Talk:State of Somaliland

UN
somaliland is not a state as it is not recognised by the UN as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.236.145 (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about the historical state of Somaliland that existed briefly in the 1960s. For the present day state, see Somaliland. Outback the koala (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

State
Shall I redirect the State of Somaliland to British Somaliland? I am unable to find any book before the 1990's that mention the "State of Somaliland". I found a few that mention it in 1900's but that's it. So it seems like nothing changed at all and that this whole "indepence" thing is just a made up thing. Have you found anything on this Middayexpress? AcidSnow (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2015
 * Indeed, I'm not sure whether it was an actual polity let alone a state. You should first, though, paste this on the talk page. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. AcidSnow (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to AcidSnow? Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved it here. AcidSnow (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. Middayexpress (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done it Midday. AcidSnow (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok AcidSnow. However, note that there was a redflag assertion therein claiming that certain countries recognized the area as an independent nation during the five days that the former British Somaliland protectorate was transitioning to union with the former Italian Somaliland (via the Trust Territory of Somaliland under Italian administration) to form the Somali Republic (Somalia). Middayexpress (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I when I was searching for "State of Somaliland" I found nothing on it, let alone this supposed recognition of something that never was. AcidSnow (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggestion of national recognition, even if brief, was indeed dubious. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * no borther Middayexpress it was not dubious it was a fact, and hope we can continue this conversation tonight cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see below for the actual legislation pertaining to the union. Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Existence Of The State Of Somaliland
I will use some quotes which will prove my point. says i qoiute. In his artical ""Why the United States Should Recognize Somaliland’s Independence"."First and foremost", it is important to recollect that, after achieving independence from British colonial rule on June 26, 1960, Somaliland was duly recognized as a sovereign entity by the United Nations and thirty-five countries, including the United States. Several days later, on July 1, the independent country of Somaliland voluntarily joined with its newly independent southern counterpart (the former UN Trust Territory of Somalia that was a former Italian colony) to create the present-day Republic of Somalia." finish the quote. Hadraa (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

2-Alison K. Eggers in his study about Somaliland says and i quote

""WHEN IS A STATE A STATE? THE CASE FOR RECOGNITION OF SOMALILAND". "In June 1960 Somaliland became the first Somali country recognized by the U.N. A week later, in early July 1960, Somaliland joined with Somalia Italiana to form one state with the seat of government in Mogadishu"." finish quote. cheers Hadraa (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources. AcidSnow (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism. Simply because again again i seem to give prove of The Existence Of The State Of Somaliland but AcidSnow keeps on taking the page to British Somaliland despite giving Actual and reliable sources on talk page and he says i qoute :It never ( meaning The Stat Of Somaliland ) did and please stop breaking consensus. finish qoute. so i hope that this page which has reliable sources that i can provied never sent to British Somaliland Thank you very much. Hadraa (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Legislation
Here's what was the actual legislation pertaining to the union of the Trust Territory of Somaliland and the former British Somaliland on July 1, 1960, which formed the Somalic Republic (Somalia). From the U.S. government's Code of Federal Regulations, Proclamation 3772 (1964): "the Somali Republic came into existence on July 1, 1960, by the union of the former Italian Trust Territory of Somaliland and the former British Somaliland" ). Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Identifying it as the former what-it-was-known-as-before-June-26 doesn't contradict the assertion that it was something else from June 26 until July 1. Even today it's accurate to refer to Djibouti as "the former Territory of the Afars and Issas" and Botswana as "the former Bechuanaland". Does it matter that a U.S. proclamation (which carries no authority with respect to the situation) didn't get into the minute details of what that piece of land was being known as during that brief period of time? How can you dispute what was written in the New York Times on June 26, 1960, reporting that the country had just become independent and would remain so until the following Friday? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the law that is authoritative: The Law of Union Between Somaliland and Somalia, "Law No: 1 of 1960 - Passed by the Independent State of Somaliland Legislature on 27 JUNE 1960".
 * "Whereas the State of Somaliland achieved independence and ceased to be under British protection or within the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Her Britannic Majesty on the 26th day of June, 1960, being Muharram 1st 1379, and Whereas  the State of Somalia achieved its independence and ceased to have the status of a Trust Territory of  the United Nations Organisation administered by the  Republic of Italy on the 1st day of July, 1960,  being Muharram 6th 1379, and Whereas it is the will  of the peoples of Somaliland and Somalia that their  States shall unite and shall forever be united in the Somali Republic."
 * "Now we the signatories hereof being the duly authorized representatives of the peoples of Somaliland and Somalia and having vested in us the power to make and enter into this Law of Union on behalf of our respective States and peoples do hereby solemnly and in the name of God the Compassionate and Merciful agree as follows: [...]"
 * The entity that merged with the State of Somalia was the State of Somaliland.—Largo Plazo (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is a separatist website. Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Difference Between The Somali Republic And The State Of Somaliland
The Difference Between The Somali Republic And The State Of Somaliland is that The Somali Republic was made of The State of Somaliland And Trust Territory of Somaliland (the former Italian Somaliland which came to existence in 1 July 1960. that is what Us code says now The State Of Somaliland Was COUNRTY that gaint indepandane in 26 June 1960 and voluntary united with Trust Territory of Somaliland (the former Italian Somaliland in 1 July to make the The Somali Republic  i am not saying that history is saying that scholars are saying that  cheers Hadraa (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "State of Somaliland". AcidSnow (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was, see my notes above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Parliament
There's no question that British Somaliland was granted independence on June 26, 1960. However, the territory was granted independence specifically to unite with the Trust Territory of Somaliland, and after prior consultations between representatives from both territories. This is why the parliament unanimously approved the union of the two territories only 24 hours later ("Representatives of British Somaliland and the Trust Territory of Somalia met in April and agreed on a merger of the two territories in an independent republic. British Somaliland was granted independence on 26 June 1960, and the merger received unanimous approval by the legislature on the following day." ). The union itself was effectuated five days later, on July 1, 1960, thereby establishing the Somali Republic (Somalia). Middayexpress (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I guess I'm missing why there shouldn't be an article about a sovereign political entity whose five-day existence you appear to acknowledge, and why it makes a difference that one of the locations today of the 1960 law that effectuated the union happens to be a separatist website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That five-day old entity was the former British Somaliland itself, as the U.S. government's Code of Federal Regulations, Proclamation 3772 (1964) makes clear. British Somaliland was apparently the territory that united with the Trust Territory of Somaliland to form the Somali Republic, not the "State of Somaliland". For the separatist website, please see WP:NOTADVOCATE. Middayexpress (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * read this Hadraa (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That too is a sepreatst article. AcidSnow (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The UNPO is the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, an advocacy group. Middayexpress (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

