Talk:Corruption in Somalia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Somalia  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Two minor revisions: footnote 1 links to a speech by the Pm stating that cabinet ministers have signed a code of ethics and disclosed assets. There is no evidence here indicating that disclosure of assets actually took place. Footnote 8: the text states that the sources were simply "politicians"; the reference in the footnote states more precisely that these are politicians who claimed to have "witnessed the payments or received money", meaning that they also include putative eyewitnesses with direct knowledge of the transactions. Since the findings of the report were subsequently corroborated independently by -- among others -- a report commissioned by the World Bank and the UN Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, the qualification of the term 'politician' seems to be in order.HOA Monitor (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. First, the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group is hardly a neutral source (e.g. [1]). Second, the link says nothing about the politicians witnessing "corrupt practices". It says that they had "witnessed the payments" or themselves "received money", and the Finance Minister had an explanation for this ("not all cash was necessarily deposited in the government's account because some was spent on "legitimate and documented" expenses by officials before being deposited"). Third, the Prime Minister indicated that "the Cabinet has signed a code of ethics and a full declaration of wealth". That's something that has already happened, not something that has yet been forthcoming. Middayexpress (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Inner City Press is a self-published source, all content is produced entirely by Matthew Russell Lee – essentially a blog and therefore hardly admissible as a source. Moreover, the author has himself come under severe criticism by other journalists for unprofessional or unethical conduct. See, for example:
The SEMG is a UN mandated body comprising multiple experts, and its reports are published as official Security Council documents. That does not mean that they are always correct but dismissing them in their entirety as lacking neutrality raises serious NOPV issues.
Wikipedia requires that information be "verifiable". A speech by a politician, with no corroborating information is neither verified nor, apparently, verifiable.HOA Monitor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Inner City Press is an accredited media agency at the UN ("Inner City Press covers (and where applicable is accredited media at) the United Nations, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, banking and insurance regulatory agencies, the Federal Communications Commission, and various courts" [2]). It also has a number of reporters on different beats [3]. Not that that really matters since the link in the post above is actually an official Somali government document. Also, the speech in question was by the Prime Minister of Somalia, and was prepared by the Permanent Mission of the Somali Republic to the United Nations [4]. It's not a casual chat with, say, unnamed politicians in Mogadishu. Middayexpress (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Midday, the links I have provided demonstrate that Inner City Press's integrity is questionable and therefore it would be advisable to seek more reliable sources. The PM's speech is a political statement, not necessarily a reflecting of fact. Wikipedia requires that information be verifiable and you have not yet achieved this standard. I would suggest that you find additional, demonstrably independent and credible sources to support what might otherwise be construed as a biased perspective.HOA Monitor (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The PM's assertions were part of an official government statement to the Security Council. They are attributed to him per policy, not presented in Wikipedia's voice; so that's not really relevant. They are also included in the Security Council's own document on the meeting [5]. As for the links you produced, though they criticize Inner City Press' founder, they are entirely irrelevant since the link in question is actually a document by the Somali government. It's just stored on ICP's servers. The Somali press notes this too [6]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


It is peculiar that this article refers to TFG corruption, without detailing the specifics of those allegations and limiting itself essentially to the TFG's putative responses. I have therefore added cited three authoritative and official sources (TFG PM's office, World Bank and UN SEMG) that describe the substance of the allegations. Additional information should probably also be inserted in specific sections of the article.HOA Monitor (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. The main corruption allegations are noted, including the TFG Public Finance Management Unit, World Bank and SEMG reports. Per WP:BLP and for balance, the government representatives' response to the charges are also mentioned. The anti-corruption measures likewise note the regulations established to redress and/or prevent graft. Middayexpress (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. You are applying, once again, undue weight to sources that you favour, while minimising those that you disagree with, hence an NPOV issue, Midday. HOA Monitor (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's the other way around, as noted by User:26oo. Middayexpress (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Midday, you can't be serious. User26oo is clearly someone you call upon regularly when you require support and assistance and therefore can hardly be considered neutral. Moreover, he/she seems to share the same political inclinations that you do, when it comes to Somali issues. invoking User26oo's opinion clearly does not meet the standard of WP:3O, so I will post this dispute to seek inputs from alternative, neutral editors.HOA Monitor (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, User:26oo is a longstanding contributor on WikiProject Somalia, which this page falls under. I have also already asked for a formal Third Opinion. Middayexpress (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (Comment from uninvolved editor) Are you two really going to argue about everything on here and then have it brought to WP:3? Maybe you should both take a wikibreak for a day or two. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

