Talk:Advance of the Islamic Courts Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Advance of the Islamic Courts Union was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 21, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Africa / Somalia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Somalia (marked as Top-importance).
 

Combatants[edit]

Removed Ethiopia and Eritrea from the infobox, they haven't engaged in fighting. Yet. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not officially, perhaps. This article [1] cites a confidential UN report that states "The United Nations warned in a confidential report Oct. 26 that thousands of Ethiopian and Eritrean troops are in Somalia backing opposing sides, raising the risk of a regional war. " Although this doesn't mean they are involved in fighting is this enough to include them as protagonists? AndrewRT - Talk 15:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No. UNIFIL was not a protagonist in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, neither the Lebanese Army, for example. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok good point. AndrewRT - Talk 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
They shouldn't be listed as combatants, but information about their influence/involvement should be part of the article expansion. See also the WashPost article. -Fsotrain09 04:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


I think they should be on the infobox because although they are not direct participants, they're supporters of either side. Eritrea has supplied weaponry to the ICU. So why not include them ? MiguelNS

Maps & NPOV[edit]

Great maps, thanks for putting them together. That's what I love about wikipedia - adding the factual detail that just gets missed when you follow current affairs in the commercial media.

One concern, however. The Somali Civil War is a purely internal affair involving only the territory of Somalia. Is it right to also include other territory that is part of Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti on this map? It could be considered partial to pan-Somali nationalism to include this in the map, and hence contrary to WP:NPOV. AndrewRT - Talk 15:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Ingoman's reason for this was that those territories are mainly populated by Somalis, and thus likely to be involved in the conflict rather strongly. They also provide opportunity to show foreign (especially Ethiopian) troop movements on the map more easily. I think it's harmless, especially as the borders between the countries are very clearly drawn. —Nightstallion (?) 15:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me the area of a possible regional conflict. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

They areas of Kenya,Ethiopia and Djibouti are Somali populated territory. During the scramble for Africa The French Took Dijabouti the British and the Italians took the rest. The British had full control of the area after WW2. So they decided to give Ogaden region to Ethiopia (breaking treaties signed with Somalis) and they Gave the south eastern Part of Somalia to Kenya (against a referendum which a 60+ majority voted to stay in Somalia). Now most Somalis want those places back but the TFG doesn't because it's supporters are those countries who don't want to give up their those areas . 87.194.51.4 09:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More Maps[edit]

I've gotten a semi-detailed map of Bay region, Somalia. I will try to make a base map for the Battle of Baidoa from it. However, I cannot find the location of Iidale (Idale) on the map. Does anyone have a Lat/Long coordinate for it? I might have similar topographical questions in the coming days. --Petercorless 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Regional War and ICU[edit]

First of all I'd like to congratulate Ingoman and theFEARgod for their great work on this article. The maps are so very detailed. Thanks a lot for your efforts guys!

I just have a few suggestions:

1 - If Ethiopia and Eritrea eventually intervene I'd like to coin the conflict as the "Horn War".

It should not be regarded as a Ethio-Eritrean war because it involves Somalia, and it should be not fall under the category of Somali civil war because what will be at stake will be the regional balance of power;

2 - Should we continue to adress the SICC (Supreme Islamic Courts Council) as ICU (Islamic Courts Union)?

I ask only because it's easier to say and identify ICU.

What do you guys think?

The SICC is the ICU "senate", the way the Shura Council is the "house" of the ICU. The proper name is still the Islamic Courts Union. As to the regional war, I agree on your choice of name. --Ingoman 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Locals refer to the enemy troops as "SICC" troops, which I cited in an article on the ICU page. --Petercorless 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

MiguelNS


Yes I would opt for 2006-200X Horn of Africa War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with any Horn of Africa War nomer. As long as none of the fighting has taken place outside the borders of Somalia the war is not truly a regional one and should thus not be reffered to as such regardless of the Ethiopian and Eritrean involment. In the same manner as the Spanish Civil War was not a regional/continental war despite the German/Italian and Soviet involment. It would be good to mention that the war can be partialy seen as an Ethiopian-Eritrean proxy war though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.212.75.164 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Abudwaq[edit]

I was under the impression this town was already under ICU control, seeing as it wasn't under Puntland's control and I thought all the warlords were driven out of Galgadud months ago. However the ICU just captured it a few days ago from Ethiopian forces, meaning it was under Ethiopian control up to that point. That means all my maps are wrong... :( I have found information[2] that Abdi Qebdiid bunkered down in Abudwaq sometime in August with Ethiopian support, so I will go with that. --Ingoman 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright so I didn't have all the information, my maps will be updated to include the new state of Galmudug that was created on the 14th of August in south Galkayo and Abudwaq.



Talib 72[edit]

I cannot wait until the ICU captures all of Somalia and gets rid of those damn warlords. And why is the US supporting warlords. I thought they were spreading democracy in the world. It seems that the US is not spreading democratic ideology. It is more like anti communist, religious ideology. The will support brutal dictators such as Saddam or the puppet dictators in South America, just as long as they are not commies or good pious religious leaders. By the way I love the beautifal and detailed maps. Best article I have ever read. I like opening all the images on different windows. That way I can click from one window to the next and watch the green grow.