read this
""TWENTY ONE YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE WITHOUT RECOGNITION":REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND "On June 26, 1960, Somalilandgained independence from the British. At that time, she was recognised immediately by 35 countries “including the five permanent members of the Security Council” before she decided to form a union with the south 5 days later (Jhazbhay, 2003; Nur, 2011:4)."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Iqbal Jhazbhay is a separatist advocate as well . As I wrote, there indeed doesn't appear to be any official legislation confirming that 35 countries recognized a sovereign State of Somaliland. Middayexpress (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What does recognition (in the official, formal sense) have to do with it? No country recognizes Sealand and there's an article on it! That's less serious, but in this case, we have a territory that as of June 26 was no longer the British Protectorate of Somaliland and until July 1 was not part of the Somali Republic. Yet it was still a piece of land with a population. During those five days it had some status, whatever that status may have been. I don't believe the failure of the world's nations to go out of their way to do whatever is involved in granting formal recognition to a political entity that was going to vanish in five days anyway is tantamount to its nonexistence or its lack of merit as a topic for a Wikipedia article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I count only two reversions by Middayexpress. You, Hadraa have reverted three times. At this moment I'm agreeing with you that the article is reasonable as it was, but you're the one who's stepped out of bounds here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That five-day old entity was the former British Somaliland itself, as the U.S. government's Code of Federal Regulations, Proclamation 3772 (1964) makes clear. British Somaliland was apparently the territory that united with the Trust Territory of Somaliland to form the Somali Republic. On the other hand, an entity known as the "State of Somaliland" doesn't appear to have ever existed. Middayexpress (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sixteen days later, representatives from British Somaliland and Italian Somalia agreed in principle that the two states should be unified upon independence.30 Despite the indigenous plans to unify, Britain focused on preparing British Somaliland for independence as a solitary state.31 On June 26, 1960, a British Order in Council set out the constitution of the independent state of Somaliland.32 That constitution entered into force at Somaliland’s independence and defined its government’s structure.33 On June 26, 1960, British Somaliland became an independent state.34 It was recognized by thirtyfive states, including the United States and Israel.35 The Republic of Somalia: Union and Dissolution On July 1, 1960, five days after Somaliland became independent, Italian Somalia also emerged from colonial domination.36 That day, the legislatures of both states met jointly in Mogadishu to officially unite as the Republic of Somalia.37 Each state’s legislature enacted, separately, an Act of Union.38 Somaliland’s Act of Union consciously created a new state out of two distinct states: converting each citizen of Somaliland and each citizen of Somalia into a citizen of the “Somali Republic.”39 Likewise, the members of Somaliland’s legislature and the members of Somalia’s legislature were all made members of the “National Assembly” of the Somali Republic.40 While the constitution of the Republic of Somalia labeled Somalia a unitary state,41 separate British and Italian colonial administrations left Northern and Southern Somalia with distinct administrative regimes.42"CALLING A STATE A STATE: SOMALILAND AND INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION AUTHOR(S) Farley, Benjamin R.download from hereHadraa (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * state of Somaliland read it cheersHadraa (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * met jointly in Mogadishu to officially unite as the Republic of Somalia,that is what i was tring to tell you the hole day.Hadraa (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, I already addressed the U.S. proclamation, your interpretation of it, and its complete lack of authoritativeness in this discussion. Please reread. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this detail of what you wrote: "Here's what was the actual legislation pertaining to the union of the Trust Territory of Somaliland and the former British Somaliland on July 1, 1960, which formed the Somalic Republic (Somalia). From the U.S. government's Code of Federal Regulations, Proclamation 3772 (1964) ...". If you think that a paragraph in a generic proclamation by the president of the United States, which had no role in the founding of Somalia, about immigration quotas covering immigration from a number of African countries, not just Somalia, and issued in September 1960 is the "actual legislation" responsible for the formation of the Somali Republic in July 1960, you are greatly mistaken. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I obviously didn't write that that was the actual responsible for the formation of the Somali Republic. I said that the U.S. government's Code of Federal Regulations Proclamation 3772 (1964) is actual legislation that makes clear that British Somaliland was the territory that united with the Trust Territory of Somaliland to form the Somali Republic, not the "State of Somaliland". Middayexpress (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadraa, per WP:NOTADVOCATE, kindly stop linking and/or alluding to separatist advocates. That includes the lobbyist Ben Farley above. Again, please either link directly to actual legislation substantiating the existence of a sovereign "State of Somaliland" recognized by 35 nations, or the material belongs on British Somaliland. Middayexpress (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC) give prove that Ben Farley is what you say he is ..Hadraa (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A presidential proclamation isn't legislation, but that isn't relevant anyway. I already pointed to the REAL actual law that is actually relevant, so why you do you keep harping on a proclamation by President Eisenhower? And you're contradicting yourself anyway. Since you've already acknowledge that it was independent for those five days, then it should be super obvious to you that during those five days it wasn't British Somaliland. That was its name when ... it was under British control''. The proclamation doesn't even contradict this: it says the FORMER British Somaliland, which that territory wasand still was in September 1960, when Eisenhower issued the proclamation, and still is to this very day. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, I believe you're showing bad faith by repeating arguments that I've already answered. I already addressed your insistence that whether the place had formal recognition during its five-day existence has anything to do with whether there should be an article, and yet you're raising the same argument again. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the lobbyist Ben Farley give me more proffe on this claim then just a personal blog and every scholars out there are lobbyist now ..Hadraa (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Farley lobbies for recognition in that link. That's a lobbyist. Middayexpress (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Largoplazo, advocacy websites and separatist lobbyists are in no way reliable. At any rate, the actual legislation on the union between the Trust Territory of Somaliland and the former British Somaliland is already documented by Paolo Contini in his The Somali Republic: an Experiment in Legal Integration (1969). Contini was a UN legal expert and the head of the Consultative Commission for Integration, an international board that was appointed in 1960 at the behest of the UN specifically to guide the legal merger of both territories. He indicates therein that a) the territory was still known by its original name, British Somaliland, and b) the union was between the Trust Territory of Somaliland and the former British Somaliland, not the Trust Territory of Somaliland and the "State of Somaliland". British Somaliland is thus indeed the appropriate venue for the union material. Middayexpress (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * a bolg or lets say personal blog gives no proff what so ever then blog again give proff then personal blogHadraa (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * have you read what you wrote? former British Somaliland called British Somaliland after indepandance not in the world or in my life i ve heared a country called by its occupying force after its indepandance this is new Hadraa (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Hadraa (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you're telling me that the law they posted is a fake, then it is the law regardless of the website it's posted on and regardless of the reliability of their own writing.
 * For your information, User:Middayexpress, as well as yours, User:Hadraa, I've submitted a request for dispute resolution. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know. You should've notified AcidSnow first, though, as he redirected the stub to begin with. He explained why above too. Middayexpress (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a source that I assume you'll find reliable:. Unfortunately every other page is missing. But it does identify the entity as the State of Somaliland. And it's obviously part of the full text that's here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough to include User:AcidSnow. I hadn't bothered because his last contribution to the discussion was four days ago, but, yes, the dispute did originate with him/her. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, AcidSnow was discussing this same issue with Hadraa just a few minutes ago on the Somaliland talk page. Even if he hadn't, the redirect to British Somaliland was still originally his idea and doing, so he should've be notified either way. Middayexpress (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, it is important to recollect that, after achieving independence from British colonial rule on June 26, 1960, Somaliland was duly recognized as a sovereign entity by the United Nations and thirty-five countries, including the United States. Several days later, on July 1, the independent country of Somaliland voluntarily joined with its newly independent southern counterpart (the former UN Trust Territory of Somalia that was a former Italian colony) to create the present-day Republic of Somalia.  Somalilanders rightfully note that they voluntarily joined a union after independence, and that, under international law, they should (and do) have the right to abrogate that union, as they did in 1991Why the United States Should Recognize Somaliland’s IndependenceHadraa (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC). Peter J. SchraederPeter J. Schraeder is an associate professor in the department of political science at Loyola University Chicago. He specializes in international relations theory and comparative foreign policy, especially as both of these fields relate to Africa.Hadraa (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "34 nations" all come after 1991. AcidSnow (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Ambassador Osman link is obviously much better. Ironically, that very law(?) contradicts Schraeder's argument, and that of most separatist lobbyists, when it notes that the two territories "hereby unite and shall forever remain united in a new, independent, democratic, unitary republic the name whereof shall the SOMALI REPUBLIC". Middayexpress (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * keep calling them separatist lobbyists claims with no profe are easy to make hard to profe. Peter J. Schraeder is separatist lobbyist where is the profe i keep asking for, profe that will simply won't come . but the page of the book which —Largo Plazo brought and that says that Britsh Somaliland was Called the State of Somaliland after independence was enough for me . Hadraa (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote that Farley was a separatist lobbyist, as that is literally what he does in the one link. I didn't say Schraeder was one, but rather that the same union law that he and separatist lobbyists allude to ironically indicates that the former British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland territories shall "forever" be united. If AcidSnow has no further objections, I don't mind if the State of Somaliland material is redirected here. However, this key legal stipulation vis-a-vis the union must be noted. Middayexpress (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadraa, as it turns out, that bill is not the Act of Union. It was instead the bill that the newly convened Somaliland Legislative Assembly approved on June 27, 1960, which formally allowed for the union of the two territories (this is noted at the bottom of the link). However, the Trust Territory of Somaliland didn't gain independence until July 1, 1960, when the two territories actually united. Middayexpress (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirect
I just rolled back an edit that redirected this page to British Somaliland because I see no consensus for doing so. Please discuss the proposed redirect and attempt to com to an agreement. --23:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Middayexpress (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

