Talk:Puntland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Somalia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
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.
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.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Unrecognized countries    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

Regions[edit]

Puntland consists of two regions: Bari and Nugaal. It is a mostly barren region with an estimated population of 1 million. Wikipedia should correct the population count which is wildly exaggerated.

Politics[edit]

Please stop deleting entries! related to Puntland Independence Movement . Puntland Independence Movement (PIM) seeks the restoration of the sovereignty of Puntland State (formerly known as the Northern Sultanates ).

If you have an issue with this organization you may organize an opposing group and fight the political war. Deleting the entry is just waste of time for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa1371 (talkcontribs) 11:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Map[edit]

What's the red highlighted bit on the map? [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's the area of Mogadishu, which is the capital of Somalia and also apparently in dispute between various factions... --Joy [shallot] 10:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What happened to the map?[edit]

  • the Puntland map has vanished...... any explanation? Pure inuyasha 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be there as of this writing. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I have removed the external links to non-English websites, as this is, after all, the English Wikipedia. Somali language websites are better suited for the Somali Wikipedia. I have based this on the Manual of Style (links) and this discussion. I've also removed websites that seem to have lost their domain names, and one that mirrored a UN document (opting to link directly to the source instead). Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Buntiland[edit]

Could someone explain why the word "Puntland" has been replaced by "Buntiland" throughout? I will revert the changes for the time being. Also, stating that Puntland/Buntiland is "the ghetto of Somalia" is POV. Tamino 19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Flag[edit]

Could someone explain why there is a different flag on the "Flags of unrecognized states" page? Hanshooyberghs 09:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC),3 Sep 2006

What exactly is the source for the flag on this page. FOTW supports the "light blue Somalian" design: [1] --Himasaram 22:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Endonym[edit]

The أرض البنط at the top of the infobox is in Arabic (ard al-bunt or whatever), but I assume Arabic is not actually the language spoken by the majority of the inhabitants of the area... AnonMoos 14:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Headline text[edit]

Somaliland. Could someone please explain why one is WAY more detailed than the other? This needs heavy expansion people. Interlaker 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

The introduction states that "Like neighbouring Somaliland, [Puntland] does seek outright independence from Somalia", yet the History section states that "Unlike the self-declared state of Somaliland, Puntland is not trying to obtain international recognition as a nation". This seems to be a contradiction; I hope that someone who knows more than I do about Puntland's desires for self-governance will rectify this. Xinophiliac 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Puntland is not seeking independence, so the history section is correct. --Ingoman 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Puntland is seeking outright indipendance and the inacuracy has been fixed--Somali123 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Somali123, please cite your source regarding Puntland seeking independence. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why this guy is trying to confuse things, but that's untrue. A brief look on Puntland's own government website explains their policy on autonomy quite clearly. Look at section 1.2 here. Somalis need to stop trying to take advantage of western ignorance on these matters. --Ingoman 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


It appears from the history and from edits that the "contradiction" was taken care of, however no one removed the tag. I've therefore removed the tag. If you feel there still exists a contradiction, please fix it, or resubmit the tag. 05:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjnelan (talkcontribs)

Sites such as American Chronicle Speak of Puntland President Faroles being one of the most corrupted puntland politicians. The BBC reported he used gunmen to take over Parliament, yet no mention of this on the main page. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/87380 [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.209.62 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Southie4life, that American Chronicle article is an opinion piece, which for obvious reasons is not allowed on Wikipedia (btw, you should read what that same author writes about Somaliland on that same website as well as others; something tells me you wouldn't, however, appreciate that. Here are examples, all the same: 1, 2, 3). And the BBC has never reported that Farole "used gunmen to take over parliament", which is why you never bothered linking to the article above. It has reported that "gunmen loyal to Planning Minister Abdurrahman Farole entered the building on Sunday, before being forced out by security forces on Monday", which I'm afraid is not the same thing. That is original research on your part and blatant misrepresentation. Middayexpress (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)



Middayexpress you say:


"The truth is, Muse attempted to sack Farole well before the gunmen ever entered the scene. Here's a passage from a news piece from the same period that makes this clear: [3]


But the article that YOU Mr. Middayexpress used to prove your point clearly says:


"On February 27th at least 3 people were killed in a fire fight near the Parliament of the Somali province of Puntland, which has been autonomous since 1998. Armed men loyal to the , minister Abdurrahman Farole who was recently sacked by the president of Puntland Mohamud Muse Hersi, entered the building Sunday but were forcibly ejected by policemen. The clashes and violence can be linked to the deadline, which ends Monday, to approve or dissolve the new government."


So now that is 2 articles that mentioned Farole was sacked by Mohamud Muse Hersi these articles are [4] and [5], Yet for some reason you refuse to acknowledge these articles. You used one of them "peace reporter.net" as a source to prove to me to me that farole wasn't sacked before, yet that same article proves my point that:

1)Gunmen loyal to Farole briefly took over parliament

2)Farole was sacked (whether it was before or after gunmen loyal to him took over parliament)

3)Yet, No mention of either of these above mentioned points is found on his personal page or Puntland page that talks about Farole.


You also said:

"Actually, that American Chronicle article above is an opinion piece and thus inadmissible source material for reasons I have just explained to you."

I would like to remind you that I never even used the American Chronicle article it was YOU that produced it to prove your point, I was simply quoting something that you had found and tried to use as evidence. So to claim it is "NOT ALLOWED" in wikipedia! Is absurd because, I suggest that you remind yourself that because you are the one that brought forward the american chronicle article. So please don't use inadmissible things in the future, this is what you said:


03:22, 10 November 2009 Middayexpress (talk | contribs) (28,129 bytes) (A lot more than Garoweonline have reported that the sacking was only attempted, never carried out & these articles are recent too => http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/87380)

Yet, After YOU quoted the american chronicle article and I read it and then show you parts in the article that you sent me and it says farole is corrupt, you tell me:

Actually, that American Chronicle article above is an opinion piece and thus inadmissible source material for reasons I have just explained to you.


I clearly show you that YOU are the one that quoted an opinion piece and now you are the one that is saying it is inadmissible. Because I found many paragraphs that were negative about farole. Please go to the Puntland page, and on the tab that says "history", you will see the correspondence that shows Middayexpress quoted the american chronicle.here it is [6]

Finally,


You say:


"It has reported that "gunmen loyal to Planning Minister Abdurrahman Farole entered the building on Sunday, before being forced out by security forces on Monday", which I'm afraid is not the same thing. That is original research on your part and blatant misrepresentation. Middayexpress (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)"


However, on the main page there is no mention of any of these Things Farole did, i.e 1) the taking over of parliament 2) being sacked.


This is precisely my issue with the Puntland wikipedia page and the section that mentions farole, there is no mention of the parliament incidents even though two sources claim the gunmen loyal to him attacked parliament and that he was sacked. His history as minister in Puntland before he became president is not mentioned because many articles show him in a questionable light, we must include all articles on Farole, because as stated earlier the BBC is more reliable then any site that can be brought forward.

Finally, the links you provided at american chronicle and the peace reporter which can be found here [7] and here [8] , clearly mentions incidents in Farole past that are not mention in the wikipedia page on his personal page or on the section in Puntland that mentions Farole. Like I've said the BBC is more respected and neutral then any site you can produce. The parliament attacked must be included in his page.

Southie4life

And here is your response. Please respond there so that others may join in (instead of in this well-concealed section conveniently tucked mid-way up the page). Middayexpress (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Somali Names[edit]

Naming of people varies between cultures. In traditional British usage A (B, C....) X refers to A (who might have further names B, C.., which can be used as required for distinguishing or distinction) and whose surname is X. Surname traditionally is the father's surname. The answer to "What's your name" can depend on the circumstances:
"John" to a teacher.
"John Jones" at a doctor's surgery.
"Jones, sir" in the military.
Basically a Somali's name is what is first in the string e.g. Axmed or Faduma. What follows is the father's name as in Axmed Cali or Faduma Cali, then comes the paternal grandfather's name e.g Axmed Cali Axmed and so on as far as unambiguity or pride demands.
Four complications:
1) A (child of) B (son of) C might in a European context be called A or mistakenly B or C (or even A and B and C as though different people) because it is not realised that the B and C of A B C are patrinomics and not surnames. WP, including Puntland has much such confusion.
2) Nicknames are common and may be used instead of a name in the list, or as a gloss on what has gone before. Cali (s/o) Muuse Timir where Timir ("dates" due to some involvement with the fruit) is someone's nickname, either the dateman "Cali Muuse" or "Cali son of Muuse-the-dateman". Ambiguity in speech is reduced as in English by stress and timing. Mentioned datelessly he'd be Cali Muuse Cali
3) Titles such as Sheikh, Xaji, and Ugaas can be dropped into the list.
4) And the person's name can be omitted by using "ina" ("child of"): ina Muuse.

Economy[edit]

The article references shark vines but does not explain what they are. I cant find an references to such a thing, other than this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.19.69 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that no one has explained what "shark vines" are, and Googling it does not provide any help, I'm deleting the reference. If someone knows what they are, they can simply add back the reference AND explain what they are. Linguixperiments (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Misnomer[edit]

Somali people are not of many tribes but of many clans. The clan group is based on lineages. The People of Puntland are of the same clan but are divided into many sub-clans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa1371 (talkcontribs) 11:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Tribes and clans[edit]

"Although it is a tribal-based separation under the presidency of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed (deputy president of the Somali Salvation Democratic Front), Puntland is a region with clan confederation as one of its top priorities."

