Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Article seems to have a overly positive slant...
I might be the only one who thinks this article reads like a tourist guide (oh, there are half-a-dozen other editors who think the same thing?!) but could someone (Midday Express) please explain how: the United Nations, Fund for Peace, Transparency International, The New York Times, Associated Press, US State Department, et al. are unreliable sources and obscure articles from sources I've never heard of are authoritative. I earlier saw Midday Express calling another user 'paranoid'; it would seem to me that someone looking for corrupt sources of information and starting with: The United Nations, Transparency International, etc. might have some paranoia issues themselves...
- I'm afraid you are a little late. The article has been completely re-written since those discussions you allude to, so they don't really apply. I also suggest you have a look at the civil war section in particular for reference. Middayexpress (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- The last paragraph of the lead made me laugh. "While it still has room for improvement, the interim government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011." If this was about a business instead of a government, it would be removed in an instant as an advertisement. The statements like this in the lead are way overly positive. "despite experiencing civil unrest, Somalia has also maintained a healthy informal economy..." How nice. No mention that the "healthy" economy is rated 150 out of 191 in the world? No mention of the 15 year period of anarchy the country went through? Ridiculous. SwarmTalk 06:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not really, since, during that period of no central governing authority, Somalia's inhabitants had actually reverted to local methods of conflict resolution, primarily consisting of customary law. While the size of the GDP is indeed ranked 155th in the world, that is not really an indication of the health of the economy since not all countries are the same size and have the same size populations. The GDP was also a fraction of that size as recently as 1987, just prior to the civil war; it's been steadily increasing since then, except for a brief dip in 2008 on account of renewed fighting in the south ([1]). It's the GDP's growth rate that matters, and Somalia's GDP in 2009 had an estimated real growth rate (that is, after being adjusted for inflation) of 2.6% (71st in the world). Modest, to be sure, but healthy all the same, which is partly why the CIA indicates that "despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications" ([2]). It's the CIA itself that also indicates that "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011." Middayexpress (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- The tone of the article is positive. That's the point. SwarmTalk 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a reflection of the paraphrased CIA et al.'s own language. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The CIA doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of WP:NPOV. SwarmTalk 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly is that supposed to mean? And which part of that policy indicates this? Middayexpress (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It means that NPOV is a rule on Wikipedia, and the CIA don't have to follow it. Sw♠rmTalk 03:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a riddle, but doesn't mean much since the CIA is a reliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that this acticle is way to positive. Maybe it should mention that Somolia has ranked number 1 on the failed state index for three years in a row. Mike 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.45.63 (talk)
- There's nothing positive about a civil war and its attendant consequences, all of which are discussed. "Failed state" is also an arbitrary, politically-based concept ([3]); hence, why the index is not featured on just about all other country articles on Wikipedia, including this one. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that this acticle is way to positive. Maybe it should mention that Somolia has ranked number 1 on the failed state index for three years in a row. Mike 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.45.63 (talk)
- It's a riddle, but doesn't mean much since the CIA is a reliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- It means that NPOV is a rule on Wikipedia, and the CIA don't have to follow it. Sw♠rmTalk 03:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly is that supposed to mean? And which part of that policy indicates this? Middayexpress (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The CIA doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of WP:NPOV. SwarmTalk 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a reflection of the paraphrased CIA et al.'s own language. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The tone of the article is positive. That's the point. SwarmTalk 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not really, since, during that period of no central governing authority, Somalia's inhabitants had actually reverted to local methods of conflict resolution, primarily consisting of customary law. While the size of the GDP is indeed ranked 155th in the world, that is not really an indication of the health of the economy since not all countries are the same size and have the same size populations. The GDP was also a fraction of that size as recently as 1987, just prior to the civil war; it's been steadily increasing since then, except for a brief dip in 2008 on account of renewed fighting in the south ([1]). It's the GDP's growth rate that matters, and Somalia's GDP in 2009 had an estimated real growth rate (that is, after being adjusted for inflation) of 2.6% (71st in the world). Modest, to be sure, but healthy all the same, which is partly why the CIA indicates that "despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications" ([2]). It's the CIA itself that also indicates that "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011." Middayexpress (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- The last paragraph of the lead made me laugh. "While it still has room for improvement, the interim government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011." If this was about a business instead of a government, it would be removed in an instant as an advertisement. The statements like this in the lead are way overly positive. "despite experiencing civil unrest, Somalia has also maintained a healthy informal economy..." How nice. No mention that the "healthy" economy is rated 150 out of 191 in the world? No mention of the 15 year period of anarchy the country went through? Ridiculous. SwarmTalk 06:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
"While it still has room for improvement, the interim government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011." This seems to be an unduly positive assessment of the TFG. "...still has room for improvement..."-- I couldn't help laughing out loud when I read that. Considering that many view the TFG to be nothing more than a venal collection of ex-warlords, I'm not sure Wikipedia should be evincing such a favourable stance on it. Jrule (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the current TFG is a coalition government. Its federal assembly was enlarged in January 2009 following an agreement reached in Djibouti that was set up by, among others, the former UN envoy to Somalia [4]. The purpose of the agreement was to strike a truce with the Islamist Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia (ARS) that was then looking to topple the government from its unofficial headquarters in Eritrea; specifically, the cessation of armed confrontation in exchange for the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops. Parliament was subsequently expanded to accommodate ARS members, which then elected the current President to office (the former ARS chairman). The government has tried several times to strike similar peace deals with the remaining Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam militants, but so far to no avail. It has therefore now opted for what appears to be primarily a military solution, although the newly-appointed Prime Minister hasn't ruled out negotiations altogether. That phrase was also taken from the CIA itself, btw [5]: "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011." Middayexpress (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- As pointed out above, the CIA is not a neutral source of information. It reflects the position of the US government, which is to support the TFG politically and diplomatically. Wikipedia should not be taking the same stance. Jrule (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the entire international community supports the TFG; only the Islamists don't. As for the CIA, it was already identified as a reliable source by an ArbCom administrator on RS/N well after the discussion above took place. Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let me clarify-- obviously, the CIA would be a reliable source for certain facts and figures. Its opinion on the effectiveness of a government, however, should not be cited as gospel truth in an encyclopaedia. Would you accept the CIA's official position on the legality of its torture methods in the article on Guantanamo Bay?
- Also, whether the "entire international community" supports the TFG is irrelevant. It is not the role of Wikipedia to "support" anything, but to provide an unbiased perspective. Jrule (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is relevant because your argument above was that the CIA is unreliable since the US government supports the TFG. My response to that was logically to point out that, in fact, the entire international community supports the TFG; only the Islamists themselves don't, so that's not much of an argument to begin with. Likewise, it makes no difference whether or not you personally believe what the CIA has asserted. It was identified as a reliable source (and not just for certain facts and figures) by someone who ought to know: an ArbCom administrator. That's pretty much where the story ends. Middayexpress (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the entire international community supports the TFG; only the Islamists don't. As for the CIA, it was already identified as a reliable source by an ArbCom administrator on RS/N well after the discussion above took place. Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- As pointed out above, the CIA is not a neutral source of information. It reflects the position of the US government, which is to support the TFG politically and diplomatically. Wikipedia should not be taking the same stance. Jrule (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits
Somalia has topped the failed states index 3 years in a row and has been in the top 5 at least back to 2006. This is a notable and sourced fact. Failure to mention this is flagrant POV violation by omission. If the editors of this page do not agree at least on that, a request for comment will be necessary. As previous mentioned, the positive spin of lede borders on "campaign pitch" and also needs to be addressed.--Louiedog (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The article has already received a thorough peer review; concrete suggestions, including from two administrators that regularly monitor the Horn of Africa-related articles, were provided therein and subsequently implemented. "Failed state", moreover, is an arbitrary, politically-based concept ([6]). This is why the index is actually not featured on just about all other country articles on Wikipedia, including this one. The passage that was removed alluding to the fact that the TFG is also reaching out to both local and international stakeholders is fact and was taken from the CIA. Lastly, Somalia just received a new government late last month after the appointment of Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, the new Prime Minister. The cabinet that the new Premier in turn named is mostly made up of technocrats like himself, and has actually been widely praised by the international community ([7]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's almost nothing in the aforementioned peer view except MoS suggestions, so the peer review in and of itself is certification of nothing, not to mention that the peer review is from a much earlier version of the article than the present with all sorts of significant changes to the lede.
- Your link to aidwatchers.com is curious, as essentially an NYU professor's blog. It isn't a reliable source, nor are the suggestions expressed on it binding on wikipedia policy. Even ignoring this, the reasons expressed aren't particularly convincing for our context here - essentially that "failed state" is a counterproductive label because of the consequences. The fact remains that "failed state" has garnered a WP entry and the blog you curiously site, does not and that issues of the state not having a monopoly on violent force remain.
- If you want to say that Mohemad's widely praised arrival has been suggested to be expected to/or has already turned things around, then that is to be included alongside statements of the fact that it needed to be turned around. Simply electing to omit a fact because another fact seems to render it less important represents both an imposed POV, censoring, and OR. The proper decision is to give the reader full context (that Somalia finished poorly in CSI, but that Mohemad is believed [cite] to have made great strides.) and let the reader decide for himself. If Somalia is going to stop leading the CSI in 2011, let the reader infer it rather than omitting the country's history altogether.--Louiedog (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Louiedog is right on all counts; this article's POV problem comes form omission of virtually all negative content rather than the inclusion of biased content. The lead doesn't even mention that Somalia is a failed state![8][9][10] Everyone knows this fact, and it's still omitted from the article! An RFC may indeed be necessary. Swarm X 22:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Loodog: I did not say that the peer review was a certification of anything. I clearly stated that "the article has already received a thorough peer review; concrete suggestions, including from two administrators that regularly monitor the Horn of Africa-related articles, were provided therein and subsequently implemented." That's why the article is different now in the first place. According to the POV template, "this template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." As already pointed out above, an ArbCom admin already indicated that the CIA and its assertions that you removed are indeed reliable. Another admin (Gyrofrog) who regularly monitors this and other Horn of Africa-related pages likewise asserted that the article is actually better now than it was in the past and that he did not detect the POV that once existed. Further, that link is not just to an article by some random professor, but research from a project of New York University's Development Research Institute (DRI) [11]. It explains the genesis of the failed state concept and its many shortcomings. You suggest that the failed state index is important, but seem to be unaware that it is not featured on just about all other Wikipedia country articles for the very reasons enumerated in that article by the DRI. The one thing that DRI article forgot to mention is that the Fund For Peace (which publishes the index) has been, in the words of the former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, "long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country" [12]. That also makes it a non-neutral source. Contrary to what the other account has claimed, the article also most certainly does not omit negative content; the Transparency Index and Somalia's place in it, corruption allegations, and the civil war and its many attendant consequences are all already discussed. However, they are not dwelled upon because Somalia is a region with thousands of years of rich history. The current civil war -- which is finally drawing to a close, by the way [13]; the Islamist insurgents are steadily losing ground and falling apart after their failed so-called 'Ramadan Offensive' ([14], [15]) and African Union troops reaching full strength -- is just a tiny part of that history. And that civil war is only raging in the southern part of the country; the autonomous Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug regions in northern Somalia (i.e. the bulk of the country) are actually quite stable and have been for years. There are also reports coming out now that Jubaland in the south is forming its own autonomous administration with the help of Kenya. Lastly, the allegations of corruption and ineptitude pertained to the previous bloated government, before the new Premier's appointment and his selection of a much leaner Cabinet made up of mostly technocrats like himself that are new to the Somali political arena. As already pointed out, the international community is actually quite confident in this new government and fully support it. It is just worried that it might not meet the August 11 deadline, when the transitional government's mandate expires and a new constitution that ushers in national elections for the first time in 40 years comes into effect. Middayexpress (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just a note, I posted multiple reliable sources referring to Somalia as a failed state in my last comment. The article doesn't even mention the term "failed". This is a serious omission. Swarm X 07:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- While I have no doubt that the inclusion of the reductive term "failed" is something you would not object to, that still doesn't change the fact that the "failed state" concept is a dubious, politically-motivated concept ([16]) or that all newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index. And the Fund For Peace is of course still very much an advocacy group ([17]), which, per both WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE, makes it an unreliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- That all sounds very interesting information to be included alongside statements describing the hitherto problems of governance. If your goal is to correct readers' misperceptions, you do better by acknowledging what they are first and then mentioning factors that negate it.
