Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-09/East Africa

Where is the dispute?
This dispute is one that has arisen several times previously across a number of articles. The article currently under scrutiny is East Africa. No discussion took place on the associated talk page, instead manifesting on the administrators' noticeboard here. Debate previously took place over the same issue, with the same editors involved, from here to here.

Who is involved?

 * User:Middayexpress
 * User:Night w
 * User:Outback the koala
 * User:Scoobycentric
 * User:Bluerasberry from the NPOV noticeboard. Here mostly as an observer.
 * User:Taivo

What is the dispute?
There is currently a disagreement on neutrality that is hindering improvement to the East Africa page. It centres around whether or not to mention an unrecognised state within the outline of this geographic region's composition.

The bulleted part (see top of article) of this outline is based on the United Nations geoscheme for Africa, which is a geographical grouping of countries for statistical purposes. Because the UN does not recognise the existence of Somaliland as a separate state of its own, its name will not be mentioned in this source. No editor is proposing tampering with this definition, which is strictly a reflection of the source. The second part of the outline (see directly underneath) defines the region in a purely geographic sense, and uses multiple sources. Inclusion of the red text is disputed on the grounds that it doesn't belong on a list of countries: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan. [citations omitted]" Inclusion was proposed initially because neutral policy would normally dictate that all sides to a dispute be represented. Sovereignty over Somaliland is a prominent dispute in current affairs. It is listed in the List of states with limited recognition and List of sovereign states.

No discussion has taken place on the associated talk page because an identical (and rather lengthy) argument surrounding the inclusion of the same name on a template took place here and concluded here, and involved the same editors.

While this may seem an extremely minor change, it is perceived that violations of WP:NPOV on the same subject would persist elsewhere if such minor instances are overlooked.

How do you think we can help?
The debate has reached a stalemate, as many editors find themselves continuously repeating past statements. A third-party editor on the noticeboard (User:Tom Reedy) committed a considerable amount of time to the discussion, but failed to gain a concession from either party involved. It is hoped that an authoratative and impartial mediator would be able to assist in reaching a consensus.

Mediator notes
Hello, my name is Ronk01, I have mediated several controversial articles, including heated discussions on Prem Rawat (case) and Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (case). I try to keep my mediations neat and clean in terms of discussion space, so you will notice that I am rather picky about what statements go where, this is so that I can accurately judge the direction and flow of the mediation. I do not tolerate personal attacks, edit warring or sock puppetting. I do also ask that no user talkpage messages regarding this topic be sent until the conclusion of this mediation. If you need to contact me discretely, please use my E-mail at wp.ronk01@gmail.com. Thank you; Ronk01   talk ,

Administrative notes
Hello. I have been talking with User:Outback the koala about this issue on the NPOV noticeboard for a few weeks. Here is a statement I made to Outback about the inaccessibility of an understanding of the issue wherein I say the text of the discussion runs to more than 80 pages and I ask for a summary. I have never stated an opinion on this issue, nor do I have one, nor do I well understand what solutions have been proposed, but I have read a lot of the discussion. User:Night w posted on my talkpage suggesting that I might be interested in following this mediation, and I do think this is an interesting issue. I do not have anything to say about the issue itself but I will be watching this mediation. I would like to offer to assist in mediation in any way I can if I am requested and if I am welcome because I think that mediation could be part of the resolution to this debate. Thanks User:Ronk01 for acting as mediator. Since my observer status may not be relevant to the actual case, feel free to move this content elsewhere if you see fit.  Blue Rasberry  21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronk01, the mediator, has seen fit to ask me if I would be interested in acting as co-mediator or assistant mediator. If no one objects, and if everyone considers my past talk with User:Outback the koala to be neutral as I do, then I volunteer to be an assistant mediator to Ronk01. He would still be primary, if that matters, but I would commit to follow this to an end.  Blue Rasberry  02:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statements
Please state your initial positions, opinions, and arguments here, do not rebutt a statement made under this heading unless is clearly'' a personal attack. (Please make rebuttals here) Do not make a statement here unless you wish to become party to this mediation''

