Talk:Somaliland

Democracy?

This article implies quite strongly that Somaliland (though unrecognized)has become a quite successful democratic state. Regretable, whilst this did seem to be the case a few years ago, this no longer seems so certain:

http://www.unpo.org/content/view/10024/236/ http://www.unpo.org/content/view/10046/236/ http://www.unpo.org/content/view/10095/236/

Somaliland/Somalia on Africa Template

Hello, I'm having a discussion with a couple editors on how best to group Somalia/Somaliland/Somali States on this template here at Template Talk. Input from other editors would, as always, be welcome.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

POV dispute on this page - One editor keeps reverting Somaliland's de facto independence

This page is not NPOV. It does not accurately reflect Somaliland de facto Independence, which under the Declarative theory of statehood makes a Somaliland a state. Whether it is or not is regardless because we must neutrally reflect these facts and the view point. Outback the koala (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what has been claimed above, Somaliland is not a de facto independent state under the Declarative theory of statehood nor does self-declared independence ipso facto confer such status. This is all clearly explained here in some detail. Middayexpress (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To pull what you just did, take alook here for a response. Play close attention to the part of Pfainuk's comment at 22:50, 8 January 2010, where he talks about NPOV, as it's most relevant here. I also recommend (in the strongest sense possible) that you to review WP:OWN and think about whether your behavior on this page might fall under this policy. Please do not remove the tag on the page again, I've clearly stated above, I do not think this page is neural. I feel that it fails WP:NPOV. I don't know if I can be any more explicit. We must present the facts from an objective position, not necessarily the Somali gov's position(their position should be included as well, but with fair and equal weight given to both sides). Outback the koala (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry pal, but no amount of WP:Wikilawyering on your part will make that "POV" tag you added to the page any more warranted than it actually is. It's also exceedingly difficult to take your claims of "neutrality" seriously when you have already repeatedly attempting to add sentences to various articles suggesting that the Somaliland region of Somalia is a "country" of its own (1, 2). Middayexpress (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

De Facto and what it means

Having recently dealt with De Facto and De Jure comparisons in another region, I was invited to comment here. So here we go:

The Montvideo Convention is important, and will certainly go a long way towards ones claim to obtain De Jure independence, but it does not and cannot affect De Facto control. De Facto control simply means that certain group exercises control over a certain region. The group's De Jure claims are irrelevant when it comes to De Facto control. Somaliland is at the very least a De Facto Independent Region. You don't to meet criteria for De Jure recognition, to be De Facto Independent. From what I read, all editors here agree that Somaliland controls 60% of its claimed region. However the claim is for De Jure purposes only, as you are making a legal claim, not a claim in fact, which is silly. You cannot claim that the car is red, when it is in fact blue. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Territorial control does not necessarily imply independence. Puntland controls most of its claimed territory (including all of Sanaag, which Somaliland also claims), but it too is just an autonomous region. The Montevideo Convention itself is also actually in practice limited by/dependent on recognition since "an unrecognized territory soon comes to be disregarded as a state under the Convention, because it is seen as lacking the capacity to enter into foreign relations" (1). Middayexpress (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Territorial control by an entity wishing to secede implies De Facto independence. This was exactly the case with the Confederate States of America. Additionally, you wrote this: an unrecognized territory soon comes to be disregarded as a state under the Convention, because it is seen as lacking the capacity to enter into foreign relations and I agree. Now please prove that Somaliland's region, the one under the control of the Isaaq tribe, lacks the capacity to enter into foreign relations. You do not need recognition to have the capacity to enter. Taiwan has no US recognition, and yet there are US-Taiwan relations. In theory (law) there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. Also, can you please show me which control over Somaliland's Isaaq region is exerted by Somalia? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Independence