34-50 countries
AcidSnow and Hadraa, the claim that the State of Somaliland was recognized by "35 countries" (some separatists argue it was 50) is highly doubtful. The former British Somaliland was already by agreement transitioning to union with the Trust Territory of Somaliland, so the alleged "34-50 countries" would have had no incentive to recognize it. More importantly, there appear to be no records of any of these "34-50 countries" sending letters of recognition to this five-old transitional entity. This isn't really surprising since it had no Foreign Ministry. There's apparently an even stranger claim that certain (though not all) of the separatists make, which is that the territory was admitted to the United Nations through a General Assembly resolution during those five days (!). However, here too no records of this seem to exist. The Northern Somali Unionist Movement, a unionist group, describes these claims as examples of historical revisionism by the secessionists. It also accuses certain writers of carelessly reproducing these claims without having first properly vetted the historical records in question:
 * ”there is no, and never was, a country called “Somaliland” which is independent, sovereign and recognized. British protection of the clans in what used to be “Somaliland Protectorate” was withdrawn on 26 June 1960 at the request of the clans each of whom had signed a separate treaty with Britain. There was a transitional period of only four days, consumed by the inevitable euphoria, pending the merger with the former U.N. Trust Territory of Somalia. There was no Somaliland flag, no Somaliland national anthem, no Somaliland emblem, no Somaliland constitution, no Somaliland Head of State and no Somaliland Cabinet. All these paraphernalia belonged to the Somali Republic, which was born out of the merger. And when the Union Jack (U.K flag) was lowered in Hargeisa (the capital of British Somaliland) it was the five star sky blue flag of the Somali Republic, which was hoisted. The question may then be asked: which 34 countries sent recognition letters to a country that had no President, no Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and even no national flag? The secessionists will never answer, for they know that the truth is not on their side. As for the membership of the United Nations one has simply to check the records of this world body to see that there never was a member-state called “Somaliland”. Recognition for an interim entity was a non-issue for Somalis and thus none was granted.”
 * ”Just for the record, not a single country recognized Somaliland's four-days old independence contrary to the claim of the authors who clearly have imbibed what their secessionist hosts fed them. There would not have been much point to recognise a country whose independence would only last 5 days and thereafter cease to exist as a separate country. The Act of Union was duly ratified by Parliament and signed contrary to the secessionists' mantra that it was never enacted, a claim again blithely recycled by the authors[...] Historical revisionists among the secessionists have come up with all sorts of bizarre claims in support of their secession: that Somaliland was recognized by 35 countries (sometimes the figure 50 is given); that it was admitted to the United Nations through a General Assembly resolution; that its borders are still valid and recognized by the African Union. The weirdest claim in the report though is that Somaliland passport is recognised by South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, and Ethiopia. What is amazing is that these baseless concocted tales have won credence among the least expected quarters including the authors of the report.”
 * ”It is no secret that these claims do not hold water and certainly no learned politician, privy to the international relationship, let alone the governments of 35 countries would have recognised, a transient administration in 1960 that was only to exist for four days and was to melt away in 1st July 1960 due to the unification of two administrations of the then British Somaliland Protectorate and Italian Somaliland[...] Again if the claims that 35 countries recognised the transient administration of the British Somaliland in 1960 were true, the records would have been available in the archives of both the UN and the 35 countries, mentioned and lately invented by the proponents of the secession.” Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * do have reliable sources to your argument then blogs and propaganda sites stick with the facts and books and please stop what you are doing to this page.Hadraa (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hadraa, I hope you realize that you just passed three reverts again. Kindly self-revert so that this isn't held against you by AcidSnow and as a show of good faith. Regarding the Northern Somali Unionist Movement material above, it is there for your edification and for balance given the secessionist material you linked to. At any rate, here is a full list from the U.S. Department of State of the actual nations that the United States has actually recognized. Only Somalia is noted, not any State of Somaliland. The claim that the State of Somaliland was recognized by "35-50 countries", including the United States, is therefore indeed dubious. Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hadraa, I'm looking at your CSIS/Shrader reference. I see he offers no sources to back up his claim. The Farley report references this report that states that in 1960, Somaliland was "consequently recognized by a number of foreign governments", which comes with a footnote, "According to a former U.S. ambassador, David Shinn, 35 governments recognised Somaliland including the U.S. See David Shinn, “The Horn Of Africa: Where Does Somaliland Fit?”, paper presented at a discussion seminar on Somaliland in Umea, Sweden, 8 March 2003." I find several references to that paper elsewhere, but I can't find the paper itself. So this is also a path that doesn't lead to documentary source material, which I also haven't been able to find on my own. It may exist, but on mere credibility grounds I agree with Middayexpress. Since when would the UN take the trouble to run a country through the recognition process when the country is going to be gone in less than a week? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your Brenthurst reference likewise provides no citation to support the claim. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, that's a list of countries that the U.S. currently recognizes, not all the countries that it has ever recognized. This is clear, as it also lacks Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Sikkim, Southern Yemen, etc. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, my bad. I should've linked instead to the U.S. Department of State's Office of the Historian, which "provides historical reference information on aspects of the United States’ relations with the countries of the world[...] the central component is a guide to matters of diplomatic recognition and the establishment and maintenance of diplomatic relations between the United States and states of the world, from 1776 to the present." It too only lists Somalia, noting that "the United States recognized the Somali Republic on July 1, 1960, in a congratulatory message from President Dwight D. Eisenhower to President Aden Abdulla Osman", and that "diplomatic relations were established on July 1, 1960, when the U.S. Consulate General at Mogadiscio (now Mogadishu) was elevated to Embassy status, with Andrew G. Lynch as Chargé d'Affaires." Middayexpress (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though this doesn't prove anything (absence of evidence != evidence of absence; we see Eisenhower's letter to Tunisia to acknowledge its first anniversary but not its independence the year before, yet we certainly recognized them), I just found what appears to be a long list of President Eisenhower's letters. It lists a letter that Eisenhower sent on June 26, 1960, to the President of the Malagasy Republic recognizing that country's independence, a similar one sent on June 30 regarding the independence of the Republic of the Congo, and one that he sent on July 1 to President Osman of Somalia recognizing that country's independence, but no letter to anyone in Somaliland. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's a full list of the letters that Eisenhower issued, it only further demonstrates that the United States indeed never recognized any State of Somaliland, but instead only the Somali Republic. The UN has a similar list of all of its historical member states and their respective dates of admission, and here too only Somalia is listed as having joined upon independence in 1960. Middayexpress (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, it isn't proof positive, because I'm supposing that the U.S. recognized Tunisia right away (after all Tunisia joined the UN in 1956), yet there's no letter from Eisenhower indicating as much, only the congratulatory note of a year later. Of the other nations that joined the UN in 1960, there's no letter from Eisenhower regarding Cameroun/Cameroon, Mali, Senegal, or Togo either. Maybe not every letter is in this collection, or maybe his recognition of Tunisia, and possibly other countries, was communicated other than through a letter. After checking out all those other countries and finding them missing, now I'm sorry I even brought up this list, since it doesn't seem to be very helpful in settling the matter. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, this memorandum sheds light on the situation with Mali and Senegal. How complicated all of this is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the best thing yet, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume XIV, Africa, Document 62, from the State Department's historical archive site. "The United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland Council of Ministers; for text, see ibid., page 87. An Operations Coordinating Board report of July 13, 1960, entitled “Report on the Horn of Africa (NSC 5903),” states that formal recognition was not extended because Somaliland’s period of independence was to be of such short duration and was timed to permit it to unite immediately with Somalia when the latter became independent. (Department of State, S/P–NSC Files: Lot 62 D 1, NSC 5903 file)". Its existence as an independent state is acknowledged, albeit not formally recognized; and it was referred to as Somaliland, not British Somaliland. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a badly scanned copy of the message to the Council of Ministers. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The full U.S. Department of State text actually indicates the opposite. That is, the United States government indeed did not extend diplomatic recognition to the state of Somaliland; it instead only sent a congratulatory note to the Council of Ministers. The actual recognition letter instead went to the President of the Somali Republic :
 * "On July 1, 1960, the Somali Republic became independent, uniting the former U.N. trust territory of Somalia with the former British protectorate of Somaliland, which had become independent on June 26. For text of a message dated July 1 from President Eisenhower to President Aden Abdulla Osman, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960–61, page 550. Secretary of Commerce Frederick H. Mueller, who represented President Eisenhower at the independence ceremonies, delivered the message. The Department of State announced on June 30 the elevation of the consulate general at Mogadiscio to an embassy on July 1, with Consul General Andrew G. Lynch as Chargé d’Affaires; see Department of State Bulletin, July 18, 1960, page 118. Lynch presented his credentials as the first Ambassador to Somalia on July 11. Middayexpress (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You just repeated what I said, and quoted the same text I did. You aren't saying the opposite of what I said. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland Council of Ministers; for text, see ibid., page 87. An Operations Coordinating Board report of July 13, 1960, entitled “Report on the Horn of Africa (NSC 5903),” states that formal recognition was not extended because Somaliland’s period of independence was to be of such short duration and was timed to permit it to unite immediately with Somalia when the latter became independent. (Department of State, S/P–NSC Files: Lot 62 D 1, NSC 5903 file)" Middayexpress (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Documents 41–55 that the State Department therein also links to indicates the following, noting that it is referring to the union of the Trust Territory of Somaliland and British Somaliland :
 * "The development of national consciousness among the Somalis has been accompanied by demands for independence and political unification through the creation of a Greater Somaliland, uniting all the Somali people in one independent country. These aspirations have been partly achieved with the independence of former British Somaliland on June 26, 1960, and its subsequent union with the former Trust Territory of Somaliland when the latter became independent on July 1, 1960." Middayexpress (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already dispensed with this twice. Referring to what it was formerly doesn't alter the fact that during the five days they understood it to be simply "Somaliland", not "British Somaliland". —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Summary: You and I are both saying that the United States did not recognize the temporary independent state, and intentionally did not, but that the secretary of state did send a message of congratulations to the Somaliland Council of Ministers. I think we agree that this blows away the CSIS claim to the contrary that Hadraa keeps referencing.
 * However, you are overlooking that in these communications, the U.S. implicitly acknowledged the country as being named Somaliland instead of British Somaliland. Your counter-reference to the text that uses the word "former" doesn't contradict that, because of course it was also "the former British Somaliland"; to this very day it's still "the former British Somaliland", and that will be true even a thousand years from now. But that isn't germane to the name it was known by during the five days. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "These aspirations have been partly achieved with the independence of former British Somaliland on June 26, 1960": i.e., as of its independence, it became the former British Somaliland. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we're basically indicating the same thing. "Somaliland" meant two things during the colonial period: the entire Somali-inhabited territories (e.g. in this 1911 map ), or shorthand for one of those various constituent "Somalilands" (viz. Italian Somaliland, British Somaliland, French Somaliland). In its Document 55, the U.S. Department of State thus alludes in the plural to possible "federation of the Somalilands with Ethiopia" . Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