User:Night w
As the nominator of this case, before I make my statement, I'd like to thank User:Ronk01 and User:Bluerasberry for their assistance and determination in helping reach a consensus on this issue. It is greatly appreciated! The issue we are addressing here is where and how to display information on a polity whose status is in dispute. If I might be so bold, I'd like to use the page currently in question as a basis for hopefully resolving this issue across the encyclopaedia. I'd like us to review several options for resolution, and hopefully come to an agreement for one that we can apply across the encyclopaedia. Night w (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland declared its independence from Somalia in 1991, claiming as its territory that of former British Somaliland. Whether this secession was legal is disputed. So far, it has not received an explicit statement of recognition from any foreign government. It has diplomatic relations with a number of states and international organisations, all of which officially recognise the region as part of Somalia.
 * Overview

Nevertheless, it is a state that is independent in theory (that is, as viewed from a purely objective perspective). The declarative theory of statehood maintains that a state (theoretically) becomes a subject of international law so long as it fulfills 4 critical points. This criteria is codified in the Montevideo Convention, which declares in Article 3: "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Somaliland was added to the List of sovereign states page, along with other unrecognised states, in 2004. The list presently contains 10 entries in a section separate from United Nations members.

I thought it might be helpful, for future reference, to construct a general timeline of events on this dispute. The discussions in most instances are chaotic; this should help reconstruct how the dispute progressed. To portray the scope of this issue, here are also some diffs from various pages where related editing conflicts took place: 1, 2, 3.
 * Past discussions