- Also, since we're still disputing POV here, please do not remove the tag. I and other editors do reasonably believe that POV issues exist due to sourcing issues. To peremptorily remove it is dismissive and does not aid consensus.
- As already quite clearly explained, the problems of governance affecting Somalia's coalition government that you have pushed to include were already featured in the article to begin with. So were the coalition government's various attempts to address these issues, not to mention the fact that there is now a new government in place that the international community is actually quite confident in. As for the POV tag, I removed it because it did not meet the criteria outlined on the relevant POV template page (and thus constitutes abuse of tags). Namely, that "this template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." You again seem to believe that your opinion or those expressed by other accounts determine whether or not this particular tag is relevant, when the template itself clearly indicates that only reliable sources are. And as already pointed out, the CIA's assertion regarding the Somali federal government was already determined to be a reliable source. The Fund for Peace, by contrast, is an advocacy group, which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bearing in mind the NOTADVOCATE issue, we should be able to mention the listing of Somalia on this page so long as the source is listed, as per the line "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." in the NOTADVOCATE statement. I'd also note that AidWatch, whose article you mention as a foil to the listings, is another advocacy group; perhaps when the entry is noted, the listing could be described as controversial, with a link to the AidWatch site. The list itself is very well known, and is mentioned not only within Foreign Policy, but other well-respected publications such as the Economist. Deliberately ignoring this coverage strikes me as a fine example of the lack of NPOV in this article. Random name (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The article I linked to is not advocacy, but research from a project of New York University's Development Research Institute (DRI). WP:NOTADVOCATE is also clear that content hosted on Wikipedia is not for "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise." The line that "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view" is subordinate to that, and refers to the index or Foreign Policy articles themselves. This is why WP:QS also states that questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional" and that such sources are therefore "generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties" and "should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves". The fact remains that the "failed state" concept is a dubious, politically-motivated concept ([18]) and that all newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index. And the Fund For Peace is of course still very much an advocacy group ([19]), which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bearing in mind the NOTADVOCATE issue, we should be able to mention the listing of Somalia on this page so long as the source is listed, as per the line "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." in the NOTADVOCATE statement. I'd also note that AidWatch, whose article you mention as a foil to the listings, is another advocacy group; perhaps when the entry is noted, the listing could be described as controversial, with a link to the AidWatch site. The list itself is very well known, and is mentioned not only within Foreign Policy, but other well-respected publications such as the Economist. Deliberately ignoring this coverage strikes me as a fine example of the lack of NPOV in this article. Random name (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- As already quite clearly explained, the problems of governance affecting Somalia's coalition government that you have pushed to include were already featured in the article to begin with. So were the coalition government's various attempts to address these issues, not to mention the fact that there is now a new government in place that the international community is actually quite confident in. As for the POV tag, I removed it because it did not meet the criteria outlined on the relevant POV template page (and thus constitutes abuse of tags). Namely, that "this template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." You again seem to believe that your opinion or those expressed by other accounts determine whether or not this particular tag is relevant, when the template itself clearly indicates that only reliable sources are. And as already pointed out, the CIA's assertion regarding the Somali federal government was already determined to be a reliable source. The Fund for Peace, by contrast, is an advocacy group, which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is an absurdly biased article. I'd go as far to call it propaganda. The entire first paragraph is simply filled with POV opinions. All the negative aspects of Somalia - namely, that it is a fragmented, mostly-lawless country consumed by violence - are omitted. By omission, the opening paragraph implies that Somalia is a good, stable country, as opposed to one that has been topping the Failed State Index for years. A journalist who has travelled to post-war Iraq and Afghanistan has said that Somalia is the scariest country he has ever visited, and yet this slanted article portrays it as not only being a good country to live in, but even better than its far more stable neighbours. This whole article exists only to support a Libertarian propaganda point. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the article does not state anywhere that Somalia is more stable than its neighbors. It asserts that much of the country -- the autonomous Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug regions, where there is no war and hasn't been for years -- has made great strides in terms of reconstruction, while the civil war is mainly confined to the south; though even there, the conflict is finally drawing to a close ([20]). Somalia's legal stratification is also discussed in some detail in the Law section and the civil war and its many attendant consequences are likewise addressed in the civil war section; neither are omitted. As already explained above, the failed state concept is not discussed on just about all other Wikipedia articles; this page is no exception. And the reason for that is because the "failed state" concept is a dubious, politically-motivated concept ([21]), all newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index, and the Fund For Peace is of course still very much an advocacy group ([22]), which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- You miss the point entirely. Stating that Somalia's negative points are addressed further in the article does not change the fact that the opening paragraph - which is going to be read by everyone who sees this article, while the rest of it may not be read - is absurdly biased and overly positive, all to support a political point. This article has been co-opted into a political propaganda, which goes against the tenets that Wikipedia is founded on. If, for example, the introduction to the article on North Korea claimed it was a happy utopia, while the rest of the article pointed out that it was not, would that change the fact that the opening paragraph is misleading? I am clearly not the first to notice this bias, and it is evident that a single individual is holding this entire article hostage just so they can try and prove a political point. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Engaging in personal attacks and repeating almost verbatim what other accounts have stated as an anonymous IP won't change the fact that the passage you're alluding to is sourced to the CIA [23]: "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011," And the CIA source was, of course, already deemed a reliable source by an ArbCom admin on RS/N. Middayexpress (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- You miss the point entirely. Stating that Somalia's negative points are addressed further in the article does not change the fact that the opening paragraph - which is going to be read by everyone who sees this article, while the rest of it may not be read - is absurdly biased and overly positive, all to support a political point. This article has been co-opted into a political propaganda, which goes against the tenets that Wikipedia is founded on. If, for example, the introduction to the article on North Korea claimed it was a happy utopia, while the rest of the article pointed out that it was not, would that change the fact that the opening paragraph is misleading? I am clearly not the first to notice this bias, and it is evident that a single individual is holding this entire article hostage just so they can try and prove a political point. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the article does not state anywhere that Somalia is more stable than its neighbors. It asserts that much of the country -- the autonomous Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug regions, where there is no war and hasn't been for years -- has made great strides in terms of reconstruction, while the civil war is mainly confined to the south; though even there, the conflict is finally drawing to a close ([20]). Somalia's legal stratification is also discussed in some detail in the Law section and the civil war and its many attendant consequences are likewise addressed in the civil war section; neither are omitted. As already explained above, the failed state concept is not discussed on just about all other Wikipedia articles; this page is no exception. And the reason for that is because the "failed state" concept is a dubious, politically-motivated concept ([21]), all newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index, and the Fund For Peace is of course still very much an advocacy group ([22]), which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I added the failed state info not aware of this discussion. I think the concept is (although disputed, like many things in this world) caries much weight and its a widely used concept in state theory. ... But anyway, where is the RFC that was filed? L.tak (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The RFC expired [24], and only an anonymous IP weighed in. It seems the page has attracted one too many socks. Time to do something about that. Middayexpress (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Failed state
I have been reading parts of the texts here on the POV. Although very relevant, it seems to be not getting us any closer, so I am starting a specific discussion here that is mentioned tangantially in some points. Feel free to readd here focussing only on the topic The failed state concept indicates (very roughly) when a government has de facto no control anymore of (violent power in) its own territory. The Failed States Index is a Foreign policy (journal) attempt to list them; the Brookings Institution's index of state weakness is another one. Although the year to year absolute value might not be extremely important there, Somalia is often referred to as a failed state (e.g. here, and it has been consistently on nr 1 for several years on both lists. I think that is relevant and propose to make a subsection discussion that. Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Brookings Institute's Index of State Weakness in the Developing World metric has nothing to do with the "failed state" concept, but specifically with state weakness in the developing world. In Somalia's case, it's also based on very limited data vis-a-vis certain sectors and is heavily weighted toward politics and security in the country's southern conflict zones. Again, the assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" only apply to southern Somalia, where the war is actually going on; it does not apply to the stable autonomous regions in the north (i.e. Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug; the bulk of Somalia). The "failed state" concept itself is likewise a dubious, politically-motivated concept ([25]), and all newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" (including that National Geographic article) ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index. And the Fund For Peace is of course still very much an advocacy group ([26]), which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Foreign policy is co-publishing it and a reputable journal, and with that it is a reliable source weighing in (and not the only one). Defining the failed state loosely as "not having the monopoly on accepted violence" would make it qualify if Somalia doesnt control a signficant proportion of its borders. At failed state, a map is shown of somalia indicating that only a small part of the country is under control of the interim government. I will see if I can find a source for that statement there. Any other sources for which part is under control of the government at the moment? L.tak (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- As that link to research from a project of New York University's Development Research Institute (DRI) makes clear, the "failed state" concept actually has no coherent definition. More importantly, it's politically-motivated, not fact-based ([27]). It also makes no difference whether the index was published in Foreign Policy magazine. It was still prepared by the Fund for Peace. And the Fund For Peace is of course still very much an advocacy group ([28]), which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. There's no getting around that. Middayexpress (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, actually there might be a way around that. Considering the list is a primary source, and wikipedia does not like primary sources (except for having the primary information), we would need reliable secondary sources to give it value, rather than interpreting itself. I think there are plenty of such secondary sources. A second point is the non-clear definition. This is also a problem at definition of sovereign states, yet it is deemed a very impartant concept and used in virtually every state-article. So even if the definition is a bit fuzzy, if the concept has value it can be used. L.tak (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not the "concept" that's being cited (which in itself is very subjective and does not mean much [29]), but specifically the ultimate origin of most references to Somalia being a so-called "failed state"; namely, the Fund for Peace's failed state index. That is specifically what you referenced in your edit. Finding some newspaper article that alludes to its metric/concept won't change this because, as WP:SECONDARY itself indicates, secondary sources themselves "rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them". And the fact remains that the Fund for Peace is still unfortunately very much an advocacy group ([30]), actively involved in civil causes ("Peace Building Through Education, Art and Civil Advocacy" [31]). Per both both WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE, that makes it an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Middayexpress (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the source you cite it is said to by an "advocacy and research group". They are not specifically advocating anything that would render them extremely POV here, but list states in a manner which should be judged by secondary sources. If we find reliable secondary sources evaluating the merits of this lists and use it here in accordance with those merits I still see no problem. But I wonder what other wikipedians (and/or people regularly reacting on this page) think about them, so let's wait a bit for those to weigh in ... L.tak (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- As WP:SECONDARY clearly indicates, secondary sources themselves "rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them", and all newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index. It likewise makes no difference what other accounts/anonymous IPs think. Wikipedia is not a democracy and its best practices are not determined by popular vote; only Wikipedia's actual policies and guidelines determine those. Further, the Fund for Peace itself openly admits to advocating civil causes. That is part of its motto: "Peace Building Through Education, Art and Civil Advocacy" ([32]). In the words of the former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, the Fund for Peace has also been "long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country" ([33]). And of course, per both WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE, that definitely makes it an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Middayexpress (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you think of the Fund for Peace, the Failed States Index is published by Foreign Policy, and that's what makes it a reliable source. Swarm X 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I unfortunately never posted my opinion on the Fund for Peace. Rather, I produced links -- including from the organization itself -- that explicitly describe it as an advocacy group, and pro-communist to boot. A source's reliability is also not only determined by who published it, but also who created the material itself (which would be the Fund for Peace): "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability." So that's WP:RS, WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE that all make the Fund for Peace's index an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Middayexpress (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- We are turning around in circles here. The point is whether we trust secondary sources to evaluate primary sources even if primary sources are a thinktank that has had ties to communism according to CIA. Shall I raise the matter at the primary sources noticeboard? L.tak (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Even if we don't (and I don't think Middayexpress' arguments are very convincing), there are PLENTY of other RS which claim that Somalia is a failed state [34]. If Middayexpress doesn't like the Failed State Index, then let's use the New York Times [35], USA Today [36], or the Daily Mail [37]. Surely these aren't "advocacy" groups as well?