I do not understand what this means. Does it mean that it is a priority of the government to get the tribes to federate into clans? Dudleymiles (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pure speculation on my part, but the way I read it, the clan(s) in Puntland are asserting their autonomy from other clans (in Mogadishu? Baidoa?), at the same time granting further autonomy at a local level among the various clans. I agree that it isn't clear; I'll also point out that it's unsourced. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps that the aim is to separate from tribes outside Puntland, but unite the Puntland tribes into a single clan.Dudleymiles (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's how I first read it, but I'm not sure "confederation" suggests a strong unity. Again, the whole sentence is unclear and unattributed. I propose deleting it unless someone else (e.g. the editor who posted it) can come along and clarify. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Puntland is founded on an alliance between the Harti Clan of the Darood, the Leelkase Clan of the Darood and a number of smaller Darood and Dir clans, of whom the Majerteen Subclan of the Harti Clan is the most powerful and dominates the presidency. Clan (Tol) is a different concept to tribe (Qabiil) as the Tol is not strictly genealogical and includes the various clients and vassals of that lineage of the Qabiil. Tribe (Qabiil) is a genealogical concept and is less applicable to politics, except where seniority of lineage and therefore leadership comes into the picture. This state of affairs confuses even Somalis and to call it complex would be an understatement. Essentially Puntland has taken the traditional and feudal institutions that made up the old feudal vassal/overlord system of premodern times and attempted (with some success I might add) to build a state out of it. This is no different from the origin of France or Germany. Ingoman (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Views on the SSDF[edit]

Technically speaking the SSDF was an Ethiopian and indirectly Soviet-backed rebel group, their manifesto did include restoring democratic rule in Somalia and deposing Siad Barre however their later actions, especially after 1998, make them more of a Harti irredentist movement, a tendancy that solidified after the generalized balkanization of Somalia into clan territories. Their original manifesto remains in force however as Puntland has successively been supportive of reviving a democratic Somali nation state, though the desire to do this while also retaining the Harti nation-state of Puntland within a broader federal framework has made for something of a schitzophrenic policy in this regard, as Puntland has sought to revive Somalia while at the same time refusing to cede any authority to the entity they are trying to revive. Thus, the difficulty with labels. Harti-first-Somali-second nationalists? Ingoman (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

population, area and regions of Puntland[edit]

First population census of Somalia was conducted in February 1975. Second census was supposed to be conducted in mid 1992. It did not happen. No further census had been conducted. In the absence of independent verification, the reliability of the 1975 count has been questioned because those conducting it may have overstated the size of their own clans and lineage groups to augment their allocations of political and economic resources (http://countrystudies.us/somalia/36.htm).

This is a red herring, as the population of Somalia is not cited in this article. The population of Puntland was, which is what you removed for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Moreover, there are no completely reliable estimates on the population in Somalia due to the civil war, which is why, for example, people refer to the CIA Factbook entry on Somalia for 2009 for that particular figure. Lastly, that entry on Somalia from the website you link to above was last updated in 1992 i.e. 17 years ago, so its information is hardly current, making your citing it even more absurd and ironic. Middayexpress (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources for the statement "A third of Somalia's population lives in the province which likewise represents about a third of the nation's geographical area." in the introductory paragraph (first paragraph) were not reliable. They (the sources) have not conducted their own research of Somali population distribution. They did not mention from where they have referenced (quoted). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand Reliable Sources.

That, again, is absurd. That statement above is sourced to Press TV and the Society for International Development Forum, both of which are reliable sources. If your argument is that the Press TV article is unreliable because the journalist who wrote it isn't an expert on Somalia or whatever, then guess what? The Society for International Development Forum source still is reliable for that very same reason i.e. it's a study specifically on Somalia from a reliable, peer-reviewed journal:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is."

Again, saying something is not a reliable source is not the same thing as proving it. You have not proven either source is unreliable and therefore you have no business removing said sources. And as I have already pointed out to you, even if we look at what Puntland's population is today and then compare it to Somalia's as a whole, it comes out at about a third: the CIA factbook asserts that Somalia has a population of around 9 million people whereas the Puntland government and other authoritative sources indicate that there are upwards of 3 million inhabitants in Puntland. Like it or not, that is indeed about a third of Somalia's population. Also note that Puntland's population is rapidly increasing due to an influx of internally displaced people from southern Somalia & also from neighboring countries. Middayexpress (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Similarly the statement "Puntland comprises the following Regions of Somalia:" under the heading "geography" was incorrectly listed. Puntland comprises of the following regions of Somalia: BARI, NUGAAL and Nothern MUDUG (see introduction section of : https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html). Puntland, as Somaliland, claims the regions SOOL and SANAAG. (see introduction section of : https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html). The regions KARKAAR, and AYN are regions formed by Puntland State (http://www.puntlandgovt.com/profile.php). They are not part of the 18 regions by which the country of Somalia are divided (http://www.statoids.com/uso.html).

The structure of this section of the Puntland article is no different to that of the Somaliland article, wherein the regions the Puntland government actually claims as its own are listed & sourced to it, and then a note to the effect that the Sool & Sanaag regions are disputed with Somaliland is appended to this claim. And as already pointed out to you, that "Statoids" website is a self-published website, which Wikipedia expressly discourages since anyone can create them and then proclaim to be an expert on a given topic. The material it cites is also way out-of-date. Have a look at that website's Bibliography section, where it cites its references: there are exactly two sources listed which were published in this decade, and neither has anything to do with Somalia. You don't help your case in continuously citing it as you do, yet somehow turning around and complaining about actually reliable sources. Middayexpress (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The source for the statement "Both the Sool and Sanaag regions have declared themselves autonomous parts of Somalia as Northland State (2008)" was also unreliable. Unlike Puntland and Somaliland, Northland State exists in vacuum (by name). There are no president, ministers and parliament. Northland State controls no territory.

That is yet another red herring. The statement (which, incidentally, you have only partly quoted above; the full sentence goes: "Both the Sool and Sanaag regions have declared themselves autonomous parts of Somalia as Northland State (2008)[1] and Maakhir State (2007), respectively, but Maakhir has rejoined Puntland after the arrival of General Abdullahi Ahmed Jama Ilkajir in 2008.[2]") does not indicate that Northland State has a "president, ministers and parliament". It indicates that Sool has declared itself autonomous from both Puntland and Somaliland in the form of Northland State, which at the time of writing was indeed the case. It does not matter whether or not you personally believe in so-called "Northland State". The fact remains is that it has declared autonomy from both Puntland and Somaliland (which doesn't mean it is, by the way), and this very declaration of autonomy by the very people who declared it has been sourced. Middayexpress (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of above discussion and assuming good faith, puntland article has been revised.Lantaada (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And the Puntland article's sourced material has now been restored for the reasons explained above & earlier. Middayexpress (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research & WP:BLP[edit]

Stop disrupting the Puntland article to make a point[edit]

Kindly stop disrupting the Puntland article to make a point. You have just ruined the formatting of several passages in the article just to make a "point" (1, 2, 3, 4), one which is not supported by anything other than your imagination. You have no proof that Garoweonline is a "tribal" website, or that it is, as you say, "maintained by his son to expose mistakes of the former president." That is original research, just like your attempt to link the gunmen invading the parliament building to Farole's being sacked. The fact is, the "plot" to sack Farole hatched by Muse has been reported by several much more recent articles on several different websites besides Garoweonline, (another example: "When Muse engineered thereafter a parliament plot to sack him in February 2006, Farole supporters prohibited lawmakers from entering the parliament building in Garowe, the capital of Puntland." - Afrol.com), whereas the BBC article you are citing, by contrast, dates from the very month of the very year when that plot was being exercised i.e. February 2006. That is precisely when Garoweonline and the other recent sources indicate that the plot was being carried out: "When Muse engineered a parliament plot to sack him in February 2006, Farole supporters prohibited lawmakers from entering the parliament building in Garowe, the capital of Puntland." Also, in future, remember to be civil in your dealings with other wiki editors rather than engaging in wild accusations. Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

MiddayExpress,

Today (November 11, 2009) for the first time ever a high ranking judge and a parliament member were killed. In less then a year in office, 4 government officals have been killed. Faroole legacy is being written now, yet you as a "wikipedia editor" refuse to document any of this. To compare Obama to Faroole, the richest country in the world to one of the poorest, one with a population of 300 million and the other with a state that maybe has 1 million. These comparisons deserve no response.

Faroole time is running out, at this rate he will not finish his term. In less then a year there has been more negative news that has FAR outweighed the good news that he has done.

Puntland in it's entire history has never had a parliament member killed, a governor killed, a judge killed, a minister killed. This are all first time incidents under Faroole Leadership, but of course the wikipidia page on Puntland mentions none of this on Farooles section.

Sir, be professional and critique everyone fairly.

I am not disturbing the site, I have posted sources that are internationally respected and you have not[edit]

In fact you are wrong, the site that YOU YOURSELF produced from the American Chronicle cleary shows that Garoweonline is maintained by his son to expose mistakes of the former president. This is the link, which I will repeat YOU tried to use as an example. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/87380, here is another quote Farole was using his website, Garowe Online ´http://www.garoweonline.com´, created weeks after his departure from Puntland in 2006 and maintained by his son to expose mistakes of the former president. Farole's opponents also predict now serious clashes between resigned TFG President Abdullahi Yussuf's clan - the Omar Mahamoud - with Faroole's Isse Mahamud sub-clan, though both hail from the dominant Majeerteen clan. "If his legacy is to be taken at face value, then Farole is by far the single most corrupt government official Puntland has seen so far Why would you use a link that clearly proves my point that Farole is corrupt? This Puntland passage on Farole mentions nothing negative about him, which is interesting.

P.S I am acting completely civil in my dealings with you, there is not need to be sensitive or upset when you are corrected.

