weight on numerous topics, an intro that isn't really an intro, weasel words all throughout and what seems to be a systematic attempt to remove negative information.  I think it's a real shame these problems persist, but a glance at the feet dragging by Midday in the argument above and dozens of others in the past should make it clear why.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have made way too many patently false assumptions throughout your posts, which I have had to correct you on time and again. Many of these have been about me personally and what edits you believe (or at least would like others to believe) I've supposedly made, while others have been about the article itself. Your doublespeak of pretending not to be personally attacking me, yet having the nerve now to describe me as "a particularly subtle vandal", of "l[ying] as blatantly in the face of so much readily available evidence", and of putting forth "arguments and edits that are clearly centered around preserving the Austrian bent of this page" is a perfect example of this.


 * I never suggested that Somalia's GDP is irrelevant or that it should be made an exception. I suggested that it is unrealistic to compare its GDP to that of Western countries since, for one thing, the costs of living are not even close to being the same; one dollar buys a lot more in Somalia than it does in the West. Of course, other countries have also undergone civil wars, but few are presently in the process itself of rebuilding as Somalia is; the former are already developed and have been for some time. Somalia's GDP is a reflection of all of this, as is its steady real growth rate of 2.6%. Furthermore, it is a bit of stretch to suggest that Gyrofrog is agreeing with you when he of course said nothing about any continued bias, and actually explained that he and others pointed out bias in the article years before I ever started editing it. He also quite clearly indicated that the economics section by comparison now "reads better" than it used to and that he doesn't "detect the same slant that once existed". That completely contradicts your claims that I'm an "anarchist" or whatever that's responsible for supposed "Austrian economic bias", which is why I brought up his post in the first place; not to "appeal to authority", as you charge, but to point out to you what someone who is in a position to know what he is talking about and has witnessed the growth of the article over the years knows to be true.


 * You also bring up material sourced to a World Bank paper, which you then attribute to me and proceed to quote from as an example of what you claim, among other things, are "overly positive" evaluations that "rarely represent the information (or tone) of the article cited, and are therefore false by Wikipedia standards". While I did add that material to the article, I was only copying and pasting it from the Economy of Somalia article, where someone else had already added it. I'm glad you brought it to my attention though because the state of the economy which it describes is from over seven years ago, not the present. The "scarcity of capital" caused by the "absence of any formal banking" sector, for starters, is a thing of the past. The Central Bank of Somalia was recently re-opened by the Transitional Federal Government that was established in 2004 (also after the report), and as it itself points out, money transfer operators have acted as informal banking networks: "Besides the outright cash transactions, the payment system in the country is fairly advanced despite the absence of a Central Monetary Authority over the past fifteen years of civil war; thanks to the investments in telecommunications network by the private sector that have enabled operations of private remittance companies to make both local and international monetary transactions possible". Many of these money transfer operators are even "expected to seek for licenses so as to graduate into full fledged commercial banks in the near future and thereby broaden the scope of payments system in the country to include cheques which will reinforce effectiveness of use of monetary policy in the macroeconomic management."


