Talk:Somalia/Archive 5

unexplained removal of content
section moved here from user talk:L.tak by L.tak... May I ask why you removed the sourced fact that the UN Security Council has just mandated an additional 4000 AMISOM troops, (to bring the total number to 12,000)? Was this a mistake or deliberate? If it was a mistake (which I'm sure it was), would you mind reinserting the phrase in question back i.e. self-reverting? Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * nope, it wasn't. The sentence was very long, did not read very well. And without this, the message of the paragraph -on the new goverment not on the military- was already clearly conveyed... So I prefer this version; guess in the e/c some of the explanation got lost; sorry about that.... L.tak (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Complaining about sentence length is not an excuse for removing key information. As already pointed out above, the UN Security Council specifically mandated an increase in AU troops of a massive 50% (they only had 8000 troops there to begin with). This isn't a small matter, so it will be restored shortly. Thought I'd give you the opportunity to do it yourself, but guess not. Middayexpress (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, this isn't your article. You don't have the final decision on what should be here. If you object to a change, try to achieve consensus here before simply reverting another user. I agree with L.tak that the content was formed poorly. There is no problem with the information being in the article, so if you an find a better way of integrating it that wouldn't be a problem. - SimonP (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't your article either, nor do you have the final decision on what should be here. L.tak removed a massive fact from the article -- namely, that the AU is mandated to increase its troop strength by 50% -- and I took exception to that removal, as is my prerogative. I also never "reverted" him, so your insinuation above that I did is unwarranted. Middayexpress (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) That info was massively important; and sourced... but what message did it need to convey in that specific section? I thought this was enough for that.The rest would belong in other sections; (if it is not already there!). I hope I didn't give you the suggestion I was "sensoring it out" or something like that.... L.tak (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The message that the passage conveyed was that the government is managing to take control of the city in large part because of an increase in troop strength, and that this will only increase as more troops come in. But you again removed reference to those increased AMISOM troops. That is not helpful. Despite this, as visible in my initial comment above, I still gave you the benefit of the doubt. This is also the second key bit of military related-information that you have removed. You also removed the fact that the recently re-established Somali Navy is expected to have 5000 members in its initial phase. Was this also a mistake? Middayexpress (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. it's not key information, but key chrystal balling... Let's focuss on what happens in Somalia, not on what everyone is planning and hoping. Thanks btw for asuming good faith; it ofthen gets lost in heated discussions... L.tak (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

New lead
Let's try to work out a concrete way to rewrite the lead. My suggestions is: To goal is to keep the entire thing at about 400 words, like most other country articles. As opposed to the current 700. - SimonP (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 1: Intro and basic overview, including mentioning the fractured nature of the country and its status as a failed state.
 * Paragraph 2: Overview of geography
 * Paragraph 3: Brief overview of the country's history
 * Paragraph 4: Current political and economic situation
 * The intro already does all that. You need to be specific about actual sentences you have issues with and we'll see point-by-point if your concerns are warranted, as we've been doing above. Middayexpress (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that there are simple errors in the lead. The current lead gives a grossly inaccurate picture of the country, is poorly structured, and is about 300 words longer than it should be. If you want to take a stab at fixing those issues feel free, but I'm fine with doing the rewrite myself. I just need to head to the library so we can get some better sources than all these online ones that are being relied upon. - SimonP (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I would welcome the try to get to 400 words. The present intro does already have much (or all) of that, but is perceived by many as too long and POV. The challenge will be to address both and your suggestions would be a great framework! . L.tak (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's too vague, Simon. You need to be more specific than that. What is inaccurate according to you about the lede? If you cannot name anything specifically wrong with the lede, than that's probably because there is nothing wrong with it to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not true. You've missed the point Middayexpress.  It's entirely possible to write a lede that is factual accurate, but which missrepresents the subject.  For example, the intro to Adolf Hitler could read: "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German painter."  No one could dispute the factual accuracy of this specific statement, but to put it in the lede would present an inaccurate picture of who the man was.  The lede should contain the most important facts, not just the positive facts.  This is an issue of WP:UNDUE weight being placed on some positive aspects, while negative facts are suppressed to later in the body of the article (or completely out of the article).  In this case, the fact that Somalia is a failed state is FAR more important to the subject that the fact that they have a top 100 African university.  The former is fundamental to understanding the country, while the latter isn't very notable let alone lede worthy.  TDL (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not enough to say "the article is too positive" or some variation thereof. You have to name specifics. What specifically is wrong with the lede? You mention the "failed state" idea as being key, a dubious, politically-motivated concept [] which purports to show the inability of a state administration to fulfill its duties. For starters, Somalia only topped the index during the tenure of the coalition government, as explained above. The new government is actually quite well-regarded by the international community & has already done a lot in just its first two or so months. Secondly, the northern regions are and have been for quite some time relatively stable, which is why the U.S. recently specifically rewarded them with the so-called "two-track" policy of direct engagement . Thirdly, the concept of the "failed" polity is and has also been applied to lower levels of the state, which is precisely the situation in Somalia. These are briefly the reasons why pretending as though all of the country is at war, when it's only really the south that is (and even that's changing), is simply unacceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait...so you're arguing that since the central government lost all control over the northern region and was unable to stop Somaliland from declaring independence, and as a result Somaliland has been able to stabalize the region, that implies that the government of Somalia is fulfilling it's duties in the region? Do I need to explain to you how illogical this argument is?  The north severed themselves from the central government as a result of their inability to fulfill their duties in the region.  The north is stabalized itself in spite of the central government not being able to fulfill their duties in the region.  These facts don't support your position, they support the position that Somalia is unable to fulfill their duties, and thus others had to do it for them.
 * Whether or not the new government can improve the situation will have to wait and see. We aren't a WP:CRYSTALBALL, so you can't just assume that it will improve.  If in the next ranking Somalia jumps 100 places then you will have an argument.  But you can't just assume that they aren't a failed state anymore.
 * There are plenty of specific examples of undue weight discussed above. Let's stick with the one currently under discussion though.  Why is the fact that Somalia has the 6,941th best university in the world  notable?  If anything, it's notable in how bad that is.  There can't be many countries which don't have a university in the top 6,940.  There are 89 other universities better in Africa alone.  And yet in the lede this is presented as a good thing.  TDL (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strawmen argument. I realize by now that your account is a supporter of Somaliland's self-declared independence, but unfortunately the enclave is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia. And yes, that includes the U.S., which declared in September -- two months before the new government came to power -- that it would now be focusing on directly engaging Somalia's relatively stable northern autonomous regions in addition to the central government, with the specific caveat that this in no way implies recognition of any of said territories as independent nations . The formulation of the new federal government was a reaction to this announcement to show the international community that the TFG means business now, and the international community has taken notice . It's also not a matter of whether the central government can improve the situation; it already has improved the situation, as I've described several times above. In just its first two months in office, the government has managed to secure control of over 55% of the capital, where between 70%-80% of the city's population live, and its steadily expanding its control as more TFG & AU troops enter the city . There are also an estimated 17,036 universities in the world, and few of the top ones come from Africa. When compared to other countries on the continent, however, Mogadishu University cracks the top (not the bottom) 100 of the continent's 1000 universities ; that's the 90th percentile. Not bad for a nation that is going through a civil war in its southern half. Middayexpress (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I admire your optimism about the new government, but as of yet it really hasn't accomplished much of anything. Maybe in five years we will have to rewrite the article again, but for now Somalia remains one of the most divided, violent, and impoverished countries in the world, and this article needs to reflect that. - SimonP (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not optimism; it's realism. That's how the international community regards the new technocratic government. Things are changing on a day-to-day basis in Somalia, and it's not quite how the media portrays it. For one thing, many journalists seem to be unaware that there is no war going on in the relatively stable northern regions, although the US and other governments that directly deal with Somalia certainly are. Even the UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs pointed this out a while back when he visited Mogadishu . Of course, no article is static. Whatever changes the article requires (and will require even after said changes) need to be spelled out and examined for their relative merits. If they have any validity, they will be included (remember, I personally added the Global Peace Index). If not, they will be discarded, as Wiki policy recommends. But what is needed first is specifics, not vague complaints. Middayexpress (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:GREATWRONGS. This isn't the place to right great wrongs.  You can suggest that the mainstream media is biased and has got it all wrong, but this isn't the place to advocate for that.  Our job is to represenet mainstream opinion, not fix it.
 * Just because I disagree with you opinion, doesn't make me a supporter of Somaliland. In fact, believe it or not, I personally support the TFG's efforts to regain control over the entire country.  However, this doesn't change the facts on the ground.  Diplomatic recognition is irrelevant here.  The question you proposed is: can the Somali government fulfill their obligations in the country.  The fact that they control none of the north, none of the south and only ~1/2 the capital tells you the answer is a resounding no.
 * As for the universities, this still doesn't make it notable. By my rough count, 27/53 African countires have a university in the top 100, with most of these having more than one.  So at best Somalia is in the middle of the pack.
 * Another example of POV: the PPP GDP per capita of Somalia is 190th out of 194 states: List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. We describe it as a "healthy informal economy".  How is this neutral?  And isn't this more notable than the fact they have the 6,941th best university in the world?  TDL (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure everyone here supports the TFG, and the international community as a whole is also very much hoping the new government will succeed, just as they hoped that the last 14 attempts to establish a new central government would work out. With the help of the AU perhaps this time it will succeed, but no one can claim that Somalia's problems are definitely at an end. - SimonP (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TDL: Somalia is a de facto federation. This means that its autonomous regions share power with the national government. In fact, federalism has been written into the draft constitution, which is in effect as of August 2011, when the interim government's mandate finally expires. After that point, there will be national elections for the first time in 40 years; political parties have actually started to form in preparation (c.f. ), and some leaders have already announced their candidacy for President (e.g. this gentleman). The only region that is not interested in federalism is the secessionist Somaliland enclave, and even here, that does not include the unionist Sool, Sanaag, Cayn and Awdal regions. Moreover, most of the countries in Africa aren't going through a civil war, so your comments about Somalia having one of its main universities ranked in both the top 100 universities in Africa & the Arab world with all due respect don't really apply. If the other three negative metrics that are already cited in the article aren't a problem, then there should be no reason why this one that isn't negative for a change is. Also, it's actually the CIA itself that describes Somalia's economy as a "healthy informal economy", something which an ArbCom admin in the past already indicated was a reliable source. The GDP is not an accurate reflection of Somalia's economic activity because much of that activity is unmeasured (c.f. ). That includes a lot of the cross-border Somalia-Ethiopia-Kenya livestock trade, which is traditionally the nation's largest economic activity (most Somalis & many Ethiopians are pastoralists). Over 95% of the regional trade in eastern Africa is actually carried out via unofficial channels . Middayexpress (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most GDP numbers will include estimates of the informal economy. These are never certain numbers, but it's not ignored. By other measures Somalia is also one of the poorest countries in the world. For instance the UN's Multidimensional Poverty Index looks at access to food, water, fuel, education, etc. It finds that 81.2% of the population of Somalia is in poverty, and another 9.5% at risk of poverty. Only a handful of states have worse numbers. - SimonP (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most GDP numbers will include estimates of the informal economy. These are never certain numbers, but it's not ignored. By other measures Somalia is also one of the poorest countries in the world. For instance the UN's Multidimensional Poverty Index looks at access to food, water, fuel, education, etc. It finds that 81.2% of the population of Somalia is in poverty, and another 9.5% at risk of poverty. Only a handful of states have worse numbers. - SimonP (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Done the rewrite. I hacked out a lot of stuff, though it could still be a sentence or two shorter. If anyone sees anything else that should be removed, or could be written more concisely go ahead. - SimonP (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Apart from Middayexpress, nearly everyone who has commented has expressed the opinion that the article avoids negative issues, thus painting an unrealistically upbeat picture of the country. Looking through their contributions, a very great many of their contributions relate to Somalia-related articles. This, by itself is no problem, but it would appear from their actions that they have a personal bias or conflict of interest, that is reflecting badly on the article.