Southie4life

Actually, that American Chronicle article above is an opinion piece and thus inadmissible source material for reasons I have just explained to you. So if that's the basis of your argument, then you truly have no point. Furthermore, besides the reference that was already in the article before you conveniently removed it, I've also provided another recent reliable source (yes, one that very much "works", contrary to what you've claimed) indicating that Farole left office after a falling out with Muse specifically over the oil deal (Garoweonline, like that American Chronicle article, wasn't even cited in the Puntland article for this passage, which makes your little "expose" above all the more absurd & a red herring) -- not that he was forced out as claimed by that old BBC article you've cited that dates from the very period during which Muse was reported to have hatched a "plot" to run Farole out of office (i.e. February 2006), as clearly explained above. You have also again falsely tried to make it seem like Farole was sacked from office because gunmen loyal to him invaded parliament. Here's what you actually wrote:

"Farole, who was Planning Minister in Puntland had left Puntland in 2006 after a falling out with then President Hersi, the BBC had reported that gunmen loyal to Farole entered the Parliament building on February 26th 2006, before being forced out by Puntland security forces on February 27th 2006. The overnight siege and the clashes may be linked to deadline that MPs had to approve or reject a new cabinet. Mr Farole was then sacked by Puntland President Mohamud Muse Hersi."

The BBC article -- that's singular; not "sources" as you have falsely claimed above in that bombastic talk page title -- you've sourced that passage to makes no such cause and effect relationships; only you have. The truth is, Muse attempted to sack Farole well before the gunmen ever entered the scene. Here's a passage from a news piece from the same period that makes this clear:

"On February 27th at least 3 people were killed in a fire fight near the Parliament of the Somali province of Puntland, which has been autonomous since 1998. Armed men loyal to the minister Abdurrahman Farole, who was recently sacked by the president of Puntland Mohamud Muse Hersi, entered the building Sunday but were forcibly ejected by policemen. The clashes and violence can be linked to the deadline, which ends Monday, to approve or dissolve the new government."

And yes, you were most certainly uncivil when you wrote the following and in your trademark unwarranted SHOUTING caps lock (bold type added by me for emphasis): "Those last two quotes are from the link YOU PRODUCED @ http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/87380) SO STOP WITH TEH LIES. The BBC is more respect then any link you can bring me.". Again, I suggest you keep your cool; there's nothing to get upset over. Middayexpress (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Kind Sir,

You say:

"The truth is, Muse attempted to sack Farole well before the gunmen ever entered the scene. Here's a passage from a news piece from the same period that makes this clear:

But the article that YOU Mr. Middayexpress used to prove your point clearly says:

"On February 27th at least 3 people were killed in a fire fight near the Parliament of the Somali province of Puntland, which has been autonomous since 1998. Armed men loyal to the , minister Abdurrahman Farole who was recently sacked by the president of Puntland Mohamud Muse Hersi, entered the building Sunday but were forcibly ejected by policemen. The clashes and violence can be linked to the deadline, which ends Monday, to approve or dissolve the new government."

So now that is 2 articles that mentioned Farole was sacked by Mohamud Muse Hersi the artilces are [9] and [10], Yet for some reason you refuse to acknowledge these articles. You used one of them "peace reporter.net" as a source to prove to me that farole was sacked before, yet that same article proves my point that:

1)Farole was sacked 2)Farole Sent gunmen loyal to him to take over parliament

You also said "Actually, that American Chronicle article above is an opinion piece and thus inadmissible source material for reasons I have just explained to you." I never even used the American Chronicle article it was you that produced it to prove you point, I was simply quoting it. this is what you said:

"Middayexpress (talk | contribs) (28,129 bytes) (A lot more than Garoweonline have reported that the sacking was only attempted, never carried out & these articles are recent too => http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/87380)"

Then you say:

"Actually, that American Chronicle article above is an opinion piece and thus inadmissible source material for reasons I have just explained to you."

You are the one that quoted an opinion pieace and now you are the one that is saying it is inadmissible. Because I found many paragraphs that were negative about farole.

Finally,

Since you claim I am "most certainly uncivil when you wrote the following and in your trademark unwarranted", after you claimed that "I was disrupting the page" and that I am ruining the formatt" those are both lies from you. Everything I have produced has a source that is more credible then anything you can produce.

Please refrain from sending me further private correspondence since your refuse to accept anything that negative about Farole.

Firstly, yes, I did originally bring up the American Chronicle article (I even linked you to it above, actually). And I did this specifically to show you that "a lot more than Garoweonline have reported that the sacking was only attempted, never carried out & these articles are recent too", as I clearly indicated to you in this edit summary (which is when I first brought that source up). This was a response to your outrageous claim in your own previous edit summary that "this is the BBC world service that reported Farole was sacked, you are using Garoweonline that has Somali tribal affiliations to Farole. BBC is neutral, he sent gunman loyal to him", when of course a lot more than Garoweonline has reported that Farole voluntarily left office (e.g. 1, 2, 3) & the BBC article in question does not indicate anywhere that Farole "sent gunman loyal to him". The latter is a blatant fabrication on your part. Moreover, the reason why I stated in my previous post that the "American Chronicle article above is an opinion piece and thus inadmissible source material for reasons I have just explained to you" is because I anticipated (given your obvious and inexplicable contempt for Farole) that you would want to use that opinion piece to present a decidedly non-neutral view of the man in question. And as it turns out, I was correct since you've just implored that we should "please include this" (though you have since deleted that comment; not that that even matters since it has been preserved in that talk page's history) WP:RS, however, -- and for what should be obvious reasons -- is very clear on the unreliability & thus the inadmissibility of opinion pieces:

"News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used."

And again:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source)."

WP:QS is also clear on this:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties."

I hope that's clear enough for you.
Secondly, I quoted from the PeaceReporter article to show you in no uncertain terms that "Muse attempted to sack Farole well before the gunmen ever entered the scene". This is clearly indicated in my previous post above, so there's no point in arguing otherwise. Pay attention to the quote this time:

"On February 27th at least 3 people were killed in a fire fight near the Parliament of the Somali province of Puntland, which has been autonomous since 1998. Armed men loyal to the minister Abdurrahman Farole, who was recently sacked by the president of Puntland Mohamud Muse Hersi, entered the building Sunday but were forcibly ejected by policemen. The clashes and violence can be linked to the deadline, which ends Monday, to approve or dissolve the new government."

And yes, as with the BBC article, the quote above does say that Farole was sacked, something which I am well aware of. That now makes two old sources which indicate that Farole was sacked versus three recent ones which indicate that he voluntarily left office. More could easily be produced in the latter direction too, so who's really in a weak position here: you or me? I notice another editor just reverted your edits as well, clearly indicating that "multiple sources presented point to a fall out between Hersi & Farole, and the latter as a result departing from his role as a minister", but of course you reverted him too. And let's examine just what exactly you actually added to the article instead, shall we?

"others sources report Farole, who was Planning Minister in Puntland had left Puntland in 2006 after a falling out with then President Hersi, the BBC and Peacereporter.net had reported that gunmen loyal to Farole entered the Parliament building on February 26th 2006, before being forced out by Puntland security forces on February 27th 2006. The overnight siege and the clashes may be linked to deadline that MPs had to approve or reject a new cabinet. Mr Farole was then sacked by Puntland President Mohamud Muse Hersi."

As can be seen above, by synthesizing information from different sources, you have yet again attempted to make it seem like the fact that gunmen loyal to Farole invaded a parliamentary building is the reason why he was no longer Planning Minister, when of course we know he left specifically over the oil deal he was unhappy about:
  • Source 1: "Dr Farole left Puntland in 2006 after falling out with former president Mohamud "Adde" Muse Hersi over a deal with Australian company Range Resources."
  • Source 2: "He is also expected to make good on a promise to renegotiate a highly controversial mineral and oil rights agreement signed between former President Muse and an Australian company in 2006. Mr. Farole left Puntland after falling out with Mr. Muse over the deal."
  • Source 3: "Farole has questioned the legality of Range Resources' oil and mineral deal with Puntland, which led to his departure as planning minister back in 2006."
Moreover, the source you've cited (this BBC article) for that block quote above does not indicate anywhere that the invasion of the parliamentary building by the gunmen had anything to do with Farole much less that it caused his putative sacking, as you have falsely claimed. In fact, the BBC article makes it clear that:

"The overnight siege and the clashes may be linked to Monday's deadline for MPs to approve or reject a new cabinet".

This is the exact same reason the PeaceReporter article also gives for the gunmen invading parliament:

"The clashes and violence can be linked to the deadline, which ends Monday, to approve or dissolve the new government."

That is pure, and dare I say, quite malicious synthesis on your part, as your edit tries to implicate Abdirahman Mohamud Farole -- the current living, breathing President of Puntland -- in the actual murder of people (need I remind you that three people were killed in that invasion of parliament?) when none of the sources indicate that he was. Actually, these sources spell out in no uncertain terms what really caused the violence, and it bares no resemblance to the synthesis you have put together. As such, your edit thus also constitutes a patent violation of WP:BLP -- not just "negative things about Farole" (talk about an understatement) -- especially when, incredibly, one also takes into account your previous attempts just last month to claim on the Farole article itself that the man himself "ordered Gunmen to enter the Parliament building to cause instability, before being forced out by security forces"... and all this using that same BBC source to boot! And this wasn't a "mistake" either on your part since you repeated the exact same blatant fabrication on this very article just a few hours ago: "BBC is neutral, he sent gunman loyal to him". You have already been asked and repeatedly to stop disrupting the article. Upon closer inspection of the situation and the sources at hand, that was really putting it mildly. Middayexpress (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Middayexpress,

You said many things so let me start from the top:


Dr Farole left Puntland in 2006 after falling out with former president Mohamud "Adde" Muse Hersi over a deal with Australian company Range Resources.[11]

No article that you have produced even mentioned that he resigned or quit in any fashion. It is commmon Knowledge that Farole left Puntland after being sacked, you are yet to produce a article that says that he resigned or quit.

and you said


Farole has questioned the legality of Range Resources' oil and mineral deal with Puntland, which led to his departure as planning minister back in 2006.[12]


again none of your sites mention that he resigned, I am pretty sure if he resigned or quit, they would have said he did it. They simply said his depature as planning minister.