- I completely agree with the editors above that this needs to be included in the article, probably in the lead. The current version reads like a promotional piece and needs some serious work to get rid of all the POV. TDL (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- We are turning around in circles here. The point is whether we trust secondary sources to evaluate primary sources even if primary sources are a thinktank that has had ties to communism according to CIA. Shall I raise the matter at the primary sources noticeboard? L.tak (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I unfortunately never posted my opinion on the Fund for Peace. Rather, I produced links -- including from the organization itself -- that explicitly describe it as an advocacy group, and pro-communist to boot. A source's reliability is also not only determined by who published it, but also who created the material itself (which would be the Fund for Peace): "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability." So that's WP:RS, WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE that all make the Fund for Peace's index an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Middayexpress (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you think of the Fund for Peace, the Failed States Index is published by Foreign Policy, and that's what makes it a reliable source. Swarm X 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- As WP:SECONDARY clearly indicates, secondary sources themselves "rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them", and all newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index. It likewise makes no difference what other accounts/anonymous IPs think. Wikipedia is not a democracy and its best practices are not determined by popular vote; only Wikipedia's actual policies and guidelines determine those. Further, the Fund for Peace itself openly admits to advocating civil causes. That is part of its motto: "Peace Building Through Education, Art and Civil Advocacy" ([32]). In the words of the former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, the Fund for Peace has also been "long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country" ([33]). And of course, per both WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE, that definitely makes it an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Middayexpress (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the source you cite it is said to by an "advocacy and research group". They are not specifically advocating anything that would render them extremely POV here, but list states in a manner which should be judged by secondary sources. If we find reliable secondary sources evaluating the merits of this lists and use it here in accordance with those merits I still see no problem. But I wonder what other wikipedians (and/or people regularly reacting on this page) think about them, so let's wait a bit for those to weigh in ... L.tak (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not the "concept" that's being cited (which in itself is very subjective and does not mean much [29]), but specifically the ultimate origin of most references to Somalia being a so-called "failed state"; namely, the Fund for Peace's failed state index. That is specifically what you referenced in your edit. Finding some newspaper article that alludes to its metric/concept won't change this because, as WP:SECONDARY itself indicates, secondary sources themselves "rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them". And the fact remains that the Fund for Peace is still unfortunately very much an advocacy group ([30]), actively involved in civil causes ("Peace Building Through Education, Art and Civil Advocacy" [31]). Per both both WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE, that makes it an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Middayexpress (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, actually there might be a way around that. Considering the list is a primary source, and wikipedia does not like primary sources (except for having the primary information), we would need reliable secondary sources to give it value, rather than interpreting itself. I think there are plenty of such secondary sources. A second point is the non-clear definition. This is also a problem at definition of sovereign states, yet it is deemed a very impartant concept and used in virtually every state-article. So even if the definition is a bit fuzzy, if the concept has value it can be used. L.tak (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- As that link to research from a project of New York University's Development Research Institute (DRI) makes clear, the "failed state" concept actually has no coherent definition. More importantly, it's politically-motivated, not fact-based ([27]). It also makes no difference whether the index was published in Foreign Policy magazine. It was still prepared by the Fund for Peace. And the Fund For Peace is of course still very much an advocacy group ([28]), which by definition is not allowed on Wikipedia. There's no getting around that. Middayexpress (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Foreign policy is co-publishing it and a reputable journal, and with that it is a reliable source weighing in (and not the only one). Defining the failed state loosely as "not having the monopoly on accepted violence" would make it qualify if Somalia doesnt control a signficant proportion of its borders. At failed state, a map is shown of somalia indicating that only a small part of the country is under control of the interim government. I will see if I can find a source for that statement there. Any other sources for which part is under control of the government at the moment? L.tak (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
L.tak: Yes, we are turning arounding in circles because, as already pointed out, all of the newspaper assertions of Somalia being a "failed state" (a concept which itself is dubious [38]) ultimately originate with the Fund For Peace's index; that includes the articles above. There is also no getting around the fact that the Fund For Peace (a) is an advocacy group [39] (that's without scare quotes), (b) openly admits to advocating civil causes [40], and (c) has, in the words of the former National Security Advisor to President Bill Clinton, been "long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country. Per both WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE, that makes it an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. At any rate, the "failed state" concept applies to a state government's perceived failure in carrying out its responsibilities. Placing the material in the lede as has been done is clearly misleading since it falsely implies that the war is going on in all of Somalia (when it's only the south, not the stable northern autonomous regions) and that there has been little change in the federal government's ability to perform its duties during that entire period. For starters, Somalia only topped the index specifically during the tenure of the establishment+Islamist coalition government that first came to power in 2008-2009 as a result of the UN-brokered Djibouti Peace Process. Not long after the "moderate" Islamists entered government, charges of corruption and inefficiency began to surface. Within months, the coalition government also lost almost all of the territory that the previous secular government had gained, going from controlling over 70% of south-central Somalia's conflict zones to just a few blocks in Mogadishu. As of November of this past year, however, Somalia now has a new government. And this new government is actually quite well-regarded in the international community ([41], [42]). In just its first two months in office, the government has managed to secure control of over 55% of the capital, where between 70%-80% of the city's population live, and its steadily expanding its control as more TFG & AU troops enter the city ([43], [44]). I have therefore placed the material in the relevant coalition government section, during whose tenure the state actually topped the index. I have also clarified the impact that the 1992 UN arms embargo has had on the government's ability to more adequately defend itself, as well as the Somaliland region's secessionist government's active role in attempting to de-stabilize the south via its ties with the militants. Middayexpress (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- 3 reactions to your reaction
- Just to get this a bit clearer: do you have sources on the failed state index only focussing on part of somalia?
- the rest you state is a bit repeating of statements for which I have heard before and I will not react to to avoid the circles. I do note however that we seem to be coming to a consensus (ok, not unanimity) in that we have reliable sources for it...
- It is promising to hear the plans of the new government, but it has hardly outlived its whitebread weeks so I am sure if it would not be too fast to move things in sections suggestion it were points raised by other governments. I suggest we wait a bit before doing it like that (1 year or so) and see if we have independent sources that the situation has; and until then don't make a too strong separation between before and after... And Somalia is still topping that index as we speak based on data of just 1-2 years ago... L.tak (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- A failed state supposedly refers to a government that cannot fulfill its obligations. The northern Puntland and Somaliland are stable regions with capable governments, which is specifically why the U.S. is now directly engaging them in its two-track policy. The notion of a "failed state" does not and never has applied to them. The index also does not apply to the new federal government because it was published during the tenure of the coalition government, which lost all of the territory gained by the previous secular administration (over 70% of south-central Somalia). It's specifically during this period when Somalia topped the index, and that is almost understandable. However, the new government is well-regarded by the international community, has already made significant progress, and by the looks of it, will continue to do so. The material therefore should be put into its proper context, which I've done. Middayexpress (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Before I forget, the Somaliland region did not obtain independence in 1960, as you seem to suggest in one edit; that NYT article you linked to pertains to the former State of Somaliland, which was briefly independent for a few days. Muhammad Haji Ibrahim Egal was the second president of the Somaliland region (which was formed in 1991), not the few day-old State of Somaliland. Also, I notice that in your comment above from 22:34, 8 January 2011 you mention that on the failed state article, "a map is shown of somalia indicating that only a small part of the country is under control of the interim government". I'm glad that you brought this to my attention because that map you allude to is complete OR; refer to this. Middayexpress (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Somalia: alleged omissions
Loodog and Swarm believe omissions of various negative aspects of Somalia's government to be POV. Middayexpress believes this is not the case because other omitted pieces of information negate how negative these aspects are.--Louiedog (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the situation is that two accounts (Loodog/Louiedog & Swarm) believe that various negative aspects of Somalia's government have been omitted. This is, in fact, not the case at all, since in the coalition government sub-section of the Politics section, it is clearly explained that the coalition government -- an establishment+Islamist inclusive government that was put together by a UN initiative in Djibouti -- at the time was beset by charges of corruption, lack of transparency and inefficiency, among other things. It is also explained in the reforms section that the coalition government has enacted numerous reforms to try and tackle these issues. As also already explained to those accounts in some detail, Somalia now has a new government, which was appointed by a new Prime Minister who was sworn into office just last month. This new government, by contrast, is much leaner than the previous government and is mostly made up of technocrats (like the new Prime Minister himself) that are new to the Somali political arena; only two ministers from the previous government were retained, and both are well-regarded in the international community. This new government has also been widely praised by the international community ([45], [46]) as just the thing Somalia needed to prepare the country for the August 11 deadline, when the transitional government's mandate expires and a new constitution that ushers in national elections for the first time in 40 years comes into effect (with the civil war in the south also finally drawing to a close [47]). However, this isn't good enough for the accounts above, who keep acting as though the charges leveled on the old government apply to this new, technocratic government or that other, stable regions do not exist in Somalia (such as the autonomous Puntland, Somaliland and Galmudug regions i.e. the bulk of Somalia where there is no war). Both accounts specifically have a problem with the CIA's assertion that [48]: "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011," which they have at various times described as "POV". This is something that was already brought before an ArbCom admin on RS/N in the past, who indicated that the CIA factbook is indeed a reliable source. Also note that another admin who regularly monitors this and other Horn of Africa-related pages likewise asserted that the article is actually better now than it was in the past. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- TLDR. I believe I understand your viewpoint by now anyway. Rather than the original participants in a dispute continuously hammering their differing opinions at each other, the purpose of an RfC is to bring in outside comments. I would like to see people allowed to leave their comments free of badgering or attempts to sway them. I also hope we don't continue our dispute in this RfC forum because doing so will clutter it far too much; I think the discussion should be left in the above sections. Anyway, the best summary of the situation is that Loodog and I feel the article isn't entirely neutral (because it omits some information on the negative aspects of Somalia), and Middayexpress feel that the article in its present state is indeed neutral. Swarm X 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, back when I was a contributor I had occasion to deal with this page from time to time, and it was one of the pages that annoyed me enough to make me give up on Wikipedia. The page often gets contibutors coming in and asking why <x> and <y> aren't mentioned, and why the article often seems so oddly positive about everything in the country. Any criticisms are rather tersely dismissed by Middayexpress or one other editor (can't recall the name), and no progress is made. I don't know what can actually be done to fix such a situation in wikipedia - hence my leaving. Hopefully someone will come up with something - good luck. 77.101.60.220 (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Coming from an anonymous IP (and one that doesn't even bother identifying the account he/she supposedly used to use, no less), that does not mean much at all. Middayexpress (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Apart from Middayexpress, nearly everyone who has commented has expressed the opinion that the article avoids negative issues, thus painting an unrealistically upbeat picture of the country. Looking through their contributions, a very great many of their contributions relate to Somalia-related articles. This, by itself is no problem, but it would appear from their actions that they have a personal bias or conflict of interest, that is reflecting badly on the article.
The first concern is that the article neglects to mention the two most well known and pressing issues: it's first on the failed states list, and its issues with piracy. Since piracy hasn't been discussed, I won't hold that against anyone. However, the discussion on the talk page thus far clearly indicates that everyone but middayexpress thinks that the failed state status should be mentioned in the article. However, middayexpress actually removed the small blurb that was added. I was planning on writing a well sourced section, but if the temporary blurb is going to be removed, we have a problem. They also removed the POV tag despite nearly unanimous agreement that the article isn't neutral. [49]
The second issue is their removal and attempted deletion of File:Somalia map states regions districts.png, a very good - and constantly updated - map that shows the geographic and political divisions of Somalia. Their concerns, put very simply, are that the divisions of Somalia are not internationally recognized. The map's creator responded saying that the secessionist republics, though not legally recognized, exist de facto and should be shown on the map. Middayexpress then nominated the image for deletion, incredibly (though in the wrong forum, so nothing happened), despite its longterm updates and usage.