David H. Shinn
hi guys i have been looking for hours now for David H Shinns source which Farley used has reference which by the way The Horn Of Africa: Where Does Somaliland Fit, and after hours i found  this paper called Somaliland: The Little Country that Could by David H Shinns on csis.org. and he says (The former British Somaliland became independent on June 26, 1960, within the borders that it now claims as an independent state. Thirty five states recognized Somaliland. The U.S.secretary of state, Christian Herter, sent a congratulatory message, and the United Kingdom signed several bilateral agreements with Somaliland in Hargeisa on June 26, 1960. Five days later Somaliland opted for the sake of Somali unity to join with the former Italian Somalia, which became independent on July 1, 1960, to form the Somali Republic.)David H. Shinn Somaliland: The Little Country that Could so farly and all the scholars sources were not wrong. Hadraa (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, they were definitely wrong. Please see the actual official documents above. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I just this moment found the same source. He references the same congratulatory message from U.S. Secretary of State Christian Herter that I brought to your attention above. He is interpreting that as a sign of recognitionyet another document that I also referenced above states explicitly that the message sent by Herter was instead of formal recognition. (Formal recognition has to come from the President, doesn't it? Not from the secretary of state?) It's entirely possible that the same thing was going on with some or all of the other countries Herter is counting. He's wrong about the United States, and he could be wrong about some or all of the rest. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress you were both talking about the american congratulatory message ,but about David H. Shinn on wiki it says His diverse career in the foreign service of the United States has included ambassadorships to Ethiopia and Burkina Faso. Shinn is also a frequent commentator in the news media on political issues, and has provided consultancy to the U.S. government on Horn of Africa related matters as well as Sino-African relations. so he knows what he is saying.Hadraa (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed Largoplazo; I doubt he even read the original document. The UN membership claim is even more odd. Middayexpress (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Trust Territory of SomaliLAND, was the italian somaliland21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Hadraa (talk)
 * iread it and it doesnt go with what you begain from the beganing and saying that somaliland was not recognized and the document talks about the stats and not the other 34 states including the uk. Hadraa (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hadraa, your last remark is very hard to understand, but I don't think the statement "The United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland Council of Ministers" from Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume XIV, Africa, Document 62 is unclear. Shinn is certainly an expert but experts are capable of being wrong about details, and he was clearly under a misunderstanding in this case. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * British Somaliland wasn't a trust territory at all, it was a protectorate. The trust territory was the Italian one, and I showed a document that explicitly explained that its official name had "Somaliland" in it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * what i wanted to say was we now konw about the us Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message but what about the other countries like china .the uk and even the african countries like eygpt and isreal. Hadraa (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm taking back what I said. I was misunderstand Shinn to be offering the Herter message as a demonstration that the U.S. was a country that recognized Somaliland. But I've reread it now and I see that he was saying that in addition to the 35 countries that recognized it, the U.S. sent a message. So, I retract my earlier statement about Shinn. There was no inconsistency in what he wrote. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * its ok and about the 35 countries there is no doubt about them now i hope thanksHadraa (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Hadraa (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would now treat him as a reliable source for the 35 nations comment. But in that source he said nothing about UN recognition. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * yes i know so lets us quote him in the artical like (Thirtyfive states recognized Somaliland. The U.S. secretary of state, Christian Herter, sent a congratulatory message, and the United Kingdom signed several bilateral agreements with Somaliland in Hargeisa on June 26, 1960.) just to be sure, and thanks and i think now you know a lot about somaliland cheers mate —Largo PlazoHadraa (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Largo Plazo, in all of its various iterations, the dubious "35 countries" claim always includes the United States. If it had excluded it, the claim would have read "34 countries". Note, for example, the lobbyist Farley's assertion above: "It was recognized by thirty five states, including the United States and Israel." Shinn is thus indeed claiming that the United States was among the nations that recognized a state of Somaliland during those five transitional days, though of course the US Department of State explicitly indicates that it did not recognize any such state but instead only the Somali Republic. Ergo, the "35 countries" claim is factually inaccurate and cannot remain. Middayexpress (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Simarly to the US Department of State, the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Egypt actually indicates that "Egypt is one of the first countries that recognized the independence of Somalia in 1960", and that "the name of the Egyptian Martyr, Kamal El Din Salah, a United Nations delegate to Somalia, is still appreciated[...] late Kamal El Din Salah gave his life in 1957 for his efforts to help Somalia gain independence and to maintain its territorial integrity". Middayexpress (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Middayexpress, your reasoning is that what a person has written and what he meant is defined by the misunderstandings by others of what he wrote. As I demonstrated, Shinn wrote that the message from Herter was in addition to the countries that recognized Somaliland. Farley evidently misunderstood this in the same way as I had misunderstood it. That means that Farley was wrong, not that Shinn was wrong. The reliability of a source isn't determined by other people's misunderstanding of it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What I wrote is that the dubious "35 countries" claim in all of its various iterations always includes the United States. It's not just Farley making this claim. So when Shinn writes that "thirty five states recognized Somaliland", he is necessarily including the United States among those states. He also doesn't use the phrase "in addition" in his actual text. And that's not even counting Egypt, which is also always included among the "35 countries". Per its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Egypt was not only among the first countries that recognized the independence of Somalia in 1960, its UN delegate to Somalia Kamal El Din Salah ironically gave his life to help Somalia obtain independence and maintain its territorial integrity. Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You just did it again. You're saying that because other people (including Farley, who cites Shinn as his source) mistakenly claim that the United States was one of the 35 countries that recognized Somaliland, we must understand Shinn to have been saying that even though we can see with our own eyes that he didn't say that. Shinn didn't say that, and your assertion that the "35 countries" claim "always includes the United States" is false because Shinn's claim excludes the U.S. Farley includes the U.S.because Farley misread Shinn.
 * You and I agree that the United States didn't formally recognize Somaliland. I'm trying to figure out what your goal is in continuing to otherwise dispute this. Are you attempting to show that even Shinn was mistaken about the United States, therefore a mistake on his part has been established, therefore Shinn is unreliable, therefore we also cannot accept his claim regarding 35 countries recognizing Somaliland? Well, Shinn wasn't wrong about the U.S., therefore the reliability one would generally attribute to him on account of his position, experience, and scholarship is unmarred by the mistake I think you are attempting to assign to him, therefore it's routine for us to consider him a reliable source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is quite simple. I want the page to be factually accurate; the notion that a state of Somaliland was recognized by "35 countries" is obviously not. Shinn does imply that the United States was among those 35 countries since the USA is always included among these 35 alleged nations. The Somaliland government itself asserts as much on its official website : "The USA was one of the 35 countries that formally recognised the state of Somaliland when it declared independence for five days in 1960." As it has already been demonstrated that the US government did not in fact recognize any such state but instead only the Somali Republic, the "35 countries" claim is indeed factually inaccurate and cannot remain. Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there's anything obvious about the falsehood of the 35 nations claim. The U.S. did take the time to send congratulations, so why is it inconceivable that 35 nations took the time to send communications that formally amounted to recognition? I agree that the UN membership claim is absurd. But your argument that the falsehood of the U.S. recognition claim implies the falsehood of the 35-nation claim without including the U.S. in that count isn't a valid argument. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "35 countries" claim without the United States is not a "35 countries" claim at all, but rather a "34 countries" claim. And that's not even factoring in Egypt, which would make it a "33 countries" claim. It's likely that similar declarations of recognition of the Somali Republic alone exist for all of the other alleged nations. At any rate, I'm not sure why you think Shinn is not implying that the USA was among the 35 countries that allegedly recognized a state of Somaliland. It seems pretty straightforward that he indeed is insinuating this (e.g. "For four full days in June 1960 Somaliland was a sovereign and independent state that received international recognition from thirty-five other states including the US (which sent a congratulatory message) and the UK (which signed several bilateral agreements with Somaliland)[...] Shinn 2002, p. 6" ). It thus indeed appears that the present-day Somaliland enclave's administration and the lobbyists mistook ordinary letters of congratulation for diplomatic recognition, as they certainly did with the United States. Middayexpress (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your "34 countries"-"33 countries" thing. Were there only 35 countries in the world at that time, so that you couldn't have 35 countries said to have done something without the U.S. being one of those countries?

I explained why I think Shinn wasn't including the U.S. among the 35. If he was, why would he have bothered to elaborate on a pointless detail of the exact form in which that one country (well, two countries, the U.K. as well) recognized it? I'm reading it as "35 countries recognized it" followed by actions involving the U.S. and U.K. that didn't amount to recognition. Since you and I both agree that the U.S. didn't recognize Somaliland, why are you insisting on reading Shinn as thinking it did, given that his text doesn't require such an interpretation, and given that if he was aware of such an obscure detail as a message by Herter, then he was probably aware of the circumstances described in that other document I cited that Herter's message was instead of a communication of recognition. I'm reading him as saying "35 countries recognized it, and it was also acknowledged by a couple of others."

I feel like you're arguing circularly: he's unreliable because he made a false statement, and you're certain that his statement is false because you're presupposing him to be unreliable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Per the Somaliland government itself, the "35 countries" supposedly included the United States. The link above indicates that Shinn is indeed asserting that the USA was among those alleged "35 countries" that recognized a state of Somaliland. There don't appear to be any scholars that suggest otherwise. Shinn also repeated the same thing at a 2003 conference, clarifying that "although I spent 37 years with the U.S. Department of State, my views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the American government[...] nor do I speak for any foreign government" . The "35 countries" claim is therefore indeed factually inaccurate and cannot remain. Middayexpress (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * China, like the United States and Egypt, is another of the alleged "35 countries". The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China maintains a historical list on its website of its diplomatic ties with various countries in Africa, and indicates therein when those respective ties were established. However, here too the Chinese government only lists the Somali Republic, which it diplomatically recognized on December 14, 1960 . Middayexpress (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, you are reasoning that because someone else thinks that (a) there were 35 countries and (b) the U.S. was one of them, then that's what David Shinn must have thought. And if the current Somaliland government is getting that figure from someone who got it from someone who got it from someone who got it from someone who misunderstood Shinn to have meant that, it doesn't follow that Shinn did mean that.


 * You wrote "The '35 countries' claim is therefore factually inaccurate" after having written nothing that demonstrates as much, nothing that warrants the "indeed".


 * The China page says clearly that it's a list of China's relations with current independent African nations. Also, as with the U.S., you insist that it's one of the 35 countries. Who says it's one of the alleged 35 countries? You are arguing circularly again: You assert without evidence that it's one of the 35, then you say it can't be one of the 35, therefore the claim about 35 must be wrong when it was you who claimed that China was on this list to begin with. Have you posted a link to a list of the specific countries that constitute the 35 countries claimed to have recognized Somaliland in 1960? Because otherwise I have only your representation as to what countries other people understand to have been on the list of 35 countries recognizing Somaliland. You're creating straw men and then knocking them down. Can you substantiate other than by innuendo what the 35-country claimants assert those 35 countries to have been? —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is not my reasoning alone. Scholars that repeat Shinn's "35 countries" assertion specifically indicate that he includes the United States among those nations (e.g. "For four full days in June 1960 Somaliland was a sovereign and independent state that received international recognition from thirty-five other states including the US (which sent a congratulatory message) and the UK (which signed several bilateral agreements with Somaliland)[...] Shinn 2002, p. 6" ). Please link to a scholar that suggests otherwise. You ask who indicates that China was among the alleged "35 countries" that recognized a state of Somaliland? Well, this very stub does; it includes Egypt among those nations too ("During its brief existence, the State of Somaliland received international recognition from 35 countries, that included China, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Israel, Libya, the Soviet Union. The United States Secretary of State Christian Herter sent a congratulatory message, and the United Kingdom signed several bilateral agreements with Somaliland in Hargeisa on June 26, 1960."). Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this the fourth or fifth time I'm saying this? They may all be misinterpreting what Shinn said and meant. Maybe one person understood him to have said this, and every other person who repeats it got his understanding of what Shinn said from that person. It doesn't matter how many people understood him to have meant that. It doesn't prove that he did mean that.


 * As for the list of countries you are giving me from this stub: now you're letting the article determine what's reliable for purposes of determining what should be in the article? At this point I don't know whether or not China recognized Somaliland in 1960. But whether it did or didn't doesn't make any difference in the credibility of the 35-nation figure in the absence of a full listing of all the countries that anyone thinking that there were 35 of them thinks that those 35 countries were. China having recognized Somaliland and China being among a total of 35 nations that recognized Somaliland is logically consistent. China not having recognized Somaliland and the existence, nevertheless, of 35 countries that did recognize it is logically consistent. Without a list of the 35 countries that anyone believes to have been the 35 countries in question here, we have no basis to say that the situation was other than either of these two scenarios that are both logically consistent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's an analogy: The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill on marriage last week. The bill changes current law by (a) eliminating the state-issued marriage license; (b) providing that the limited list of types of clergy people or judges or retired judges who conduct a marriage need to provide a certificate to the newly married couple that they can have recorded at the court clerk's office; and (c) providing that a couple can get married by simple affidavit, which they can have recorded at the court clerk's office.