 * There are presently now only two sentences in the article on the economy that are sourced to references which you have referred to as "anarchist" or "Austrian". As I've already pointed out, the first explaining that "this increased economic activity is attributed to the Somali traditional law (referred to as Xeer), which provides a stable environment to conduct business in" is sourced to such a reference. However, it is hardly a viewpoint exclusive to "anarcho-capitalist" Peter T. Leeson, as you put it. The second, asserting that "despite experiencing civil unrest, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies and telecommunications" is actually sourced primarily to the CIA. However, the Central Bank of Somalia also supports this and adds that "the economy of Somalia remains resilient despite the past fifteen years of political conflict. The economy has even expanded i.e., shown growth trends in some areas albeit with inequitable distribution" and that "the Somali economy is bound not only to recover from pre-civil war levels, but also to accelerate in economic growth and development given the country’s unexploited natural resources which include deposits of uranium, tin, copper, zinc, gold, coal, zircon, and kynite. Moreover, the financial sector, currently dominated by the vibrant remittance companies as the only players in the national payments system, stand to expand considerably once the conventional commercial banking activities resume." So while I commend your attempts at discussing specifics for a change, you're still grasping at straws. Middayexpress (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Midday, I called a truce after I wrote that post, and specifically said I would not go back and reedit that post. You must have known that. I do not know why you are continuing. Perhaps you are attempting to flamebait. Maybe you misinterpreted. You did not improve the bias on the page, you just removed references that made it obvious. I am going to link the previous edit here so that it is not forgotten: []. Also, you chose to take that sentence and bolster a biased construction on this page describing the economy, despite the fact that it does not match the more general economic literature. You also added biased edits to the economy page such as "Anthropologist Spencer Heath MacCallum attributes this increased economic activity to the Somali customary law which provides for a stable environment to conduct business.[7]" []. Also, no unbiased sources back up the claims you just posted. The Somalian bank has a vested interest in painting the Somalian economy in a positive light. On the flip side, the fact that you would give credit to a central bank seems to say you are not an Austrian economics supporter, though. Still, given the patterns of edits, you are biased.
 * Nonetheless, given the sheer amount of biased editing, dishonesty, and other inappropriate behavior you have displayed I would say your case is far beyond the point of tolerance. There is also no point in discussing with you. Even when I try to be particularly fair you just ignore it. Other than that, you just come up with one false explanation after another as well as repeatedly ignore my points or simply repeat yours, and talking with you merely validates your misbehavior. The article is biased. Your edits are not always, but often biased. Stop defending these inappropriate actions. This is the last warning or explanation I will give. You have been given time enough, over a year even, and plenty of warning by many different people. Clean up your behavior. Many of your actions violate Wikipedia policy. My next actions will be more severe. I may only be able to make an exception if you acknowledge that you have made mistakes, and sincerely demonstrate that admission. It is possible that I will just accept a truce as well, though if you continue to misbehave after the truce, that will no longer be enough. Nikurasu (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Very odd, to put it mildly. First you complain about the allegedly "rampant" presence of Austrian economic sources (which actually only turn out to be a handful of sentences), and the importance of GDP per capita. And when the former are reduced to one sentence and the latter is included, you still complain that the edits "[do] not match more general economic literature" -- nevermind the fact that even the Central Bank of Somalia itself is among the sources indicating that Somalia's economy is rebounding. It also makes no difference the sequence in which you wrote your latest series of talk page posts from yesterday. They are still your latest series of posts, there are still quite blatant personal attacks in them (as there predictably are in your latest post), and you still elected to keep those personal jabs in place (though you easily could have deleted them if you had wanted to since I hadn't even responded to your edits yet until today). So don't blame me for pointing out and taking exception to your own continuous incivility. You claim I did not improve the alleged "Anarchist bias". This is very amusing since there is exactly one sentence left in the article now on the economy that is sourced to a libertarian author, and he is quite clearly labeled as such: "Libertarian economist Peter T. Leeson attributes this increased economic activity to the Somali traditional law (referred to as Xeer), which provides a stable environment to conduct business in". I also openly admitted in my last post to having added the World Bank source to the article, so I don't see how I could've "lied"; that is called reaching: "While I did add that material to the article, I was only copying and pasting it from the Economy of Somalia article, where someone else had already added it" . I also didn't add that allegedly "biased" opinion by the anthropologist Spencer Heath MacCallum to the Economy of Somalia article; another editor with whom I've actually had disagreements in the past over these same edits did . By the way, linking to an old version of an article as you've done above proves nothing since it doesn't even show who made what exact edits; only actual difs like I've linked to can do that. You now claim that "no sources back up the claims you just posted", but tellingly never bother even quoting just what exactly those alleged "claims" are. This is understandable, since every last sentence in my latest edit is of course sourced ; it would take a Herculean effort on your part to prove otherwise. You have now literally gone off the deep end, cryptically insinuating that I have had some kind of year-long warning or something to that effect ("You have been given time enough, over a year even"), which is of course patently false. It seems you are unaware of Wikipedia's rather rigid policy regarding personal attacks, so let me quote it for you: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." I also recommend having a look at WP:HARASSMENT, particularly its sections on wikihounding and threats. Middayexpress (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you want a truce and a return to civil discussion? This is all just escalation from both of us. Nikurasu (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is that I feel like