The first concern is that the article neglects to mention the two most well known and pressing issues: it's first on the failed states list, and its issues with piracy. Since piracy hasn't been discussed, I won't hold that against anyone. However, the discussion on the talk page thus far clearly indicates that everyone but middayexpress thinks that the failed state status should be mentioned in the article. However, middayexpress actually removed the small blurb that was added. I was planning on writing a well sourced section, but if the temporary blurb is going to be removed, we have a problem. They also removed the POV tag despite nearly unanimous agreement that the article isn't neutral. 

The second issue is their removal and attempted deletion of File:Somalia map states regions districts.png, a very good - and constantly updated - map that shows the geographic and political divisions of Somalia. Their concerns, put very simply, are that the divisions of Somalia are not internationally recognized. The map's creator responded saying that the secessionist republics, though not legally recognized, exist de facto and should be shown on the map. Middayexpress then nominated the image for deletion, incredibly (though in the wrong forum, so nothing happened), despite its longterm updates and usage.

I think middayexpress' personal bias (already expressed by outback the koala) is getting to the point of disruption. I want to express my opinion that this article is being disrupted by one user with a personal bias, explain my reasons, and strongly insist that it stop. If middayexpress' bias further results in removal of blatantly important information from the article, I think we should take the matter to AN/I. From what I've seen, this isn't an issue about whether a source is reliable or whether a concept is notable, it's become an issue of POV disruption. Other users are free to weigh in, but, in my opinion, this has become blatantly obvious.  Swarm  X 08:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100%. I'll be bold and revert the edits you discussed above.  Until there is a consensus that the issues have been resolved the POV tag should remain, and there is clearly no consensus to remove the map from this article.  I agree with you that there seems to be a rough consensus above to include a discussion of Somalia being a failed state.  I say be WP:BOLD and add the section.  TDL (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading the lead, there is a definite problem. Nowhere does it mention that Somalia has been fragmented and without an effective central government since 1991. It also doesn't include any negative information: top on the failed state index, third from bottom of the Child Development Index, second from last on the Global Peace Index. Lack of statistics keeps Somalia off the Human Development Index, but the numbers measured give Somalia bottom ten for human rights record, bottom five for education, and bottom ten for poverty rates. There are also good things to say about Somalia, but the current lead seems to completely ignore the real problems that exist there. - SimonP (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that this issue has been brought to light, but I think I may have accidently caused some people to believe I am the creator of File:Somalia map states regions districts.png due to Swarm stating that 'map's creator responded', when, on the talk page, I am the only user that responded in any detail. The actual creator of the brilliant map, Ingoman, may have responded elsewhere, and if so it would be much appreciated if I was told where the response was, so I could read it. I was simply resonding to the riduculous claim that the map was 'woefully inaccurate', and that the map should be 'updated with "accurate information" or it'll be replaced with something that is actually accurate and sourced'.--