 * Well, there are scads of blogs out there that are completely misrepresenting what the bill provides and are outraged about it. I'm betting that one or two blogs were initially outraged, and that dozens or hundreds of other blog writers read these blogs and joined in the outrage without every actually reading through the entire bill themselves. The primary complaint is that the explicit list of clergy is very limited: Christian ministers and priests, rabbis, and a provision for religious organizations that don't have clergy per se. Excluded from the list are Muslim clergy, Hindu clergy, etc. Yes, outrageous discriminationbut not by this bill. What none of these people realized is that the bill is written in the form of the existing law, marked up with deletions and additions. The list of clergy isn't an addition: it's been in the law all along. So, yes, the law is discriminatory, but that discrimination isn't a component of the current legislation.


 * The blogs are also horrified that the bill leaves no way to get married without going through clergy. Some of them are under this impression because the original draft of the bill did provide this, but the bill that passed the House allows for judges and retired judges to perform marriages as well. Also, to be under this impression, they would have to have completely overlooked the affidavit option that the law clearly provides, allowing couples to get married by simple affirmation, without having anybody officiating the marriage at all.


 * Someone assessing the situation in the manner that you've been approaching Shinn and the 35 nations question would say, "Look at all these people who think that the bill is adding discrimination to the law, and who think it allows people to get married only by clergy. So the bill must be adding discrimination to the law and allowing marriages to be created only by clergy. Because otherwise why would all these blogs be reporting these things?" —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying about Shinn and the alleged "35 countries". What I would like you to do now is to produce a link to a scholar that supports this interpretation, as I have above with mine. There's already a Brenthurst link on this stub claiming that China, the United States, Egypt and all of the other nations I enumerated above were among the "35 countries" that allegedly recognized a state of Somaliland in 1960. However, as already noted with both the United States and Egypt, neither nation recognized any such state but instead only the Somali Republic itself. For China, please see dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Middayexpress (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are you calling it "this stub"? It isn't a stub, it's a substantial article with no stub tag on it.


 * Brenthurst being wrong about the United States being included in the purported 35 doesn't make Shinn wrong about the overall count being 35. There could be 35 countries, none of them being the United States, and Brenthurst could be wrong about the United States being among them. The Herter message could be the reason why he's under that misimpression.


 * By the way, in case it isn't clear, I'm not insisting the Shinn is right in any particular interpretation of what he's written. I'm just saying that everything else you're showing me about what other people have said doesn't make any difference in the disposition of whether Shinn is right, because the propositions that they're wrong about aren't clearly propositions that Shinn has expressed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

China
According to the present-day Somaliland region's Foreign Minister, a state of Somaliland "gained its independence from Great Britain and was recognized as a sovereign state by 35 nations including all five permanent members of U.N. Security Council". The "35 countries" claim thus indeed always presupposes diplomatic recognition by the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Russia and France. However, per the U.S. Department of State, the US government did not recognize any such state of Somaliland in 1960, but instead only the Somali Republic as a whole. China went further and actually appealed on the Somali Republic's behalf at the International Court of Justice, asking the court to "decide whether Somaliland should be independent state or should remain an integral part of Somali Republic." It therein noted the following : Given the foregoing and website policy, there are two neutral options: either a) remove the patently inaccurate claim that "35 countries" diplomatically recognized a state of Somaliland in 1960 (which, though highly dubious, is made in Wikipedia's voice contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE), or b) note the present-day separatist Somaliland administration's claims that 35 nations including all five permanent members of the UN Security Council diplomatically recognized a state of Somaliland in 1960, that the Northern Somali Unionist Movement dismisses this claim and why, and what the United States, Egypt and China, among the other alleged "35 countries", actually indicate with regard to the enclave's diplomatic status i.e. that they only recognize, both in the past and present, the Somali Republic. Middayexpress (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "In the area which became British Somaliland Protectorate in the late 19th century the Somali people were traditionally divided into clans, each being separated and independent from the others. Since then and until independence of Somaliland Protectorate in 1960 each clan maintained connections with the British government separately from other ones as the Protectorate treaties signed between United Kingdom and clans recognized that each clan area was a separate Territory. These treaties are the evidence that Great Britain prevented creation of a unitary state of Somali people. Somaliland Protectorate had never been indivisible and therefore had no experience in governing the state. Nevertheless there were common ethnicity, language, culture, Muslim religion, and pastoral life – bonds that were shared with other Somali people in all Somali areas in the Horn of Africa including the Italian-administered Somalia to the East and South of the Protectorate. These bonds provided an opportunity for Somaliland to unite with the same ethnic group and create a national state which would consolidate politically disintegrated Somali people. Creation of such a state was necessary to unfairly divided on the colonies Somali people and was an important stage in evolution from uncoordinated clans to centralized state."
 * "On June, 26, 1960 Somaliland Protectorate became independent and gaining this independence annulled treaties signed with Great Britain. In accordance with preliminary consensus and agreement among the northern clans Somaliland merged with Somalia on July 1, 1960 thus forming the unitary Somali Republic. The entire intention of gaining independence from Britain was precisely to unite with the rest of the country that gained independence in 1959 and to create state which would unite Somali people. It can be proved by the fact that the state of Somaliland existed only in the period of six days after receiving independence and all the activity of the state in this period was turned to formal preparation for creation of the unitary state which was negotiated previously. The willingness of people to create unitary state was proved by the results of the referendum held in June, 20, 1961 over the entire territory of Somali Republic on the draft constitution of the unitary state. According to the results of this referendum published in the African Election Database 1,756,216 people which are 90.56 % of population voted in favor of the constitution. Thus the creation of the state was in the interests of Somali people and freely determined by them and abolished previous states formations such as Somalia and Somaliland."
 * "The Unitary state – Somali Republic was recognized by the international community on September, 20, 1960 when Somali Republic was accepted into the United Nations. Previous states formation such as Somalia and Somaliland were a legacy of unfair division on the colonies and stopped their existence after unification and entrance into the United Nations. All the governmental institutions of previous states were ceased and union government was formed. This united state was recognized by international community and became a subject of international law with all the privileges of sovereign state being applicable for Somali Republic. Thus entry into the United Nations definitively abolished previous states formations such as Somalia and Somaliland because the United Nations resolution formed new state formation with all the rights, privileges in international law."
 * "The "35 countries" claim thus indeed always presupposes diplomatic recognition by the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Russia and France." No, we know that it presupposes it only when the particular person making the claim indicates that that person was presupposing it. If that person is wrong, it doesn't mean that there aren't people who understand there to have been 35 countries and don't think the U.S. and China were among them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, which of the two neutral options above do you prefer, Largo Plazo? Or would you rather the passage remain as is? Because right now, the passage asserts the separatist Somaliland regional administration's standard "35 countries" claim, albeit in Wikipedia's voice (including quite absurdly China). This has the effect of conferring upon that claim the mark of veracity, when it is in fact apocryphal at best. The passage also lacks a balancing Northern Somali Unionist Movement stance (who are from the former British Somaliland protectorate as well), and, most importantly, the actual diplomatic recognitions per the US Department of State, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry, among the other respective "35 countries". Middayexpress (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would remove "that included China, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Israel, Libya, the Soviet Union", which is supported by no reliable source. What it says about the U.S. is true. What it says about the U.K. seems true, since I would assume that the change in the relationship between the U.K. and its former protectorate involved some paperwork. If 35 countries did recognize Somaliland, it seems like a reasonable detail to mention in an article on the country because it means they took the trouble despite the expected briefness of its lifespan. As I noted before, Shinn himself is a prima facie reliable source and nothing he wrote appears to be false on its face. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i didn't from the beginning wanted to interfere in this argument simply because i didnt want Middayexpress to think we both were gang over him but about china and the other countries there is no sources that says they recognized Somaliland but it also doesn't say otherwise that china and the other countries did recognize Somaliland in the same source you will find Egypt in David H. Shinn and there is the isrealy sources which is from a separatist site and dont forget that the east block in that time was against the west block and countries in Africa and Asian will recognize Somaliland to anger the west who knows last time both of you throw out the 35 countries because it need sources and i understood that and now you need a sourced list of those countries and where can i find that .To end no one can say per say that china recognized Somaliland but also no one can be sure it didnt ....cheersHadraa (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Shinn is a former Ambassador to Ethiopia (not Somalia), and one of several at that. He himself has also indicated with regard to that same "35 countries" assertion that he is speaking in a personal capacity, not an official one; he wouldn't be able to anyway as a former official ("although I spent 37 years with the U.S. Department of State, my views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the American government[...] nor do I speak for any foreign government" ). As seen, the US government instead only diplomatically recognized the Somali Republic ("the United States recognized the Somali Republic on July 1, 1960, in a congratulatory message from President Dwight D. Eisenhower to President Aden Abdulla Osman" ("the United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland Council of Ministers[...] formal recognition was not extended because Somaliland's period of independence was to be of such short duration and was timed to permit it to unite immediately with Somalia when the latter became independent" ). That said, the US phrase should be attributed directly in its full context to the US Department of State. The UK assertion on the bilateral agreements needs clarification. Which agreements were those and of what nature were they? Middayexpress (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress you have said this before brother and Largo Plazo did his best to answer you and about Shinn why use the separatist site has you call it when in the CSIS soures it says: David H. Shinn was desk officer for Somalia at the U.S.Department of State from 1969 to 1971; deputy director of the Somalia Task Force in the State Department in 1992–1993; State Department coordinator for Somalia in 1993; director of East African Affairs (including Somalia) from 1993 to 1996; and U.S. ambassador to neighboring Ethiopia from 1996 to 1999. He is now an adjunct professor in the Elliott School of International Affairs at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. then about the states he says that 35 recognized Somaliland then . full stop then the us send a message which you and Largo Plazo found so if he knew a bout the letter why cant he have known about the other 35 countriesHadraa (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that Shinn has held other diplomatic posts. What I wrote is that he was not the Ambassador to Somalia, but instead the Ambassador to Ethiopia; that was his most prominent diplomatic position. Please see Shinn's own caveat above as to why he is strictly speaking in a personal capacity vis-a-vis the recognition matter. This US government material should instead be attributed directly to the US Department of State, as should the Egyptian, Chinese and other government assertions with regard to their own respective administrations. Either that, or the two aforenoted neutral options. Middayexpress (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * when reading Shinn you will find that the US government material is attributed directly to the US Department of State :The U.S.secretary of state, Christian Herter, sent a congratulatory message,)Shinn 2002 and about Isreal and Egypt and the other countries were they independent countries? yes they were . did they recognize the state of somaliland? yes they did .where another person will say no they did not, it depends on the fact that 35 independent countries recognized Somaliland. are you sure about this fact ? yes i am.Hadraa (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, User:Hadraa, the United States did not formally recognize Somaliland. Repeating the clip I posted above from Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume XIV, Africa, Document 62, from the State Department's historical archive site: "The United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland Council of Ministers; for text, see ibid., page 87. An Operations Coordinating Board report of July 13, 1960, entitled “Report on the Horn of Africa (NSC 5903),” states that formal recognition was not extended because Somaliland’s period of independence was to be of such short duration and was timed to permit it to unite immediately with Somalia when the latter became independent. (Department of State, S/P–NSC Files: Lot 62 D 1, NSC 5903 file)". —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i know just teasing MiddayexpressHadraa (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Largoplazo and Hadraa, given the above, I recommend the following phrasing after the paragraph "On June 26, 1960, the former British Somaliland protectorate briefly obtained independence as the State of Somaliland, with the Trust Territory of Somaliland following suit five days later": "The United States did not extend formal recognition diplomatic recognition to the territory, as its brief independence from Britain was intended to allow the enclave to unite with the Trust Territory of Somaliland a few days later." The assertion on the UK bilateral agreements needs clarification, or it looks like we are insinuating that those agreements pertained to recognition. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If no mention were to be made that a number of countries did recognize it, then it makes no sense to single out the U.S. as a country that didn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That any countries diplomatically recognized the territory is itself apocryphal. At any rate, if it is to be noted at all, the US congratulatory letter must be contextualized as per the US Department of State above. Without such qualification vis-a-vis the enclave's non-recognition, it looks like we are insinuating that the US government did in fact recognize the territory. Alternatively, we should drop the passage altogether. Middayexpress (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's what I meant: If we aren't mentioning anything about other countries at all, it's egregious to single out the U.S.'s reaction as though this was a U.S. website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, that makes sense. Per the above, I've removed the passage. Middayexpress (talk)