 * Dec 2009: Somaliland is listed on the Africa topic template by User:Outback the koala. It is added in italics to indicate its disputed status, as explained on the talk page. The edit is reverted by User:Middayexpress, who argues that the state's total lack of recognition means it does not belong on the list.
 * Jan 2010: User:RevelationDirect simultaneously experiences the same problem at Countries of Africa, where his attempts to portray the issue as balanced as possible are reverted by User:Middayexpress. A centralised discussion is established.
 * User:RevelationDirect explains the definition of de facto statehood. User:Middayexpress and User:Scoobycentric attempt to disprove Somaliland's fulfillment of the criteria set out by the declarative theory. Their interpretation of the criteria is immediately questioned.
 * User:Night w joins the discussion.
 * User:RevelationDirect and User:Night w call to attention the Europe topic model, which was established after extensive discussion, and advise editors follow this example.
 * User:Middayexpress and User:Scoobycentric further attempt to disprove Somaliland's fulfillment of the criteria set out by the declarative theory.
 * User:Night w lists options for listing Somaliland in an impartial way. They are immediately discarded by User:Middayexpress.
 * User:Pfainuk joins the discussion, arguing that both sides to a dispute should be represented in an encyclopaedic context, and thus supports User:Outback the koala's original edit.
 * A lengthy debate proceeds in which User:Middayexpress continues to attempt to disprove Somaliland's de facto statehood. His interpretations of the criteria are labelled as original research by User:Pfainuk and User:Night w.
 * User:Night w and User:Pfainuk stress the need to represent the views of both sides of the dispute. User:Middayexpress argues that this would be advocating an agenda.
 * User:Sephia karta joins the discussion announcing support for Option 1 of User:Night w's previous proposal.
 * The reliability of several sources cited by User:Night w and User:Middayexpress is disputed.
 * User:CK6569 joins the discussion announcing support for Option 1.
 * User:Pfainuk summarises the unreliability of cited sources, but argues that all can be taken as evidence of a dispute as to the status of Somaliland, and used to represent both sides to said dispute. User:Middayexpress maintains that compromise is not an option, and that this is plainly an either/or issue. He also refutes the usability of Somaliland government sources, arguing that using such sources would be a form of advocacy.
 * User:Pfainuk maintains that finding an impartial compromise is required by policy, and argues that while the perspective of the Somaliland government is not definitive, it is relevant and should be taken into account.
 * User:Night w concludes that the discussion has reached a stalemate, and advises informal mediation.
 * Elsewhere, the Somaliland page is tagged as unbalanced by User:Outback the koala. The tag is immediately removed by User:Middayexpress, who argues that it is unwarranted. Their debating on the talk page arguably impedes a genuine attempt by User:Flosssock1 to improve the page.
 * In a rebuttal to User:Pfainuk's comments, User:Middayexpress argues that including Somaliland alongside widely-recognised states would be giving undue weight to a view held by a tiny minority, citing as evidence the state's total lack of recognition as well as the illegality of its independence, and that we are under no obligation to represent minority views.
 * User:Pfainuk calls into question User:Middayexpress' reasoning. He then explains the prominence of the dispute, evinced by its neutral coverage in international media.
 * User:Pfainuk opens a noticeboard discussion, in which s/he summarises the general situation of the debate at this time, and asks the community to consider whether or not the view that Somaliland is a sovereign state is a tiny minority view, and thus unworthy of mention as per WP:V. User:ChrisO, the only user to comment, dismisses the notion of it being a minority view, but opposes the state's inclusion in the template on account of its lack of recognition.
 * Multiple accusations are made by both sides. User:Scoobycentric and User:Middayexpress are accused of harbouring a POV by User:Pfainuk and User:Night w, respectively. User:Night w also identifies a conflict of interest in both of the aforementioned users. User:Outback the koala is accused of harbouring a POV by User:Scoobycentric and User:Middayexpress. Both User:Night w and User:Outback the koala are accused of incivility by User:Middayexpress.
 * User:HistoricWarrior007 joins the discussion explaining the definition of de facto statehood, and supporting an inclusion of Somaliland under that classification.
 * At this point, the widespread unreliability of sources given and the lack of coherence between editors involved leads to repeated arguments, and significantly hinders the progress of the discussion, which reaches a stalemate.
 * User:Night w opens an informal mediation case, suggesting that the discussion be broadened to include other cases in the same category. The talk page reaches a consensus several days later, however, and the mediation case is closed before it is begun.
 * User:Outback the koala opens a request for comment. Uninvolved editors, including User:Jhattara, User:Ravensfire, and User:N2e, all place comments which mirror the sentiments of the majority. The method proposed by User:Ravensfire, which is drawn from Europe topic, is opposed by User:Middayexpress, but wins support from the majority. This is the method that will eventually be used in the template.
 * User:Middayexpress and User:Night w debate the status of Somaliland's recognition.
 * Observer User:Looie496, and the aforementioned uninvolved editors, assist in closing the RfC and establishing consensus. User:Middayexpress refutes the process, citing violations of policy. He is accused of disruptive behaviour by User:Pfainuk.
 * The templates are edited to include states with limited recognition in a separate section. User:Middayexpress and User:Scoobycentric refute the notion that consensus has been established, and outwardly oppose the result. User:Scoobycentric maintains that the template's inclusion of Somaliland is a form of advocacy. He compares Somaliland to a micronation, and cites the exclusion of Sealand as stare decisis. Discussion comes to a close.
 * Apr 2010: User:Outback the koala attempts to add Somaliland to the introduction on the East Africa page. The edits are reverted by User:Middayexpress, who immediately accuses User:Outback the koala of pushing a POV. An edit conflict erupts involving User:Middayexpress, User:Outback the koala, User:Scoobycentric, and User:Night w. The neutrality and reliability of sources cited by User:Night w are attacked.
 * May 2010: User:Night w opens a noticeboard discussion on the issue, requesting the inclusion of Somaliland for reasons of neutrality. He calls to attention methods adopted within other articles on geographic regions, and includes his proposed text for review on the noticeboard.
 * User:Middayexpress argues that the mainstream definition of "East Africa" is rarely understood to include Somaliland being separate from Somalia, citing the state's lack of diplomatic recognition as evidence. He maintains that including the name would be advocating an agenda.
 * User:Outback the koala makes a statement stressing the need to edit objectively, and expressing the desire to see the issue settled and enforced across the encyclopaedia.
 * User:Night w makes explicit the distinction between subjective and objective editing, and calls to attention the policy directly governing this.
 * Sources previously cited by User:Night w to demonstrate Somaliland's situation in East Africa are called into question by User:Scoobycentric.
 * User:Middayexpress accuses User:Outback the koala for both harbouring and pursuing an agenda, citing the editor's user page, and frequent additions of Somaliland to related pages, respectively, as evidence.
 * User:Middayexpress argues that the United Nations geoscheme, which does not include unrecognised Somaliland, serves as the basis for the geographical and compositional definition of the region in question. User:Night w rebuts that this particular definition is not under dispute, but rather the supplementary definitions, which also list additional countries not mentioned in the geoscheme's definition of East Africa. User:Middayexpress maintains that the alternatives are based on mainstream definitions of the geographical region, for which sources do not mention Somaliland as separate from Somalia.
 * User:Tom Reedy, an editor who is uninvolved thus far, makes the distinction between the different definitions, and outlines the importance of recognising the purpose behind the article in question, and of portraying controversial information in an impartial way. He thus announces his support for the text proposed.
 * User:Middayexpress argues for the illegality of Somaliland's secession. He also argues that the proposed terminology "breakaway republic" implies status as a sovereign state. He proceeds to outline the state's total lack of recognition by the international community, and stresses that including Somaliland alongside widely-recognised states would be catering to special interests.
 * User:Night w stresses the requirement to portray information from an objective perspective. User:Middayexpress maintains that this does not apply to minority views.
 * The New York Times article is cited by User:Middayexpress for the 36th time (yes, I counted).
 * Tom Reedy expresses his frustration with the method of argumentation employed by User:Middayexpress, and withdraws from the discussion. He advises User:Night w to file a request for comment on user conduct.
 * User:Night w logs a request for informal mediation (current case), and the noticeboard discussion comes to a close.
 * Jun 2010: User:Outback the koala recalls the noticeboard discussion from the archives due to lack of progress. Observer User:Bluerasberry attempts to define the issue and the resulting dispute.
 * Jul 2010: The mediation case is accepted by User:Ronk01.