 AM666999  talk  17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SimonP: The lede not only mentions, but links directly to the relevant Somali Civil War article. It is also four paragraphs long, as WP:LEDE itself recommends for an article of this size. I have therefore restored the material on Somalia's Arab League and African Union membership that you removed . The Child Development Index is a metric developed by a charity, Save The Children, and has little academic standing; it's also not featured on just about all Wikipedia country articles for this very reason . The Global Peace Index is a measure of a country's perceived "peacefulness". With a war going on in its southern half -- which is already thoroughly discussed in the article -- Somalia is obviously not going to rank high in the index, just like Iraq and Afghanistan (none of whose articles, incidentally, mention the index). I am not, however, opposed to citing it; it just needs to be done in its proper context. Middayexpress (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A paragraph is not just any text that is separated by a line break. A paragraph is a block of text dealing with one idea. That fourth paragraph covers, international organizations, internal legal systems, the economy, and recent history. Crunching it all together does not make in conform to WP:LEDE. As to the war, the lead states that the war began in 1991, but nowhere does in indicate that this war has continued for the last 20 years. All it says is that the country has "experienced civil unrest." Rebel conquest of much of the country and the subsequent mass invasion by Ethiopia is a bit more than "civil unrest." As to the statistics, what about the ones in the article already? The top 100 universities is cited to an article, but that article makes no claim for the original source of that list. Was it a reputable international organization? It also relies extensively on Peter Leeson, a rather obscure and ideological source. - SimonP (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the lede isn't just random groups of text separated by line breaks, but divided into an introductory paragraph naming the country & indicating its geographical location, a second paragraph explaining the local history in antiquity & the middle ages, a third paragraph describing the colonial period and independence, and a fourth paragraph describing the post-independence period. Al Shabaab also did not conquer much of the country. As explained in detail in the article, they only managed to obtain control of much of the south specifically during the tenure of the establishment+Islamist coalition government that came to power after the UN-brokered Djibouti Peace Process in 2008/09 (which within months lost 70% of the territory bequeathed to it by the former secular administration). However, Somalia now as a new government, and it has steadily expanded control of the capital in just its first two months or so in office. Peter Leeson is an award-winning Harvard economist, not obscure at all; he is only mentioned once in the lede, and it's not for the fact that several universities in Somalia have been ranked among the 100 best in Africa. Another paper cites that . Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But where does that top university claim ultimately come from? The reference does not give the ultimate source for that reference, so there is no way to assess if it a reliable claim. As to Leeson, there are currently 18 facts cited to his paper, and it is cited more than any other source in this article. His opinions are hardly mainstream, and should be presented as the views of a radical libertarian, not cited as hard facts. It's fine to present that point of view, but this article treats it as the only POV. I'm going to begin work on a complete rewrite of the lead. Everyone besides you sees real problems here, and I think the current one needs to be scrapped and rewritten based on much better sources. - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The top university claim comes from that article I linked you, and it's hardly the only one. Leeson's paper is only used to cite facts based on other sources, not his own opinions. His paper is also not even close to being the most referenced one. That would be the CIA factbook, like on most other Wikipedia articles. Only that blurb in the intro is Leeson's opinion and identified as such, as are his libertarian views. At any rate, I've replaced that ref with others. I do find it strange how, on the other hand, the fact that the Fund For Peace, which publishes the failed states index, (a) is an advocacy group (that's without scare quotes), (b) openly admits to advocating civil causes , and (c) has, in the words of the former National Security Advisor to President Bill Clinton, been "long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country" does not seem to be problem. Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, we know your opinion on the failed state index. Please do not repeat it out of context. Again, and on behalf of all other recent editors: it's not the primary source that we can judge, but it's the vast amount of reliable secondary sources using it. The same goes for the university claim; no double standards there... L.tak (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those links above unfortunately aren't my opinion, nor am I even necessarily looking to remove the failed states index. I just don't appreciate obvious double standards. As already pointed out, the university rankings are hardly exclusive to that source (e.g. ). Middayexpress (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that the top university claim is sourced to that article, but that article mentions a top 100 universities in Africa list, but gives no source for who produced that list. Without that source, there is no way to judge whether that claim comes from a reputable organization. I thus don't consider that fact adequately sourced. As to the Fund for Peace, its a perfectly valid source, there is nothing wrong with citing advocacy groups. The United Nations and CIA are just as much advocacy organizations. Your "pro-communist" quote does not come from an advisor to Clinton, it comes form William F. Jasper of the conspiracist John Birch Society, and is about as far from a reliable source as you can get. As to Leeson, what special status deserves his mention in the lead? Why don't we quote Bronwyn E. Bruton, someone who has actual experience in Africa, is an expert on Somalia, and author on a recent book on the country. That book begins "Somalia has been a failed state for the better part of two decades; bereft of central government, cantonized into clan fiefdoms, and wracked be deadly spasms of violence." - SimonP (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out, the university rankings are hardly exclusive to that source (e.g. ). Bruton's book was also prepared and published during the tenure of the Islamist+establishment coalition government that first came to power in 2008-2009 as a result of the UN-brokered Djibouti Peace Process. Not long after the "moderate" Islamists entered government, charges of corruption and inefficiency began to surface. Within months, the coalition government also lost almost all of the territory that the previous secular government had gained, going from controlling over 70% of south-central Somalia's conflict zones to just a few blocks in Mogadishu. As of November of this past year, however, Somalia now has a new government. And this new government is actually quite well-regarded in the international community . In just its first two months in office, the government has managed to secure control of over 55% of the capital, where between 70%-80% of the city's population live, and its steadily expanding its control as more TFG & AU troops enter the city . The "failed state" material therefore belongs in the relevant coalition government section, during whose tenure the state actually topped the index. As for the "pro-communist" link, even if we discount it, it doesn't change the fact that the Fund For Peace is an advocacy group & openly admits to being so or that others have noted the conflict inherent therein: "The Fund for Peace’s tag-line is “promoting sustainable security,” which in and of itself denotes bias, as the index may be an apparatus of this goal" . I'm just asking for consistency here, not double standards. Middayexpress (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Swarm: Most of the people (actually, mainly anonymous IPs and SPAs) that have weighed in have done so at various periods of time, when the article was a lot different than it is now; so no point in alluding to comments which pertain to earlier versions of the article. I'll also have you know that making false accusations against another editor is a serious breach of WP:NPA and WP:TALK. I most certainly did not remove the failed state info, and claiming that I did when I clearly didn't only does you a disservice. FYI, I moved it to its proper section and fully explained why I did so in both my edit summary (where I also explained why I removed the neutrality tag) and in an earlier talk page post above from 03:55, 24 January 2011. It's also blatantly untrue that piracy isn't discussed in the article. It most certainly is in the relevant civil war section . This is something that I pointed out ages ago too, so no point in claiming otherwise here either. Titling pointlessly accusatory talk page sections after another editor as you have done  after me is likewise a breach of WP:TALK. I have therefore removed my username from the heading in question. Lastly, the map is complete and utter OR, to the point of being misleading. And not just I have pointed this out, but so has another editor on that image's talk page . Here's why:
 * "The map is woefully inaccurate. For one thing, the entire country is officially known as the 'Republic of Somalia', not just where the Transitional Federal Government/TFG currently controls (the blue area according to this map). The official name in Somalia for the Somaliland region is 'Somaliland', not the 'Republic of Somaliland'; the latter is just what the secessionist administration calls it. This needs to be changed back to its neutral original 'Somaliland separatists' or simply 'Somaliland'. Further, the TFG controls over half of Mogadishu, a lot more than the limited area indicated herein; so this too needs to be adjusted. Puntland is also not only unaligned; it is autonomous and has its own administration, unlike the indicated 'Islamic Caliphate of Somalia' (hence, why an article on the topic was recently deleted). Puntland therefore needs its own color and legend box to reflect its autonomous status, and the 'Islamic Caliphate of Somalia' legend box needs to be changed to 'Al-Shabaab' or 'Islamist resistance' or some variation thereof as before. Given the above, the map needs to be updated as soon as possible with accurate information before being re-added to any articles."
 * As I already explained on that image's discussion page, I did not want the map deleted to begin with but simply updated to reflect actually accurate, sourced information. WP:OI does not allow self-made images that aren't based on actual sources: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." This is why I indicated that "the map in principle is useful" but that "the bottom line, however, remains that it is quite inaccurate and needs to be updated". The uploader, however, never bothered to respond. Instead, a new, single purpose account with nary a contribution history has been fighting tooth and nail for the map to remain essentially as is . It's all very curious. Middayexpress (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP-lead suggests 3-4 sections, and by taking 4 long sections with very many ideas (as stated above) this is technically maybe in conformation with WP:lead suggestions, but it is on the very long end of the range of possibilities. I suggest we bring it to a proportion of 3 Somalia-article-like sections or (preferably) 4 much shorter sections... L.tak (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If I misrepresented anything (such as piracy not being in the article or incorrectly calling someone an image's creator), I apologize. This was simply a mistake. However, my point still strongly stands, and the response to this section both here and by email only solidifies my opinion. Midday: if you're only trying to edit in good faith and don't understand these accusations (I'm still willing to consider this as a possibility), listen to me. You have a clear conflict of interest that is manifesting itself in your editing. You need to seriously check, and allow others to check your edits in the future, because it's harming the article and thus the encyclopedia. If need be, it's better to stop editing the article for awhile than continue to edit with a conflict of interest. If you're not editing in good faith, any further removal of sourced content or addition of content that appears to serve the purpose of POV pushing will be reverted and, if need be, reported. But I'm not going to debate the details of this section. I'm a longtime editor here and you're about as biased of an editor as I've ever seen. The only difference is that you're editing has effected an article more than I've ever seen. Again, the fact that multiple people agree with me, both here and through emails I've received, should perhaps tell you that you're edits aren't exactly neutral.  Swarm  X 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Leeson
We also need to have a further discussion of how much this article relies on a single paper by Peter Leeson, then of West Virginia University. Right now 16 different facts are referenced to this paper. Leeson doesn't seem to have ever been to Somalia, has no background in the history or politics of the region, and has never written more than this one paper on the situation in the country. The paper is also now four years old, prior to many important events. This is a pretty clear violation of WP:UNDUE. That Somalia has been presented by some libertarians as a anarchists paradise is worth mentioning, but it has to be presented as the WP:FRINGE theory that it is. - SimonP (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Leeson's paper is primarily used for statements of fact from other sources, not libertarian value judgments. Specifically, the life expectancy, number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles and tuberculosis, infant and maternal mortality, the percentage of the population with access to sanitation services, the percentage of the population with access to at least one health facility, the cost per visit of medical consultations in these facilities, and the number of physicians per 100,000 people with regard to the 1985-1990 period as compared to the 2000-2005 period. None of the cited figures come from him personally. As I pointed out, the only value judgment is expressly identified as such, and so is Leeson's libertarian background ("Libertarian economist Peter T. Leeson attributes this increased economic activity to the Somali traditional law (referred to as Xeer), which he suggests provides a stable environment to conduct business in"). There is, however, one more sentence from Leeson that could be construed as a value judgement, so I've replaced it with a fact-based one from another source. Middayexpress (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But they are compiled by him personally, and as anyone knows you can make statistics say a lot of different things, especially if it's a poor data set and you aren't very familiar with the base subject matter. Consider life expectancy, in 1989 he notes the UN had life expectancy at 46.0 years. In 2005 he cites life expectancy as being up to 48.47 years. Remarkable progress! Of course he ignores that the UN numbers for 2005 had Somalia only at 46.2 years. Odd since he used those same UN stats elsewhere in his table. Perhaps the change from 46 to 48 is just that the CIA and UN have different ways of estimating life span, which is why you should never compare two data sets. Something he does throughout that table. - SimonP (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the variables mentioned above, I see that Leeson appears to have aggregated figures from two different sources with regard to life expectancy and infant mortality rate. That HDI paper from 2006 does provide a rather different infant mortality profile. However, it is lower than that provided by Earthtrends, which, at 47 for males and 50 for females, is closer to Leeson's (which is probably an aggregate of both male and female). Earthtrends has the infant mortality rate at 113/1000 births during the 2000-05 period (the HDI measures it according to five years olds), whereas Leeson has it at 114.89/1000 births. Leeson actually appears to have a more pessimistic figure here. At any rate, your concerns are valid and have been duly noted. I shall replace these two figures with the Earthtrends ones. There is no reason to change the other ones because they weren't aggregated by Leeson; he just took them directly from their respective sources, which he cites. Middayexpress (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond aggregation, the even bigger problem is comparing different sets. You can't compare Earthtrends data from 2005 with UN data from 1990, because you can't be sure they gathered and processed the statistics the same way. The only thing we should use to compare 1990 UN stats are other stats from the UN. - SimonP (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alleged "problem" solved. All stats involved in the comparisons are now from the UN. The material has therefore been restored, sans the Leeson ref. Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