You then said

Firstly, yes, I did originally bring up the American Chronicle article (I even linked you to it above, actually). And I did this specifically to show you that "a lot more than Garoweonline have reported that the sacking was only attempted, never carried out & these articles are recent too", as I clearly indicated to you in this edit summary (which is when I first brought that source up). This was a response to your outrageous claim in your own previous edit summary that "this is the BBC world service that reported Farole was sacked, you are using Garoweonline that has Somali tribal affiliations to Farole. BBC is neutral, he sent gunman loyal to him", when of course a lot more than Garoweonline has reported that Farole voluntarily left office (e.g. 1, 2, 3) & the BBC article in question does not indicate anywhere that Farole "sent gunman loyal to him". The latter is a blatant fabrication on your part. Moreover, the reason why I stated in my previous post that the "American Chronicle article above is an opinion piece and thus inadmissible source material for reasons I have just explained to you" is because I anticipated (given your obvious and inexplicable contempt for Farole) that you would want to use that opinion piece to present a decidedly non-neutral view of the man in question. And as it turns out, I was correct since you've just implored that we should "please include this" (though you have since deleted that comment; not that that even matters since it has been preserved in that talk page's history) WP:RS, however, -- and for what should be obvious reasons -- is very clear on the unreliability & thus the inadmissibility of opinion pieces:

This right hear is by far the most disturbing and puzzling thing you said. That you "anticipated that I would want to use it as an opinion to present a decideldly non-neutral view" Is this even logical, do you think anyone will believe you were giving me a bad opinion piece on Farole so i'd use it? This really makes me question your mental state, instead of admitting that it was bad choice, because you never thought i'd actually go through the article. You make the ridiculous claim that you gave it to me. You are not a rational person to be honest, your sources prove my points then you try to weasel your way out of them when it back fires.

you said:

Secondly, I quoted from the PeaceReporter article to show you in no uncertain terms that "Muse attempted to sack Farole well before the gunmen ever entered the scene". This is clearly indicated in my previous post above, so there's no point in arguing otherwise. Pay attention to the quote this time:

See this is the issue, you want to quote certain parts of an article that paints Faroole in a favorable light, but if the same article says something negative you want us to dismiss that part, and just think of the positive parts. That's not how it works, we will look at the entire article. Once again, you CAN'T (must right in caps so you can comprehend), just use bits and pieces of an article to your advantage and ignore the rest.

Finally, you said:

That is pure, and dare I say, quite malicious synthesis on your part, as your edit tries to implicate Abdirahman Mohamud Farole -- the current living, breathing President of Puntland -- in the actual murder of people (need I remind you that three people were killed in that invasion of parliament?) when none of the sources indicate that he was. Actually, these sources spell out in no uncertain terms what really caused the violence, and it bares no resemblance to the synthesis you have put together. As such, your edit thus also constitutes a patent violation of WP:BLP -- not just "negative things about Farole" (talk about an understatement) -- especially when, incredibly, one also takes into account your previous attempts just last month to claim on the Farole article itself that the man himself "ordered Gunmen to enter the Parliament building to cause instability, before being forced out by security forces"...

You said especially when, incredibly, one also takes into account your previous attempts just last month to claim on the Farole article itself that the man himself ordered Gunmen to enter the Parliament building to cause instability, before being forced out by security forces

The dictionarys definition of loyal is: 1. faithful to one's sovereign, government, or state: a loyal subject. 2. faithful to one's oath, commitments, or obligations: to be loyal to a vow. 3. faithful to any leader, party, or cause, or to any person or thing conceived as deserving fidelity: a loyal friend. 4. characterized by or showing faithfulness to commitments, vows, allegiance, obligations, etc.: loyal conduct.

The gunmen were loyal to Farole, there is no mention from the BBC article or the peace reporter link that they were loyal to anyone else. Why would gunmen loyal to him take over parliament?

Finally from Garowe online it says

When armed militiamen, angry by Parliament’s injustice, surrounded Parliament House, president ‘Adde Muse was quick to send in his own presidential guard to “quell” the resistance by violent force – within minutes, at least three people were pronounced dead. [13]

The militamen were armed men, it would have said that these men were civilians, but there were not they were armed. But there is no such message of any of this in the Puntland wikipedia page.

I've said it many times, the BBC has reporters in Somalia, it has the BBC Somali service which you can find here[14] , it is more respected in Somalia and all over the world. All the links you have mentioned do not have Somalia stations or daily somali broadcast. The BBC is far more respect, but you dismiss it completely.

No matter what the sources I have provided are more reliable and respected then the sources you have.

I have realized that you must be blinded by that terrible think many Somalis are, their for I hope that others will read this and come to their own conclusion. With Abdullahi Yusuf, there is a mention of the unrest in 2001 when he extended his term. There is mention about Cade Muse and the problems there. But with Farole no such mention of anything on his section. Everything is conviently positive.

To all that might read this please, look at the facts. During Farole time for the first time ever their was a active minister killed in Gaalkayo, Gaalkayo also for the first time during Farole Presidency has seen tribal fighting. Two tribes in Bari province of Puntland fought a battle, and governor of Kakaar was killed. Yet no mention of this from middayexpress on Farole's right ups.

The truth can not be hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southie4life (talkcontribs) 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No article that you have produced even mentioned that he resigned or quit in any fashion. It is commmon Knowledge that Farole left Puntland after being sacked, you are yet to produce a article that says that he resigned or quit
again none of your sites mention that he resigned, I am pretty sure if he resigned or quit, they would have said he did it. They simply said his depature as planning minister.
The articles I have quoted make it clear that Farole left Puntland specifically over the oil deal, not because he was sacked as you claim. Here they are again for reference:
  • Source 1: "Dr Farole left Puntland in 2006 after falling out with former president Mohamud "Adde" Muse Hersi over a deal with Australian company Range Resources."
  • Source 2: "He is also expected to make good on a promise to renegotiate a highly controversial mineral and oil rights agreement signed between former President Muse and an Australian company in 2006. Mr. Farole left Puntland after falling out with Mr. Muse over the deal."
  • Source 3: "Farole has questioned the legality of Range Resources' oil and mineral deal with Puntland, which led to his departure as planning minister back in 2006."
It is also not "commmon Knowledge that Farole left Puntland after being sacked"; the "after being sacked" bit is original research on your part. It is implicit in the quotes I have indicated above that Farole voluntarily left Puntland after his falling out with Muse over the oil deal. Other sources support this as well. Here's one from the Somaliland Times:

"Adde Muse has focused on exploration only and this is the source of insecurity," Mr. Farole said, while underscoring that the deal Muse signed with foreign companies to explore Puntland is "illegal." He stated that his resignation from the Puntland government in early 2006 is rooted in disagreements with Muse over "illegal" exploration deals."

The passage above was reprinted from Garowe Online, but the fact that one of the most prominent online news outfits from the rival Somaliland administration saw fit to republish it clearly indicates that it is legit.
This right hear is by far the most disturbing and puzzling thing you said. That you "anticipated that I would want to use it as an opinion to present a decideldly non-neutral view" Is this even logical, do you think anyone will believe you were giving me a bad opinion piece on Farole so i'd use it? This really makes me question your mental state, instead of admitting that it was bad choice, because you never thought i'd actually go through the article. You make the ridiculous claim that you gave it to me. You are not a rational person to be honest, your sources prove my points then you try to weasel your way out of them when it back fires.
Pure ad hominem, and ostensibly because you are stuck in a rhetorical corner that you can't logically argue your way out of. Instead of actually addressing what I've written -- which we both know you can't -- you, again, all at once, in yet another breathless WP:CIV vio:
  • question my mental health -- "This really makes me question your mental state".
  • accuse me of being irrational, but without even bothering to address much less prove the supposedly "irrational" parts of what I've written -- "You are not a rational person to be honest".
  • accuse me of trying to "to weasel [my] way out of them when it back fires"
  • blatantly misrepresent what I've written.
The fact is, I did not indicate anywhere that I gave you "a bad opinion piece on Farole so [you'd] use it"; you did. That is a classic strawman argument on your part. I clearly indicated that:

"the reason why I stated in my previous post that the "American Chronicle article above is an opinion piece and thus inadmissible source material for reasons I have just explained to you" is because I anticipated (given your obvious and inexplicable contempt for Farole) that you would want to use that opinion piece to present a decidedly non-neutral view of the man in question. And as it turns out, I was correct since you've just implored that we should "please include this" (though you have since deleted that comment; not that that even matters since it has been preserved in that talk page's history) ".

As just one example of the "obvious and inexplicable contempt for Farole" I am talking about, on the Abdirahman Mohamud Farole article itself, you have already attempted to falsely implicate the man in the armed invasion of Puntland's parliament building by claiming in the article's body that:

"he ordered Gunmen to enter the Parliament building to cause instability, before being forced out by security forces"

Just so your position was clear, you also stated (albeit this time in your edit summary) that:

"It says that he was Finance Minister, however this article shows cleary that he was Planning minister and that he used violence."

You then supposedly "sourced" those original claims to this BBC article, although that BBC article does not state anywhere that Farole "used violence" or that he "ordered" anyone to cause anything much less "instability". It only says that:

"Gunmen loyal to Planning Minister Abdurrahman Farole entered the building on Sunday, before being forced out by security forces on Monday."

And here again is the actual reason why, per the BBC article that you yourself first introduced to the Farole wiki page, the gunmen invaded the parliament building to begin with:

"The overnight siege and the clashes may be linked to Monday's deadline for MPs to approve or reject a new cabinet."

That passage above from the BBC article which you attempted to use as a source makes it clear that Farole had nothing to with the invasion. What's especially frustrating about the present situation is that you are already well aware of all of this since you yourself confessed in a later edit on that same Wiki-article -- an edit where you undid your own comments because you realized that you had made a mistake -- that "it says gunmen loyal". Yet, here you are one full month later on another wiki article once again preposterously claiming that "BBC is neutral, he sent gunman loyal to him", when of course the BBC does not state this at all but something altogether different. Worse, you repeated that same blatantly false claim just yesterday on this talk page by insisting that the PeaceReporter article "proves [your] point" that "Farole Sent gunmen loyal to him to take over parliament", when it of course does not claim anywhere that Farole sent these men or that their presence had anything to do with him. On the contrary, it too like the BBC article makes it clear that:

"The clashes and violence can be linked to the deadline, which ends Monday, to approve or dissolve the new government."