(I've removed the passage)

THAT HAS AND INCLUDES: A U.S. Department of State document which says :(The United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland ).Document 62
 * A link that shows the Secretary of State Christian Herter letter to The State Of Somaliland
 * (June 26, 1960
 * Their Excellencies,


 * Council of Ministers of Somaliland, Hargeisa.
 * Your Excellencies: I extend my best wishes and congratulations on the achievement of your independence. This is a noteworthy milestone in your history, and it is with pleasure that I send
 * my warmest regards on this happy occasion.
 * Christlvn a. Herter
 * Secretary of State,United States of America .)a copy of Secretary of State Herters letter to Somaliland
 * A link to David H. Shinn who was the desk officer for Somalia at the U.S. Department of State from 1969 to 1971; deputy director of the Somalia Task Force in the State Department in 1993. And who has talked about Secretary of State Herters letter. And said that there were Thirty-five states recognized Somaliland .David H. Shinn who conforms Secretary of State Herters letter and talks about the 35 states.

Simply because i dont WANT the readers to read all these informations about the so called enclave state. The State Of Somaliland .Hadraa (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S Don't let your misjudgement be aroused by misleading jesters.Hadraa (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fact Not Fiction
the state of somaliland was independent from 26 June to 1 July 1960.
 * Thirty-five states recognized Somaliland.
 * The U.S. secretary of state, Christian Herter, sent a congratulatory

message,
 * and the United Kingdom signed several bilateral agreements with Somaliland in Hargeisa on June 26, 1960.
 * David H. Shinn. Hadraa (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadraa, this was literally just discussed above. Shinn is mistaken about "35 countries" recognizing a state of Somaliland in 1960, particularly with regard to the United States, Egypt and China. Right now, the passage asserts the separatist Somaliland regional administration's standard "35 countries" claim, but does so in Wikipedia's voice contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE. This has the effect of conferring upon that claim the mark of veracity, when it is in fact apocryphal at best. Given the foregoing and website policy, there are two neutral options: either a) remove the patently inaccurate claim that "35 countries" diplomatically recognized a state of Somaliland in 1960, or b) attribute that "35 countries" assertion to the present-day separatist Somaliland administration itself instead of Shinn, note that the Northern Somali Unionist Movement dismisses this claim and why, and note what the United States, Egypt and China, among the other alleged "35 countries", actually indicate with regard to the enclave's diplomatic status (i.e. that they only recognize, both in the past and present, the Somali Republic). Middayexpress (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again and Again and Again clams without any prove that hold no value whatsoever lets start:
 * Claim no 1 :Shinn is mistaken about "35 countries" recognizing a state of Somaliland in 1960.

[fiction] because we have proven that before read above.
 * Claim no 2 :particularly with regard to the United States, Egypt and China. [Fiction] about the united states he says the Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland and did he say The United States extended formal recognition to Somaliland. NO he did not did we talk a bout this before .and about Egypt its there in his raport . and we talked about this before read above.
 * Claim no 3 (b) attribute that "35 countries" assertion to the present-day separatist Somaliland administration itself instead of Shinn) [Fiction] because the present-day Somaliland administration depands abown the works of Alison K. Eggers and Ben Farley and Peter J. Schraeder and many other scholars who misunderstood Shinn. so again if some one misunderstood shinn does that make him wrong and why go to the Somaliland administration when we have the true source and we talked about this before read above.
 * Claim no 4  Wikipedia's voice contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE. equals Northern Somali Unionist Movement who are [Fiction] simply because you came up with them. its your work allowed on wiki. How IS  a PROPGANDA PAGE allowed on wiki? i dont know. This is in fact apocryphal at its best.

Again stick with the facts and separating Fact from Fiction.Hadraa (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, User:Middayexpress, I don't care how many people claimed that there were 35 countries and that the U.S. was one of them, Shinn claimed 35 and did not claim that the U.S. was one of them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Largoplazo: Shinn is indeed implying that the United States was among the 35 countries that reognized a state of Somaliland in 1960 (e.g. "according to a former U.S. ambassador, David Shinn, 35 governments recognised Somaliland including the U.S." ). Even if he hadn't insinuated this, that still wouldn't change the fact that the "35 countries" claim is doubtful and must for the sake of neutrality at the very least be attributed rather than made in Wikipedia's voice per WP:WikiVoice ("opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice[...] rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources"). So either a) we remove this dubious claim altogether, or b) attribute it to Shinn and also note the US Department of State's stipulation that it did not in fact recognize any such state of Somaliland in 1960, but instead only the Somali Republic as a whole. Middayexpress (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Shinn didn't imply this and made a point of saying something distinct from this. How many times are we going to go over this? And please do not again argue, circularly and invalidly, that because other people misunderstood the U.S. to have been among the 35, he must have as well. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. I have been quite busy this week. Anyways, am I missing something? The document cited literally stated that he did. See here: "According to a former U.S. ambassador, David Shinn, 35 governments recognised Somaliland including the U.S" (page 4). AcidSnow (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AcidSnow, I'll point out to you what I've pointed out several times to Middayexpress: If you have in front of you what someone said, then that, and not someone else's report of what he said, is your most accurate indication of what he said. Shinn did not say the U.S. recognized Somaliland. He reported a message of congratulations sent by Secretary of State Herter, a message that we otherwise know about from a source that, in reporting about it, makes it crystal clear that this was instead of formal recognition by President Eisenhowera man who otherwise spent much of that same short period of time sending formal notices of recognition to all the other African nations that were achieving independence at that time, including the Republic of Somalia on July 1. That pretty much says it all. The U.S. secretary of state doesn't have the power to "recognize" a country on behalf of the U.S. That power is reserved to the head of state. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and if you both keep on coming up with documents that misunderstood shinn that does not make shinn wrong once again what were the exact words of Shinn him self not what was reported about him :(The former British Somaliland became independent on June 26,

1960, within the borders that it now claims as an independent state. Thirty-five states recognized Somaliland. The U.S. secretary of state, Christian Herter, sent a congratulatory message, and the United Kingdom signed several bilateral agreements with Somaliland in Hargeisa on June 26, 1960. ) .Hadraa (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Largo Plazo: Shinn's passage is vague and open to interpretation. Although the US government only recognized the Somali Republic, he therein says nothing about this, which is part of the problem ("U.S. Recognition of Somalia’s Independence, 1960[...] The United States recognized the Somali Republic on July 1, 1960, in a congratulatory message from President Dwight D. Eisenhower to President Aden Abdulla Osman" ; "the United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland Council of Ministers[...] formal recognition was not extended because Somaliland's period of independence was to be of such short duration and was timed to permit it to unite immediately with Somalia when the latter became independent" ). Two separate sources have also been linked to that clearly interpret that passage as Shinn erroneously insinuating that the United States recognized a state of Somaliland in 1960. None appear to suggest otherwise. Middayexpress (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * .. just like i said misleding jesters dont end well at all.
 * 1:Shinn's passage is vague and open to interpretation. no its not its clear like the sun.
 * 2: Although the US government only recognized the Somali Republic, he therein says nothing about this. __again read his paper its called Somaliland: The Little Country that Could. its about somaliland not the Somali Republic.
 * 3:which is part of the problem (''"U.S. Recognition of Somalia’s Independence, 1960[...] again and again we know that shinn did not say any thing about the US Recognition to somaliland .__ so how is this a proplem.
 * 4: "the United States did not extend formal recognition to Somaliland, but Secretary of State Herter sent a congratulatory message dated June 26 to the Somaliland Council of Ministers[...] formal recognition was not extended because Somaliland's period of independence was to be of such short duration and was timed to permit it to unite immediately with Somalia when the latter became independent" .___and some how that is diffrent from what was Shinn saying, is that what you mean .i hope you read his words which is not diffrent from what you just wrote.
 * 5:Two separate sources have also been linked to that clearly interpret that passage as Shinn erroneously insinuating that the United States recognized a state of Somaliland in 1960.None appear to suggest otherwise. ...the two sources are not diffrent from what was Shinn saying from the beganing