HOA Monitor - Your edits by in large question NPOV, and I think the fact that you are a new user adds to that persona. I'm not aware of what Middayexpress' views are nor is it my place to know. You are always free to make edits and when challenged seek WP:CONSENSUS. 26oo (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) The claim is that User:Middayexpress had foreknowledge of 26oo's views. Whether 26oo has knowledge of Middayexpress' views is not relevant to that point. Even if the statement is not true, simply specifying an editor prior to 3O blatantly removes 3O objectivity for all parties. It's also skirting very close to personal attack.Roguetech (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I contacted 26oo for input a few days ago, as he is a longstanding member of WikiProject Somalia, which this page falls under. Since he hadn't weighed in, I went ahead yesterday and asked for a formal Third Opinion. 26oo only later weighed in after HOA Monitor made a personal remark yesterday directed at him. Erpert provided the formal Third Opinion today. Middayexpress (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
My bad, I assumed it was in reference to informal third opinion, as hand-picking "uninvolved" editors, rather than expert editors. I'd still say that presenting the opinions of another is, at best, bad form.Roguetech (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It's fine per appropriate notification ("An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following[...] On the user talk pages of concerned editors[...] Examples include[...] Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)[...] Editors known for expertise in the field"). Middayexpress (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) I'm not clear on what the dissent it about. The last series of changes was over whether an officially published report was leaked at some point in time...?Roguetech (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The user seemed to object to the fact that the report was leaked ahead of time to the press, although it hadn't yet been finalized for official release. A companion paper on Eritrea by the same group was also leaked a few days later to the press. Russia, however, blocked its official release as it "object[ed] to the publication of the report due to the biased and groundless conclusions and recommendations contained in it" [7]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
But it has been now officially released? If it has not been published by the UN, then "leaked" is appropriate. If it has been published but not fully approved (or whatever they do), then perhaps "draft" or even "proposed" would actually be more appropriate. If it has now been officially published and approved, assuming the same text is included, then "leaked" is not necessary. If the leaked copy has it, but not the official version, then "leaked draft".Roguetech (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The Monitoring Group's paper was first leaked to the press around two weeks prior to the report's ultimate issuance to the general public. According to the Somali government's official response to the paper, this resulted in many journalists taking the Monitoring Group's allegations at face value and repeating them almost verbatim in print: "The Report was formally issued to the general public on 12 July 2013 but leaked to Reuters by someone associated with the Monitoring Group more than two weeks beforehand. It may or may not be coincidental that a member of the Monitoring Group listed as a “finance expert” is, in reality, a foreign affairs journalist recently employed by Reuters, and that the vast majority of the early media articles honed in on the financial section of the leaked Report (specifically, Annex 5.2). That section, which is the subject of this Response, represented just 13 pages out of a nearly 500-page submission devoted mostly to other issues. However, the media leak spawned dozens of highly disparaging press articles focusing on Annex 5.2, which coverage did little more than take the Monitoring Group’s purported findings of financial corruption at face value and parrot them to the world. The leak by itself is suggestive that the Monitoring Group was motivated more by political and financial considerations than a genuine desire to report the truth" [8]. Russia and Eritrea also asserted the same thing when the group reportedly leaked its Eritrea paper only a few days later [9]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor)If the argument is over the word leaked you could add a sentence stating that the report was not withdrawn and instead formally released with the link to the document ( following the Somali governments threat of court action if the document was not withdrawn. That allows the anger at the leaked report to be kept, as well as giving the weight of an officially released report.FMMonty (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Then the source itself is valid. Regardless of the media attention it may have received, or claims of conflict of interest on behalf of the authors, it is a "report by the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea", and not specifically the leaked version thereof. If the report itself is suspect, stating "leaked" is not an accurate way to state that. It seems it is suspect due to reasons only tangentially related to it haven been leaked (ie. who leaked it). Perhaps "controversial" would be more accurate? (Which that claim itself should probably be sourced, but several sources for that were just provided.) [Basically what FMMonty above stated.]] Roguetech (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that the "leaked" assertion in the wikitext actually pertains to the report from the year earlier, which was also leaked before its official public release. So that's two consecutive papers by the panel that were leaked beforehand, and anger over this both times. However, asfaik, the government issued an official response report only with regard to the latest paper. Perhaps, then, it would be best to refer to each report as a report i.e. without any "leaked" qualifier. Only a sentence or two later would it then be explained that the papers had been leaked to the press before their official public release, and the Somali government was upset about this because it believed that this resulted in many members of the press taking the allegations at face value and repeating them almost verbatim. Middayexpress (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The reports stand as official, published UN Security Council documents, regardless of whether or not they were leaked. I concur with the proposal to remove the 'leaked' qualifier and simply cite the reports.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) For "government" v. "authorities", the report specifies "Government of Oman".Roguetech (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed that. Middayexpress (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) "Hoa Monitor", Kindly don't rage the editor, even if they are backing each other for a while, you can instead notify about it, in noticeboard if you believe that there's breach of wikipedia rules. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Policy indicates that a dispute resolution process that is already underway (as here, with the Third Opinion) should be completed; otherwise, it's simply WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I also recommend having a look at appropriate notification and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Galmudug. Middayexpress (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Bladesmulti. That's helpful advice. I'll bear it in mind.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


>> UN says arms for Somalia diverted to militias(Lihaas (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)).