POV intro
User:SimonP: You have utterly destroyed the intro and most certainly have not obtained or indeed even discussed your proposed changes. Firstly, it's intellectually dishonest to label Somalia as a whole a "failed state" when (1) that concept is dubious to begin with; (2) only the southern part of Somalia is going through a civil war; and (3) Somalia has a new government, which is well-regarded by the international community -- the notion of an ineffectual government pertained to the previous government, not the current one. Worse, you added this in the very second sentence of the intro. Secondly, Somalia is immediately part of the Horn of Africa, a distinct region within East Africa that is marked by unique ethnic, cultural and geographical endowments; so that's what should be indicated, not "Eastern Africa". You also mention that the "British and Italians gained control of parts of the coast, and established, but didn't even bother to cite how they got a foothold in the region in the first place: they signed protection treaties with the existing Somali Sultans that ruled the area. You also removed all reference to the key fact that a popular referendum preceded the union of the Trust Territory of Somalia & the State of Somaliland i.e. it was a consensual union. It is also blatantly untrue that "Somalia is without a federal government" as you claim. Somalia has lacked a permanent national government because it has had various interim bodies in the intervening years, such as the Transitional National Government and the incumbent Transitional Federal Government. The TFG also has not "attempted" to reestablish the Military of Somalia. It has already re-established it, and this is amply sourced too (who do you think is fighting alongside AMISOM and receiving arms from the US, EU and others?). Somalia also has not just maintained an "informal economy" but a healthy informal economy, as that CIA source makes clear. Over 90% of its cross-border trade in its largest industry (livestock) isn't even counted in the GDP, and the paper I already linked you to makes this clear too. Lastly, it's not just the Somaliland region that is "stable" as you attempt to imply in the intro, but all of the other autonomous northern regions, including adjacent Puntland. It's been a long day and I don't have time now to correct the heaps of disinformation that you have added to the intro. But tomorrow is another day. Middayexpress (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the normal and correct procedure would be to place the old version back and get consensus for a new version. However, i) most of the info implemented seems to be derived from the older version, there was consensus (not unanimity) that the intro ii) was too long and iii) POV and I think therefore the present move was a good one. Middayexpress raises several valid points which should be addressed however, although I don't agree with all his suggesions. I already reworded the "absence of governement" and the "failed state" statements and would have no problem placing Somalia in the Horn of Africa (although eastern africa does not seem wrong to me). As for which regions we should call reliably stable and how to word that best her, I'll have a check this evening... L.tak (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your changes L.tak. The failed state claim is about as well referenced as you could hope. If anyone wants more references, I'm sure I could find anotehr 20 without much problem. Failed state does not mean an ongoing civil war across the country. As our own article makes clear criteria for being a failed state include the government not having control of all the territory, the government lacking legitimacy in parts of the country, and the governments inability to provide basic services. These are all unquestionably true about Somalia, and the peace and stability of Somaliland under a separate government reinforces this fact, rather than contradict it. The general consensus on this page and a huge number of references support calling Somalia this, so I think this point is settled. Other points:
 * The article still mentions Somalia's location on the Horn, it's in paragraph 2. It starts with a more general and then a more specific geographic location, as is standard.
 * The two historical facts you mentioned are big ones, but we're writing a summary not a full history of the country. The lead is currently at about the max length a lead should be. Could you suggest what sentences from the history section should be removed so those two points should be added?
 * The UN numbers show that more than 80% of the population has insufficient access to basics such as food, fuel, and education. While the underground economy may be healthy in that it is vigorous, it is not healthy in that it is failing to provide the basic needs of the people. The poverty claim is not reffed to GDP numbers, so they don't play a role here. - SimonP (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The rewrite of the intro was desperately needed, and I applaud SimonP for utilizing the SOFIXIT mentality. The previous lead was an utter failure on behalf of the Wikipedia community - it should never have been allowed to get so bad. It lead should be closely watched from now on to make sure that it never strays to its former state. Let me add onto Simon's response:
 * We avoid puffery in Wikipedia articles, hence we will not use "healthy" to describe an economy unless directly quoting a source.
 * Nowhere that I can see does it say "Somalia is without a federal government" it says "For most of the period since 1991 Somalia has been without a federal government" which we all know is true (it still lacks a permanent central government, much less one that actually controls the whole country). It's concerning that you're calling a well sourced rewrite of a biased lead "heaps of disinformation".  Swarm  X 13:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Midday, the lede has become a chesspool of negativity, none of which are informational, but are simply sensationalist statements equivalant to "Somalia is the country with the ugliest people" and "has the most beautiful trees". Whether this is true is irrelevant, a reader perusing the intro will have no idea whether/why these statements are "true or false", nor have a clue as to whether Somalis have begun grooming themselves into better looking people, or if the population has started taking down the beautiful trees. Yes, Somalia is a poor country, but its positioned on a poor continent, therefore its a mystery to me why undue weight has been placed on it's "poorness", when several academics and international bodies have repeatedly highlighted the positive trend of "improvement" in living standards:

"Somalia boasts lower rates of extreme poverty and, in some cases, better infrastructure than richer countries in Africa" or more detailed:

''Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. 'But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?' Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.'' ''Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.  Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.  Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.'' ''Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.  Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.'' Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8. Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2. Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5. Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9. TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7. Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.

This is informational, simply pidgeon holing Somalia is not, which is why I selected two very noteworthy points from the above improvements; life expectancy and the poverty rate. The other statement about Somalia being one of the most violent countries in the world is redundant, there is already mention made of the Civil war and the resulting anarchy(with a link to a very detailed article on the subject). More people die of violent deaths in several rich countries of the world than Somalia by far, none of them however are pidgeon holed with this type of systematic bias, which is why I removed it from the lede. The third removal I have made is concerning the Failed state listening, there are plenty of articles characterising Somalia as a fragile state, which is different from the former index, therefore what exactly gives the Failed state index more credibility to be included in the intro? The fragile state sources are just as concrete and reliable. A better place for these indexes would be the government section. --Scoobycentric (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether Somalis are a bit less poor than last year is not particularly important. If you are poor, but getting a little bit less poor, you're still poor.  The key fact is that you can't afford to eat.  Sure it's important to mention the recent trends, but not in the lede which is reserved for the big picture.  The sun is getting a little bit cooler every year, but the important fact is that it is still hot.
 * Being a failed state or a fragile state aren't mutually exclusive. Somalia could be both.  If you want to add a statement that Somalia is also considered a fragile state, that might be appropriate.
 * Unfortunately, the is a lot of negative things to talk about in regards to Somalia. We aren't obliged to present equal amounts of positive and negative information.  That would be WP:UNDUE wight.  TDL (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Scoobycentric is quite right, but is understating things a bit. The intro is not just unduely negative; large parts of it are flat-out dishonest. For starters, it claims that Somalia "for most of the period since 1991 Somalia has been without a federal government", which is false. Somalia has had many interim governments in that time period, including the Transitional National Government and the incumbent Transitional Federal Government. It has not had a permanent national government ; but that too is about to change in August of this year, when the transitional period ends and a new national constitution comes into effect. All this was indicated in the previous version of the lede, but removed in the current butchered incarnation. This is unacceptable. The notion of a "failed state" is also in itself highly subjective, unless specifically tied to the Failed States Index. And the index only ever ranked the country atop it specifically during the tenure of the Islamist+establsihment coalition government, which lost control of over 70% of the south-central parts of the country that the previous secular government left it, not the current technocratic government. These basic facts were never put into their proper context, which is highly misleading. Not even the Iraq and Afghanistan ledes -- the logical counterparts to what's going on in southern Somalia -- got this negative treatment or anything approaching it. As I see it, this scramble to make the intro look as seemingly bad as possible is quite pointless since the lede as it currently stands will have to be changed in just a few months anyway when the insurgents are defeated, the new constitution comes into effect, and national elections begin. Middayexpress (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. We can't just assume that the insurgents will be defeated, the new constitution will come in the effect and national elections will be held.  Those are some pretty big assumtions.  Hopefully you're right and we will have to do a complete rewrite.  But until those things actually accur, the article should reflect the present reality, and not the hoped for future.  TDL (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only assumption above is that the insurgents will be defeated in a few months (and that's based on the way things are presently going for them, not hopes). The constitution and national elections are scheduled, fyi . Middayexpress (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again: WP:CRYSTAL. You might expect their to be an election, or the new constitution might be scheduled to come into effect, but these types of things often slip.  And just because the insurgents are down now, doesn't mean the war is over.  Remeber, 2003 Mission Accomplished speech?  They thought the insurgents would be defeated in a few months as well.  Turned out, not so much.  TDL (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right. A new constitution and national elections that pave the way for a permanent government are scheduled in the coming months. It is not "crystal balling" to point this out because WP:CRYSTAL only pertains to scheduled events that are not "notable and almost certain to take place." The forgoing unfortunately does not apply to the upcoming federal constitution, permanent government, and the first national elections in 40 years. Middayexpress (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It most definitely is, considering the situation of them being in a civil war, which is why there is a ton of info on these improvements being discussed extensively by academics and world bodies, you yourself certainly don't qualify as determining whether this is important enough or not, the mountain of the info is evidence in itself, that your not familiar with this, but instead are trying to pidgeon hole Somalia through generalised statements is just another form of systematic bias, and no part of the manual of style mentions one should always resort to generalised statements.
 * They certainly are mutually exclusive, which is why you will have articles discussing Somalia moving from its "Failed state" status to being a "fragile state". Neither of these indexes or definitions in my opinion belong in the intro, but are better suited in the government section.
 * Your version is putting undue weight on the negative side, there are plenty of positives to talk about, infact I could flood the entire intro with improvements and positive aspects of Somalia, but from following the above discussions, I have noticed the general theme is that Somalia does not deserve having anything positive written about it in the intro, such blatant transparent bias will not be left unchallenged.--Scoobycentric (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Danlaycock's post at 01:28, 31 January 2011 showed no sign of a compromise, nor did he convince me that the sensationalist statements in the so-called "concensus" based version of the article served any purpose other than pidgeon holing this specific country. As a compromise I have left the negative failed state characterisation in the article and added the fragile state definition aswell. The sourced material detailing the increase in life-expectancy and drop in the poverty rate have been reinserted for informational purposes, noteworthy by any standards.--Scoobycentric (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "...showed no sign of a compromise...", "As a compromise I have... added the fragile state definition aswell." Umm...that was my suggestion.  You claim I'm unwilling to compromise, then steal my idea and claim that it's you who compromised?  I'm confused...
 * I may not have convinced you, but you've yet to establish a consensus that your edits are justified. There was a clear consensus above in favour of the previous version.  45 minutes withouth a response isn't enough to claim a new consensus has been established.