this is essentially a conversation of filibuster. Endless explanations are presented, most of them easily refutable, but all of which take time to refute. In fact, it is far easier to create explanations that are easily refutable. The responses, which presumably will be made less easy to refute for sake of attempting to seem more palatable to observers, will be much harder to create. So, sticking to civility just runs myself through the endless loop, one that is likely more painful for me. In some cases, people could even be paid to do a filibuster, making there be an even greater disparity in motivation. There is documentation of this happening in a number of cases, actually. For example, corporations will pay people to laud their products on forums. If I switch to pointing out the shallowness of the arguments and their center around a certain bias, then I am doing ad hominem. There is no Wikipedia protocol to deal with filibusters. So, essentially, you can do this forever, and since no admin will do anything, this page will stay biased forever. Nikurasu (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, as can quite clearly be seen above, most of what you've complained about has been soundly refuted; it's unfortunately not a case of filibustering. What makes your edits ad hominem is the many personal jabs you've needlessly leveled, some of which I've quoted above. But like I wrote, I'm willing to overlook this for the moment since it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable; this is WP:CIV's stance as well. That said, describing the Central Bank of Somalia -- the single greatest authority on Somalia's economy -- as a "source with a conflict of interest in describing Somalia's economy" and "not an organization of economists, not necessarily reliable" is beyond a stretch. That's like saying the Federal Reserve is not a reliable source on the US economy. Absurd. By the way, WP:COI applies to editors, not to a country's own monetary authority. Middayexpress (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The filibuster continues. Nikurasu (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize that is what you are doing. After all, it is pretty difficult to mount an argument when one has none. Middayexpress (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I will not be drawn back into the filibuster. You ignored all of my arguments at the core of the topic. I said that in all cases, including this one, predominant economic thought mentions the extreme poverty of the nation. The idea that developed nations should not be compared to less developed one is not NPOV. Nikurasu (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't be drawn back into what you yourself created. The fact is, you brought up GDP per capita and complained that it wasn't being cited, and when I did cite the Central Bank of Somalia clearly indicating that Somalia's GDP per capita is lower than Kenya's but higher than most other neighboring countries, that's when all of a sudden the Central Bank of Somalia itself became a problem. Middayexpress (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My argument was that the poverty of Somalia was not mentioned, and that it was evidenced by the per capita GDP. Mentioning that it is higher than a few neighboring countries is irrelevant, and selecting only certain cases is not accurate. It has some legitimacy because of similarities in places of the same region, but it is not the most important consideration. No comparison is made with poorer countries in general, or countries in general. No mention is made of the poverty. The greater importance of those considerations is not only logical, but descriptive of economic opinion in general. The NPOV violation is still present. You have failed to demonstrate that you are not filibustering. Nikurasu (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid no one "selected" certain cases; that's actually what you are proposing. Fact is, it's the Central Bank of Somalia itself -- the single highest authority on Somalia's economy -- that explicitly compares Somalia's GDP to the most logical countries to compare it to, and that's neighboring countries : "The Gross Domestic Production is estimated to be about 2.6 billion US dollars as of 2007 with per capita income of 333 US dollars which is lower than that of Kenya at 350 US dollars but better than that of Tanzania at 280 US dollars and that of Eritrea’s 190 US dollars and Ethiopia’s 100 US dollars". You complain about poverty, but apparently you missed the part where it is also indicated in the article that "about 43% of the population live on less than 1 US dollar a day, with about 24% of those found in urban areas and 54% living in rural areas". I'll say it before and I'll say it again, your choice of words (i.e. "filibustering") could not have been more felicitous. Middayexpress (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave you a few chances to prove you were not filibustering. You are just demonstrating even further that you are. Nikurasu (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Corruption
A conversation above was taking place between myself and Midnight express over perceived corruption in Somalia, and I think it's best if we break it out into its own talk section. Basically, I think it should be mentioned in the article that Somalia is widely perceived to be a corrupt place. Midnight has stated he does not believe the Transparency International assessment to be fair, and there may be something to that, some qualification should be given if it can be found from a reliable source. However, plenty of people seem to support or at least report the Transparency International assessment (here, here, here and here) and that even reliable sources that report disagreement with the report (notably this) they cast aspersions on the motives of those making the complaints. I think the Transparency report should be at least mentioned. Somalia may not be the most corrupt place in the world, but I think corruption is clearly one of the biggest challenges it faces. That it isn't mentioned seems an oversight and weakness of this article. TastyCakes (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between your post and mine, and that is that you have just linked to news articles which cite (not substantiate) Transparency International's corruption index, whereas I have linked to an actual scholarly paper exclusively on the organization and its index that demonstrates point-by-point the index's many shortcomings, including but not limited to: the numerous technical errors in its statistical algorithm that significantly biases its results, the fact that it includes data that is up to two years old in its corruption index, and that the organization itself even admits that it may be inaccurate. That's not to mention the most salient factor: namely, that it bases its entire index on a small group of so-called "experts" in the field in question. As that research paper indicates, "there is evidence that perceptions of corruption are influenced by the disclosure of major scandals." Per Transparency International itself, the so-called influential "major scandal" in Somalia that was "disclosed" in this case is the following:


 * "'Corruption is one of these challenges.2 The last two years have seen corruption allegations in humanitarian aid hit the news headlines and bring more public attention to these problems. In Somalia, for example, a UN monitoring group report made assertions about corrupt diversion of food aid.'"


 * And the "expert" that was behind that revelation above was none other than Matt Bryden, the UN Monitoring Group's chief coordinator and long-time antagonist of the Somali government (1, 2, 3, 4). It's this gentleman's recent biased paper on alleged corruption, based on poor sources, innuendo, and/or outright fabrications, that much of the charges of "rampant corruption" or some variation thereof are based on (the person in that link you produced above that describes this paper as "a very solid piece of work" is predictably a former employee of Bryden's at the International Crisis Group where Bryden used to work as the Director of the African Program, and Ken Menkhaus, the other person expressing appreciation for the paper, was part of Bryden's team at the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR)/Progressio). That includes the very Al Jazheera article you linked to above, which references his paper repeatedly as well as Transparency International's corruption index that was based on it. Ergo, the forgoing obviously fails WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:QS, and especially WP:CONFLICT. As I said before, there may indeed be corruption in Somalia (like there is in many other places in the world), but the source of the most vocal and sensationalistic allegations to this end are not reliable at all. Rather, they are more Propaganda in the War in Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not arguing that the index is without its detractors. But I think it is "as good as we have" in terms of a measure of corruption, it is widely reported and widely used in Wikipedia country articles.  Again, I am not advocating saying "Somalia is a corrupt place".  I'm advocating saying "Transparency International's corruption index ranked Somalia as the most corrupt country in the world in 2009.  Various groups dispute the ranking."  If more space is given, I would mention specifics: that people have made accusations of food aid being misdirected and government involvement in piracy (along with, of course, the predictable denials).  That is all Wikipedia should ever do with something as vague as corruption: report on what has been said by notable sources.
 * You are trying to discredit the contributions of Matt Bryden. Frankly, I don't see any of your links disputing Bryden other than Somali non-reputable sources.  wp:conflict is a Wikipedia policy for Wikipedia contributors, it has nothing to do with sources, so unless you're accusing someone of being Matt Bryden or one of his associates, you are templating the wrong policy (you are probably looking for wp:rs).  But while we're on the subject, I'm starting to wonder about your own motivations here.  For disclosure, do you have any links with the Somali government, MiddayExpress?  Are you the author of any of these articles disparaging the UN and ICG reports?  TastyCakes (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I should point out that you are disputing a UN report, calling it advocacy and questionable, using obviously biased opinion pieces in websites that amount to little more than blogs. Wardheernews.com?  Please...  TastyCakes (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If Transparency International's corruption index is, as you say, "as good as we have" in terms of a measure of corruption with regard to Somalia, then we indeed do not at all have a good measure of corruption in that country; that's the point. The fact remains that TI's corruption index for Somalia is squarely based on that biased UN Monitoring Group report overseen by Matt Bryden, as Transparency International itself admits. It is not based on factual data. You write that we should mention the specifics. In case you hadn't noticed, the "specifics" were made up by Bryden and/or attributed to anecdotes taken from dubious sources. I find it highly ironic that you should attempt to dismiss a verifiable, English-language article first published on one of the more prominent and reputable Somali websites, Wardheernews.com (a website that even the Huffington Post deems good enough to regularly republish material from (e.g.), including op-ed pieces 1)), as unreliable, yet curiously pay no attention at all to anecdotal evidence drawn from other even more low-key Somali websites (and blogs) -- obscure, unverifiable Somali-language articles that the bulk of Bryden's report was based on and which have been explicitly identified as unreliable; that is a double standard:


 * "'An important factor to consider is the source of the political literature applied in this report and its unbalanced propagandist terms and content. Case study 3 is titled 'The eastern Sanaag pirate militia'. 'Eastern Sanaag' is a term coined by the North Western secessionist group in order to create a political dispute between the powerful Warsangeli clan of Puntland and their territorial entitlement of the region. The above statement was certainly a secessionist engineered propaganda as evidenced by the source used by the monitoring group “Qarannews”[3]. Bryden's desperate attempt to suggest imposing sanctions on Ilka Jiir and Faroole based on the reporting of Qarannews is indeed more insulting than humorous'"


 * "the Monitoring Group's report can be dismissed as incredible given that most of the sources on their footnotes are unpopular Somali sites. Mr. Atam had never issued a Press Statement prior to the publication of this controversial report nor has he ever written anything pertaining to his political ambitions. The report also mentions that talks between Puntland and Mr. Atam were suspended and backing it with sources from allidamaale.com and somalifans.com. [2]'"


 * The bottom line is that Bryden makes a number of exceptional claims in his report. Wikipedia is very clear that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which, of course, automatically rules out Bryden's unverifiable Somali-language articles and blog posts cited above (here are direct links to those sources: 1, 2, 3; have a look for yourself at their alleged "reliability").


 * You also suggest that I am "trying to discredit the contributions of Matt Bryden" and ask if I "have any links with the Somali government" lol (c.f. WP:NPA). If only it were that simple. The fact is, plenty of sources already describe Bryden as an unreliable, biased contributor with a long history of publishing dubious material on the region (1, 2, 3, 4); this assertion is unfortunately not coming from me. Puntland's regional government, for one, indicates that "some of the report's authors are politically motivated to discredit Puntland as a way of achieving another hidden goal", with that same article adding that "one of the report's authors, Mr. Matt Bryden, has familial ties to the dominant clan in Somaliland and is known to have actively campaigned for the recognition of an independent Somaliland." Puntland's government also indicates that the writers drafted the report "without ever coming to Puntland", and this is confirmed by Bryden and his colleagues themselves too. Moreover, you seem to be under the impression that only Somali entities object to Bryden's latest biased report. Disabuse yourself of that notion since the long chorus of objectors actually also includes none other than the United Nations itself.


 * Per WP:QS:


 * "'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; restrictions apply to using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against persons living or dead, institutions, as well as more ill-defined entities.'"


 * As the links and quotes above repeatedly indicate, Bryden is not only himself openly involved in promotional advocacy (here's a picture of him at a rally for his cause), the very sources he uses to level charges of corruption are themselves heavily dependent on anecdotal evidence and have a poor reputation for fact-checking -- they're not even in English and one is a blog post. And that of course means his paper fails WP:QS as well. Middayexpress (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me ignore the fact that you seem to be painting perceived corruption in Somalia as "an extraordinary claim", which it very obviously is not. None of the links you have given for Bryden qualify as acceptable.  Let me be more specific: all appear to be self published blog type rabble rousers written without an ounce of journalistic integrity, dubious motivations and unclear interests.  Frankly, I don't care if the Huffington post used Wardheernews.com for a piece on pirates, its home page link doesn't even work.  Basically, all we have for discrediting him is your word and people very likely linked to those he's accusing.  Of course Puntland's government disputes the report, they are accused of colluding with pirates in it.  Further, we have only your assertion that the Transparency International ranking (which is all I'm saying should be included) is largely based on Bryden's work.   Perhaps you are unaware, but the ranking is used in many country articles, it strikes me as extremely odd that we would mention it in all of those articles but not in the country that placed absolute last.
 * Once again, do you have anything you should disclose about your relationship with a Somali government or group? Are you the author of any of these articles you're linking to?  TastyCakes (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tastycakes let's be consistent, a few sections above you wanted Somalia's 'weak' central government(or in your words 'years of no central government') to be emphasized, yet now you want to blanket this entire country with the tag 'most corrupt' that in reality would only pertain to a few non-influential officials and organisations. That is ofcourse if the findings, the index is based on, are actually factual, since this information came from a third party that has been dismissed by multiple sources as 'biased' and anti-Somalia(the chief individual is pro-seccessionist), see also the criticism section of the index's wiki-article:

''The Corruption Perceptions Index has drawn increasing criticism in the decade since its launch, leading to calls for the index to be abandoned. This criticism has been directed at the quality of the Index itself, and the lack of actionable insights created from a simple country ranking. Because corruption is willfully hidden, it is impossible to measure directly; instead proxies for corruption are used. The CPI uses an eclectic mix of third-party surveys to sample public perceptions of corruption through a variety of questions, ranging from "Do you trust the government?" to "Is corruption a big problem in your country?"''