By excluding Somaliland from a list, we're demonstrating that the opinion that Somaliland has achieved statehood simply doesn't exist, or that it's not valid (i.e. they haven't declared independence, and they don't control any territory or people). But the opinion is there, they have, and they do. By listing it with an attached footnote, in italics, or within parentheses as proposed, we show that the opinion is there, but is not recognised—which couldn't be further from the truth. It's plain and neutral.
 * My position

I'd like to share a few quotes from other editors which effectively complement my statement above. I won't quote from User:Outback the koala, as I'm sure s/he will make a statement of her/his own on this case.

From User:Pfainuk: "It's not about asserting that Somaliland is legitimate - I would oppose inclusion on an equal footing with generally recognised states. But equally we shouldn't be asserting that it isn't legitimate unless it is clear that no-one (including the Somaliland government) asserts that it is … I would suggest that the government of Somaliland is probably the most reliable source you could get for its own position on this matter."

"Our principle of neutrality requires that where there is an international dispute, we at least allow for both sides of that dispute. Removing these entities would imply that they do not legitimately exist, a notion that would take one side in every dispute and would be fairly obviously non-neutral. Including them without specific marking would do the opposite: implying that they do legitimately exist - thereby taking the other side in every dispute. Neither approach should be acceptable to an encyclopædia that aspires to neutrality. What we need to do is include all of these entities …, but in such a way that they are clearly separated from those states whose legitimate existence is generally accepted."

From User:Tom Reedy: "Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succour either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct … The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term 'East Africa.' Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia."

States with a controversial nature, including limited recognition of sovereignty, have long been a cause of disruption on Wikipedia.
 * Similar cases
 * In the compositional description on the Caucasus region, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh are each displayed in parentheses beside their respective claimant states. This method is identical to the one originally proposed for the East Africa page.
 * Discussion on Kosovo resulted in the creation of a footnote template, Kosovo-note, which is found at every instance where the placement of the name "Kosovo" might be disputed. This includes in the compositional description on the Balkans page, and all articles on Kosovan placenames, where—depending on the what political perspective is applied—a town might be in Kosovo, or it might be in Serbia.
 * On the Eastern Europe page, Transnistria is not mentioned at all. It arguably should be mentioned in the geographical definition, alongside or underneath Moldova.


 * Solutions
 * 1.  No mention (status quo)
 * 2.  Italics
 * Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Somaliland, Djibouti...
 * 3.  Parentheses
 * Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti...
 * 4.  Footnote
 * Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Somaliland, Djibouti...
 * 5.  Inline note
 * Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Somaliland (unrecognised), Djibouti...