Should it not also show Somaliland's independence from at least the United Kingdom, if not Italy and others? Flosssock1 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Midday express won't allow that and has removed that info from a number of articles. I can't do anything about it. See; WP:OWNERSHIP Outback the koala (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, British Somaliland gained independence from the United Kingdom and Italian Somaliland gained it from Italy. The Somaliland region of Somalia gained it from neither. So much for Outback's WP:Wikilawyering. Middayexpress (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How can it gain independence from neither if it existed and became independent? Don't you mean that it partially gained it from both? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand what is being said, but gaining independence from the Unitied Kingdom and Italy both opened the doors to it's current constitution. I see them as pretty important points which should be included. Flosssock1 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Flossock and HW007, to be clear on the facts. In the 1960s, British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland each gained independence from their respective parent nations. After only a few days these two countries joined into a union that created Somalia. This allowed the Somaliland government in 1991 to claim that they were, as successors to the independent British Somaliland, dissolving the union with Somalia, thereby creating their own country (which by that time they already had control over). Which is how we are is the present situation, that no state recognizes Somaliland or its actions for that matter, but they still exist in de facto control of the territory free from outside control. That's indeed the entire basis for the Constitution of the state. I'm not sure how to incorporate this into the article however because one editor (Middayexpress) is opposed to anything that might imply that Somaliland is country(something up for debate). If we were neutral, this would be represented, however it is not and there is a neutrality tag on the article as a result. Outback the koala (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand you. Could we not state the changes above as changes to the territory? or as unrecognised constitutional changes? Flosssock1 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Outback, Somaliland is not an independent "country"; it is only legally recognized as a part of Somalia. And before you have the audacity to bring up neutrality again, be sure to take down that template on your user page indicating that "This user recognizes the independence of Somaliland". Middayexpress (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland was never an independent sovereign country in 1960, several months before the British relinguished their power over the protectorate, a council was held about the territory's future:

In February 1960 a Legislative council was elected by Universal adult male suffrage. On April 6 this council unaninamously passed a resolution stating its desires to recieve independence before 1 july, so that the country could be united with Somalia when it became independent - Encyclopedia Americana pg 251

The whole reason for granting the protectorate independence was a Union with the trusteeship of Southern Somalia, this fact is emphasized in another source:

As there was no plans to grant early Independence to the territory, progress towards self government was slow untill the second half of the fifties. Around that time, however the pace was greatly accelerated chiefly to the growth of nationalist movement and the approaching date of independence in the Trustee ship - The Somali Republic: An Experiment in Legal Intergration pg 4

This also explains why the Flag of Somalia was first hoisted in Hargeisa the capital of the current seccessionist entity, which is not a successor of the protectorate, since it neither controls the same territory nor has the same stable population under it's administration. --Scoobycentric (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

State of Somaliland, here's the page for the country. So when you "Somaliland was never an independent sovereign country in 1960" you are incorrect, as it was independent for 5 days.

Timeline of events;

• 26 Jun 1960 Independence of British Somaliland as State of Somaliland.
• 1 Jul 1960 Unification with Italian Somalia to form Somali Republic.
• 18 May 1991 Secession of former British Somaliland (regions of Awdal,Woqooyi Galbeed, Togdheer, Sanaag and Soolfrom) from Somalia (not internationally recognized).
• 24 May 1991 Republic of Somaliland proclaimed (not internationally recognized).

I hope this might clear some things up. Outback the koala (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice words there. Too bad they won't be invaliding those quotes above from actual reliable sources anytime soon though. Middayexpress (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Koala, thank you for the clarification. That's similar to what I said, i.e. it gained independence from both. Scooby, remember this quote? Somaliland was never an independent sovereign country in 1960, several months before the British relinguished their power over the protectorate, a council was held about the territory's future. So can you please explain to me how a state can vote on a resolution to unify, without ever being independent? Don't you have to be independent to make that call? If several regions are passing a referendum to join together to form a country, doesn't that require them to be independent? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

From the CIA:

"Britain withdrew from British Somaliland in 1960 to allow its protectorate to join with Italian Somaliland and form the new nation of Somalia."

Middayexpress (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So we should state the date of union then? Flosssock1 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That information belongs on the Somalia and British Somaliland articles (where it is, incidentally, already cited) since the Somaliland region in question never united with Italian Somaliland to form Somalia. Only the British Somaliland protectorate did (re-read the quote above). The modern-day Somaliland region in northwestern Somalia that this article is about did not even exist until 1991, when it was declared "independent". So as to remove any further confusion, I think I should add at this point that prior to Somalia's independence in 1960, the term "Somaliland" was a generic expression used to denote all of the Somali-inhabited territories in the Horn of Africa. There was thus French Somaliland (modern-day Djibouti), British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland (modern day Somalia), Ethiopian Somaliland (the Ogaden), and Kenyan Somaliland (the Northern Frontier District or NFD). This is why in the colonial literature, for example, one would often read at once about "Hargeisa, Somaliland" or "Mogadishu, Somaliland" or "Merca, Somaliland" or "Kismayo, Somaliland" or even "Harar, Somaliland", etc. None of those expressions have anything to do with the modern-day separatist Somaliland region of Somalia, the latter of whose government actually specifically chose that name in the early 1990's because it claims to be the heir to only one of the old Somali-inhabited territories or "Somalilands" i.e. British Somaliland. Middayexpress (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Added Unbalanced Tag