 * The above makes the accussations of 'bias' against Matt Bryden and the Monitoring Group, from multiple organisations and officials very relevant. The sources provided by Midday are as legitimate as the index, since the latter determined Somalia's position on information from the Monitoring Group that came from precisely the same type of websites that you try to dismiss now. Your attempt at mocking Wardheernews as a non-credible news outlet for the Somali world is as absurd and ignorant as me trying to mock Xinhua News vis-a-vi news about the Chinese world. Here is an article that corroborates my point: Somalia news through Web site is brothers' mission by Peter Rowe:

"They are not alone. On the Internet, there's no shortage of media outlets peddling news from Mogadishu, Hargeysa, Berbera and other cities and villages on the Horn of Africa. 'But a number of these Web sites are clan-based, so they're tilted to one side,' said Abdullah Said Osman, Somalia's last ambassador to the United Nations (1984-1991) and now diplomat-in-residence at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. 'In my opinion, Wardheer News gives an unbiased, reliable reporting of events. That's what makes it popular.' ---"

"These days, Wardheer News is well beyond 'Wow!' By April, traffic had increased 10-fold. This month, they were on track to draw more than 1 million visitors. ---"

"'This is a site where intellectuals can debate issues,' said Abdiweli Heibeh, a San Diego police officer and an occasional Wardheer News contributor. The site's news stories are supplied by an eclectic array of sources, from Al-Jazeera to the Pentagon, from London's Daily Telegraph to Agence France-Presse. This comprehensive, open-minded approach appeals to Mohamed M. Garad, a retired diplomat whose career included stints as Somalia's ambassador to Nigeria, Uganda and Qatar."


 * Another important issue i have with the index and the specific line that you want to add, is that it's to vague and sensationalist. There are multiple sources that show a much greater degree of transparancy in Somalia's telecommunication sector compared to neighbouring countries, same with the education sector, and the trust based network between traders, customers, and exporters/importers of the business sector etc, all of this would be rendered moot and irrelevant if we actually used this index to determine the situation on the ground. An allegedly corrupt government placing last in Somalia's case doesn't equal Somalia is the most corrupt place on earth, as earlier emphasis on Somalia's weak central government not paramount across the country illuminates this point. The saying; You can't have your cake and eat it too, is very fitting --Scoobycentric (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is very frustrating, you are both obfuscating and misdirecting things. I split corruption into its own section for a reason - it has nothing to do with the other problems I believe the article has, as pointed out above, and it deserves its own examination. What is sensationalist about saying Somalia was ranked last in the index? That is an exact fact, whether you agree with the index or not is another matter. All of the articles discrediting Bryden are extremely dubious, but it doesn't matter anyway: the relevant, verifiable part of the whole story is that Transparency International ranked Somalia 180/180 in its perception of corruption index. If you read what I actually said, I specifically said it shouldn't say "Somalia is the most corrupt place on earth", please do not pretend that I did. And honestly, what does transparency in the communications sector have to do with anything? You, just like Midday, want to write off a widely recognized and reported (if controversial and disputed) metric (not to mention material from UN groups) but have no problem in praising these blatantly amateurish and biased news sources. The fixation on Wardheer is a distraction from the point - all the story linked to there contained was a press release from the Puntland government. TastyCakes (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To describe the corruption charges as "controversial" is a gross understatement. The fact is, Matt Bryden -- already an unreliable source involved knee-deep in advocacy, as has been repeatedly demonstrated above (you have not proven any of those many sources identifying him as such are unreliable; you've just claimed they are) -- obtained all of that "information" from unsubstantiated anecdotes featured in completely unverifiable Somali-language articles and blog posts published on low-key websites (namely, the following: 1, 2, 3). That is fact. What is also fact is that that fails not only WP:VER, but also WP:QS, as I've likewise shown above. Yet, curiously, this extremely poor sourcing -- sources which have been expressly identified in this way -- is somehow in your opinion more reliable than an actually verifiable English language article published on one of the most prominent Somali websites (see Scoobycentric's quotes above). Now you are arguing that we should ignore this unreliable sourcing since Transparency International's corruption index is, after all, featured on many other articles in Wikipedia. I'm afraid that is not a valid argument. First of all, Transparency International's corruption index is not a one-size-fits-all metric; it necessarily varies in reliability from country to country depending on the sources used for those specific countries. Since Transparency International itself admits that it's idea of corruption in Somalia is based on Bryden's "UN monitoring group report [regarding] assertions about corrupt diversion of food aid", its corruption index on the country is only as reliable as said author's dubious, unverifiable sources. And those, of course, still fail WP:VER and WP:QS, as does Bryden himself with regard to WP:NOTADVOCATE. Middayexpress (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please Midday, I'm not sure if you are purposefully ignoring the question, but one last time: please disclose any links you might have with Somali government groups and whether you're the author of any of the articles you have quoted. TastyCakes (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are almost laughably paranoid at this point. Again, refer to WP:NPA and WP:CIV & stop trying to turn things personal. Middayexpress (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't paranoid and it isn't personal. As you seem quite eager to post protocols (although often with apparent misinterpretation or misapplication), I'm sure you have read wp:conflict.  It seems quite likely to me that you have interests (that you have not divulged) that are directly impacting your editing here.  Indeed, it is you that seems to be an advocate of a very political position.  It is quite possible to contribute with an acknowledged conflict of interest, and indeed many editors do.  But I don't think it is anyone's interest to keep such a conflict secret.  So I ask you once again to answer my question above.  TastyCakes (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your absurd personal attacks and incivility are getting really lame. You have made one offensive, unwarranted accusation after another, and all because of a complete inability to present effective counterarguments to the actual issue at hand. FYI, I too could easily speculate on your own "interests (that you have not divulged) that are directly impacting your editing" given the pattern in your own comments and edits above, or ask if you are an "agent" for Transparency International or Matt Bryden himself or perhaps a writer of any of those articles Bryden avails himself of (or even James Bond while we're at it), but I don't need to resort to such petty ad hominem since I've got actual arguments on my side. From WP:NPA, so that you cannot pretend to have been unaware of this:


 * "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."