I think middayexpress' personal bias (already expressed by outback the koala[50]) is getting to the point of disruption. I want to express my opinion that this article is being disrupted by one user with a personal bias, explain my reasons, and strongly insist that it stop. If middayexpress' bias further results in removal of blatantly important information from the article, I think we should take the matter to AN/I. From what I've seen, this isn't an issue about whether a source is reliable or whether a concept is notable, it's become an issue of POV disruption. Other users are free to weigh in, but, in my opinion, this has become blatantly obvious. Swarm X 08:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed 100%. I'll be bold and revert the edits you discussed above. Until there is a consensus that the issues have been resolved the POV tag should remain, and there is clearly no consensus to remove the map from this article. I agree with you that there seems to be a rough consensus above to include a discussion of Somalia being a failed state. I say be WP:BOLD and add the section. TDL (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reading the lead, there is a definite problem. Nowhere does it mention that Somalia has been fragmented and without an effective central government since 1991. It also doesn't include any negative information: top on the failed state index, third from bottom of the Child Development Index, second from last on the Global Peace Index. Lack of statistics keeps Somalia off the Human Development Index, but the numbers measured give Somalia bottom ten for human rights record, bottom five for education, and bottom ten for poverty rates. There are also good things to say about Somalia, but the current lead seems to completely ignore the real problems that exist there. - SimonP (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I am glad that this issue has been brought to light, but I think I may have accidently caused some people to believe I am the creator of File:Somalia map states regions districts.png due to Swarm stating that 'map's creator responded', when, on the talk page, I am the only user that responded in any detail. The actual creator of the brilliant map, Ingoman, may have responded elsewhere, and if so it would be much appreciated if I was told where the response was, so I could read it. I was simply resonding to the riduculous claim that the map was 'woefully inaccurate', and that the map should be 'updated with "accurate information" or it'll be replaced with something that is actually accurate and sourced'.--
AM666999 talk 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- SimonP: The lede not only mentions, but links directly to the relevant Somali Civil War article. It is also four paragraphs long, as WP:LEDE itself recommends for an article of this size. I have therefore restored the material on Somalia's Arab League and African Union membership that you removed [51]. The Child Development Index is a metric developed by a charity, Save The Children, and has little academic standing; it's also not featured on just about all Wikipedia country articles for this very reason [52]. The Global Peace Index is a measure of a country's perceived "peacefulness". With a war going on in its southern half -- which is already thoroughly discussed in the article -- Somalia is obviously not going to rank high in the index, just like Iraq and Afghanistan (none of whose articles, incidentally, mention the index). I am not, however, opposed to citing it; it just needs to be done in its proper context. Middayexpress (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- A paragraph is not just any text that is separated by a line break. A paragraph is a block of text dealing with one idea. That fourth paragraph covers, international organizations, internal legal systems, the economy, and recent history. Crunching it all together does not make in conform to WP:LEDE. As to the war, the lead states that the war began in 1991, but nowhere does in indicate that this war has continued for the last 20 years. All it says is that the country has "experienced civil unrest." Rebel conquest of much of the country and the subsequent mass invasion by Ethiopia is a bit more than "civil unrest." As to the statistics, what about the ones in the article already? The top 100 universities is cited to an article, but that article makes no claim for the original source of that list. Was it a reputable international organization? It also relies extensively on Peter Leeson, a rather obscure and ideological source. - SimonP (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, the lede isn't just random groups of text separated by line breaks, but divided into an introductory paragraph naming the country & indicating its geographical location, a second paragraph explaining the local history in antiquity & the middle ages, a third paragraph describing the colonial period and independence, and a fourth paragraph describing the post-independence period. Al Shabaab also did not conquer much of the country. As explained in detail in the article, they only managed to obtain control of much of the south specifically during the tenure of the establishment+Islamist coalition government that came to power after the UN-brokered Djibouti Peace Process in 2008/09 (which within months lost 70% of the territory bequeathed to it by the former secular administration). However, Somalia now as a new government, and it has steadily expanded control of the capital in just its first two months or so in office. Peter Leeson is an award-winning Harvard economist, not obscure at all; he is only mentioned once in the lede, and it's not for the fact that several universities in Somalia have been ranked among the 100 best in Africa. Another paper cites that [53]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- But where does that top university claim ultimately come from? The reference does not give the ultimate source for that reference, so there is no way to assess if it a reliable claim. As to Leeson, there are currently 18 facts cited to his paper, and it is cited more than any other source in this article. His opinions are hardly mainstream, and should be presented as the views of a radical libertarian, not cited as hard facts. It's fine to present that point of view, but this article treats it as the only POV. I'm going to begin work on a complete rewrite of the lead. Everyone besides you sees real problems here, and I think the current one needs to be scrapped and rewritten based on much better sources. - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The top university claim comes from that article I linked you [54], and it's hardly the only one. Leeson's paper is only used to cite facts based on other sources, not his own opinions. His paper is also not even close to being the most referenced one. That would be the CIA factbook, like on most other Wikipedia articles. Only that blurb in the intro is Leeson's opinion and identified as such, as are his libertarian views. At any rate, I've replaced that ref with others. I do find it strange how, on the other hand, the fact that the Fund For Peace, which publishes the failed states index, (a) is an advocacy group [55] (that's without scare quotes), (b) openly admits to advocating civil causes [56], and (c) has, in the words of the former National Security Advisor to President Bill Clinton, been "long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country" does not seem to be problem. Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Middayexpress, we know your opinion on the failed state index. Please do not repeat it out of context. Again, and on behalf of all other recent editors: it's not the primary source that we can judge, but it's the vast amount of reliable secondary sources using it. The same goes for the university claim; no double standards there... L.tak (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Those links above unfortunately aren't my opinion, nor am I even necessarily looking to remove the failed states index. I just don't appreciate obvious double standards. As already pointed out, the university rankings are hardly exclusive to that source (e.g. [57]). Middayexpress (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that the top university claim is sourced to that article, but that article mentions a top 100 universities in Africa list, but gives no source for who produced that list. Without that source, there is no way to judge whether that claim comes from a reputable organization. I thus don't consider that fact adequately sourced. As to the Fund for Peace, its a perfectly valid source, there is nothing wrong with citing advocacy groups. The United Nations and CIA are just as much advocacy organizations. Your "pro-communist" quote does not come from an advisor to Clinton, it comes form William F. Jasper of the conspiracist John Birch Society, and is about as far from a reliable source as you can get. As to Leeson, what special status deserves his mention in the lead? Why don't we quote Bronwyn E. Bruton, someone who has actual experience in Africa, is an expert on Somalia, and author on a recent book on the country. That book begins "Somalia has been a failed state for the better part of two decades; bereft of central government, cantonized into clan fiefdoms, and wracked be deadly spasms of violence."[58] - SimonP (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- As already pointed out, the university rankings are hardly exclusive to that source (e.g. [59]). Bruton's book was also prepared and published during the tenure of the Islamist+establishment coalition government that first came to power in 2008-2009 as a result of the UN-brokered Djibouti Peace Process. Not long after the "moderate" Islamists entered government, charges of corruption and inefficiency began to surface. Within months, the coalition government also lost almost all of the territory that the previous secular government had gained, going from controlling over 70% of south-central Somalia's conflict zones to just a few blocks in Mogadishu. As of November of this past year, however, Somalia now has a new government. And this new government is actually quite well-regarded in the international community ([60], [61]). In just its first two months in office, the government has managed to secure control of over 55% of the capital, where between 70%-80% of the city's population live, and its steadily expanding its control as more TFG & AU troops enter the city ([62], [63]). The "failed state" material therefore belongs in the relevant coalition government section, during whose tenure the state actually topped the index. As for the "pro-communist" link, even if we discount it, it doesn't change the fact that the Fund For Peace is an advocacy group & openly admits to being so or that others have noted the conflict inherent therein: "The Fund for Peace’s tag-line is “promoting sustainable security,” which in and of itself denotes bias, as the index may be an apparatus of this goal" [64]. I'm just asking for consistency here, not double standards. Middayexpress (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Middayexpress, we know your opinion on the failed state index. Please do not repeat it out of context. Again, and on behalf of all other recent editors: it's not the primary source that we can judge, but it's the vast amount of reliable secondary sources using it. The same goes for the university claim; no double standards there... L.tak (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The top university claim comes from that article I linked you [54], and it's hardly the only one. Leeson's paper is only used to cite facts based on other sources, not his own opinions. His paper is also not even close to being the most referenced one. That would be the CIA factbook, like on most other Wikipedia articles. Only that blurb in the intro is Leeson's opinion and identified as such, as are his libertarian views. At any rate, I've replaced that ref with others. I do find it strange how, on the other hand, the fact that the Fund For Peace, which publishes the failed states index, (a) is an advocacy group [55] (that's without scare quotes), (b) openly admits to advocating civil causes [56], and (c) has, in the words of the former National Security Advisor to President Bill Clinton, been "long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country" does not seem to be problem. Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- But where does that top university claim ultimately come from? The reference does not give the ultimate source for that reference, so there is no way to assess if it a reliable claim. As to Leeson, there are currently 18 facts cited to his paper, and it is cited more than any other source in this article. His opinions are hardly mainstream, and should be presented as the views of a radical libertarian, not cited as hard facts. It's fine to present that point of view, but this article treats it as the only POV. I'm going to begin work on a complete rewrite of the lead. Everyone besides you sees real problems here, and I think the current one needs to be scrapped and rewritten based on much better sources. - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, the lede isn't just random groups of text separated by line breaks, but divided into an introductory paragraph naming the country & indicating its geographical location, a second paragraph explaining the local history in antiquity & the middle ages, a third paragraph describing the colonial period and independence, and a fourth paragraph describing the post-independence period. Al Shabaab also did not conquer much of the country. As explained in detail in the article, they only managed to obtain control of much of the south specifically during the tenure of the establishment+Islamist coalition government that came to power after the UN-brokered Djibouti Peace Process in 2008/09 (which within months lost 70% of the territory bequeathed to it by the former secular administration). However, Somalia now as a new government, and it has steadily expanded control of the capital in just its first two months or so in office. Peter Leeson is an award-winning Harvard economist, not obscure at all; he is only mentioned once in the lede, and it's not for the fact that several universities in Somalia have been ranked among the 100 best in Africa. Another paper cites that [53]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- A paragraph is not just any text that is separated by a line break. A paragraph is a block of text dealing with one idea. That fourth paragraph covers, international organizations, internal legal systems, the economy, and recent history. Crunching it all together does not make in conform to WP:LEDE. As to the war, the lead states that the war began in 1991, but nowhere does in indicate that this war has continued for the last 20 years. All it says is that the country has "experienced civil unrest." Rebel conquest of much of the country and the subsequent mass invasion by Ethiopia is a bit more than "civil unrest." As to the statistics, what about the ones in the article already? The top 100 universities is cited to an article, but that article makes no claim for the original source of that list. Was it a reputable international organization? It also relies extensively on Peter Leeson, a rather obscure and ideological source. - SimonP (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Swarm: Most of the people (actually, mainly anonymous IPs and SPAs) that have weighed in have done so at various periods of time, when the article was a lot different than it is now; so no point in alluding to comments which pertain to earlier versions of the article. I'll also have you know that making false accusations against another editor is a serious breach of WP:NPA and WP:TALK. I most certainly did not remove the failed state info, and claiming that I did when I clearly didn't only does you a disservice. FYI, I moved it to its proper section and fully explained why I did so in both my edit summary [65] (where I also explained why I removed the neutrality tag) and in an earlier talk page post above from 03:55, 24 January 2011. It's also blatantly untrue that piracy isn't discussed in the article. It most certainly is in the relevant civil war section [66]. This is something that I pointed out ages ago too, so no point in claiming otherwise here either. Titling pointlessly accusatory talk page sections after another editor as you have done [67] after me is likewise a breach of WP:TALK. I have therefore removed my username from the heading in question. Lastly, the map is complete and utter OR, to the point of being misleading. And not just I have pointed this out, but so has another editor on that image's talk page [68]. Here's why:
The map is woefully inaccurate. For one thing, the entire country is officially known as the "Republic of Somalia" [69], not just where the Transitional Federal Government/TFG currently controls (the blue area according to this map). The official name in Somalia for the Somaliland region is "Somaliland", not the "Republic of Somaliland"; the latter is just what the secessionist administration calls it. This needs to be changed back to its neutral original "Somaliland separatists" or simply "Somaliland". Further, the TFG controls over half of Mogadishu [70], a lot more than the limited area indicated herein; so this too needs to be adjusted. Puntland is also not only unaligned; it is autonomous and has its own administration, unlike the indicated "Islamic Caliphate of Somalia" (hence, why an article on the topic was recently deleted). Puntland therefore needs its own color and legend box to reflect its autonomous status, and the "Islamic Caliphate of Somalia" legend box needs to be changed to "Al-Shabaab" or "Islamist resistance" or some variation thereof as before. Given the above, the map needs to be updated as soon as possible with accurate information before being re-added to any articles.