it proves Herter sent a congratulatory message and to show the countain of the letter and also it cleary says that the US did not recognize somaliland.
 * 6: as Shinn erroneously insinuating that the United States recognized a state of Somaliland in 1960.... again to simply accuse some one about some thing he did do not say is wrong and again no where is to be found the basis of this that you accuse  him for.Hadraa (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Shinn's passage is not vague. It is very clear. It says exactly one thing about the U.S., a thing that is exactly as true there as it is in that other document that we've seen where it also happens to say explicitly that the U.S. didn't recognize Somaliland. There is no way to deduce from it that Shinn believed the U.S. to have recognized Somaliland any more than the person who wrote that other document (and explicitly said the U.S. didn't recognize Somaliland) believed the U.S. to have recognized Somaliland. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps what Shinn is writing is very clear to you personally, but apparently not to actual scholars. All instead seem pretty certain that he is indeed insinuating that the US government recognized a state of Somaliland in 1960 (when it of course did not). I'm sure that Shinn has indicated as much even more explicitly elsewhere. Middayexpress (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, they're scholars now? So they must know what they're talking about? Because all along you've been saying that they're biased pro-Somaliland independence-niks whose statements can't be trusted. And I assumed it was that bias that led to their twisting Shinn's words that way, not because Shinn wasn't clear to anyone without an agenda. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote that Ben Farley is a lobbyist since that is literally what he does in his paper. At any rate, tell me what you make of this: "The self-declared independent Somaliland has found a new ally in the form of David H. Shinn. the former US ambassador to Ethiopia. Shinn, who had been touring the Horn of Africa in the past fortnight, argues that Somaliland is in a better position to be recognised by the African Union (AU). This is so, he says, because Somaliland became independent from the British on 26 June 1960, while the Italian colony of Somalia gained its independence five days later on 1 July, 1960. The AU's charter respects borders which existed on achievement of independence. Somaliland later joined Somalia but reverted to its independence when Somalia collapsed in 1991. 'In legal and technical sense Somaliland met the provision of the AU,' said Shinn." . Imagine for a moment if instead of Shinn it had been a retired Somali diplomat lobbying for the partition of the United States (which is also a federation), and against the Somalian government's official policy at that. Still neutral? Middayexpress (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know why people write papers and reports about Somaliland simply because Somalia is a Failed State. and the United States was never a Failed State. Hadraa (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a non-sequitur. Somaliland is also legally and internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia, as the separatist enclave's president himself has admitted ("Somaliland is still treated officially by international organisations as an autonomous region of Somalia" ). Middayexpress (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * like once Lady Gaga said - Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say), its a joke. hope you enjoy your night .Hadraa (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, when they say "failed state" they refer to the whole nation, from Hargeisa in the northwest to Mogadishu in the south, not just the southern portions. Nonetheless, it was still irrelavent. AcidSnow (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Largo Plazo, given the above and per WP:SILENCE, I assume you have no objection to attributing the "35 countries" claim instead to the secessionist Somaliland administration itself, and balancing that with the Northern Somali Unionist Movement claim and the actual diplomatic recognitions per the US Department of State, the Egyptian government, and the Chinese government. Middayexpress (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Claim no 3 (b) attribute that "35 countries" assertion to the present-day separatist Somaliland administration itself instead of Shinn) [Fiction] because the present-day Somaliland administration depands abown the works of Alison K. Eggers and Ben Farley and Peter J. Schraeder and many other scholars who misunderstood Shinn. so again if some one misunderstood shinn does that make him wrong and why go to the Somaliland administration when we have the true source and we talked about this before read above .Hadraa (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No scholar has been linked to that interprets Shinn's vague passage as you do. If they are all misinterpreting him, which if any are properly interpreting him? All instead appear to indicate that Shinn is indeed claiming that the United States was among "35 countries" that supposedly recognized a state of Somaliland in 1960. This is of course not true since the US Department of State indicates that the United States government did not in fact recognize any such state of Somaliland in 1960, but instead only the Somali Republic as a whole. Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All it takes is one person to misinterpret him and then a hundred others to read the misinterpretation and reiterate it without reconsidering it against the source. You're an example of this, and then you're using their mistake and their propagation of it as a justification for doing the same, so it should be clear how strong the tendency is for mistakes of this nature to replicate. How do you think so many people over the centuries got the idea that the biblical story of Onan is about masturbation when it manifestly is not? —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Although that sort of unvetted parroting does happen, this doesn't appear to be the situation here since all of the writers attribute the passage directly to Shinn's paper itself rather than to that of another writer who may have misinterpreted him. Interpretations of the Onan biblical story do vary, though. Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean anything. When I share something I learned from a blog, I look to see where the blog got it from; if it was from another blog, I look up their source; and so on until I find the base document. And then I read the base documentI'm pretty fierce about reporting back in comments up the chain if the blog content represents a major distortion of the source material; but in a scholarly situation I would expect a tendency that the people doing the citing up the chain were accurately representing the underlying source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what they appear to have done here. Middayexpress (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgery
Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive or earn profit by selling the forged item.Forgery

Was waiting for a confirmation email that i got today morning, about the (MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY THE EXPERT, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)the forged document which is by the way a forgery by Northern Somali Unionist Movement, that you knew was a fake a fraud and a forgery, against the People's Republic of China and even the International Court of Justice , and above all against Somaliland but you used it instad of the Shinn source not once but three times.

When Guy Macon reverted you was the first time i ever heared of the NSUM ,didnt give it much thought knowing these kind of propaganda groups but to go and fabricate something that never existed like this report and then use it has a reliable source thats low ,like the Darod clan tomb which came to existence in 2005 somthing that evan Siad Barre which was Darod by the way, died not knowing the existence of the tomb like all the other Somalis in the world know, simply because its a historical fact no one knows where he was buried, by the way the mad mulla has no grave site but be sure in the coming years they will make it up all that is for the Isaaq have one and had it for over 1200 years so lets make one up for our selfs now. Northern Somali Unionist Movement are liers i knew that but forgers to be honest that was new.

once a lier always a lier and let me say once a forger always a forger.

P.S The confirmation email is from the the International Court of Justice.Hadraa (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Where in the rant above is proof that the affidavit submitted by the Chinese government to the International Court of Justice on behalf of the Somali Republic was forged? All I see is a link to the document itself. Middayexpress (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * so show us the source of your document .still waiting for something that will never come lets say existsHadraa (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I thought, no proof appears to exist that the Chinese government's affidavit was forged. Also kindly stop reverting; that was one of the conditions of your unblock. Middayexpress (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you came with the source and iam saying its a fraud prove me wrong and show the source which doesnt exist...Hadraa (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

here is the email from ICJ.


 * Fraud
 * Information Department (Info@icj-cij.org)


 * 11:58
 * Info@icj-cij.org


 * Dear Sir,


 * In reply to your e-mail, I regret to have to inform you that no case involving the issues and/or persons mentioned in your communication is pending before the International Court of Justice or has ever been examined by it.


 * I am sorry not to be able to be more helpful.


 * Yours faithfully,

Département de l’information | Information Department

Cour internationale de Justice | International Court of Justice

I am not lieing you and your source are. fraud according to the ICJ ....

and this letter is replay to this


 * Envoyé : mardi 7 avril 2015 15:13
 * À : International Court of Justice
 * Objet : Is this document a Fraud. international court of justice cases 2


 * Hi
 * i have send you an email yesterday and i have to write an essy about Somaliland ,there is a document that talks about Somaliland in the name of (MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY THE EXPERT, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA) and you will find it on this website ( http://wardheernews.com/Organizations/NSPU/ICJ%201-01-12.pdf)
 * just want to know if this document is real and if it came from the International Court of Justice like it says, and if so who is the  name of the EXPERT and if you can send me the original or tell me how to find it, and if this document is not real a fraud i just want to know this and hope you can  give me more information and what will you do about it  ,because this document will help me much in my studies , so please want to hear from you soon.
 * Yours truly.

prove me and ICJ are liers and show the source of your document,....Hadraa (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress i left a Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#State_of_Somaliland so you know .Hadraa (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hadraa, I haven't given you my email address nor have I received any email from you. The wikitext above is also just that: wikitext, and nothing more. To actually substantiate that you received such an email from the International Court of Justice, you'll at the very least have to provide a link to the email itself. I can't just take your word for it. Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is likely because no such email in fact exists.Middayexpress

its easy send me any email and i will send it to you but why ask me here when you can contact them Telephone:  (+31) (0)70 302 23 23 Telefax:  (+31) (0)70 364 99 28 email :    Info@icj-cij.org.
 * C. Information Department (contact details)


 * Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
 * Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
 * Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
 * Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)
 * E mail: information@icj-cij.org
 * Address: Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ, The Hague, The Netherlands,.

instade of making lies about me and court call them its easy.Hadraa (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

or provide a source to your so called expert document its easy.Hadraa (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

here is a link to the letter but you must download it (http://www.4shared-china.com/office/3qNpeJ1Ece/fraud.html)Hadraa (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Telling lies about you? lol It's a fact that I certainly have never given you my email address, nor can you produce a dif showing that I have. I also have not received any email from you, which would be weird seeing as how you were blocked for a good while there. At any rate, you've linked above to a text file (which anyone can make), not the email itself. Here's a simple way you can prove it, though: link to a screenshot of the original email itself from within your email account, as well as a screenshot of the email's code. The latter contains all of the sender's details, which can be verified. This should help substantiate your email claim. Middayexpress (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * here are the links to the screenshot to both letters the one i made and the ICJ

(http://www.4shared-china.com/photo/GEsSSE8yba/Capture2.html)

(http://www.4shared-china.com/photo/aINp-tvTce/Capture.html). and here are both the letters together afer the reply from ICJ.