 * Just to be clear, I never suggested that the situation in Somalia isn't improving, nor that it's not important to mention. The point is, you are trying to take small improvements over the last few months and use them to diminish the realities of the situation.
 * How am I trying to pidgen hole Somalia? What generalised statements where made?
 * So can you explain the specific differences between a fragile and a failed state for me?
 * Deserves? See this is the problem.  You think that Somalia deserves to have some nice things said about it, because most of the mainstream media only say bad things.  The problem is, it's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  We can only follow the lead of the mainstream media, even if they are biased.
 * I understand you're proud of your country, everyone is. But you need to be able to remove yourself to edit without a POV.  TDL (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a compromise, I preferably would have both indexes in the appropriate section that's discussing the government, not the intro, if you had suggested that, then there would be a sign of a compromise from where we could continue. I therefore took it upon myself and added that suggestion, while reinserting the detailed explanation on the improved Somali living standards.
 * An increase in life-expectancy, or a major drop in poverty are not small improvements, they are SIGNIFICANT improvements, especially from an African context, so no, i'm not diminishing the reality on the ground, plenty of mention is made about the ongoing civil strife, a detailed article about anarchy has been added and the reach and limits of the state apparatus has been illuminated several times.
 * You might not have made those specific edits, you are however defending them by reverting me based on a situation where Middayexpress was muted through "strength of numbers", which erroneously is now being dubbed a "concensus".
 * There are the failed state and fragile state articles, plenty of info there, i'm sure you can deduce from that, why these two sobriquets are used seperately and differently by academics and world bodies.
 * Somalia deserves to be treated like any other country article on wikipedia, its current status in no way gives anyone the right to gross misrepresent the situation nor pidgeon hole it through generalised statements devoid of any informational purpose.
 * My background has nothing to do with this, I could place the mirror back towards your face and speculate whether your presence here and support for the other version has something to do with the Somaliland issue, i'm sure you wouldn't like that, the same for me. I have as much right to edit this article as anyone else, and if I see a clear bias towards negativity I will challenge it.--Scoobycentric (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. It's not your preference, and it's not my preference.  That's why we call it a compromise.
 * Well that depends. The life expectancy is going up in virtually every country on the planet, so that in and of itself is not significant.  See above for a discussion on this.  The UN reports an increase in life expectancy of 0.2 years from 1989-2005.  That's likely not even statistically significant, let alone noteworthy.
 * Middayexpress was not muted. His concernes were extensively discussed above.  Unfortunately, he was unable to conivince anyone of his position.  I never said there was unanimous agreement, but a consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement.  Every editor but Middayexpress was in agreement.
 * Did you actually read the articles you linked to? If you did you would have noticed statements such as "There is no clear universal definition of a 'failed state'".  There is no black-and-white boundary between "failed" and "fragile" states.  It's entirely possible that some experts would clasify them as a very fragile while others as failed.  (The very fact that we have souces for both supports my position).
 * Right. Obviously we shouldn't missrepresent the situation.  But stating that they are one of the poorest or most violent countries isn't a missrepresentation.  These are cold hard fact.  You've yet to explain how these statements are "devoid of any informational purpose".  The informational content is clear.
 * Everyone is allowed to edit this article. However, if one can't edit in a NPOV way, then these rights can be revoked.  It's pretty clear, as has been discussed above, that this article has been WP:OWNED by editors with a biased POV.  TDL (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * TDL - Indeed, and it was thrown into the bin just as fast as it was added, real progress indeed.
 * That's not true, if you look at other countries in similar situations or conditions such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Angola, Zimbabwe etc, the trend there in life-expectancy has been one of "decline", so for Somalia to see an increase of any kind is certainly notable by any standards.
 * Midday was muted, and attacked for his background several times by Swarm who kept using the "conflict of interest" card, which is completely unapplicable to Middayexpress, just because he shows concerns for potential biased edits and has the time & interests to challenge these same edits doesn't equal a conflict of interest, as I said before it wouldn't take much for me to find a flaw in any of you guys, with which I could invoke the conflict of interest card. The entire lede was rewritten and none of his concerns were taken into account, in wikipedia circles that's muting a member through strength of numbers. If tomorrow twenty different members suddenly entered this discussion and agreed with me and Midday, I certainly wouldn't agree with sidelining the other side and their concerns just because there are more of us.
 * I have read them, and to my understanding the fragile state is a level up in terms of state capacity, which make sense with this new technocrat goverment that has done more in the last 60 days than the dozen preceding interim governments have done in terms of building state institutions, from the military to the healthcare, education and monetary systems, not to mention its reaching out policies to other regions in Somalia, the mediation in the Central part of the country being a good example. In any case there are plenty of reliable sources that mention Somalia as a fragile state, I see no reason why this is being ommitted in favour of another sobriquet.
 * Cold hard facts? maybe, but relevant or educational? Not at all! An editor could enter the USA article and write the US is one of the most military aggressive countries in the world, the same editor could enter the PRC article and write that China is one of the most repressive countries in the world, again this same editor could enter the Swaziland article and write that the Kingdom of Swaziland is one of the most diseased-wrecked countries in the world, and in all three cases there would be plenty of reliable sources to corroborate these statements. However in all three cases these edits wouldn't last more than 30 seconds, since they would be reverted, and justifiably so! If this editor instead were to add something about the Iraq and Afghan situations on the US article, a reader would be led to a myriad of other articles, if something about the Tibetan uprisings and the Ughyur unrest were to be added on the China article there would be a myriad of related articles a reader would be led to, if on the Swaziland article a detailed sourced explanation were to be added about the country's healthcare situation, a reader would actually know what particular diseases are most prominent and the action that is being taken against it. This approach is far more informational, and unlike the other way that is riddled and could be accussed of propaganda, bias or plain misrepresentation, in my suggestion the editor is not making a statement, he/she is not trying to influence what a reader should think about a particular country, instead the reader receives what they originally came for and that is information, not generalised statements, this is an online encyclopedia not the tabloids or news outlets found in the references. That Somalia is poor would be evident from the percentage living below the poverty line, that there is violence in Somalia would be evident from the several references to the civil strife and the anarchy, in neither case are we making a statement, this is the standard form of writing you can find on country articles, including those on the African continent.
 * You have been throwing around alot of different wiki-ettiquettes and protocols, alot of the times they are not applicable at all. The onus is on you to provide evidence that either I or Middayexpress are not NPOV in our edits or in this discussion, just saying a person is so, doesn't make them so. Its quite interesting that the editors that made several comments on the previous intro being to positive or to POV, don't feel the need to comment now, evendo the bias towards negativity is just oozing out of the intro. This isn't the only double standard that is quite apparent for anyone that takes a quik perusal through this discussion; the Failed State blurb is being pushed evendo the original body that compiles this list is a advocacy group but because there are third party sources, it has been greenlighted for inclusion, yet Swarm and SimonP have removed several reliable third party sources on the fragile state situation, and the work of Peter Leeson because they are basically speculating about the size of info that could be found on the fragile state blurb(in the case of Swarm) or there is an interpretation of the sources, the writers and the outlets(in the case of SimonP who dubs them "anarchists or libertarians", though the same scrutiny is missing when it comes to the other sources, many of them who have never been in the country or have their own agendas, very convenient). Considering none of our concerns are being thought off sincerly, and considering what progress that was being made was completely reverted with a weak casus belli that there is a "concensus"(no there is not!), its quite clear who is OWNING the article at the moment and clinging onto non-Neutral POVs. --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned a couple of facts that you want in the article: that for Somalia has seen a notable increase in life expectancy, and that the new government means that Somalia is now a fragile state rather than a failed one. I agree that if these are the case they should be included, though not necessarily in the lead. We just need to find some good refs. And please no more Mises Institute or other sources that are pushing a libertarian agenda.
 * That Somalia has had 20 years of intermittent civil war with no unified government, and that it at the top of pretty much every list of the world's most impoverished countries, is important information that belongs in the lead. Other sources giving an introduction to the country mention these facts (BBC, CIA, Lonely Planet, Britannica, UK GOV, CFR). Other articles on Wikipedia also make clear when there are problems in a country. Consider Niger, Chad, Sudan, DRC. I do agree that some other articles, like Iraq, are too cheery. - SimonP (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only people who think there's a problem are Midday, the only person who supported the old lead, and yourself. Two associated people objecting to something doesn't mean "no consensus," especially when one of them strongly supported such blatantly biased prose. The previous change was brought about by numerous registered editors and anons (presumably readers) comments over a series of months, with Midday deflecting arguments and complaints the entire time. When a change is finally brought about Midday of all people starts accusing others of POV pushing, and the only person to agree with him is an editor who has maintained a long term, friendly association with him. Just how much weight do you think these POV accusations are going to hold? If you feel your concerns aren't being taken seriously, perhaps you should abandon the ridiculous POV accusations at four established editors in good standing.  