I've added the unbalanced tag to the article because I believe the article is unbalanced towards the viewpoint of the Somali government over the Somaliland government's views. We need to give an objective viewing of the facts in this case and indeed that means taking the step of treating like other an unrecognized state. I will not elaborate further, as there is a discussion ongoing on this template talk page that is related to this subject, and I do not wish to start another one on this page. Once that discussion completes itself, we will have a better view of where this article stands(or should stand). Outback the koala (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we got it the first time when you claimed that the article is not "objective". The irony is that the secessionist Somaliland government's "view" is itself hardly objective {at least with regard to its own legal status), and is, in fact, in direct opposition to reality. Wikipedia also has strict rules against advocacy and questionable sources, which prevents any such potential pov-pushing. It has also already been explained to you the irony in talking about "neutrality" when you openly admit on your own user page that "This user recognizes the independence of Somaliland". That other discussion you link to above also pertains to other templates and circumstances, not to this article, so there's no point in attempting to parlay whatever happens there onto here either. Middayexpress (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Do-over of the lead

I'd like to conduct a complete revision of the lead, starting with the proposal below, which I think would assist in balancing out the neutrality of the article, which is clearly in dispute given the number of tags.

Somaliland is a territory located in the Horn of Africa. It is regarded internationally as being an autonomous region of Somalia.* Since 1991, however, it has been governed by a secessionist administration as the Republic of Somaliland,* which is considered a de facto independent state.*

The breakaway republic, which declared its independence in May 1991,* remains unrecognised by any state or international organisation.* However, many foreign governments maintain informal ties with the state, with an increasing number of foreign delegations and embassies having been established in the capital Hargeisa, falling short of full diplomatic recognition.*

Somaliland is bordered by Ethiopia in the south and west, Djibouti in the northwest, the Gulf of Aden in the north, and by the Somalian region of Puntland in the east, covering most of the territory of the former British Somaliland protectorate.*

Astericks (*) represent the placement of citations. If I can't find a credible reference for the statement, I won't add the statement. Any suggestions for ammendments would be welcome. Night w (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.sephia karta | di mi 00:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good. I support this version. Very NPOV, night w. Outback the koala (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. I think that's completely neutral, fair, and representative of the actual situation. The only part I don't like is "falling short of full diplomatic recognition." Somaliland is way too far from diplomatic recognition to even mention "falling short." I would rather it be "though has no formal diplomatic recognition." Anyway, please make your changes. I back you. (Ejoty (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks everyone! I've made the switch. It should help toward fixing some POV concerns. Night w (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Night w, I made my little change to your lead. If you don't like it, don't worry; I'm not gonna complain. Anyway, I feel like the only part that anyone was in disagreement over was the basic definition of what Somaliland is (which is more or less the lead, as a lead is a little like a definition). I think we should just take the "neutrality" warning down unless anyone thinks another section needs work. (Ejoty (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Awdal Separation Movement alleges

This 'movement' doesn't fulfill the condition of being a "large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues",its build solely on the "LETTER TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS", it also to alleges to be "Signed by the people of Awdal Republic." with stating the date and location of the signature, for the sake of objectivity this part should be entirely removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.5.233 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Awdalland is a one man show were do you get your sources from?

Puntland only controls the east part of sanaag.

Somaliland was a independent nation for five days even recognize by 34 country´s

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbaratore (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 February 2011

It has been suggested that Roman Catholicism in Somaliland be merged into Roman Catholicism in Somalia

It has been suggested that Roman Catholicism in Somaliland be merged into Roman Catholicism in Somalia. I urge editors to engage in the debate here. Outback the koala (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Motto

Could anybody provide a citation for the motto, please? --125.172.194.176 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland was a independent nation for five day´s it was even recognized by 34 country´s

Somaliland was a independent nation for five days even recognized by 34 country´s Awdalland is a one man show were do get your sources from? If I told yo I was Aswanland would you write that to? Puntland only controls east part of sanaag and SSC or PSS(Part of sool and sanaag) their is no cayn at all not historically. What happen to Ingoman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbaratore (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What About a Section on the Pirates of Somaliland?

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.94.207 (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The only major port in Somaliland is Berbera and when I there in January I didn't see or hear of any pirates. The Somali pirates operate out of Puntland, not Somaliland.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's free of pirates as far as I know. The Somaliland Navy combats pirates actively, or at least patrol for them. Outback the koala (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"When I was in there in January..." Haha! Rennell435 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)