- As I already explained on that image's discussion page, I did not want the map deleted to begin with but simply updated to reflect actually accurate, sourced information. WP:OI does not allow self-made images that aren't based on actual sources: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." This is why I indicated that "the map in principle is useful" but that "the bottom line, however, remains that it is quite inaccurate and needs to be updated". The uploader, however, never bothered to respond. Instead, a new, single purpose account with nary a contribution history has been fighting tooth and nail for the map to remain essentially as is [71]. It's all very curious. Middayexpress (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:Just for the record: I agree that this lead is very long and does not read very easily. WP-lead suggests 3-4 sections, and by taking 4 long sections with very many ideas (as stated above) this is technically maybe in conformation with WP:lead suggestions, but it is on the very long end of the range of possibilities. I suggest we bring it to a proportion of 3 Somalia-article-like sections or (preferably) 4 much shorter sections... L.tak (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- If I misrepresented anything (such as piracy not being in the article or incorrectly calling someone an image's creator), I apologize. This was simply a mistake. However, my point still strongly stands, and the response to this section both here and by email only solidifies my opinion. Midday: if you're only trying to edit in good faith and don't understand these accusations (I'm still willing to consider this as a possibility), listen to me. You have a clear conflict of interest that is manifesting itself in your editing. You need to seriously check, and allow others to check your edits in the future, because it's harming the article and thus the encyclopedia. If need be, it's better to stop editing the article for awhile than continue to edit with a conflict of interest. If you're not editing in good faith, any further removal of sourced content or addition of content that appears to serve the purpose of POV pushing will be reverted and, if need be, reported. But I'm not going to debate the details of this section. I'm a longtime editor here and you're about as biased of an editor as I've ever seen. The only difference is that you're editing has effected an article more than I've ever seen. Again, the fact that multiple people agree with me, both here and through emails I've received, should perhaps tell you that you're edits aren't exactly neutral. Swarm X 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
unexplained removal of content
section moved here from user talk:L.tak by L.tak... May I ask why you removed the sourced fact that the UN Security Council has just mandated an additional 4000 AMISOM troops [72], [73] (to bring the total number to 12,000)? Was this a mistake or deliberate? If it was a mistake (which I'm sure it was), would you mind reinserting the phrase in question back i.e. self-reverting? Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- nope, it wasn't. The sentence was very long, did not read very well. And without this, the message of the paragraph -on the new goverment not on the military- was already clearly conveyed... So I prefer this version; guess in the e/c some of the explanation got lost; sorry about that.... L.tak (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Complaining about sentence length is not an excuse for removing key information. As already pointed out above, the UN Security Council specifically mandated an increase in AU troops of a massive 50% (they only had 8000 troops there to begin with). This isn't a small matter, so it will be restored shortly. Thought I'd give you the opportunity to do it yourself, but guess not. Middayexpress (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Middayexpress, this isn't your article. You don't have the final decision on what should be here. If you object to a change, try to achieve consensus here before simply reverting another user. I agree with L.tak that the content was formed poorly. There is no problem with the information being in the article, so if you an find a better way of integrating it that wouldn't be a problem. - SimonP (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't your article either, nor do you have the final decision on what should be here. L.tak removed a massive fact from the article -- namely, that the AU is mandated to increase its troop strength by 50% -- and I took exception to that removal, as is my prerogative. I also never "reverted" him, so your insinuation above that I did is unwarranted. Middayexpress (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) That info was massively important; and sourced... but what message did it need to convey in that specific section? I thought this was enough for that.The rest would belong in other sections; (if it is not already there!). I hope I didn't give you the suggestion I was "sensoring it out" or something like that.... L.tak (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The message that the passage conveyed was that the government is managing to take control of the city in large part because of an increase in troop strength, and that this will only increase as more troops come in. But you again removed reference to those increased AMISOM troops. That is not helpful. Despite this, as visible in my initial comment above, I still gave you the benefit of the doubt. This is also the second key bit of military related-information that you have removed. You also removed [74] the fact that the recently re-established Somali Navy is expected to have 5000 members in its initial phase. Was this also a mistake? Middayexpress (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- No it wasn't. it's not key information, but key chrystal balling... Let's focuss on what happens in Somalia, not on what everyone is planning and hoping. Thanks btw for asuming good faith; it ofthen gets lost in heated discussions... L.tak (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Middayexpress, this isn't your article. You don't have the final decision on what should be here. If you object to a change, try to achieve consensus here before simply reverting another user. I agree with L.tak that the content was formed poorly. There is no problem with the information being in the article, so if you an find a better way of integrating it that wouldn't be a problem. - SimonP (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Complaining about sentence length is not an excuse for removing key information. As already pointed out above, the UN Security Council specifically mandated an increase in AU troops of a massive 50% (they only had 8000 troops there to begin with). This isn't a small matter, so it will be restored shortly. Thought I'd give you the opportunity to do it yourself, but guess not. Middayexpress (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
New lead
Let's try to work out a concrete way to rewrite the lead. My suggestions is:
- Paragraph 1: Intro and basic overview, including mentioning the fractured nature of the country and its status as a failed state.
- Paragraph 2: Overview of geography
- Paragraph 3: Brief overview of the country's history
- Paragraph 4: Current political and economic situation
To goal is to keep the entire thing at about 400 words, like most other country articles. As opposed to the current 700. - SimonP (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The intro already does all that. You need to be specific about actual sentences you have issues with and we'll see point-by-point if your concerns are warranted, as we've been doing above. Middayexpress (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not that there are simple errors in the lead. The current lead gives a grossly inaccurate picture of the country, is poorly structured, and is about 300 words longer than it should be. If you want to take a stab at fixing those issues feel free, but I'm fine with doing the rewrite myself. I just need to head to the library so we can get some better sources than all these online ones that are being relied upon. - SimonP (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I would welcome the try to get to 400 words. The present intro does already have much (or all) of that, but is perceived by many as too long and POV. The challenge will be to address both and your suggestions would be a great framework! . L.tak (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's too vague, Simon. You need to be more specific than that. What is inaccurate according to you about the lede? If you cannot name anything specifically wrong with the lede, than that's probably because there is nothing wrong with it to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually that's not true. You've missed the point Middayexpress. It's entirely possible to write a lede that is factual accurate, but which missrepresents the subject. For example, the intro to Adolf Hitler could read: "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German painter." No one could dispute the factual accuracy of this specific statement, but to put it in the lede would present an inaccurate picture of who the man was. The lede should contain the most important facts, not just the positive facts. This is an issue of WP:UNDUE weight being placed on some positive aspects, while negative facts are suppressed to later in the body of the article (or completely out of the article). In this case, the fact that Somalia is a failed state is FAR more important to the subject that the fact that they have a top 100 African university. The former is fundamental to understanding the country, while the latter isn't very notable let alone lede worthy. TDL (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again, it is not enough to say "the article is too positive" or some variation thereof. You have to name specifics. What specifically is wrong with the lede? You mention the "failed state" idea as being key, a dubious, politically-motivated concept [[75]] which purports to show the inability of a state administration to fulfill its duties. For starters, Somalia only topped the index during the tenure of the coalition government, as explained above. The new government is actually quite well-regarded by the international community & has already done a lot in just its first two or so months. Secondly, the northern regions are and have been for quite some time relatively stable, which is why the U.S. recently specifically rewarded them with the so-called "two-track" policy of direct engagement [76]. Thirdly, the concept of the "failed" polity is and has also been applied to lower levels of the state ([77]), which is precisely the situation in Somalia. These are briefly the reasons why pretending as though all of the country is at war, when it's only really the south that is (and even that's changing), is simply unacceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wait...so you're arguing that since the central government lost all control over the northern region and was unable to stop Somaliland from declaring independence, and as a result Somaliland has been able to stabalize the region, that implies that the government of Somalia is fulfilling it's duties in the region? Do I need to explain to you how illogical this argument is? The north severed themselves from the central government as a result of their inability to fulfill their duties in the region. The north is stabalized itself in spite of the central government not being able to fulfill their duties in the region. These facts don't support your position, they support the position that Somalia is unable to fulfill their duties, and thus others had to do it for them.
- Whether or not the new government can improve the situation will have to wait and see. We aren't a WP:CRYSTALBALL, so you can't just assume that it will improve. If in the next ranking Somalia jumps 100 places then you will have an argument. But you can't just assume that they aren't a failed state anymore.
- There are plenty of specific examples of undue weight discussed above. Let's stick with the one currently under discussion though. Why is the fact that Somalia has the 6,941th best university in the world [78] notable? If anything, it's notable in how bad that is. There can't be many countries which don't have a university in the top 6,940. There are 89 other universities better in Africa alone. And yet in the lede this is presented as a good thing. TDL (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strawmen argument. I realize by now that your account is a supporter of Somaliland's self-declared independence, but unfortunately the enclave is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia. And yes, that includes the U.S., which declared in September -- two months before the new government came to power -- that it would now be focusing on directly engaging Somalia's relatively stable northern autonomous regions in addition to the central government, with the specific caveat that this in no way implies recognition of any of said territories as independent nations [79]. The formulation of the new federal government was a reaction to this announcement to show the international community that the TFG means business now, and the international community has taken notice ([80], [81]). It's also not a matter of whether the central government can improve the situation; it already has improved the situation, as I've described several times above. In just its first two months in office, the government has managed to secure control of over 55% of the capital, where between 70%-80% of the city's population live, and its steadily expanding its control as more TFG & AU troops enter the city ([82], [83]). There are also an estimated 17,036 universities in the world [84], and few of the top ones come from Africa. When compared to other countries on the continent, however, Mogadishu University cracks the top (not the bottom) 100 of the continent's 1000 universities [85]; that's the 90th percentile. Not bad for a nation that is going through a civil war in its southern half. Middayexpress (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I admire your optimism about the new government, but as of yet it really hasn't accomplished much of anything. Maybe in five years we will have to rewrite the article again, but for now Somalia remains one of the most divided, violent, and impoverished countries in the world, and this article needs to reflect that. - SimonP (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not optimism; it's realism. That's how the international community regards the new technocratic government. Things are changing on a day-to-day basis in Somalia, and it's not quite how the media portrays it. For one thing, many journalists seem to be unaware that there is no war going on in the relatively stable northern regions, although the US and other governments that directly deal with Somalia certainly are. Even the UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs pointed this out a while back when he visited Mogadishu [86]. Of course, no article is static. Whatever changes the article requires (and will require even after said changes) need to be spelled out and examined for their relative merits. If they have any validity, they will be included (remember, I personally added the Global Peace Index). If not, they will be discarded, as Wiki policy recommends. But what is needed first is specifics, not vague complaints. Middayexpress (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I admire your optimism about the new government, but as of yet it really hasn't accomplished much of anything. Maybe in five years we will have to rewrite the article again, but for now Somalia remains one of the most divided, violent, and impoverished countries in the world, and this article needs to reflect that. - SimonP (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strawmen argument. I realize by now that your account is a supporter of Somaliland's self-declared independence, but unfortunately the enclave is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia. And yes, that includes the U.S., which declared in September -- two months before the new government came to power -- that it would now be focusing on directly engaging Somalia's relatively stable northern autonomous regions in addition to the central government, with the specific caveat that this in no way implies recognition of any of said territories as independent nations [79]. The formulation of the new federal government was a reaction to this announcement to show the international community that the TFG means business now, and the international community has taken notice ([80], [81]). It's also not a matter of whether the central government can improve the situation; it already has improved the situation, as I've described several times above. In just its first two months in office, the government has managed to secure control of over 55% of the capital, where between 70%-80% of the city's population live, and its steadily expanding its control as more TFG & AU troops enter the city ([82], [83]). There are also an estimated 17,036 universities in the world [84], and few of the top ones come from Africa. When compared to other countries on the continent, however, Mogadishu University cracks the top (not the bottom) 100 of the continent's 1000 universities [85]; that's the 90th percentile. Not bad for a nation that is going through a civil war in its southern half. Middayexpress (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again, it is not enough to say "the article is too positive" or some variation thereof. You have to name specifics. What specifically is wrong with the lede? You mention the "failed state" idea as being key, a dubious, politically-motivated concept [[75]] which purports to show the inability of a state administration to fulfill its duties. For starters, Somalia only topped the index during the tenure of the coalition government, as explained above. The new government is actually quite well-regarded by the international community & has already done a lot in just its first two or so months. Secondly, the northern regions are and have been for quite some time relatively stable, which is why the U.S. recently specifically rewarded them with the so-called "two-track" policy of direct engagement [76]. Thirdly, the concept of the "failed" polity is and has also been applied to lower levels of the state ([77]), which is precisely the situation in Somalia. These are briefly the reasons why pretending as though all of the country is at war, when it's only really the south that is (and even that's changing), is simply unacceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually that's not true. You've missed the point Middayexpress. It's entirely possible to write a lede that is factual accurate, but which missrepresents the subject. For example, the intro to Adolf Hitler could read: "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German painter." No one could dispute the factual accuracy of this specific statement, but to put it in the lede would present an inaccurate picture of who the man was. The lede should contain the most important facts, not just the positive facts. This is an issue of WP:UNDUE weight being placed on some positive aspects, while negative facts are suppressed to later in the body of the article (or completely out of the article). In this case, the fact that Somalia is a failed state is FAR more important to the subject that the fact that they have a top 100 African university. The former is fundamental to understanding the country, while the latter isn't very notable let alone lede worthy. TDL (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not that there are simple errors in the lead. The current lead gives a grossly inaccurate picture of the country, is poorly structured, and is about 300 words longer than it should be. If you want to take a stab at fixing those issues feel free, but I'm fine with doing the rewrite myself. I just need to head to the library so we can get some better sources than all these online ones that are being relied upon. - SimonP (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:GREATWRONGS. This isn't the place to right great wrongs. You can suggest that the mainstream media is biased and has got it all wrong, but this isn't the place to advocate for that. Our job is to represenet mainstream opinion, not fix it.