(http://www.4shared-china.com/photo/GINnPUeyce/Capture3.html)

and about Telling lies  i meant that you know and knew that the document was fraud but still you insisted on using it thats what i meant.

oh yeh when do you think i mean when it suits you can you answer me and give me the source of your document or better tells us where did this forged document come from.Hadraa (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I "knew" the document was a fraud, eh? lol I suggest you take a look at WP:CIV and heed it. That said, your alleged screenshots don't even show the full screen, and the tiny text is unreadable. You also neglected to include a screenshot of the email's code, which is the most important one of all. If you indeed received that email(s) from the International Court of Justice, this should take but a minute or two of your time. Middayexpress (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * it was you who came up with 1 and with 2 and with 3 see above and said quote (China went further and actually appealed on the Somali Republic's behalf at the International Court of Justice, asking the court to "decide whether Somaliland should be independent state or should remain an integral part of Somali Republic." It therein noted the following [25]:) see above.

and i accused you of being the founder of Northern Somali Unionist Movement (Claim no 4 Wikipedia's voice contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE. equals Northern Somali Unionist Movement who are [Fiction] simply because you came up with them. its your work allowed on wiki. How IS a PROPGANDA PAGE allowed on wiki? i dont know. This is in fact apocryphal at its best.) which you didn't answer see above.

and then accused me and said qoute (This is likely because no such email in fact exists.Middayexpress) and here is the answer.

1. fraud 1

2. fraud 2

3. fraud 3.Hadraa (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

First you claimed above that you sent me an email, when in reality I never received any email from you let alone gave you my email address. Then now you (rather amusingly) claim that I am the founder of the Northern Somali Unionist Movement, of course with zero proof to that effect. Please get a grip already. At any rate, your download links aren't working. Please reupload them through tinypic.com; they don't require any additional downloading to be viewed from there. It should take but a minute or two. Middayexpress (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (First you claimed above that you sent me an email) where did i say that ,(claim that I am the founder of the Northern Somali Unionist Movement) now you answered that was quick.

download links are working perfectly. so again here are the links

1. fraud 1

2. fraud 2

3. fraud 3. Hadraa (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S when you go to the link you will find a photo of the document on the right conner there is an enlargement symbol click on it and use the mouse to veiw the document so no need to download .Hadraa (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

so now its settled that the ICJ document is real and (MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY THE EXPERT, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA) is A fake and a FOGARY document has no source what so ever. I DELETED the ICJ document because it had sensitive information and IP address of the court and my IP address. Hadraa (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

oh yah about the rv i have done mine for today so to tomorrow like a game again and again rv WITH no source again using a FORGED DOCUMENT .Hadraa (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Threatening to revert war is never a good idea; you've also yet again breached 3RR. I also see above that when you wrote that "i have send you an email yesterday", you were quoting your own supposed email. Your posts are so garbled and poorly formatted, though, I thought you were addressing me directly. At any rate, I'll ask the Wardheernews owners just what is the provenance of that affidavit. Middayexpress (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK accepted about the Wardheernews owners but where did i breached 3RR i am sure that did it twice today and twice  yestarday by reverting my self.P.S NO MORE reverting FOR ME I AM BAD AT IT advice taken. Hadraa (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first edit yesterday was a revert. At any rate, apology accepted; I know that in your own stubborn way you mean well, so no worries. I'll get back to you on what the owners write. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wish we had more talks like these and thanks for your comment good night Middayexpress .Hadraa (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok Hadraa, so I wrote to the Wardheernews owners. They should hopefully write me back soon. In the meantime, please have a look at these two contradictory links that were also published there; they both pertain to the authenticity of the affidavit . Middayexpress (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress this document which came from one of the founders of NSPU is even better 1 would have liked to got a response from the chinese government but like usual no response .Hadraa (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you heard anything from Wardheernews .Hadraa (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not yet. That NSPU link appears to confirm that the affidavit was from a Chinese government official, and that it was provided (leaked?) to the NSPU by a staff member of that representative. Middayexpress (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress it has been five days since you emailed them if they had anything new they would have answered you and i think its about time to revert the page .Hadraa (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The International Court of Justice email itself is unfortunately unconfirmed, and in any event not usable. You also appear to have deleted the email code link. Please reupload the code to confirm the email's authenticity via its sender and receiver addresses, and link to it from here as above. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you changing what we agreed on so quickly that was not your response when you read the ICJ letter you said iam going to ask Wardheernews let alone denial of the true it self ,when did Somalia go to the court and where are the prove of this if ever it existed stick with facts. or prove me wrong and show me a chinese goverment document which i know you cant and wont simply because it doesn't exist.Hadraa (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The NSPU confirmed that the affidavit was indeed from a Chinese government official. Given this, I am asking you to again substantiate that email with its code since you appear to have promptly deleted it. If you are unwilling to do so, there is no reason to remove the Chinese government affidavit. Middayexpress (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you read the ICJ letter .Hadraa (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I read something that you suggested was the International Court of Justice letter. Now that you have apparently deleted the code containing the sender and receiver addresses, the email's authenticity is uncertain. In any event, it doesn't jibe with the Northern Somali Unionist Movement's assertion that the affidavit was indeed from a Chinese government official. Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Email from ICJ
Which is the The International Court of Justice and took out the ip for the sensitive information it has
 * 1_Fraud 1.
 * 2_Fraud 2.Hadraa (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are blurs Muktar. AcidSnow (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * first they are not blurs second of all you left this argument from day one so do us a favor take a time and read all the comments before you rv which is twice in one day and your using un sourced fake document against a CSIS.ORG document .Hadraa (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I have been active frequently in this discussion since the beginning. You on the other hand never replied after your month long ban Muktar. AcidSnow (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * you just made me laugh what did you do here exactly. only reviting this page to british Somaliland .Hadraa (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S my name is not Muktar .Hadraa (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

again my document is from CSIS.ORG if you have anything else then a fraud document your welcome to use and stop rv all the time with no proof or source.Hadraa (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I already stated, please come back with a legitimate source. AcidSnow (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

the same source here is my source.and this is your the forged document compare them both have to repet my self again what a waste of time Hadraa (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Knock it off, guys
Upon a request from Hadraa, I've come along and had a bit of a look at the basis for your two's edit warring. I've also taken the liberty of freezing the article for ten days. The wording of the article at the minute, it being frozen, has no importance: it's got nothing to do with any final decision. I would encourage you both to avoid throwing nasty remarks back and forth, if at all possible.

There does not appear to be any disagreement that the state existed for five days from June 26 to July 1, 1960. What you two seem to be arguing about is, correct me if I'm wrong, is the reason for that five-day period. Was or wasn't it purely to merge Somaliland into the new proposed Br/It merged Somalia? So please, if I'm to help you two come to some sort of consensus, put your arguments as simply as possible below, and I can try to help find a way forward.

I should note that there may really be no right answer: it would depend on which international lawyers and which countries' Ministry of Foreign Affairs you talked to (as acknowledged by one of you citing an opinion from a Chinese expert member). If that were to be the case, the way forward I think would be to acknowledge the issue is disputed, and then cite the various viewpoints (as we sometimes do with 'reactions' to a large internationally-important event, like MH17. In this case, various groups' points of view might be best bulletpointed). Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06 (talk) the hole argument is that the state of Somaliland was recognized by "35 countries" said by David H. Shinn iwas blocked for a week to come back and see that Middayexpress used this (China went further and actually appealed on the Somali Republic's behalf at the International Court of Justice, asking the court to "decide whether Somaliland should be independent state or should remain an integral part of Somali Republic." It therein noted the following :)

this document is fraud based on
 * there is no acutal prove in the International Court of Justice that says that Somalia in 2007 whent to court or even china on Somalia's behalf.
 * who is this so called expert and why is the hole report based on the works of The Northern Somali Unionist Movement just read the report and there work here 1 2
 * and here is Advisory Opinion submitted by the chinese on the kosovo subject 1 and see the difference with this (MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY THE EXPERT, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)the forged document. and just google it.
 * i even went the extra mile and emiled the ICJ and this was there response icj 1 and icj 2click on the enlargement icon on the bottom right, and says that the chinese document is a fraud.
 * the funny thing is this document doesnt talk about Somaliland was recognized by "35 countries" in 1960 and still was used to throw out this David H. Shinn Somaliland: The Little Country that Could which says (The former British Somaliland became independent on June 26, 1960, within the borders that it now claims as an independent state. Thirty five states recognized Somaliland. The U.S.secretary of state, Christian Herter, sent a congratulatory message, and the United Kingdom signed several bilateral agreements with Somaliland in Hargeisa on June 26, 1960.) so why is the CSIS.ORG thrown out and replaced with a much weaker source.
 * i just want what is fair ,P.S i was blocked for a month to find out that Middayexpress retired and have to say this again to Acidsnow who never did much work here.Hadraa (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2024
Request: the map of Somaliland needs to be edited.

The Sool, Sanaag, Cayn region declared its desire to remain within Somalia early 2023. That plan came to fruition when they ousted Somaliland militias from the region in August 2023.

Additionally, the Awdal State movement is working to make the Awdal region a federal state of Somalia.

A lot has changed in the region within the past year. 2603:8000:8E40:165D:1519:C950:1B58:CEEE (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"National Anthem"?
I'd like to ask why the national anthem is still called "National Anthem" when the link goes to "Saamo ku Waar". Panzerfisting (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The page Samo ku waar is mainly about the current national anthem of the re-established Republic of Somaliland. That page does however contain a history section with details about the national anthem of the State of Somaliland used in 1960. The national anthem of the State of Somaliland had no lyrics and doesn't appear to have had an official title, rather it was traditional music transcribed by officers of the British Army. Without an official title to use, I couldn't think of any other description other than "National anthem" when linking to the article. A separate article, possibly named "National anthem of Somaliland (1960)", could be created instead if there is consensus on Wikipedia that such an article is necessary. Dn9ahx (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thank you for replying. Panzerfisting (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)