Note: The examples are just that. Similar wording or styles could be introduced. Any additional solutions are welcome. I will update my statement with a personal review of each option shortly. Thankyou. Night w (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Outback the koala
In this mediation I intend to limit my statements as much as I can help myself, given the long running nature of this dispute, the extensive debate that has already occurred, and that I have already made a statement here.
 * I would like to highlight the true issue here as I see it, which is; how to incorporate states with limited recognition into the various pages of the project in an objective and neutral manner. My original position was that these states with limited recognition require a position along side widely recognised states without a qualifier in order to be completely neutral. I, however, changed my position once I realized that this would indeed lend too much weight to one side of the dispute and thereafter sought a middle ground solution that had been proposed; inclusion with a qualifier or footnote. I felt this compromise was the most neutral and correct. Without a qualifier, it appears to be a fully recognised state, which we all know it is not. I vehemently opposed a suggestion to put Somaliland in parentheses on the grounds that it makes Somaliland appear to be a dependent or some type of controlled territory or region that is apart of Somalia. I check my POV at the door and look for what should be in an objective encyclopedia. In reviewing Night w's opening statement, I find the timeline he provides to be accurate, detailed, neutral and correct. In addition the solutions he lists are some of what has been suggested in the past(Of those listed, I would only support option 4 as NPOV). I want to be clear, the East Africa page is but a drop in a river that we should not focus on; it is the issue across the project that is of great importance here. Thank you to our two mediators for the attention given to this case. All those involved; please feel free to contact me on my talk page at anytime. Outback the koala (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Scoobycentric
Not a single article on wikipedia is the same, any additional info to these articles is immediately put under the hammer of scrutiny which determines wether it's vandalism, or high quality, wether it's based on a fringe theory or mainstream sources, wether it's neutral or highly POV, wether it's scholarly backed or plain Original research. Therefore the outcome of this discussion cannot have any effect on the fate of other articles, as these are bound by their own definitions based on sources not neccessarily similar to East Africa.

A discussion about a navigational template (which can be molded into a specific version that is supported by whatever side that is numerically superior at the time) on wikipedia has no relation to a geographical term like East Africa which is defined by actual mainstream literature, not the opinions of wikipedia-editors or lists constructed by the latter group, this is an important point i will continue on more elaborately later(it's my understanding the O.S is not meant for rebuttals, i apologise if i have done so in this statement.)

A reliable source that includes Somaliland as an independent country of East Africa, has not been presented yet, on the contrary several times I personally questioned the synthisizing edits of the other side and the use of 'wrong' sources that were discussing everything but the inclusion of Somaliland as an independent entity in East Africa, some of the sources weren't even referring to the seccessionist movement, but instead were about historical states. The only logical conclusion at the time on my end was that these sources were added to justify a revert of the status quo.

The inclusion of a region that is internationally recognised as part of Somalia in whatever form or fashion would open the flood gates of listing every single seccessionist entity alongside the recognised country, and logic would prevent us to stop there. No! We would have to list in italics/parenthesis/footnotes all of the seccesionist entities within the seccesionist entities aswell(yes including movements within Somaliland itself). Therefore there is a dispute within a dispute, and in this situation the only neutral POV would be the internationally recognised status quo, which is backed by mainstream literature - the very foundation of wikipedia. Somaliland is not Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as the latter three actually achieved some form of recognition both on the international scene and in mainstream literature with regards to the geographical term Caucasus, hence their inclusion, their African counterpart would be SADR in Western Sahara.

I will elaborate more on my opening statement in the rebuttal section. Thanks in advance to Ronk01 and Blue Rasberry for acting as mediators. To Nightw and Outbackkoala; do not consider my edits(past or future) as a personal grudge against any of you, i'm in the business of accuracy not vendettas. I would also like to note that i'm currently quite busy and therefore ask those involved to be considered. --Scoobycentric (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Taivo
Somaliland exists. It's impossible to get around that fact. Indeed, most reputable sources judge that Somaliland is more of a functioning state than Somalia itself has been for at least the past decade. The only part of independent life that Somaliland has been denied is official recognition by other states. Yet even without official recognition, Yemen, at least, deals with Somaliland as a neighboring state in several ways.