- Just because I disagree with you opinion, doesn't make me a supporter of Somaliland. In fact, believe it or not, I personally support the TFG's efforts to regain control over the entire country. However, this doesn't change the facts on the ground. Diplomatic recognition is irrelevant here. The question you proposed is: can the Somali government fulfill their obligations in the country. The fact that they control none of the north, none of the south and only ~1/2 the capital tells you the answer is a resounding no.
- As for the universities, this still doesn't make it notable. By my rough count, 27/53 African countires have a university in the top 100, with most of these having more than one. So at best Somalia is in the middle of the pack.
- Another example of POV: the PPP GDP per capita of Somalia is 190th out of 194 states: List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. We describe it as a "healthy informal economy". How is this neutral? And isn't this more notable than the fact they have the 6,941th best university in the world? TDL (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure everyone here supports the TFG, and the international community as a whole is also very much hoping the new government will succeed, just as they hoped that the last 14 attempts to establish a new central government would work out. With the help of the AU perhaps this time it will succeed, but no one can claim that Somalia's problems are definitely at an end. - SimonP (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- TDL: Somalia is a de facto federation. This means that its autonomous regions share power with the national government. In fact, federalism has been written into the draft constitution, which is in effect as of August 2011, when the interim government's mandate finally expires. After that point, there will be national elections for the first time in 40 years; political parties have actually started to form in preparation (c.f. [87]), and some leaders have already announced their candidacy for President (e.g. this gentleman). The only region that is not interested in federalism is the secessionist Somaliland enclave, and even here, that does not include the unionist Sool, Sanaag, Cayn and Awdal regions. Moreover, most of the countries in Africa aren't going through a civil war, so your comments about Somalia having one of its main universities ranked in both the top 100 universities in Africa & the Arab world with all due respect don't really apply. If the other three negative metrics that are already cited in the article aren't a problem, then there should be no reason why this one that isn't negative for a change is. Also, it's actually the CIA itself that describes Somalia's economy as a "healthy informal economy", something which an ArbCom admin in the past already indicated was a reliable source. The GDP is not an accurate reflection of Somalia's economic activity because much of that activity is unmeasured (c.f. [88]). That includes a lot of the cross-border Somalia-Ethiopia-Kenya livestock trade, which is traditionally the nation's largest economic activity (most Somalis & many Ethiopians are pastoralists). Over 95% of the regional trade in eastern Africa is actually carried out via unofficial channels ([89]). Middayexpress (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Most GDP numbers will include estimates of the informal economy. These are never certain numbers, but it's not ignored. By other measures Somalia is also one of the poorest countries in the world. For instance the UN's Multidimensional Poverty Index looks at access to food, water, fuel, education, etc. It finds that 81.2% of the population of Somalia is in poverty, and another 9.5% at risk of poverty. Only a handful of states have worse numbers. - SimonP (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Done the rewrite. I hacked out a lot of stuff, though it could still be a sentence or two shorter. If anyone sees anything else that should be removed, or could be written more concisely go ahead. - SimonP (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Peter Leeson
We also need to have a further discussion of how much this article relies on a single paper by Peter Leeson, then of West Virginia University. Right now 16 different facts are referenced to this paper. Leeson doesn't seem to have ever been to Somalia, has no background in the history or politics of the region, and has never written more than this one paper on the situation in the country. The paper is also now four years old, prior to many important events. This is a pretty clear violation of WP:UNDUE. That Somalia has been presented by some libertarians as a anarchists paradise is worth mentioning, but it has to be presented as the WP:FRINGE theory that it is. - SimonP (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Leeson's paper is primarily used for statements of fact from other sources, not libertarian value judgments. Specifically, the life expectancy, number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles and tuberculosis, infant and maternal mortality, the percentage of the population with access to sanitation services, the percentage of the population with access to at least one health facility, the cost per visit of medical consultations in these facilities, and the number of physicians per 100,000 people with regard to the 1985-1990 period as compared to the 2000-2005 period. None of the cited figures come from him personally. As I pointed out, the only value judgment is expressly identified as such, and so is Leeson's libertarian background ("Libertarian economist Peter T. Leeson attributes this increased economic activity to the Somali traditional law (referred to as Xeer), which he suggests provides a stable environment to conduct business in"). There is, however, one more sentence from Leeson that could be construed as a value judgement, so I've replaced it with a fact-based one from another source. Middayexpress (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- But they are compiled by him personally, and as anyone knows you can make statistics say a lot of different things, especially if it's a poor data set and you aren't very familiar with the base subject matter. Consider life expectancy, in 1989 he notes the UN had life expectancy at 46.0 years. In 2005 he cites life expectancy as being up to 48.47 years. Remarkable progress! Of course he ignores that the UN numbers for 2005 had Somalia only at 46.2 years. Odd since he used those same UN stats elsewhere in his table. Perhaps the change from 46 to 48 is just that the CIA and UN have different ways of estimating life span, which is why you should never compare two data sets. Something he does throughout that table. - SimonP (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of the variables mentioned above, I see that Leeson appears to have aggregated figures from two different sources with regard to life expectancy and infant mortality rate. That HDI paper from 2006 does provide a rather different infant mortality profile. However, it is lower than that provided by Earthtrends [90], which, at 47 for males and 50 for females, is closer to Leeson's (which is probably an aggregate of both male and female). Earthtrends has the infant mortality rate at 113/1000 births during the 2000-05 period (the HDI measures it according to five years olds), whereas Leeson has it at 114.89/1000 births. Leeson actually appears to have a more pessimistic figure here. At any rate, your concerns are valid and have been duly noted. I shall replace these two figures with the Earthtrends ones. There is no reason to change the other ones because they weren't aggregated by Leeson; he just took them directly from their respective sources, which he cites. Middayexpress (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Beyond aggregation, the even bigger problem is comparing different sets. You can't compare Earthtrends data from 2005 with UN data from 1990, because you can't be sure they gathered and processed the statistics the same way. The only thing we should use to compare 1990 UN stats are other stats from the UN. - SimonP (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Alleged "problem" solved. All stats involved in the comparisons are now from the UN. The material has therefore been restored, sans the Leeson ref. Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Beyond aggregation, the even bigger problem is comparing different sets. You can't compare Earthtrends data from 2005 with UN data from 1990, because you can't be sure they gathered and processed the statistics the same way. The only thing we should use to compare 1990 UN stats are other stats from the UN. - SimonP (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of the variables mentioned above, I see that Leeson appears to have aggregated figures from two different sources with regard to life expectancy and infant mortality rate. That HDI paper from 2006 does provide a rather different infant mortality profile. However, it is lower than that provided by Earthtrends [90], which, at 47 for males and 50 for females, is closer to Leeson's (which is probably an aggregate of both male and female). Earthtrends has the infant mortality rate at 113/1000 births during the 2000-05 period (the HDI measures it according to five years olds), whereas Leeson has it at 114.89/1000 births. Leeson actually appears to have a more pessimistic figure here. At any rate, your concerns are valid and have been duly noted. I shall replace these two figures with the Earthtrends ones. There is no reason to change the other ones because they weren't aggregated by Leeson; he just took them directly from their respective sources, which he cites. Middayexpress (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- But they are compiled by him personally, and as anyone knows you can make statistics say a lot of different things, especially if it's a poor data set and you aren't very familiar with the base subject matter. Consider life expectancy, in 1989 he notes the UN had life expectancy at 46.0 years. In 2005 he cites life expectancy as being up to 48.47 years. Remarkable progress! Of course he ignores that the UN numbers for 2005 had Somalia only at 46.2 years. Odd since he used those same UN stats elsewhere in his table. Perhaps the change from 46 to 48 is just that the CIA and UN have different ways of estimating life span, which is why you should never compare two data sets. Something he does throughout that table. - SimonP (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
POV intro
User:SimonP: You have utterly destroyed the intro and most certainly have not obtained or indeed even discussed your proposed changes. Firstly, it's intellectually dishonest to label Somalia as a whole a "failed state" when (1) that concept is dubious to begin with; (2) only the southern part of Somalia is going through a civil war; and (3) Somalia has a new government, which is well-regarded by the international community -- the notion of an ineffectual government pertained to the previous government, not the current one. Worse, you added this in the very second sentence of the intro. Secondly, Somalia is immediately part of the Horn of Africa, a distinct region within East Africa that is marked by unique ethnic, cultural and geographical endowments; so that's what should be indicated, not "Eastern Africa". You also mention that the "British and Italians gained control of parts of the coast, and established, but didn't even bother to cite how they got a foothold in the region in the first place: they signed protection treaties with the existing Somali Sultans that ruled the area. You also removed all reference to the key fact that a popular referendum preceded the union of the Trust Territory of Somalia & the State of Somaliland i.e. it was a consensual union. It is also blatantly untrue that "Somalia is without a federal government" as you claim. Somalia has lacked a permanent national government because it has had various interim bodies in the intervening years, such as the Transitional National Government and the incumbent Transitional Federal Government. The TFG also has not "attempted" to reestablish the Military of Somalia. It has already re-established it, and this is amply sourced too (who do you think is fighting alongside AMISOM and receiving arms from the US, EU and others?). Somalia also has not just maintained an "informal economy" but a healthy informal economy, as that CIA source makes clear. Over 90% of its cross-border trade in its largest industry (livestock) isn't even counted in the GDP, and the paper I already linked you to makes this clear too. Lastly, it's not just the Somaliland region that is "stable" as you attempt to imply in the intro, but all of the other autonomous northern regions, including adjacent Puntland. It's been a long day and I don't have time now to correct the heaps of disinformation that you have added to the intro. But tomorrow is another day. Middayexpress (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- the normal and correct procedure would be to place the old version back and get consensus for a new version. However, i) most of the info implemented seems to be derived from the older version, there was consensus (not unanimity) that the intro ii) was too long and iii) POV and I think therefore the present move was a good one. Middayexpress raises several valid points which should be addressed however, although I don't agree with all his suggesions. I already reworded the "absence of governement" and the "failed state" statements and would have no problem placing Somalia in the Horn of Africa (although eastern africa does not seem wrong to me). As for which regions we should call reliably stable and how to word that best her, I'll have a check this evening... L.tak (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your changes L.tak. The failed state claim is about as well referenced as you could hope. If anyone wants more references, I'm sure I could find anotehr 20 without much problem. Failed state does not mean an ongoing civil war across the country. As our own article makes clear criteria for being a failed state include the government not having control of all the territory, the government lacking legitimacy in parts of the country, and the governments inability to provide basic services. These are all unquestionably true about Somalia, and the peace and stability of Somaliland under a separate government reinforces this fact, rather than contradict it. The general consensus on this page and a huge number of references support calling Somalia this, so I think this point is settled. Other points:
- The article still mentions Somalia's location on the Horn, it's in paragraph 2. It starts with a more general and then a more specific geographic location, as is standard.