This is what I mean by "your obvious and inexplicable contempt for Farole" (not to mention Wikipedia's core verifiability, original research, biography of living persons and libel policies). Middayexpress (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
See this is the issue, you want to quote certain parts of an article that paints Faroole in a favorable light, but if the same article says something negative you want us to dismiss that part, and just think of the positive parts. That's not how it works, we will look at the entire article. Once again, you CAN'T (must right in caps so you can comprehend), just use bits and pieces of an article to your advantage and ignore the rest.
I did not "quote certain parts" of the PeaceReporter article to, as you say, "[paint] Faroole in a favorable light". This is yet another strawman argument on your part. In actuality, I already explained that:

"I quoted from the PeaceReporter article to show you in no uncertain terms that "Muse attempted to sack Farole well before the gunmen ever entered the scene". This is clearly indicated in my previous post above, so there's no point in arguing otherwise."

Your claim that "if the same article says something negative [I] want us to dismiss that part" is likewise something of a joke, since I also quite clearly acknowledged that:

"And yes, as with the BBC article, the quote above does say that Farole was sacked, something which I am well aware of. That now makes two old sources which indicate that Farole was sacked versus three recent ones which indicate that he voluntarily left office. More could easily be produced in the latter direction too, so who's really in a weak position here: you or me? I notice another editor just reverted your edits as well, clearly indicating that "multiple sources presented point to a fall out between Hersi & Farole, and the latter as a result departing from his role as a minister", but of course you reverted him too."

Given the forgoing, perhaps it's me that should be threatening to, as you patronizingly put it, "right in caps so you can comprehend"; only I'm actually familiar with WP:TALK's policy on this issue, so I think I'll leave that umpteenth flouting of wiki policies to you again:

"Avoid excessive emphasis: Overuse of italics and bold text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS (which many consider equivalent to shouting or ranting), may be distracting or annoying to readers. Italics, however, can be usefully employed for a key word, to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles etc."

Middayexpress (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The dictionarys definition of loyal is: 1. faithful to one's sovereign, government, or state: a loyal subject. 2. faithful to one's oath, commitments, or obligations: to be loyal to a vow. 3. faithful to any leader, party, or cause, or to any person or thing conceived as deserving fidelity: a loyal friend. 4. characterized by or showing faithfulness to commitments, vows, allegiance, obligations, etc.: loyal conduct.
The gunmen were loyal to Farole, there is no mention from the BBC article or the peace reporter link that they were loyal to anyone else. Why would gunmen loyal to him take over parliament?
While I thank you for your dictionary definition of the word "loyal", your argument above, with all due respect, is utterly absurd. You're essentially arguing that the actions of any person or, as in this case, group of people who is loyal to or a supporter of someone else are the responsibility of that someone else. This is pure original research & certainly not supported by any of the sources cited, as I've already demonstrated above for what must be like the thousandth time. It is also patent nonsense since history is replete with cases of supporters doing things that the people or person they are supporting does not necessarily approve of much less condone (here's just one example => Columbine_High_School_massacre#Music).
Finally from Garowe online it says
When armed militiamen, angry by Parliament’s injustice, surrounded Parliament House, president ‘Adde Muse was quick to send in his own presidential guard to “quell” the resistance by violent force – within minutes, at least three people were pronounced dead. [13]
The militamen were armed men, it would have said that these men were civilians, but there were not they were armed. But there is no such message of any of this in the Puntland wikipedia page.
This is a complete non-sequitur. These were gunmen; it makes no difference whether they were "civilians" or not. The dispute is over your repeated libelous claims that, in your own words, Farole "sent gunman loyal to him", a claim which none of the cited sources support. Middayexpress (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've said it many times, the BBC has reporters in Somalia, it has the BBC Somali service which you can find here[14] , it is more respected in Somalia and all over the world. All the links you have mentioned do not have Somalia stations or daily somali broadcast. The BBC is far more respect, but you dismiss it completely.
I do not "dismiss" the BBC article; I dismiss your complete misrepresentation of what it actually states, as I've clearly indicated above. Furthermore, contrary to what you insinuate in that passage above, that BBC article is not from the BBC Somali service i.e. BBC Somali.com (which is all in Somali, by the way) nor was it written by a Somali reporter. It is from the BBC's BBC News service and is in English, so you have no point here either. In fact, if that is your argument, you've just shot yourself in the foot because this Somaliland Times article -- which clearly indicates that Farole voluntarily resigned -- is, by contrast, from a news organization based in Somalia and does "have Somalia stations or daily somali broadcast". Your latest attempts to invalidate my sources by claiming that they are from news outfits that aren't based in Somalia is also not supported by WP:RS, which is all that matters on this website i.e. actual Wikipedia polices, not rules invented by Wiki users as he/she goes along. Middayexpress (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No matter what the sources I have provided are more reliable and respected then the sources you have.
Uh, you've provided exactly one source, this BBC News article, which you've completely misrepresented to try and implicate Farole in the shootings, as I've already demonstrated above. The PeaceReporter source I actually provided. And it too does not support your outrageous claims at all, as also demonstrated above. Middayexpress (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have realized that you must be blinded by that terrible think many Somalis are, their for I hope that others will read this and come to their own conclusion.
What on Earth is "that terrible think" [sic] supposed to mean? And where have I indicated that I am Somali? Awfully presumptuous, all the same. Bottom line, as tempting as it may be, do try and stay on topic; do not comment on other editors, let alone negatively:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

Middayexpress (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
During Farole time for the first time ever their was a active minister killed in Gaalkayo, Gaalkayo also for the first time during Farole Presidency has seen tribal fighting. Two tribes in Bari province of Puntland fought a battle, and governor of Kakaar was killed. Yet no mention of this from middayexpress on Farole's right ups.
The truth can not be hidden.
Firstly, there is nothing exceptional about a government official being killed in Somalia or about clan in-fighting. Unfortunately, since the outbreak of the Somali civil war, both have been all too common, and the latter in particular has always been a feature of Somali life. British colonialists always used to report about "fighting" between this clan or that clan, no different than today; it's called competing for scarce resources. Secondly, during President Barack Obama's brief time in office, "for the first time ever", a gunman went on a rampage at Fort Hood, Texas -- the most populous US military base in the world -- killing 13 people and wounding 30 others, so what's your point? Are you insinuating that Farole ordered the killings? I hope you realize just how serious a charge that is. Circumstantial evidence is just that: circumstantial evidence. Sorry to break it to you, but Wikipedia does not function according to that, and thus, neither do I as a Wikipedia editor. On the contrary, Wikipedia actually has quite rigorous standards when it comes to actual living, breathing people, such as Abdirahman Mohamud Farole, the current President of Puntland -- a man whom you've, among other things, claimed "Sent gunmen loyal to him to take over parliament", although the cited sources of course do not indicate this at all. This is what Wikipedia's WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL policies are specifically there for. The fact is, it is you (not me) who has already spelled out in your own words on this talk page & in no uncertain terms your "point" for editing this article: "my point that Farole is corrupt". What you don't seem to understand is that your "point" as a Wikipedia editor should be to edit neutrally. It should not be to attempt to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to advance a particular "view". From WP:NOTADVOCATE:

# Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. 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. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[3]

# Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

# Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."

Middayexpress (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MiddayExpress,

Today (November 11, 2009) for the first time ever a high ranking judge and a parliament member were killed. In less then a year in office, 4 government officals have been killed. Faroole legacy is being written now, yet you as a "wikipedia editor" refuse to document any of this. To compare Obama to Faroole, the richest country in the world to one of the poorest, one with a population of 300 million and the other with a state that maybe has 1 million. These comparisons deserve no response.

Faroole time is running out, at this rate he will not finish his term. In less then a year there has been more negative news that has FAR outweighed the good news that he has done.

Puntland in it's entire history has never had a parliament member killed, a governor killed, a judge killed, a minister killed. This are all first time incidents under Faroole Leadership, but of course the wikipidia page on Puntland mentions none of this on Farooles section.

NOTHING IN FAROOLES WRITE UP MENTION A SINGLE NEGATIVE THING,

Sir, be professional and critique everyone fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southie4life (talkcontribs) 06:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys please take a step back and try to calm down? Wikipedia has a set of rules for dealing with contentious issues like this. Basically, it says that information, especially about people, must be backed up by reliable sources. I know it can be extremely frustrating, but Farole could be the worst person in the world, and if there are no articles saying so in reliable sources then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Please, Southi4life, provide valid sources for bad things you have to say about Farole. If you do, they can (and will) be put in the article. It will be much more time-effective than bickering with MiddayExpress and others. TastyCakes (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

TastyCakes,

I understand now why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, it truly is not neutral. Like I have said many times the BBC, garoweonline, peace reporter. ALL, mention the parliament attack. I produced these sources, the BBC like i've said many times is more reliable then any site middayexpress can produce. The BBC has a somali service with reporters on the ground. None of Middayexpresses sources are that respected. Yet, the attack is not mentioned in Puntland page. Look at any puntland website www.garoweonline.com and if you have somali friends to help you translate look at www.horseednet.com ; www.allpuntland.com and many others about the deteriorating security situation. Yet Midday Express is hiding this.

Regardless, it is obvious to me why wikipedia is not considered reliable, because only certain people with time on their hands and a bunch of friend(s) like middayexpress can corrupt the page.

Finally you said "If you do, they can (and will) be put in the article. It will be much more time-effective than bickering with MiddayExpress and others "

There has not been a single other person I have debated with other then Mr. (bias) Middayexpress. So for you to try and paint me in a negative light who is bickering with "others", further shows me the unprofessionalism of this site.

I wanted to bring some clarity to this article with reliable sources and that was denied, by a closed minded bias person by the name of Middayexpress.