I was under the impression the actual warlords have long ago lost, and the various branches of the provisional government are pretty much all that's left in the south? In the north, I don't think Puntland has anything to do with the warlords... Homestarmy 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
see my changes on the first four maps --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I like it, we should do that for all the maps. --Ingoman 15:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just how involved are Eritrea and Ethiopia?[edit]

That's a tough question really. The ICU has attacked Ethiopian convoys, and the Ethiopians have taken part in all the TNG's offensives. I think you could include Ethiopia as a combatant.--Ingoman 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Eritrea officially claims to have no troops in the country. I will add that to the page. --Petercorless 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Just changed a sentence in the opening paragraph of the orgins to read "This combination of brains, money and fighting power has proven to be very powerful." I felt it just sounds much better.70.51.86.204 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.86.204 (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

This period has ended[edit]

...with the Ethiopian attacks on ICU. See Afghan Civil War campaignbox for similar context. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

now we have two ongoing phases, that is silly. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This should remain the main article for updated information on the Civil War. We're not going to enter a new phase when the transitional government claims clashes with Eritrean troops are we? The Ethiopian intervention article is simply a breakout article which discusses in-depth the Ethiopian involvement reported here. The other article should focus solely on the actions of the Ethiopian military, while this article should discuss the broader conflict. We still have a civil war as the main source of conflict. —Aiden 07:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

bias[edit]

"While no definitive proof has materialized on either side, it is true that the suicide attack can only benefit Ethiopia, who has been trying to convince the world that the ICU is backed by al-Qa'ida."

Saying who the attack can only benifit is opinion, and a biased one, and in any case not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. At the very least it needs a drastic rewording before it can be inlcluded. I removed that whole sentance. Harley peters 04:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Restructured Document[edit]

I added "Phases" to the conflict timeline so the page was broken up a bit more logically. --Petercorless 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Somalia Diplomatic and Humanitarian Efforts[edit]

The flip side of war is peace. I have created a separate page where diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives and news can be reported, separate from the military aspects of the conflict. Feel free to help buff it up. --Petercorless 12:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

It documents a current event, failing the stability criteria. Wiki-newbie 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Name?[edit]

Why the "period" and not Somali Civil War (2006)? I see no reason to deviate from the usual naming conventions... —Nightstallion (?) 17:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

because I was unable to move it because it was already a redirect (I am not an admin), cheers --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. In case something like this happens again, just tell me and I'll do it. :) Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 00:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I still fail to see why the page was moved from Somali Civil War (2006-present). According to every major news organization, the war is still ongoing. The ICU and the transitional government forces are in daily conflict. Alleged Ethiopian intervention is no different from alleged Eritrean involvement. It is still part of the broader ongoing civil war. Thus, it is factually inaccurate to say that the conflict is still not ongoing. —Aiden 07:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
no, they refer to the new war with Ethiopia. Please don't move. [3] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated US involvement section[edit]

I have updated the United States involvement section, making citations to external sources and other Wikipedia articles. I removed some POV bias. Hopefully it meets the community's satisfaction at this point. --Petercorless 16:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs looking over[edit]

This article, like alot of somali related ones, seem to fall into present and future tense, giving the impression that the infomation provided was copied and pasted from eternal sources that were created prior to current events.

Suffice to say I find it rather unprofessional to have articles structured so badly, perhaps a clean-up would help?.

- A wiki-user

You can help! Realize that there are many articles that were in various states of organization when suddenly war broke out and changed many statements of fact which had been true even as recently as two weeks ago. Tenses indeed have changed. Many "ares" are now "weres." Many "plannings" became "events." I'm working on moving many former "current" events of the Transitional Federal Government to a related History of the TFG page. The same thing might need to happen here. Realize that it is also difficult to get some updates on the present conditions in Somalia because there's an active war going on. We don't have reports, for instance, of whether many of the established Islamic courts still meet, or whether they have gone into hiding. Again, if you have more information, or simply want to help clean up, feel free to pitch in. --Petercorless 16:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations / Sources (Links)[edit]

Please do not link to news.yahoo.com and to articles issued by Reuters (also at alertnet.org) or the Associated Press. They're existing only two or three months and then disappear and are therefore worthless, except for the claim of making an edit. The same problem is with newspaper websites which are using the original newsfeed of Reuters or AP, e.g. Washington Post (partly, can be easily recognised by the AP/Reuters logo near the headline), Forbes, CBS, partly CNN.

Safe links newspapers and other media outlets which usually publish AP/Reuters news without editing but keep them include BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk) Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Independent Online (South Africa). In the cases in which the original title of the news is still available a Google advanced search with the exact phrase might be successfull to find and restore those links. Links to BBC News articles are safe, they stay forever. Links to Washington Post articles which had been published in the print edition are also safe and can be recognised by date and pagenumber near the title and byline of the article! --213.155.224.232 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Parallel Talk[edit]

The following is copied from the talk page of Somalian War, which is a redirect to this article. As such, "talk" does not belong there, and is being consolidated here. LordAmeth 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no yet Ethiopian-Islamic courts fighting. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ICU claims that there has been. Rmhermen 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are those claims? Confirmations? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is one allegeation: [4] but there are others all about the same. (Rather like the Americans advisors in the first years of the Vietnam War - We are just training them.) Rmhermen 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's one month ago - declaration of war - I've seen no confrontation--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
No they are saying that they were in conflict with Somalian and Ethiopian troops fighting together - not just as advisors. Rmhermen 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Possible copyright problem[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)