- The two historical facts you mentioned are big ones, but we're writing a summary not a full history of the country. The lead is currently at about the max length a lead should be. Could you suggest what sentences from the history section should be removed so those two points should be added?
- The UN numbers show that more than 80% of the population has insufficient access to basics such as food, fuel, and education. While the underground economy may be healthy in that it is vigorous, it is not healthy in that it is failing to provide the basic needs of the people. The poverty claim is not reffed to GDP numbers, so they don't play a role here. - SimonP (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your changes L.tak. The failed state claim is about as well referenced as you could hope. If anyone wants more references, I'm sure I could find anotehr 20 without much problem. Failed state does not mean an ongoing civil war across the country. As our own article makes clear criteria for being a failed state include the government not having control of all the territory, the government lacking legitimacy in parts of the country, and the governments inability to provide basic services. These are all unquestionably true about Somalia, and the peace and stability of Somaliland under a separate government reinforces this fact, rather than contradict it. The general consensus on this page and a huge number of references support calling Somalia this, so I think this point is settled. Other points:
- The rewrite of the intro was desperately needed, and I applaud SimonP for utilizing the SOFIXIT mentality. The previous lead was an utter failure on behalf of the Wikipedia community - it should never have been allowed to get so bad. It lead should be closely watched from now on to make sure that it never strays to its former state. Let me add onto Simon's response:
- We avoid puffery in Wikipedia articles, hence we will not use "healthy" to describe an economy unless directly quoting a source.
- Nowhere that I can see does it say "Somalia is without a federal government" it says "For most of the period since 1991 Somalia has been without a federal government" which we all know is true (it still lacks a permanent central government, much less one that actually controls the whole country). It's concerning that you're calling a well sourced rewrite of a biased lead "heaps of disinformation". Swarm X 13:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The rewrite of the intro was desperately needed, and I applaud SimonP for utilizing the SOFIXIT mentality. The previous lead was an utter failure on behalf of the Wikipedia community - it should never have been allowed to get so bad. It lead should be closely watched from now on to make sure that it never strays to its former state. Let me add onto Simon's response:
I agree with Midday, the lede has become a chesspool of negativity, none of which are informational, but are simply sensationalist statements equivalant to "Somalia is the country with the ugliest people" and "has the most beautiful trees". Whether this is true is irrelevant, a reader perusing the intro will have no idea whether/why these statements are "true or false", nor have a clue as to whether Somalis have begun grooming themselves into better looking people, or if the population has started taking down the beautiful trees. Yes, Somalia is a poor country, but its positioned on a poor continent, therefore its a mystery to me why undue weight has been placed on it's "poorness", when several academics and international bodies have repeatedly highlighted the positive trend of "improvement" in living standards:
Somalia boasts lower rates of extreme poverty and, in some cases, better infrastructure than richer countries in Africa [91]
or more detailed:
Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse? Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4. Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none. Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9. Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100. Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26. Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8. Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2. Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5. Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9. TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.[92]
This is informational, simply pidgeon holing Somalia is not, which is why I selected two very noteworthy points from the above improvements; life expectancy and the poverty rate. The other statement about Somalia being one of the most violent countries in the world is redundant, there is already mention made of the Civil war and the resulting anarchy(with a link to a very detailed article on the subject). More people die of violent deaths in several rich countries of the world than Somalia by far, none of them however are pidgeon holed with this type of systematic bias, which is why I removed it from the lede. The third removal I have made is concerning the Failed state listening, there are plenty of articles characterising Somalia as a fragile state, which is different from the former index, therefore what exactly gives the Failed state index more credibility to be included in the intro? The fragile state sources are just as concrete and reliable. A better place for these indexes would be the government section. --Scoobycentric (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Whether Somalis are a bit less poor than last year is not particularly important. If you are poor, but getting a little bit less poor, you're still poor. The key fact is that you can't afford to eat. Sure it's important to mention the recent trends, but not in the lede which is reserved for the big picture. The sun is getting a little bit cooler every year, but the important fact is that it is still hot.
- Being a failed state or a fragile state aren't mutually exclusive. Somalia could be both. If you want to add a statement that Somalia is also considered a fragile state, that might be appropriate.
- Unfortunately, the is a lot of negative things to talk about in regards to Somalia. We aren't obliged to present equal amounts of positive and negative information. That would be WP:UNDUE wight. TDL (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Scoobycentric is quite right, but is understating things a bit. The intro is not just unduely negative; large parts of it are flat-out dishonest. For starters, it claims that Somalia "for most of the period since 1991 Somalia has been without a federal government", which is false. Somalia has had many interim governments in that time period, including the Transitional National Government and the incumbent Transitional Federal Government. It has not had a permanent national government [93]; but that too is about to change in August of this year, when the transitional period ends and a new national constitution comes into effect. All this was indicated in the previous version of the lede, but removed in the current butchered incarnation. This is unacceptable. The notion of a "failed state" is also in itself highly subjective [94], unless specifically tied to the Failed States Index. And the index only ever ranked the country atop it specifically during the tenure of the Islamist+establsihment coalition government, which lost control of over 70% of the south-central parts of the country that the previous secular government left it, not the current technocratic government. These basic facts were never put into their proper context, which is highly misleading. Not even the Iraq and Afghanistan ledes -- the logical counterparts to what's going on in southern Somalia -- got this negative treatment or anything approaching it. As I see it, this scramble to make the intro look as seemingly bad as possible is quite pointless since the lede as it currently stands will have to be changed in just a few months anyway when the insurgents are defeated, the new constitution comes into effect, and national elections begin. Middayexpress (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL. We can't just assume that the insurgents will be defeated, the new constitution will come in the effect and national elections will be held. Those are some pretty big assumtions. Hopefully you're right and we will have to do a complete rewrite. But until those things actually accur, the article should reflect the present reality, and not the hoped for future. TDL (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The only assumption above is that the insurgents will be defeated in a few months (and that's based on the way things are presently going for them, not hopes). The constitution and national elections are scheduled, fyi ([95]). Middayexpress (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again: WP:CRYSTAL. You might expect their to be an election, or the new constitution might be scheduled to come into effect, but these types of things often slip. And just because the insurgents are down now, doesn't mean the war is over. Remeber, 2003 Mission Accomplished speech? They thought the insurgents would be defeated in a few months as well. Turned out, not so much. TDL (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's right. A new constitution and national elections that pave the way for a permanent government are scheduled in the coming months. It is not "crystal balling" to point this out because WP:CRYSTAL only pertains to scheduled events that are not "notable and almost certain to take place." The forgoing unfortunately does not apply to the upcoming federal constitution, permanent government, and the first national elections in 40 years. Middayexpress (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again: WP:CRYSTAL. You might expect their to be an election, or the new constitution might be scheduled to come into effect, but these types of things often slip. And just because the insurgents are down now, doesn't mean the war is over. Remeber, 2003 Mission Accomplished speech? They thought the insurgents would be defeated in a few months as well. Turned out, not so much. TDL (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The only assumption above is that the insurgents will be defeated in a few months (and that's based on the way things are presently going for them, not hopes). The constitution and national elections are scheduled, fyi ([95]). Middayexpress (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL. We can't just assume that the insurgents will be defeated, the new constitution will come in the effect and national elections will be held. Those are some pretty big assumtions. Hopefully you're right and we will have to do a complete rewrite. But until those things actually accur, the article should reflect the present reality, and not the hoped for future. TDL (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Scoobycentric is quite right, but is understating things a bit. The intro is not just unduely negative; large parts of it are flat-out dishonest. For starters, it claims that Somalia "for most of the period since 1991 Somalia has been without a federal government", which is false. Somalia has had many interim governments in that time period, including the Transitional National Government and the incumbent Transitional Federal Government. It has not had a permanent national government [93]; but that too is about to change in August of this year, when the transitional period ends and a new national constitution comes into effect. All this was indicated in the previous version of the lede, but removed in the current butchered incarnation. This is unacceptable. The notion of a "failed state" is also in itself highly subjective [94], unless specifically tied to the Failed States Index. And the index only ever ranked the country atop it specifically during the tenure of the Islamist+establsihment coalition government, which lost control of over 70% of the south-central parts of the country that the previous secular government left it, not the current technocratic government. These basic facts were never put into their proper context, which is highly misleading. Not even the Iraq and Afghanistan ledes -- the logical counterparts to what's going on in southern Somalia -- got this negative treatment or anything approaching it. As I see it, this scramble to make the intro look as seemingly bad as possible is quite pointless since the lede as it currently stands will have to be changed in just a few months anyway when the insurgents are defeated, the new constitution comes into effect, and national elections begin. Middayexpress (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It most definitely is, considering the situation of them being in a civil war, which is why there is a ton of info on these improvements being discussed extensively by academics and world bodies, you yourself certainly don't qualify as determining whether this is important enough or not, the mountain of the info is evidence in itself, that your not familiar with this, but instead are trying to pidgeon hole Somalia through generalised statements is just another form of systematic bias, and no part of the manual of style mentions one should always resort to generalised statements.
- They certainly are mutually exclusive, which is why you will have articles discussing Somalia moving from its "Failed state" status to being a "fragile state". Neither of these indexes or definitions in my opinion belong in the intro, but are better suited in the government section.
- Your version is putting undue weight on the negative side, there are plenty of positives to talk about, infact I could flood the entire intro with improvements and positive aspects of Somalia, but from following the above discussions, I have noticed the general theme is that Somalia does not deserve having anything positive written about it in the intro, such blatant transparent bias will not be left unchallenged.--Scoobycentric (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Danlaycock's post at 01:28, 31 January 2011 showed no sign of a compromise, nor did he convince me that the sensationalist statements in the so-called "concensus" based version of the article served any purpose other than pidgeon holing this specific country. As a compromise I have left the negative failed state characterisation in the article and added the fragile state definition aswell. The sourced material detailing the increase in life-expectancy and drop in the poverty rate have been reinserted for informational purposes, noteworthy by any standards.--Scoobycentric (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- "...showed no sign of a compromise...", "As a compromise I have... added the fragile state definition aswell." Umm...that was my suggestion. You claim I'm unwilling to compromise, then steal my idea and claim that it's you who compromised? I'm confused...
- I may not have convinced you, but you've yet to establish a consensus that your edits are justified. There was a clear consensus above in favour of the previous version. 45 minutes withouth a response isn't enough to claim a new consensus has been established.
- Just to be clear, I never suggested that the situation in Somalia isn't improving, nor that it's not important to mention. The point is, you are trying to take small improvements over the last few months and use them to diminish the realities of the situation.
- How am I trying to pidgen hole Somalia? What generalised statements where made?
- So can you explain the specific differences between a fragile and a failed state for me?
- Deserves? See this is the problem. You think that Somalia deserves to have some nice things said about it, because most of the mainstream media only say bad things. The problem is, it's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We can only follow the lead of the mainstream media, even if they are biased.
- I understand you're proud of your country, everyone is. But you need to be able to remove yourself to edit without a POV. TDL (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I never suggested that the situation in Somalia isn't improving, nor that it's not important to mention. The point is, you are trying to take small improvements over the last few months and use them to diminish the realities of the situation.
- That's not a compromise, I preferably would have both indexes in the appropriate section that's discussing the government, not the intro, if you had suggested that, then there would be a sign of a compromise from where we could continue. I therefore took it upon myself and added that suggestion, while reinserting the detailed explanation on the improved Somali living standards.
- An increase in life-expectancy, or a major drop in poverty are not small improvements, they are SIGNIFICANT improvements, especially from an African context, so no, i'm not diminishing the reality on the ground, plenty of mention is made about the ongoing civil strife, a detailed article about anarchy has been added and the reach and limits of the state apparatus has been illuminated several times.