Judging sovereignty is more complex than simply looking at a list of U.N. member states. It involves a variety of conclusions based on economic, political, judicial, defense, and other matters. Relying on a single parameter of that judgment is introducing POV into the judgment of sovereignty. The international community dreams of a united Somalia, but it is not based on reality. The reality is that Somalia effectively does not exist. In its place is the independent sovereign state of Somaliland that functions nearly normally as a state (as normal as it can since international recognition is absent), and the "failed state" of Somalia, which is about as non-existent as a state can get without being removed from the map. The U.N. has a dream, but right now it is only a dream.

Wikipedia, as a neutral observer, must report the facts, not base its reporting on dreams or political posturing. While Wikipedia excludes original research, that is different than exercising judgment in reporting. Editors must look at reliable sources and make sense of those sources. When given the verifiable facts, 1) Somaliland isn't recognized, 2) Somaliland is more of a functioning state than Somalia, it is required of Wikipedia editors to note both of them, not just the former or the latter. While we must, to be honest with the facts, list Somaliland as one of the constituent functioning states of the region separate from Somalia, it is also necessary that it be marked in some way to indicate that it is not recognized as a state by the single measure of international recognition. That marking must be neutral, but readily understandable to the average Wikipedia user. That is the purpose of this mediation as I understand it--to determine how best to list Somaliland in Wikipedia as an actual existing state and how best to indicate its status as a state of limited recognition. --Taivo (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress
Firstly, I would like to thank Ronk01 for alerting me to this discussion. I was under the impression that the previous discussion on this subject at the NPOV noticeboard had been archived; so needless to say, this revived discussion comes as something of a surprise.

That said, when referring to actual countries (as is done in the East Africa article), the term East Africa is rarely if ever understood to include the Somaliland region of Somalia since Somaliland is, of course, not recognized by anyone as a country of its own. It is internationally recognized as a part of Somalia (albeit, one that's trying to secede). This includes the United Nations, whose geoscheme serves as the basis for this and all of the other Wikipedia geographical articles on the various regions in Africa (North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa, East Africa), as indicated in the article's introduction. Contrary to what has been indicated above, there is also no dispute whatsoever about Somaliland's status as a part of Somalia -- the international community as a whole (every country & international organization, including the UN, the African Union, the European Union, and the Arab League) recognizes it and has only ever recognized it as a part of Somalia:

"'...if an extradition treaty exists with Ethiopia, which like the rest of the world does not recognize Somaliland's independence and therefore cannot enter into any treaty with it.' -- Human Rights Watch, July 2009"

As Tony Blair himself explains it:

"'The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community. The UK has signed up to a common EU position and to many UN Security Council Presidential Statements, which refer to the territorial integrity and unity of Somalia.'"

The reason why Somaliland is even featured on those Wikipedia articles linked to above is because it was specifically added to them by Wikipedia users, not because the region enjoys any recognition at all as a country of its own.

Yes, there are indeed some "sources" that refer to Somaliland as a "breakaway republic". However, these are all invariably from people with no political authority to speak of. In many cases, though not always, these authors are also closely affiliated with the secessionist movement itself (such as Iqbal Jhazbhay, etc.). The fact remains that whether or not a territory actually constitutes a country of its own is not determined by individual authors, but by actual law. If it were, every random mention on every random article of the term "country" or "nation" or some variation thereof in reference to any micronation or secessionist region would be enough to automatically qualify said micronation or secessionist region then and there as a "country" or "nation" of its own. This is, of course, preposterous. Furthermore, for Somaliland to constitute a country of its own, it first needs to break free of the ties that legally bind it to the rest of Somalia in the first place. I am of course referring to the Act of Union which united the former colonial territories of Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland in the 1960's to form the Somali Republic. The secessionists argue that there were, in fact, two Acts of Union and that the government of the former Trust Territory in southern Somalia signed neither, thus rendering the Union null and void. The problem with this argument is that just a few short years after Somalia gained its independence and the former colonial territories unified, an Italian legal expert by the name of Paulo Contini (who served as United Nation’s legal adviser to Somalia at the time) wrote an entire book painstakingly documenting the process. And Contini makes it clear therein that both of these early Acts of Union were repealed shortly afterwards, and a new Act of Union applicable to the whole of the Somali territory was drawn up & applied retroactively:

"'Thus when the union was formed, its precise legal effects had not been laid down in any instrument having binding force in both parts of the State. As explained below, the matter was clarified seven months later by the adoption of a new Act of Union with retroactive effect from July 1, 1960 for the whole territory of the Republic ...To dispel any uncertainties, it was thought desirable, as a first step, to enact a law applicable to the whole territory of the Republic, defining the legal effects of the union with as much precision as possible. This was done on January 31, 1961, six months after unification, when the National Assembly adopted by acclamation a new Act of Union, which repealed the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law, and which was made retroactive as from July 1, 1960.'"

This final Act of Union was never repealed and, in fact, cannot be without the approval of a four-fifths majority of all Somali voters, something which the separatists obviously have not obtained or even sought to obtain :

"'One component of the structural defects of this vigorous campaign for 'Somaliland' administration within the geographical confines of Hargeisa and its vicinities is the infringement of the Act of Union, a fundamental error emanating from an arbitrary means of dissolving the union of Somalia.'"

It is also impossible to dismiss the Act of Union which unites the former colonial territories of Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland since secession itself is "the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity." One can't very well withdraw from a union one is legally bound to.

Moreover, autonomy should not be confused with actual statehood. Merely behaving like a state or state-like alone is not enough to make a territory an actual country. The autonomous Puntland region of Somalia likewise has its own Ministry of Planning and International Relations, as well as its own Ministry of Health, Education, etc.. It also has its own army and flag, no different than the Somaliland region. Like Somaliland, its residents don't pay taxes to the federal government of Somalia, but to the Puntland administration.

Similarly, Somaliland's "relations" with foreign governments are no different to those of Puntland. Somaliland government officials are regarded and dealt with as regional representatives by actual federal governments such as the U.S. government:

"'While the United States does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, we continue regularly to engage with Somaliland as a regional administration and to support programs that encourage democratization and economic development in the Somaliland region. We have consistently voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of Somalia."

This applies to the Somaliland region's president as well:

"'The Somaliland president, Dahir Rayale Kahin, is regarded more as a governor by other nations, even though he considers himself to be as much a president as, say, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya or Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, three prominent presidents on this continent.'"

The passports the Somaliland government prints are likewise unrecognized:

"'The Somaliland passport — which bears the region's logo and looks as official as any other nation's — is not recognized by any country in the world, although the neighboring countries of Ethiopia and Djibouti do allow people to travel with it while still not officially recognizing Somaliland as a country.'"

The fact is, the Somaliland region has no diplomatic recognition at all. Actually, Somaliland doesn't even have any de facto recognition as a country of its own:

"'Independence does not rely solely on whether it is deserved, but on the existing realpolitik. Sadly for Somaliland, they fall between the cracks in international law and cannot win the argument for de jure recognition while Somalia remains without a viable government, so they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer.'"

There has been no effort on the part of the Somali government to force Somaliland back into Somalia because it never had to: the international community as a whole (every single country & international organization) recognizes and has only ever recognized it as a part of Somalia. And the international community refuses to recognize Somaliland primarily out of respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia (c.f. 1). The Somali constitution likewise recognizes Djibouti as bordering Somalia to the northwest, not Somaliland.

Also, to state that some consider Somaliland a separate state is a gross understatement since the world at large does not recognize Somaliland's independence. The view that Somaliland is a country of its own is thus one held by a tiny minority. And per WP:UNDUE (a sub-policy of WP:NPOV), tiny minority views need not be included at all ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute"). WP:ASSERT is also a sub-policy of WP:NPOV, and it likewise only applies to mainstream views and views held by significant minorities, not to tiny-minority views. Further, WP:ASSERT is clear that one must quantify the extent of support for an existing view; it is not enough to just claim a significant minority believe it:

"'It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating 'some people believe...', a practice referred to as 'mass attribution'. A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is.'"