 * This is the last time I am asking you to stop trying to make things personal. Middayexpress (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please Midday, just answer the questions: they aren't personal, and they are very relevant to the article and our present discussion. If you wish to ask me to disclose any relevant conflict of interest, go ahead, I have nothing to hide and I assure you I will answer honestly.  Are you involved in Somali politics?  Are you the author of any of the articles you have cited?  These are very basic, reasonable questions, and are not asked in an attempt to offend you, but in an attempt to ensure the article is developed transparently.  Please don't make this into a bigger issue than it is.  Also, you can stop linking to the same protocols over and over again: I get it, you're saying my questions are uncivil and a personal attack. Well they're neither, and I think any admin you take it to will say the same thing, so please just answer the questions and let's move on. TastyCakes (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're trying way too hard. I have already answered your silly questions and repeatedly. Ergo, the dismissive terms "paranoid" and "absurd" above, as well as the James Bond reference. But since I see you wish to continue feigning incomprehension and engaging in personal attacks in the absence of actual arguments to rely on, no, TastyCakes, I am not the author of any of those articles from professional news organizations that I have quoted from above nor am I a part of the Somali government. *eye roll* I'm afraid you'll have to come up with some other new strategy. (For the record, I also have no acquaintance with Mr. & Mrs. Smith either, though I understand they are quite the globe-trotters). Middayexpress (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stating that. I hope you can understand my suspicion: you have very strong views against this Matt Bryden for a supposedly neutral observer, and you seem to place an unreasonable amount of faith in obviously poor sources that rail against the man, which (perhaps simplistically) led me to believe you had something to do with them.  Regardless, it seems that the opinions at RS/N are rather against you on this one, so if you don't mind I think I'll put an end to my involvement in this long winded discussion.  On to other subjects!  TastyCakes (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know exactly why you felt the need to resort to ad hominem and hand-counting in the absence of any legitimate arguments to support your position. It's also unfortunately not me that has identified Matt Bryden as a biased contributor, but many third party sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). On the other hand, it is you, personally, who claims that those same sources identifying him in this way are unreliable (not a third party source), a charge which you have not even come close to proving. Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A Note to other editors here, or any admins who are called here: I'm an uninvolved editor from the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, where this question was posted. There is unanimous consensus among four uninvolved editors there that the mention of Transparency International's Corruption Index on Somalia should clearly be allowed in this article, with attribution to TI. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for details. First Light (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out on that noticeboard, it is highly debatable that consensus was ever reached. A more accurate term would be voting since that's pretty much all that at least two of those other usernames did (vote), not present any legitimate arguments w/ policies in tow, etc.. At any rate, if the dates on TastyCakes' edit are correct, then Bryden's controversial report from this year could not, in fact, have factored into the latest CPI ranking for Somalia since the latter apparently dates from last year (although Transparency International has recently acknowledged the existence of that Monitoring Group report). I've adjusted the edit to reflect this and NPOV'd the paragraph by citing material from the criticism section of the CPI wiki article. Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No Midday, a more accurate description would be you refusing to acknowledge the obvious: that your sources are not reliable and that Transparency International's ranking should absolutely be in the article. Now you have gone and put in depth discussion of CPI criticism into the article, which is obviously not appropriate here.  Further, you have embellished information (they "emphatically reject" now!) and added an unreliable source in reference to the Eritrean response (here).  Your section on reforms is similarly sugar coated and very obviously contains your rather rosy opinion on the matter (and of course also includes the use of unreliable sources).  I will be reverting your changes, please try to improve them before you attempt to reintroduce them.  The slide of this article into sloppiness has gone on long enough and the key to getting out of a hole is to stop digging.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Tastycakes, that revert was unwarranted, the TI's ranking of Somalia was included, which is what ignited this discussion in the first place. I'm now beginning to wonder what your real motives with regards to this article are, since you pidgeon holed Midday's reforms section - explaining the many initiatives to cleanse the institutions in question from corruption - as painting a rosier picture, which is plain ridiculous, and invokes suspicion towards your personal issue vis-a-vi Middayexpress' right to improve the article, as you have tried to bully him into telling you his personal life and occupation several times when frustrations got the better of you. If the ranking is added then criticism of the CPI itself is very much appropriate here, nothing sloppy about this. You are attempting to provide space only for one side, while completely censoring the 'accussed' side by generalising them into voiceless monolithic entities:The president of Somalia, along with other Somali politicians and businessmen and the UN World Food Program, disputed the report --> Who exactly disputed that report? and why did they dispute the report?, and what exactly has been done about it since? Multiple questions come to mind, and these were all answered in that very detailed improvement by Midday that you have reverted and which i will re-introduce, including a Reuter's source for the Jeremy Clarke article.--Scoobycentric (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scooby, I am amenable to adding some more information, but the changes by Midday were unacceptable. First, much of the information (such as his swipes at Matt Bryden) are not supported by reliable sources, as discussed at the RS/N conversation linked to above (particularly problematic as it's a person and hence a wp:BLP issue).  Second, going into an in depth discussion of general disagreement with the TI index is inappropriate.  It should be mentioned only briefly here, if at all, and linked to the index's page for more information.  Frankly, the painfully indirect, rambling nature of many sections in this article (including the intro) is thanks to nobody reverting you and midday when you go into inappropriate depths on subjects.  Thirdly, the language used (particularly in the reform section) was obviously not neutral.  Further, lines like "This represents a significant step toward the introduction of a multi-party political system to the region for the first time" are obviously original research and inappropriate.  And finally, numerous sources throughout his additions are not reliable, or are borderline cases (garoweonline, afrol.com, allafricanews etc).  Rather than sorting this huge mess out (and no doubt dealing with your constant fiddling) I have reverted it in accordance with wp:BRD.  When you or Midday comes up with a more reasonable addition to the article, I will leave it. TastyCakes (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As to my life outside Wikipedia, I assure you it has nothing to do with Somalia. If anyone is a bully on this article it is Midday, as his long line of arguments going back months and months attests to.  As far as who disputed the report, that is directly out of the New York Times article cited, the only reliable source I have seen on the matter.  If you have another reliable source showing "who exactly disputed the report and why", by all means let's see it.  As I say above, adding some additional information is appropriate, going into the rambling opinionated depths that Midday did is not.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You've got some nerve. The corruption paragraph this dispute was over was not removed. The emphatic denial of the corruption charges by the Somali and Eritrean governments as well as the UN are also not my "opinion"; the sources themselves state that that was how they responded, including the NYT article you yourself added. FYI, that link above that you hastily describe as "unreliable" (ostensibly because it has the audacity to indicate that Eritrea too rejects the report) is actually a reprint from Reuters (1). The source indicating that Bryden has familial connections in and campaigned for the diplomatic recognition of northwestern Somalia is a reprint from Garowe Online, which is a reputable third-party Somali news website that is both cited in scholarly papers and has a measures in place for fact-checking and accuracy (1). You claim above that it is "unreliable" without even attempting to prove that this is the case, apparently hoping that your word will be accepted at face value. It isn't nor do you appear to understand just what exactly a questionable source actually is:


 * "'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.'"


 * Most tellingly of all, you now attempt to completely censor the many reforms the Somali government has put into place to actually address the issues raised (including the establishment of the first ever center for social welfare in Somali history) as merely a case of "rosy opinions" -- nevermind the fact that even the African Development Bank recently congratulated the Government of Somalia "for ensuring that all government institutions are now based in Mogadishu, the formulation of a national plan and the establishment of a functional Central Bank and effective anti-corruption commission" (1). This is unacceptable, as are your continued, unwarranted and unreciprocated personal attacks. Middayexpress (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear, nobody owns this article, what might seem inappropriate/sloppy to you, doesn't equal 'inappropriate/sloppy' to someone else. Nowhere in wikipedia's manual of style have i encounter a rule or guideline that states going in depth into a controversial issue is inappropriate, that is simply a rule you have made up. Secondly you still haven't proven your case on why African sources such as Wardheernews and AllAfrica.com are unreliable, again just stating that they are doesn't make them unreliable. Thirdly, you can't just delete an entire section of the article because you personally believe it's non-neutral there are clear proceedures in place for wikipedia editors to invoke, if they feel a part of the article is highly POV, usually by using a template alert and then explaining why, you have not done this at all, instead you resorted to an unwarranted mass deletion of this material, and basically have censored the other side of the argument with regards to this report and the ranking. Also if you believe a claim needs to be verified, you add the fact-tag, not accuse people of OR, some form of good-faith should always be extended, but i'm afraid as you have shown several times above, you have personal issues with Middayexpress. Lastly, nowhere did i ask you to share any personal info with me, my own suspicions were simply analytical, it's your arguments that i focused on. Who someone is and what they you do in real life has no bearing on wikipedia, only concrete-arguments do! As i'm not convinced by your arguments above, and the fact that you have presented no shred of proof that the so-called unreliable sources are actually unreliable, i will recover the mass deleted material, as i believe it's very vital to explaining the issue, without censoring any side of the argument. --Scoobycentric (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Both of you: please read what I said above. If you tighten up your contributions, I won't revert them.  If there is a Reuter's story, cite that, not a reprint in a sketchier publication.  I do not believe Garowe online to be a reliable source, see RS/N conversation.
 * Midday: you do not seem to understand the idea behind wp:NPOV or wp:OR. Basically, do not make any assumptions in the language you use.  For instance, "A transparent, budget-based public finance system was also established, which has helped increase public confidence in government" implies your own judgment on the transparency of the finance system and its corresponding increase in public confidence. Appropriate language would be something along the lines of "Somalia has established a budget system it says is transparent, and claims it has increased confidence in the government", along with appropriate (ie reliable please) sourcing.  In a topic as contested as this, the way you have written it is simply not acceptable. The African Development Bank does appear to be good information and I wouldn't dispute including an appropriately written sentence on the renewed ties between the bank and Somalia (it may be more appropriate in the economy section, however).  Do not, however, take the sentence like "The grant will also help the country establish sound and transparent public financial systems and develop an appropriate legal framework for fiscal and monetary institutions as well as human and institutional capacity." from the source and turn it into "Somalia now has a transparent public financial system".  Do you understand the non-neutral leap of faith taken when you do that?
 * Again, the name of the game here is a concise overview. This is not the place to go into depth on tangentially related topics - general disapproval of the CPI being the obvious case.  Note disapproval and link to the CPI's page with more discussion on it - that is all that is appropriate here.
 * If you reinsert the material without fixing the obvious issues I have pointed out, I will revert it again, and continue reverting until you either fix it or we're brought before a 3RR review. Please note: these are not personal attacks: I don't know anything about you guys and for all I know we'd get along great in real life.  My concerns are that you are degrading the article, by using non-neutral language and weak sources and that you're going into far too much depth on certain subjects.  TastyCakes (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TastyCakes wrote, "I will revert it again, and continue reverting until you either fix it or we're brought before a 3RR review." I'd opine that if it comes to sentences such as this one, you're are already in the throes of a revert war and better to quit now (as per WP:3RR, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement [WP's emphasis] to revert a page a specific number of times"). And I recall Middayexpress agreeing to a sanction handed down a couple of weeks ago (link); I don't imagine that only affected reverts between those two named editors.  Finally, anyone (who is not already involved) that might possibly be inclined to help out is likely to be put off by the sheer torrent of text on this talk page (although I trust that's not the point of said torrent). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, in everything but name this is already a revert war, I have tried to describe why I think the changes Midday made do not improve the article (my attempt at "talking and editing") but he's obviously not going to listen to anything I say. It is also apparent that he doesn't believe in the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle but would rather be bold and then continue being bold despite objections to the contrary. I would be very glad for an admin to come and sort this out.  TastyCakes (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked for guidance here. TastyCakes (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you clearly do not understand WP:NPOV. I will not, as you propose, rewrite that sentence on transparency in the government's fiscal policy to attribute the statements directly to the government for the simple fact that it is not the government that indicates this (nor me, unfortunately); it's the source itself (1). There is also no such quote in the article as "Somalia now has a transparent public financial system", so your complaints in that regard are irrelevant as well. You keep complaining about 'reliable sourcing' when not once have you even come close to proving that any of the sources you claim are not reliable indeed aren't. You just keep claiming they aren't with no proof whatsoever, and in the process, studiously avoiding what Wikipedia actually indicates is a questionable source (as I have noted above) and how that relates to your claims. You are also now at three reverts (at the very least) => 1, 2, 3. Middayexpress (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I miscounted. I am at 3 reverts (as are you) and I will now wait for an administrator to weigh in.  TastyCakes (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I most certainly am not at 3 reverts. Stop projecting. Middayexpress (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see Scooby made the first two reverts. Regardless, let's wait and see.  TastyCakes (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Left comment at RS/N, FWIW. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Somalia: alleged omissions
Loodog and Swarm believe omissions of various negative aspects of Somalia's government to be POV. Middayexpress believes this is not the case because other omitted pieces of information negate how negative these aspects are.--Louiedog (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the situation is that two accounts (Loodog/Louiedog & Swarm) believe that various negative aspects of Somalia's government have been omitted. This is, in fact, not the case at all, since in the coalition government sub-section of the Politics section, it is clearly explained that the coalition government -- an establishment+Islamist inclusive government that was put together by a UN initiative in Djibouti -- at the time was beset by charges of corruption, lack of transparency and inefficiency, among other things. It is also explained in the reforms section that the coalition government has enacted numerous reforms to try and tackle these issues. As also already explained to those accounts in some detail, Somalia now has a new government, which was appointed by a new Prime Minister who was sworn into office just last month. This new government, by contrast, is much leaner than the previous government and is mostly made up of technocrats (like the new Prime Minister himself) that are new to the Somali political arena; only two ministers from the previous government were retained, and both are well-regarded in the international community. This new government has also been widely praised by the international community as just the thing Somalia needed to prepare the country for the August 11 deadline, when the transitional government's mandate expires and a new constitution that ushers in national elections for the first time in 40 years comes into effect (with the civil war in the south also finally drawing to a close ). However, this isn't good enough for the accounts above, who keep acting as though the charges leveled on the old government apply to this new, technocratic government or that other, stable regions do not exist in Somalia (such as the autonomous Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug regions i.e. the bulk of Somalia where there is no war). Both accounts specifically have a problem with the CIA's assertion that : "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011," which they have at various times described as "POV". This is something that was already brought before an ArbCom admin on RS/N in the past, who indicated that the CIA factbook is indeed a reliable source. Also note that another admin who regularly monitors this and other Horn of Africa-related pages likewise asserted that the article is actually better now than it was in the past. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TLDR. I believe I understand your viewpoint by now anyway. Rather than the original participants in a dispute continuously hammering their differing opinions at each other, the purpose of an RfC is to bring in outside comments. I would like to see people allowed to leave their comments free of badgering or attempts to sway them. I also hope we don't continue our dispute in this RfC forum because doing so will clutter it far too much; I think the discussion should be left in the above sections. Anyway, the best summary of the situation is that Loodog and I feel the article isn't entirely neutral (because it omits some information on the negative aspects of Somalia), and Middayexpress feel that the article in its present state is indeed neutral.  Swarm   X 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, back when I was a contributor I had occasion to deal with this page from time to time, and it was one of the pages that annoyed me enough to make me give up on Wikipedia. The page often gets contibutors coming in and asking why  and  aren't mentioned, and why the article often seems so oddly positive about everything in the country. Any criticisms are rather tersely dismissed by Middayexpress or one other editor (can't recall the name), and no progress is made. I don't know what can actually be done to fix such a situation in wikipedia - hence my leaving. Hopefully someone will come up with something - good luck. 77.101.60.220 (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Coming from an anonymous IP (and one that doesn't even bother identifying the account he/she supposedly used to use, no less), that does not mean much at all. Middayexpress (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)