BBC ; PeaceReporter ; these two sources are being denied. Midday express because of his poisoned logic, says "that just becasue the gunmen are loyal to farole, doesn't mean he sent them". How can you even respond to someone that reasons like that.

I will not contribute to wikipedia again after this experience. It is a site that is not truthful, with very unprofessional people ruining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southie4life (talkcontribs) 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the BBC article is a valid source. The problem is that you were applying your own interpretation to the story. Wikipedia can say that a militia loyal to Farole entered parliament, because that is confirmed by a reliable source. Wikipedia cannot say that Farole ordered them to do so, because the article doesn't confirm that and we do not assume things. I am not sure if the peacereporter site qualifies as a reliable source. I am unfamiliar with the site, but it appears to be an activist site that has an agenda in how it presents news. I think this is a moot point, however, since in this case it says pretty much the same thing as the BBC article.
I'm sorry you don't like how Wikipedia works. I am as aware as anyone of Wikipedia's problems. What you probably do not realize from your vantage point is that to many others, your attitude is just as hurtful to Wikipedia's goals as the things you point out. Things in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, they cannot be your opinions or observations alone. I am trying to help you to get the information you feel is important into the article, but you must understand that it must be backed up by a suitable source. Please do not start bickering with me as well.
Perhaps we can start at the beginning. What specfically do you think deserves mention in the article, and where do you think it should be inserted? Please try to be as objective as possible, and keep in mind that whatever you want inserting must be supported with reliable sources. If you are concerned about the issue in the BBC article specifically, I would suggest a paragraph like this:
Farole was planning minister under the Hersi government until a falling out led to him leaving the cabinet in 2006. Shortly after, gunmen from a militia loyal to Farole entered the parliament building, and three people were reportedly killed nearby. Farole left the country for Australia soon after.
TastyCakes (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

TastyCakes,

I agree that the peacereporter may not be qualified. It was MiddayExpress that brought it forward and quoted it, I just read it and brought to his attention that it further supported my claim that the gunmen were loyal to Farole and that Farole was sacked. Remember this is a site Middayexpress quoted, not me. MiddayExpress then goes on Puntland site and purposely says that Farole resigned, even though not a single source he has ever produced mentions that he resigned, yet that is what he put there.

What you said here Farole was planning minister under the Hersi government until a falling out led to him leaving the cabinet in 2006. Shortly after, gunmen from a militia loyal to Farole entered the parliament building, and three people were reportedly killed nearby. Farole left the country for Australia soon after. "

I agree with this paragraph completely and this would be sufficient. I hope to see the day when it is included and not editted. My advice is that lets forget about my own interpretation, please copy the bbc article verbatim and mention the BBC had reported it.

I understand what you mean by it can't be my interpretation. MiddayExpress had mention that, so when I changed it and copied the BBC article verbatim, Middayexpress refused to acknowledge it and said that it was an old article. Even though as I have mentioned numerous times, that the BBC has a somali service with multiple daily Somali radio programs with reporters on the ground. Midday Express then sent me the peacereporter article that was dated the same time as the BBC article, yet he still used it and when I quoted it and he showed Farole was sacked and that gunmen loyal to him went into parliament, Middayexpress refused to acknowledge it. None of Middayexpress sources come even close to the international respect the BBC has. Yet he purposely refused to acknowledge it. This is not a case of bickering as you may believe, it is a case of having a free and open discussion. Yet this discussion is not free, in my opinion.

I have lost faith in getting Wikipedia to mention under Faroles write up on Puntland, the BBC article. So I ask you this.

Is it possible to mention under Faroles section that the neutrality is disputed?

Thank you for helping me in this discussion, where I was able to ask questions and get reasonable responses back. That is all I ever hoped for, but was denied by MiddayExpress.

Soutie4life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.209.62 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put that statement into the article. Hopefully everyone will be happy with it. I agree with your point in general: the article seemed to be biased in favour of Farole. TastyCakes (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I thank your for your fair and professional help. All I wanted was for all the facts to be presented and not just one side. I felt that with a reliable source and correcting any mistakes so they would fit the rules of the site, my source would be included. Instead I was dismissed as interruption and disturbance. It seemed the whole Puntland write up was fair showing both sides of the states history except for the parts mentioning Farole, which were completely bias and when I included another a source I was completely ignored.

Once against thank you for all your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southie4life (talkcontribs) 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was not the source you presented that was the problem (you only produced one BBC article, FYI; I produced the PeaceReporter article, not you), but how you misrepresented what that source actually states. This has already been pointed out to you and repeatedly demonstrated above with actual difs & quotes, so there's no point in denying this. The fact is, it is you (not me) who has already spelled out in your own words on this talk page & in no uncertain terms your "point" for editing this article, and I'm afraid it was not just "for all the facts to be presented and not just one side" as you claim above. Here again is what you yourself wrote: "my point that Farole is corrupt". Again, what you don't seem to understand is that your "point" as a Wikipedia editor should be to edit neutrally. It should not be to attempt to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to advance a particular "view". The latter is explicitly forbidden by WP:NOTADVOCATE, among other policies. Your continuous personal attacks on me and engaging in wild, paranoid speculation have also been noted and will be reported should you persist in this behavior. Examples from just your lastest talk page posts:
  • "people with time on their hands and a bunch of friend(s) like middayexpress can corrupt the page"
  • "Yet Midday Express is hiding this"
  • "Midday express because of his poisoned logic"
  • "There has not been a single other person I have debated with other then Mr. (bias) Middayexpress."
  • "a closed minded bias person by the name of Middayexpress."
There is no need to engage in ad hominem if you are unable to refute the facts -- and especially in the form of difs & quotes -- presented above. That is what is truly, as you ironically put it, "unprofessional"; but of course, not more so than repeatedly violating WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Please Midday, I think everyone is satisfied (if not entirely happy) with what is now in the article. Can we all stop stirring the pot? I think southie4life said those things because he was frustrated by policies he didn't understand. Now he seems to have a better grasp on them and he accepts what is written, since it includes the bit about the militia entering parliament. I think he had a point on that issue: it was notable and directly related to the new president and was sourced reliably, yet it was continually thrown out of the article. Now it's there, it's sourced, it doesn't say anything that isn't supported and everyone should be happy. No? TastyCakes (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

MiddayExpress,

When I said that "My point that Farole is Corrupt", I was going by the article that you showed me[15] which said "If his legacy is to be taken at face value, then Farole is by far the single most corrupt government official Puntland has seen so far. As the finance minister, Farole bankrupted the State setting off its deep descendent into fiscal and economic crises - that was before the dim-witted Adde arrived at the scene to clear its coffers"

The first thing you ever wrote me was Kindly stop disrupting the Puntland article to make a point. You have just ruined the formatting of several passages in the article just to make a "point" (1, 2, 3, 4), one which is not supported by anything other than your imagination.

I felt this could have been conveyed to me more professionally and the accusations were unwarranted. The condescending manner I felt I was being spoken to was also unnecessary. It is obvious that we do no see eye to eye on this issue. So I guess it's best to agree to disagree.


TastyCakes

I am completely satisfied with the current content. I feel going over the matter continuously is pointless now. In my view it is water under the bridge. I had never invisioned this kind of problem would occur if I produced a source and was unprepared for the rejection. I will take this as a learning experience.

Thanks for your help.

Southie4life (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Southie4life: You did not indicate that "Farole is corrupt" for the reasons you have described above. You did so for the same reason that you felt compelled to a) insist on the Farole article itself just a month ago that the man, in your own words, "ordered Gunmen to enter the Parliament building to cause instability", b) later undo your own edit and confess that actually, the BBC article you supposedly sourced that passage to "says gunmen loyal", only to c) appear one full month later on another wiki article and once again preposterously claim that "BBC is neutral, he sent gunman loyal to him", when of course the BBC does not state this at all but something altogether different, d) repeat that same false claim on this talk page by insisting that the PeaceReporter article likewise "proves [your] point" that "Farole Sent gunmen loyal to him to take over parliament", when it too of course does not claim anywhere that Farole sent these men or that their presence had anything to do with him, e) somehow accuse me of having "poisoned logic" for supposedly stating that "that just because the gunmen are loyal to farole, doesn't mean he sent them", when you yourself already betrayed an understanding that it indeed doesn't when you undid your own edit on the Farole article indicating that he did send them (as just described) and although I never even wrote that to begin with! Here, for the record, is how I did actually explain it:

"While I thank you for your dictionary definition of the word "loyal", your argument above, with all due respect, is utterly absurd. You're essentially arguing that the actions of any person or, as in this case, group of people who is loyal to or a supporter of someone else are the responsibility of that someone else. This is pure original research & certainly not supported by any of the sources cited, as I've already demonstrated above for what must be like the thousandth time. It is also patent nonsense since history is replete with cases of supporters doing things that the people or person they are supporting does not necessarily approve of much less condone (here's just one example => Columbine_High_School_massacre#Music)."

Bottom line, we all know that neither the BBC nor the PeaceReporter articles accuse Farole of what you were claiming, yet that didn't prevent you from repeatedly insisting that Farole "sent gunmen", "is corrupt", his "time is running out, at this rate he will not finish his term", etc. These are your own apparently "neutral" words & views, not mine and certainly not the BBC's. And yet, oddly enough, you've attempted to paint me of all people as "biased". Irony of ironies!
Furthermore, that passage you've quoted above from the American Chronicle opinion piece was taken from another opinion piece, this time featured in WaadheerNews and written by one Mohamed A. Ali. That American Chronicle piece makes it clear that those opinions belong to one Mohamed A. Ali, yet you've curiously omitted this fact from your quote above. Here's what it looks like in full:

"If his legacy is to be taken at face value, then Farole is by far the single most corrupt government official Puntland has seen so far. As the finance minister, Farole bankrupted the State setting off its deep descendent into fiscal and economic crises - that was before the dim-witted Adde arrived at the scene to clear its coffers" stated Mohamed A. Ali.