The real dispute is therefore over whether Somaliland ought to be recognized as a country of its own, not over whether it already is a country of its own. Regarding the latter, there is, again, no dispute to speak of; regarding the former, Wikipedia is no place for exploring such decidedly POV political questions (that is, not without breaching WP:NOTADVOCATE). Middayexpress (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have three questions for All Participants:

 * 1) What is your position on Taiwan?
 * 2) Since Somalia is currently without a functional government to enforce its constitution, could we not say that technically, Somalia does not exist de facto and why?
 * 3) Do you consider the international opinion to be a non-NPOV?

Also, for the purposes of this debate, we are considering Somaliland to be a de facto state, as we plan on proposing the solution here to the community for broader application. Ronk01  talk,  01:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Taivo's response

 * 1. Taiwan is somewhat unlike the other states with limited recognition in that it is a formerly fully-recognized state. I don't consider it to be any different than the other "Other states" at List of sovereign states--it is de facto sovereign, but not widely recognized as a de jure independent state.
 * 2. I would completely agree that Somalia is a de jure state, universally recognized as a state, but functionally non-existent, therefore not a de facto state at the present time. Other than a few blocks in Mogadishu, the recognized "government of Somalia" is powerless.
 * 3. International political opinion is a distinct POV. It is not neutral.  It is not based on facts, but on past recognition and a future dream of a reunited and functioning state of Somalia.  It is strictly a de jure POV and not a de facto determination.  --Taivo (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Night w's response

 * 1) The Republic of China is a former United Nations member state, presently on the "losing end" of the Chinese Civil War in terms of foreign recognition. Comparisons drawn between the ROC and Somaliland cases find few similarities, but in terms of portrayal of its status within a neutral encyclopaedia, it should be treated like all other states with limited recognition.
 * 2) Somalia is recognised within the international community as the sole sovereign government within its claimed borders. I know that Somalia is currently a failed state, and that its central government is extremely weak. I don't, however, know enough about the reality of control to be able to determine whether it may or may not be a de facto state at the present time.
 * 3) The stance of a government is an opinion. It is not neutral. No matter how many governments might officially share the same opinion, it will still be an opinion. The stance of the United Nations is an opinion. In the case of Somaliland, United Nations members share the official stance that the state's secession was illegal (the territorial integrity of the state is explicitly guaranteed in Article 2 of the UN Charter). Opinions, however, do not impact on a fact; and whilst the legality of the secession may be refuted, it doesn't change the fact that it has occurred, and that a de facto state is now in existence. Night w (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Middayexpress' response
1. Taiwan and one's opinion on it is completely irrelevant to this discussion on Somalia and East Africa.

2. Actually, governance does exist in Somalia, albeit in various forms. It is divided according to civil law (the Transitional Federal Government, as well as various autonomous regional governments, including Puntland and Somaliland), religious law and customary law. It is not "chaos" (you are perhaps thinking of the situation of a few years ago, prior to the rise of the Islamic Courts Union that ousted the warlords). Incidentally, the Somaliland region itself controls only a small fraction of a huge percentage of the land it claims as part of its territory; namely, the Sool, Sanaag and Cayn provinces. Those regions are autonomous in their own right, with a completely different clan makeup, and the secessionist Somaliland administration is facing and has always faced major resistance there.

3. It is not merely "international opinion" that Somaliland is a part of Somalia, but legal reality (refer again to the Act of Union passage above). The UN Charter is just one of several international instruments protecting the already extant territorial integrity of Somalia; it does not in itself establish it -- that has already been done. And actual Law is most certainly NPOV. Middayexpress (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
All discussion relevant to this case other than opening statements will take place on the talkpage of this casefile.

Status?
Is this mediation still live? If so, where is it taking place? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. It's stale. PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically, the one editor who objected to the issue "disappeared". --Taivo (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nay, I think we are not done yet. But if noone else wishes to continue... Outback the koala (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought we were waiting for the mediator(s) to make a statement of conclusion...  Night w   03:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Given this, I reccomend you contact the mediator and ask him for an update. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Outback contacted him a few days ago (here).  Night w   16:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have closed this as stale. Hipocrite (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)