- You might not have made those specific edits, you are however defending them by reverting me based on a situation where Middayexpress was muted through "strength of numbers", which erroneously is now being dubbed a "concensus".
- There are the failed state and fragile state articles, plenty of info there, i'm sure you can deduce from that, why these two sobriquets are used seperately and differently by academics and world bodies.
- Somalia deserves to be treated like any other country article on wikipedia, its current status in no way gives anyone the right to gross misrepresent the situation nor pidgeon hole it through generalised statements devoid of any informational purpose.
- My background has nothing to do with this, I could place the mirror back towards your face and speculate whether your presence here and support for the other version has something to do with the Somaliland issue, i'm sure you wouldn't like that, the same for me. I have as much right to edit this article as anyone else, and if I see a clear bias towards negativity I will challenge it.--Scoobycentric (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right. It's not your preference, and it's not my preference. That's why we call it a compromise.
- Well that depends. The life expectancy is going up in virtually every country on the planet, so that in and of itself is not significant. See above for a discussion on this. The UN reports an increase in life expectancy of 0.2 years from 1989-2005. That's likely not even statistically significant, let alone noteworthy.
- Middayexpress was not muted. His concernes were extensively discussed above. Unfortunately, he was unable to conivince anyone of his position. I never said there was unanimous agreement, but a consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement. Every editor but Middayexpress was in agreement.
- Did you actually read the articles you linked to? If you did you would have noticed statements such as "There is no clear universal definition of a 'failed state'". There is no black-and-white boundary between "failed" and "fragile" states. It's entirely possible that some experts would clasify them as a very fragile while others as failed. (The very fact that we have souces for both supports my position).
- Right. Obviously we shouldn't missrepresent the situation. But stating that they are one of the poorest or most violent countries isn't a missrepresentation. These are cold hard fact. You've yet to explain how these statements are "devoid of any informational purpose". The informational content is clear.
- Everyone is allowed to edit this article. However, if one can't edit in a NPOV way, then these rights can be revoked. It's pretty clear, as has been discussed above, that this article has been WP:OWNED by editors with a biased POV. TDL (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Our opinions on this don't really matter. Look at any third party reference on the subject, and you will find Somalia described as failed state that is one of the poorest and most violent in the world. Pretty much the only place you will find different arguments are from radical libertarian or anarchist writers, such as Mises Institute folk. The views should be mentioned, per WP:FRINGE, but it is not a mainstream view and their strong ideological motivation and the failure of almost all of those writers to have any background in the the region makes clear that we should not put too much wright on those references. - SimonP (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- No one removed the failed state info, so your comments above are beside the point. It's actually you that removed, among other things, the references to others describing Somalia as a "fragile state". You also removed the specific context as to why Somalia is sometimes described as a "failed state": because it is going through a civil war in its southern half. That's where the violence and poverty is, not the stable northern regions. It's utterly POV to keep trying to insinuate that all of Somalia is "failed" (when only the south is going through the war), that is has no government (when it does and has had many interim governments, just not a permanent one; not to mention an indigenous legal system that the people follow whether or not government is all it could be), and that nothing has been or is being done about the situation (when much has and is being done). All of this was explained in the previous version of the intro you reverted, while yours did nothing of the sort (nor was the Mises paper even cited in that version). Middayexpress (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could you provide a ref for it being called a failed state solely because of the civil war in the south? I don't think this is accurate. If you look at the failed state article, ongoing civil war is not on the list of definitions. That the central government also lacks control over the north as well as the south is just as important. That the central government has limited legitimacy almost everywhere, and is unable to provide basic services are also part of the definition. As to failed verses fragile, I'm not really sure what the point is there. The references given seem to treat the two terms as essentially synonymous. In other sources, like [96], the fragile state of Somaliland is explicitly compared to the failed state of the rest of the country. - SimonP (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That link above describing the Somaliland region as a "fragile state" is an opinion piece, so it doesn't mean much. Somaliland is also recognized the world over as an autonomous region of Somalia ([97]), just like neighboring Puntland; and both are widely-regarded as stable (which is why the US is now directly engaging their respective administrations as a reward for this stability [98]). I have therefore restored the reference to all of Somalia's autonomous regions. I also already linked you and the other accounts many other times before to research showing that Somalia is labeled a "failed state" specifically because of the war in the south. The failed state concept unfortunately does not mean that "Somalia really sucks" or some variation thereof. It means that the country's public sector (i.e. its government) has not been able to fulfill all of its duties. And the government has not been able to fulfill all of its duties because its members are constantly being shot at by Islamist insurgents. By the way, the CIA itself was involved in the genesis of the "failed state" concept back in the 1990s, and not even it caricatures Somalia the way this appallingly biased intro does: "The real genesis of the “state failure” concept was a CIA State Failure Task Force in the early 1990s. Their 1995 first report said state failure is “a new term for a type of serious political crisis exemplified by recent events in Somalia, Bosnia, Liberia, and Afghanistan”" ([99]). Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think noone is saying with "failed state", that there are no parts of the state where organization has resulted in quite a livable situation. But that seems to be not due to, but sometimes (in the case of Somaliland) despite the fact that there is no permanent central government who has an ligitimate monopoly on power. The fact that there are promising things happening in Somalia outside the central government is a good thing, but that only stresses that the state as such at this moment can be characterized a failed state. If definitions for Somalia have been used differently, please provide a source... L.tak (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with the above, no one is saying "all of Somalia is failed," but that doesn't mean Somalia isn't a failed state. Somaliland can be characterized as a fragile state, but that doesn't mean Somalia isn't a failed state either. However, giving the sources that call Somalia a fragile state equal weight to the ones that call Somalia a failed state is seriously undue. Somalia is much more widely known as a failed state, and the sources that use "fragile state" do so in terminology, but don't actually suggest the situation is better than a failed state. One also called failed state-era Iraq a "fragile state" and compared it to Somalia. We don't give minorities of sources undue weight because they use different terminology. If there are factual inaccuracies, please start a new section with a bulleted list. However, there's quite clearly no consensus supporting the notion that the current lead needs to be changed back to the previous version. However, from what Middayexpress has said above, I don't see any "lies" in the lead. Swarm X 08:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Somaliland isn't characterized as a "fragile state". In the country sense of the term, it isn't recognized as a state at all. Somaliland is recognized the world over as an autonomous region of Somalia ([100]), and a stable one at that; the same goes for Puntland. The fact remains that you have no legitimate excuse for removing the fragile state info, and it shows quite well the one-sided nature of this discussion. The very same argument you used to try and include the failed state info in the lede can easily be used vis-a-vis the fragile state info: namely, that any other number of sources describe Somalia as a fragile state. Likewise, the statement in the lede which claims that "for most of the period since 1991 Somalia has been without a federal government" is very misleading. Somalia has had many interim governments in that time period, including the Transitional National Government and the incumbent Transitional Federal Government. It has not had a permanent national government [101]. And during that time period, the people simply went back to the indigenous legal system that the locals follow and have followed for thousands of years, whether or not the government is all it could be; other areas of the country were also ruled by Muslim shura councils, overseen by the Islamic Courts Union. It is also both misleading and unenyclopedic to describe the country as one of the "most violent states in the world" in the world without putting that violence into its proper context i.e. parts (not all) of Somalia are violent specifically because it is going through a civil war in the south. Try and rationalize this bias all you want, but not even the Iraq and Afghanistan ledes -- the natural counterparts to the situation in southern Somalia -- have received this negative treatment. Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again, please show me a quote from a reference that says Somalia is a failed state purely because of a civil war in the south. Please give a source that says Somalia is not a failed state, but a fragile one. You're either using low quality references, like libertarian writers, or misconstruing the contents of valid references. - SimonP (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I already did in my post above from 23:55, 31 January 2011 i.e. minutes ago. In case you hadn't noticed, I already justified my edits in that post and the one above: "The real genesis of the “state failure” concept was a CIA State Failure Task Force in the early 1990s. Their 1995 first report said state failure is “a new term for a type of serious political crisis exemplified by recent events in Somalia, Bosnia, Liberia, and Afghanistan”" ([102]). Middayexpress (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, please show me a quote from a reference that says Somalia is a failed state purely because of a civil war in the south. Please give a source that says Somalia is not a failed state, but a fragile one. You're either using low quality references, like libertarian writers, or misconstruing the contents of valid references. - SimonP (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Somaliland isn't characterized as a "fragile state". In the country sense of the term, it isn't recognized as a state at all. Somaliland is recognized the world over as an autonomous region of Somalia ([100]), and a stable one at that; the same goes for Puntland. The fact remains that you have no legitimate excuse for removing the fragile state info, and it shows quite well the one-sided nature of this discussion. The very same argument you used to try and include the failed state info in the lede can easily be used vis-a-vis the fragile state info: namely, that any other number of sources describe Somalia as a fragile state. Likewise, the statement in the lede which claims that "for most of the period since 1991 Somalia has been without a federal government" is very misleading. Somalia has had many interim governments in that time period, including the Transitional National Government and the incumbent Transitional Federal Government. It has not had a permanent national government [101]. And during that time period, the people simply went back to the indigenous legal system that the locals follow and have followed for thousands of years, whether or not the government is all it could be; other areas of the country were also ruled by Muslim shura councils, overseen by the Islamic Courts Union. It is also both misleading and unenyclopedic to describe the country as one of the "most violent states in the world" in the world without putting that violence into its proper context i.e. parts (not all) of Somalia are violent specifically because it is going through a civil war in the south. Try and rationalize this bias all you want, but not even the Iraq and Afghanistan ledes -- the natural counterparts to the situation in southern Somalia -- have received this negative treatment. Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with the above, no one is saying "all of Somalia is failed," but that doesn't mean Somalia isn't a failed state. Somaliland can be characterized as a fragile state, but that doesn't mean Somalia isn't a failed state either. However, giving the sources that call Somalia a fragile state equal weight to the ones that call Somalia a failed state is seriously undue. Somalia is much more widely known as a failed state, and the sources that use "fragile state" do so in terminology, but don't actually suggest the situation is better than a failed state. One also called failed state-era Iraq a "fragile state" and compared it to Somalia. We don't give minorities of sources undue weight because they use different terminology. If there are factual inaccuracies, please start a new section with a bulleted list. However, there's quite clearly no consensus supporting the notion that the current lead needs to be changed back to the previous version. However, from what Middayexpress has said above, I don't see any "lies" in the lead. Swarm X 08:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could you provide a ref for it being called a failed state solely because of the civil war in the south? I don't think this is accurate. If you look at the failed state article, ongoing civil war is not on the list of definitions. That the central government also lacks control over the north as well as the south is just as important. That the central government has limited legitimacy almost everywhere, and is unable to provide basic services are also part of the definition. As to failed verses fragile, I'm not really sure what the point is there. The references given seem to treat the two terms as essentially synonymous. In other sources, like [96], the fragile state of Somaliland is explicitly compared to the failed state of the rest of the country. - SimonP (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Environment
Just read through the environment section. Apart from the nuclear waste issue down, the problems seem to be not mentioned explicitly (only the solutions -planting tree campaigns etc- and their actors -the first env org., prize winning people etc). Could someone knowledgeble on the subject make an introduction to that paragraph in which the main problems are discussed (and maybe also reduce the env. activism part)? L.tak (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's untrue. About half of that section discusses environmental problems and their attendant consequences, including deforestation & desertification, the charcoal trade, waste dumping and overfishing. It also discusses what has been/is being done about the situation for balance. Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The latter is exactly my point. The paragraph is written from the context of what's done (and by whom, from which organization); where I would like to have the (present or previous) situation a more highlighted, rather than its present actors. An example: the part on prohibtion of ivory trade is now:
- In 1986, the Wildlife Rescue, Research and Monitoring Centre was established by ECOTERRA Intl., with the goal of sensitizing the public to ecological issues. This educational effort led in 1989 to the so-called "Somalia proposal" and a decision by the Somali government to adhere to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which established for the first time a worldwide ban on the trade of elephant ivory.
- I would say the most important piont of thse two sentences is (if true at least, I am not very knowledgeble here): Ivory trading was a serious issue in Somalia with xx elephants killed per year. Adhearing to the CITES treaty in 19xx has resulted in decline to xxx. The WRRMC and ECOTERRA could as far as I am concerned be left out or in a separate paragraph on "environmental organizations". Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)