And yes, you were disrupting the Puntland article just to make a point. As these difs clearly show (1, 2, 3, 4), you were -- just like I indicated -- "ruin[ing]] the formatting of several passages in the article just to make a "point"" in your edit summaries. This is indeed empirically observable, disruptive behavior, not "condescension".
It is not that you and I do not see eye to eye on "this issue" as you've written above, but on Wiki editing as a whole since only one of us has shown a concern for the Project's policies. Had that person been you, you would've desisted with your repeated WP:BLP and personal attack violations, among others, when specifically asked to, and especially after those policies had literally been quoted for you. But instead, you returned with more personal attacks, yet now you have the audacity to talk about "condescension"? Your own comments speak for themselves. And like I wrote, if any more of personal attacks should be directed at me, I assure you, I will seek the proper administrative action. Middayexpress (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
TastyCakes: Defending oneself against blatant personal attacks on one's character and editing does not qualify as "stirring the pot". And I will keep doing so as long as it takes for this person to desist with this behavior, behavior which Wikipedia itself has defined as disruptive (not just me). By the way, in your source formatting and reshuffling, you removed reference to the fact that Farole had questioned the legality of the oil deal. You also left out the name of the oil company in question, Range Resources, and a link-through to that company's Wiki article. No worries though; I've fixed that. Middayexpress (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd describe any of what was written as a "blatant personal attack", but I'm glad it seems this argument is put to rest. TastyCakes (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Middayexpress,

I have read what you wrote. The matter is now over.

Southie4life (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Geography Section[edit]

I think the geography section isn't really appropriate, it is a mess and it's of limited use to anyone. Geography sections are not supposed to just be lists of places in the region, they are supposed to describe the region. Midnight Express, can you explain to me why you believe it should remain as it is? TastyCakes (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The geography section is not a mess. It is actually quite neat, and of tremendous use to anyone that wants to know what major cities are actually found in Puntland per sub-region. The question is also not how you feel about Geography sections, but which exact Wikipedia policy(s) supports what you claim since, just by looking at other Wiki articles on other macro-regions in other countries around the world (e.g. East Midlands, New England, Southeast Region, Brazil, Gauteng), the major cities/municipalities -- and in many cases, districts and even highways as well -- found in those regions/provinces are indeed by convention listed in those Wiki articles. Even articles on cities list their sub-divisions; autonomous regions such as Puntland are no different. You are also not attempting to remove just the red-linked cities with no Wiki articles either, but all of Puntland's cities altogether. Middayexpress (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually Midday, the geography section is unlike any other geography section I have seen anywhere on Wikipedia, including the ones you mention above. A summary of large cities and regions is one thing, but a list as the main part of the article is just not appropriate. I'm sorry if you feel like I'm attacking you on the subject, I am really just trying to make the article better, as I think we all are. Such a list may be appropriate in a stand alone list article, but it is not how things are done in the geography section of articles about places. I'm going to redo my changes now. If you still disagree, we can take this to an arbitration, but I assure you they will agree with me. TastyCakes (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, Tastycakes. The links I have produced above (e.g. East Midlands, New England, Southeast Region, Brazil, Gauteng) are lists of cities in regions within countries, just like what you have deleted from the Puntland article in what you somehow describe as an improvement. I have asked you to produce the specific policy(s) which support your mass removal of links, and you have been unable to do so. The list of Puntland's major cities per region will therefore be restored. Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Midday, the articles you mention include lists of regions, but they are lists of the largest population centres to give the reader an idea of where people live in that region. Your list does not give populations or area or anything, so it is not helping to summarise the geography of Puntland, it is just adding a list of places in Puntland which may or may not be important. That is not how geography sections are meant to be written. It also doesn't really compare with the articles you mention above because, unlike this article, the list of large population centres is only a small part of the geographical description, not the vast majority of the thing. TastyCakes (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
No TastyCakes, they are not lists of the largest population centers, but of the region's sub-divisions, as featured on many if not most other articles on major regions within countries. Just one example from the East Midlands article I've cited above:
My point stands. Middayexpress (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Midday, please do not cut and past large parts of other articles into the talk page, it makes it extremely hard to read. The section you are referring to is not a geography section, it is a government section that is summarising the local governing districts of the West Midlands. It is a description of the region's government, not its geography. It is not giving a list of places in the West Midlands and trying to pass it off as a description of the geography of the place. TastyCakes (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
One table is not a "large part", nor did your inexplicable denials leave me any choice. There is also no Wikipedia policy that forbids visually illustrating one's point as I've just done;, so you'll have to forgive me if I do not feel guilty here either. The regions & their sub-divisions which you have wittled down to just an unhelpful, completely uninformative sentence on the Puntland article are also administrative regions of Puntland -- that is the whole point. And that table you've just deleted and which you now cannot deny having seen is of East Midlands & its sub-divisions, not West Midlands. Middayexpress (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It was not a table that you inserted, it was a list and it was the first thing in the geography section and the only thing in it except for a blurb on disputed regions. Please I'm not trying to be a dick here, I do not believe the geography section as I have left it is good either. But getting rid of the list is a step in the right direction - we should now insert information along the same lines as the geography section of every other national or subnational region article you care to mention - information like area, coastline, terrain type, majour population centres, majour rivers, mountain ranges and so on. I'm afraid I don't know enough about Puntland's geography to meaningfully contribute to this at the moment... Do you know where we could find some of that information? TastyCakes (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was a list. But so are those other pages I linked to; they just happen to be listed in table format rather than in one long column. Whatever the case, I'll make a suitable table within 24 hours. Middayexpress (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
And I have told you why those lists are different from the one in this article, and not just because they were formatted better. I think you are missing the bigger problem here: the geography section doesn't really tell us anything about the geography of Puntland. Please read the Geography section of any other place articles, from Texas to France, and notice how lacking the geography section of this article is compared to those. TastyCakes (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I have both told and shown you why they are not, in fact, at all different but rather typical of what was already included in the Puntland article to begin with (only in table format). The Texas and France links you've provided above are also irrelevant since the so-called "Geography" section in the Puntland article was never really a "Geography" section at all, but a misnomered "Administrative division" section. Even the source that it is linked back to makes this clear. Whatever the case, what's certain is that one little uninformative sentence simply won't do and will be changed. Middayexpress (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not remember you telling me that it was actually an "administrative divisions" section, nor have I seen any information supporting the notion that these are government divisions. Regardless, I think the geography section looks much better now, thank you. TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not you remember me telling you that the so-called "Geography" section actually dealt with administrative sub-divisions or regions does not change the fact that I indeed have ("The regions & their sub-divisions which you have wittled down to just an unhelpful, completely uninformative sentence on the Puntland article are also administrative regions of Puntland -- that is the whole point"), or that the source in question clearly identifies these regions as such, not as "Geography". Middayexpress (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop this pointless bickering. The geography section was completely inappropriate. It is now corrected. I see no reason to dwell. I think the table you've made looks good, thanks for taking the time to make it. TastyCakes (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

TastyCakes,

Please, deal with this situation, I had made a pieace on Mohamud Muse Hersi. Which talk about development whihc was done, and it was erased. The picture, if it was not okay, could have been revomed. Everything I produced had sources, yet Midday Express erased it all.

Please deal with this in a professional manner.

Southie4life (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Southie4life, the "piece" you speak of was never removed but re-arranged. Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the focus of this article is getting away from where it should be. There is a whole lot of material on the activities of the last two presidents, and the history section is dominated by recent history. I think the article should focus on what most good place articles do: the physical factors about the country itself, not the political ranglings of its leaders.
For example, I think the "politics" section should be replaced with a "government" section, and rather than talk all about the current president and his falling outs with Herse and so on, it should talk about what the political structure of Puntland is. It is apparently democratic, but how does the system work? Is there a parliament or its equivalent? Have there been aspersions cast on the elections held there? What role do the tribes play in the government's structure? I have no idea what the answer to any these questions are, and that's exactly my point, this article should tell me and it doesn't. Current politics should be mentioned, but in a much reduced form, with most of the material in there now moved to the Farole and Herse articles. What do you guys think? TastyCakes (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I noticed this as well, and decided to add more on the former president since the page seemed to focus on Farole, who hasn't even been in power for a year. All the questions, you asked about the government can be found on their website. at [16], Though Puntland has only been in existence since 1998, I would like to see the page focus more on the state. I also think the geography is too big and wastes a lot of space. I think all of your points should be incorporated in the page and hopefully they are and not subject to change.

Southie4life (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article did have a big section on Farole that a long-time user by the name of Abdirasak added some time ago. But since your edits today, it now devotes an inordinate amount of space to the former president Muse, so that's not exactly an improvement either. Middayexpress (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, well can we make an effort to cut down description of both of them? Perhaps just down to a very basic overview of Herse's time in office and Farole's time so far that can be added to the history section? In its place, I think the site Southie4life mentions contains a lot of good information about how the government runs (or at least in theory should run) that could be used. It would also be good if we could find anything about how effective a democracy the state really is - where the elections considered fair by outside observers? Is corruption considered common? That sort of thing. TastyCakes (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The elections are already mentioned, as are the democratic pluses and cons. What the article needs is less politics, not more i.e. basic info such as the demographic makeup of the region, its climate, dominant religions, etc. Middayexpress (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The elections are mentioned, but not whether they were considered "free and fair" as far as I can see... It also doesn't mention by what margin the candidates won, which I think might be worth saying in this article. TastyCakes (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It is mentioned that "despite weeks of political tension prior to the vote, the election itself was also reportedly peaceful, prompting one U.S.-based observer to suggest that the "success of the Puntland elections can begin to provide a model for the whole of Somalia."". The voting margins could certainly be mentioned, though; I've just seen to that. Middayexpress (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, but I'm sure we could find more on the elections than that. TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should cut down on both of them, and focus on the state. I copied and pasted Mohamud Muse, on his own page( which I plan to expand soon). So you can go ahead and shorten it.