Swarm  X 16:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Our opinions on this don't really matter. Look at any third party reference on the subject, and you will find Somalia described as failed state that is one of the poorest and most violent in the world. Pretty much the only place you will find different arguments are from radical libertarian or anarchist writers, such as Mises Institute folk. The views should be mentioned, per WP:FRINGE, but it is not a mainstream view and their strong ideological motivation and the failure of almost all of those writers to have any background in the the region makes clear that we should not put too much wright on those references. - SimonP (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No one removed the failed state info, so your comments above are beside the point. It's actually you that removed, among other things, the references to others describing Somalia as a "fragile state". You also removed the specific context as to why Somalia is sometimes described as a "failed state": because it is going through a civil war in its southern half. That's where the violence and poverty is, not the stable northern regions. It's utterly POV to keep trying to insinuate that all of Somalia is "failed" (when only the south is going through the war), that is has no government (when it does and has had many interim governments, just not a permanent one; not to mention an indigenous legal system that the people follow whether or not government is all it could be), and that nothing has been or is being done about the situation (when much has and is being done). All of this was explained in the previous version of the intro you reverted, while yours did nothing of the sort (nor was the Mises paper even cited in that version). Middayexpress (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a ref for it being called a failed state solely because of the civil war in the south? I don't think this is accurate. If you look at the failed state article, ongoing civil war is not on the list of definitions. That the central government also lacks control over the north as well as the south is just as important. That the central government has limited legitimacy almost everywhere, and is unable to provide basic services are also part of the definition. As to failed verses fragile, I'm not really sure what the point is there. The references given seem to treat the two terms as essentially synonymous. In other sources, like, the fragile state of Somaliland is explicitly compared to the failed state of the rest of the country. - SimonP (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That link above describing the Somaliland region as a "fragile state" is an opinion piece, so it doesn't mean much. Somaliland is also recognized the world over as an autonomous region of Somalia, just like neighboring Puntland; and both are widely-regarded as stable (which is why the US is now directly engaging their respective administrations as a reward for this stability ). I have therefore restored the reference to all of Somalia's autonomous regions. I also already linked you and the other accounts many other times before to research showing that Somalia is labeled a "failed state" specifically because of the war in the south. The failed state concept unfortunately does not mean that "Somalia really sucks" or some variation thereof. It means that the country's public sector (i.e. its government) has not been able to fulfill all of its duties. And the government has not been able to fulfill all of its duties because its members are constantly being shot at by Islamist insurgents. By the way, the CIA itself was involved in the genesis of the "failed state" concept back in the 1990s, and not even it caricatures Somalia the way this appallingly biased intro does: "The real genesis of the “state failure” concept was a CIA State Failure Task Force in the early 1990s. Their 1995 first report said state failure is “a new term for a type of serious political crisis exemplified by recent events in Somalia, Bosnia, Liberia, and Afghanistan”" . Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think noone is saying with "failed state", that there are no parts of the state where organization has resulted in quite a livable situation. But that seems to be not due to, but sometimes (in the case of Somaliland) despite the fact that there is no permanent central government who has an ligitimate monopoly on power. The fact that there are promising things happening in Somalia outside the central government is a good thing, but that only stresses that the state as such at this moment can be characterized a failed state. If definitions for Somalia have been used differently, please provide a source... L.tak (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, no one is saying "all of Somalia is failed," but that doesn't mean Somalia isn't a failed state. Somaliland can be characterized as a fragile state, but that doesn't mean Somalia isn't a failed state either. However, giving the sources that call Somalia a fragile state equal weight to the ones that call Somalia a failed state is seriously undue. Somalia is much more widely known as a failed state, and the sources that use "fragile state" do so in terminology, but don't actually suggest the situation is better than a failed state. One also called failed state-era Iraq a "fragile state" and compared it to Somalia. We don't give minorities of sources undue weight because they use different terminology. If there are factual inaccuracies, please start a new section with a bulleted list. However, there's quite clearly no consensus supporting the notion that the current lead needs to be changed back to the previous version. However, from what Middayexpress has said above, I don't see any "lies" in the lead.  Swarm  X 08:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Somaliland isn't characterized as a "fragile state". In the country sense of the term, it isn't recognized as a state at all. Somaliland is recognized the world over as an autonomous region of Somalia, and a stable one at that; the same goes for Puntland. The fact remains that you have no legitimate excuse for removing the fragile state info, and it shows quite well the one-sided nature of this discussion. The very same argument you used to try and include the failed state info in the lede can easily be used vis-a-vis the fragile state info: namely, that any other number of sources describe Somalia as a fragile state. Likewise, the statement in the lede which claims that "for most of the period since 1991 Somalia has been without a federal government" is very misleading. Somalia has had many interim governments in that time period, including the Transitional National Government and the incumbent Transitional Federal Government. It has not had a permanent national government . And during that time period, the people simply went back to the indigenous legal system that the locals follow and have followed for thousands of years, whether or not the government is all it could be; other areas of the country were also ruled by Muslim shura councils, overseen by the Islamic Courts Union. It is also both misleading and unenyclopedic to describe the country as one of the "most violent states in the world" in the world without putting that violence into its proper context i.e. parts (not all) of Somalia are violent specifically because it is going through a civil war in the south. Try and rationalize this bias all you want, but not even the Iraq and Afghanistan ledes -- the natural counterparts to the situation in southern Somalia -- have received this negative treatment. Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please show me a quote from a reference that says Somalia is a failed state purely because of a civil war in the south. Please give a source that says Somalia is not a failed state, but a fragile one. You're either using low quality references, like libertarian writers, or misconstruing the contents of valid references. - SimonP (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did in my post above from 23:55, 31 January 2011 i.e. minutes ago. In case you hadn't noticed, I already justified my edits in that post and the one above: "The real genesis of the “state failure” concept was a CIA State Failure Task Force in the early 1990s. Their 1995 first report said state failure is “a new term for a type of serious political crisis exemplified by recent events in Somalia, Bosnia, Liberia, and Afghanistan”" . Middayexpress (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown how those refs verify what you're claiming. My read of them gives a very different perspective. Your post above contains a lot of your own opinions, which you are entitled to, but opinions are not useful in building an article. - SimonP (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have no doubt that your reading of "serious political crisis exemplified by recent events" is unique, but that unfortunately won't change the CIA's own definition of the term. Middayexpress (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That it was recent in 1995 does not preclude the situation continuing today. There are a half dozen references to Somalia being described as a failed state currently. - SimonP (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm sure you've read them all. Unfortunately, however, none of those references were involved with the actual genesis of the term. Only the aforementioned CIA was, and we of course know it's definition of just what a "failed state" is by now. Middayexpress (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What does the genesis of them term have to do with anything? The CIA doesn't own the term.  If many RS consider Somalia to be a failed state today (which they clearly do), it doesn't matter what the CIA thinks.  TDL (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See Fragile state for further information on how Somaliland can be characterized as "fragile" instead of "failed" like the rest of Somalia, though I wish we could focus on more pressing matters.  Swarm  X 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have become an expert on the secessionist Somaliland region all of a sudden. This is all starting to make sense now. By the way, linking to other Wikipedia discussions between lay editors is unfortunately not a reliable source either. Middayexpress (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct. However, the article quotes a RS.  I'd suggest taking a look at that.  TDL (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article repeatedly quotes the same exact opinion piece mentioned above, not a reliable source (and there's a good reason for that). Middayexpress (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Overseas Development Institute publishes peer reviewed academic journals, so it is about as valid a source as there is under Wikipedia rules. - SimonP (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it does, but that publication (like many other publications and newspapers) also publishes opinion pieces, which is what the paper in question is and is clearly labeled as being: "Article - ODI Opinions 103, July 2008" . And Wikipedia, of course, does not allow opinion pieces for contentious issues (see WP:QS). Middayexpress (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um..WP:QS doesn't say what you suggest it does. The policy states: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."  So unless you've got some evidence that the Institute has a bad reputation, this argument is not relevant.  TDL (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sorry Midday, but you're completely wrong. Opinion pieces are unsigned writings by senior editorial staff at a newspaper or magazine. "ODI opinions" are not "opinion pieces," and even contain a note to avoid confusion of the two: "ODI Opinions are signed pieces by ODI researchers..." This particular paper was written by Dr. Timothy Othieno, an ODI research fellow. It's a sourced paper written by an academic expert and has nothing to do with editorials. As to what "You seem to have become an expert on the secessionist Somaliland region all of a sudden. This is all starting to make sense now." means, I have no idea. I am not an expert, nor am I formally educated in Somalia, nor do I have a personal interest or hobby in the study of Somalia. If I did, I would have edited something on the topic at least once in my 2.5 years and 5300 edits here. My only comments about Somaliland specifically referenced another article.  Swarm  X 14:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Environment
Just read through the environment section. Apart from the nuclear waste issue down, the problems seem to be not mentioned explicitly (only the solutions -planting tree campaigns etc- and their actors -the first env org., prize winning people etc). Could someone knowledgeble on the subject make an introduction to that paragraph in which the main problems are discussed (and maybe also reduce the env. activism part)? L.tak (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's untrue. About half of that section discusses environmental problems and their attendant consequences, including deforestation & desertification, the charcoal trade, waste dumping and overfishing. It also discusses what has been/is being done about the situation for balance. Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter is exactly my point. The paragraph is written from the context of what's done (and by whom, from which organization); where I would like to have the (present or previous) situation a more highlighted, rather than its present actors. An example: the part on prohibtion of ivory trade is now:


 * In 1986, the Wildlife Rescue, Research and Monitoring Centre was established by ECOTERRA Intl., with the goal of sensitizing the public to ecological issues. This educational effort led in 1989 to the so-called "Somalia proposal" and a decision by the Somali government to adhere to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which established for the first time a worldwide ban on the trade of elephant ivory.
 * I would say the most important piont of thse two sentences is (if true at least, I am not very knowledgeble here): Ivory trading was a serious issue in Somalia with xx elephants killed per year. Adhearing to the CITES treaty in 19xx has resulted in decline to xxx. The WRRMC and ECOTERRA could as far as I am concerned be left out or in a separate paragraph on "environmental organizations". Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

POV intro #2
The intro is even more appallingly biased and misleading than I had initially realized.

The POV intro:

My edits:

As can be seen above, the POV intro mentions the civil war not once, not twice, but a total of three times. That includes two internal directly links to the Somali Civil War article; one in the very second sentence of the lede no less, just to make sure readers did not miss it the umpteen other times the war is mentioned. The counter-balancing "fragile state" info was also conveniently removed, leaving nothing behind but the assertion that Somalia is a "failed state". A gratuitous reference to Somalia being "violent" is also included for good measure (and, of course, out-of-context), when it's specifically because of the civil war that Somalia is referred to in this way. Further, the lede neglects to mention how Britain and Italy first even got a foothold in the region: through signed treaties with the Somali Sultans that already ruled the area. I tried clarifying this and more in my edit, but was of course again reverted. This is some of the most laughably obvious bias I have read in some time. I would be more upset were it not for the fact that the tide has aleady turned on the conflict. Distorting a Wikipedia page won't change that; it only makes it more conspicuous. Middayexpress (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * References please, again opinions are great, but without references they are useless. - SimonP (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not "opinions", unfortunately. See below. Middayexpress (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is needed are specific secondary sources for what you consider incorrect or biased in the current version. Alternatively, is there anything that is in there that you don't believe is properly referenced, if so I will either find more refs or remove it. Please be specific. - SimonP (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, I already provided the refs (they are below). As for what's wrong with the intro, that's already clearly described (and visible) above. It doesn't really matter at this point anyway. I can see that discussion is getting nowhere, but that's okay because these things always work out in the long-run one way or another. Middayexpress (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're saying the the intro is biased, POV, and inaccurate. Please point out where those problems are, and more importantly provide some references that back up your claims. Wikipedia works based on verifiability. Everything I have added is, to my mind well, sourced. If you want to dispute this material, either point out what isn't sourced, if any of the sources should not be considered reliable, or find new sources that contradict the ones there. - SimonP (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Middayexpress, you've exceeded the 3RR.
 * Instead of vague suggestions of "appallingly biased and misleading" statements, why not suggest specific issues that you want to be addressed, complete with sources which explicity say what you are saying. SimonP has already addressed your concern with the use of "authoritarian".  Perhaps if you raise other specific issues you will make more progress then just edit warring to get your old version of the intro back.  TDL (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, my edit and post above from 01:22, 1 February 2011 (you know, the one that actually quotes the material) already explains in detail what is wrong with the intro and contains footnotes with references behind them, which in turn are listed in the references area below. It honestly makes no difference at this point whether or not you too somehow did not notice the entire upper third of this discussion area you are responding to for the first time. Middayexpress (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So please explain. Which of your sources explicity states that Somalia is only a failed state because of the civil war?  You can't just assume that, you need a souce to link these two facts.  TDL (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Middayexpress, please stop making sections about the intro. We had a discussion going above, there was no need to start a new one. I'm sorry that your preferred version of the lead was rewritten, but it's quite clear that there's no consensus that it is still biased. It would be best to drop the POV accusation crusade and start a new section with any factual inaccuracies that need to be remedied.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that it's embarassing to have your preferred version of the intro singled out for its (many) POV properties, but this is what talk pages are for. Middayexpress (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please, go ahead and single out some problems with provided references. I assure you no one will be offended. - SimonP (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of us have a preferred version aside from what is referenced, neutral and supported by consensus. So, for the hundredth time, single out some specific issues with references and we'll fix them.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)