Southie4life (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


I did a search on this quote that is found in Mohamud Muse Hersi "This followed a year of defections and secessions from Puntland over the increasingly autocratic governing style of the president sparked initially by a demand earlier in 2007 for an audit of the budget", I was unable to find a source to verify that it was sparked by a demand for an audit of the budget. I didnt delete it, as I wait for any reliable source that can verify this. Southie4life (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph as the only source it had was an editorial. Middayexpress (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Southie4life (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Puncoaguar.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Puncoaguar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Dr faroole.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Dr faroole.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I[edit]

I've proposed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Puntland.Mir Almaat Ali Almaat From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 11:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Demonym[edit]

Repeating the point I've already made several times to User:Middayexpress on his talk page and mine: The point of the demonym field in the infobox is to give the demonym for the place that is subject of the article, not every demonym that might apply to someone from there by virtue of their also being from larger, encompassing places.

Middayexpress quotes the comment for that field from the {{Infobox country}} template:

term/s describing those associated with the country/territory (e.g. "Belgian" for the country Belgium)

Exactly. "Belgian", alone, not "European"; not "European -> Belgian". In this article we're dealing with a territory rather than a country, one called "Puntland". A term that describes someone from Puntland is "Puntlander". "Somali" doesn't mean "someone from Puntland", it means "someone from Somalia". Yes, a Puntlander is also Somali, but when you say someone is Somali, you're saying he's from Somalia, not that he's from Puntland—and he probably isn't from there.

I think that Middayexpress may be misunderstanding "country/territory" to mean "give the demonym for the territory, and also the demonym for the country it's in", but it's pretty clear that it just means country or territory, whichever is applicable to the article at hand (because {{Infobox country}} can be used for articles about territories as well as articles about countries), in this case a territory.

I've referred the user to California and Ontario and Phoenix, Arizona for other examples. Note that the demonym for Phoenix for example, is given simply as "Phoenician". Not also as "Arizonan", "American", or "Terran". —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, the Africa analogy is inapt because Somalia isn't a constituent province within a country called "Africa". Similarly, Arizona and the other U.S. states don't use Template:Infobox country like this page does. They have their own Template:Infobox U.S. state, and Template:Infobox country is instead reserved for the main United States page (the actual country). This leaves us with two options: either a) we continue using Template:Infobox country for Puntland, Somaliland, Jubaland and all of the Federal Republic of Somalia's other Federal Member States, but specify in the infobox that the "Puntlander" etc. regional demonyms are subordinate to the "Somali"/"Somalian" national demonym, or b) use Template:Infobox settlement for these autonomous regions so that there's no confusion betwen them and their parent country Somalia. The latter appears to be the appropriate template since the template doc indicates that it is reserved for any subdivision below the level of a country, and that Template:Infobox country should instead be used for the parent country. Middayexpress (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, you're making up your own use of the demonym field in a manner that gives the wrong impression that "Somali" is a demonym meaning "person from Puntland" when it does not mean that. The way to solve something you perceive to be a problem is not to do something incorrectly and create a new problem by pretending that "demonym" means "nationality". You say you are left with two options, but you are ignoring the most obvious option, which is to realize that there is no problem: someone who wants to know what country Puntland is part of has abundant opportunities to find that out from information already in the infobox and the article, and someone who wants to know the demonym for someone from Somalia will find that out at Somalia.
The detail about which infobox each article uses is irrelevant. The idea that anyone intended the demonym field to contain the demonym for the place the article is about and any superset place, the article for which happens to use the same type of infobox, but not for any superset place, the article for which doesn't happen to use the same type of infobox, is an incredible stretch of the imagination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"Somali" obviously is another demonym for people from Puntland, Somaliland, Jubaland, Galmudug, etc. since they are all Federal Member States of the Federal Republic of Somalia. That is why "Somali" is listed as the country demonym for Somalia. Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this point. The {{Infobox settlement}} template, however, stipulates that: "This template should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country, for which {{Infobox country}} should be used." Template:Infobox country is thus indeed reserved for the parent country Somalia, while Puntland, Somaliland, Jubaland, Galmudug, and Somalia's other subnational entities should use the Template:Infobox settlement. Middayexpress (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"Somali" obviously does not mean "someone from Puntland" or "someone from Jubaland" or "someone from Galmudug". If someone is identified as "Somali", you have no idea whether that person is from any of those places. If "Somali" were a demonym for Puntland, then you would know that a person identified as "Somali" is from Puntland. Your insistence that "Somali" should be here while agreeing that "African" shouldn't is completely arbitrary. Your rationale for not treating Puntland like Arizona—indeed, for treating Puntland as though it were different from every other national subdivision on the planet—shows that there is no internal consistency to your reasoning. If the wrong infobox is being used in this article, that's another issue, independent of this one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
TransporterMan, thanks for responding to the WP:3RD request. Your point about whether "Puntlander" verifying that is supported is well taken. Of course, whether or not there's a unifying identity among people living in Puntland, it would still be normal for a noun meaning "someone from Puntland" to exist.
However, the question at issue here was whether the Demonym field should include demonyms for supersets of the place the article is about, or whether the point of the field is to show what the demonym(s) is/are representing specifically denoting people from that place. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I was watching this because I was researching it to respond, when TransporterMan beat me to it. @TransporterMan: I think you may have missed the point here in the way that Largoplazo says, and Middayexpress you definitely haven't read the documentation of Template:Infobox country carefully enough -- it says: "This Infobox template is used to generate an infobox for the righthand side of two specific types of article: on a country or territory, or on a geopolitical organisation." (my italics). Imho, when we use Infobox nation for a geopolitical entity that isn't a country, we should only include the demonym of the geopolitical entity, not the country. Yes, we could use Infobox settlement instead, but it wouldn't change anything. For that matter, {{Infobox micronation}} would be perfect for Puntland -- but it's a redirect to Infobox country :) --Stfg (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Understood. However, the {{Infobox country}} template doesn't specify what it exactly it means by "territory" and whether a federal state such as Puntland or its constituent provinces (e.g. Nugal) fall under that. On the other hand, the {{Infobox settlement}} template specifies that "this template should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country, for which {{Infobox country}} should be used." From this, it would thus appear that the {{Infobox country}} is earmarked for Somalia, whereas {{Infobox settlement}} is reserved for Puntland and Somalia's other federal states. Middayexpress (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
User:TransporterMan: I think you misunderstood the situation. I did not argue that "Puntlander" isn't an appropriate demonym for local residents. What I said was that "Somali" is also a demonym for people from Puntland since the latter territory is one of Somalia's constituent federal states. Both demonyms (national and subnational) were thus indicated, with the subordinate demonym "Puntlander" indented [17]. At any rate, I indicated above that Largoplazo and I can agree to disagree on this point. It's whether the {{Infobox settlement}} template or {{Infobox country}} template is more appropriate for this page and Somalia's other constituent federal states that's the question. Middayexpress (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You have already acknowledged that people referred to as "Somali" include people who aren't from Puntland as well as people who are. You are not disagreeing on that point. It follows that "Somali" doesn't mean "someone from Puntland". Therefore, "Somali" isn't a demonym for Puntland, any more than "African" is a demonym for Somalia. The comment in the template definition does not say "include every demonym applicable to people from the place the article is about by virtue of every larger place that it's a part of". If it did say that, then you'd have to add "African" and "Terran" as well. What will you do next, ask that we "agree to disagree" that 2 + 2 = 4 (base 10)? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Which template to use is not what the question has been all this time. It only just came up incidentally this morning, and it is certainly not the question for which I requested a third opinion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As I explained above, that Africa analogy is inapt because Somalia isn't a constituent part of a country called "Africa", while Puntland is a constituent part of the country Somalia (btw, "agree to disagree on this point" was a polite way of saying "let's move on"). I also didn't say that which template to use was the question all this time. I said that is the question i.e. in the present tense. Middayexpress (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Middayexpress: the choice of infobox template is merely an internal matter for Wikipedia editors. What the reader sees is a box of information about the thing named at the top of the box. Here, regardless of the choice of template, we have a box claiming to be about Puntland (with parameters conventional_long_name = Puntland State of Somalia and common_name = Puntland) telling us that this infobox is about Puntland, not about Somalia. So imho the statement that Somali is a demonym for this entity is misleading to the reader, and this would be the case whichever specific infobox template we were to use. As to that choice, you seem to have pointed out that the documentation of Infoboxes Country and Settlement are inconsistent with each other. FWIW I think it strange to call something as physically large as Puntland a "settlement", but <shrug> there you go. Why do you consider it important? --Stfg (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And as I explained, your idea that the conclusion should be different when the larger unit happens to be "country" from what it would be in every other case is arbitrary and capricious. And for the third time, I will direct your attention to California, Ontario, and Phoenix, Arizona as examples (all of which roll up to "country" at some point in their hierarchies) of the common interpretation of the purpose of the field. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As I also pointed out, Arizona and the other U.S. states don't use Template:Infobox country like this page does. They instead have their own Template:Infobox U.S. state. Template:Infobox country is reserved for the main United States page. Middayexpress (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── User:Stfg: I agree that it's weird to call an entity as physically large as Puntland a "settlement". But it's even weirder and less accurate to call it a "country" when it already has a parent country. Perhaps the solution here is to use Template:Infobox state, as on Kerala and the other states of federal India. It has the same coding as Template:Infobox settlement, but is more appropriately identified as a "state". This appears to be the wiki-standard for the other federal nations as well. Middayexpress (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And as I already pointed out to you, your idea that treatment of the demonym field should break down according to which particular flavor of infobox someone happens to have chosen to use in an article is also arbitrary and capricious. The absence of "American" from the demonym field for California has nothing to do with which infobox is on that page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[[
Though it would perhaps be simpler if that were the situation, the demonym parameter is unfortunately not why I suggested using Template:Infobox settlement instead of Template:Infobox country. It's because Puntland is a Federal Member State within the Federal Republic of Somalia, so it cannot use the same country template as its parent country. There's no reason why it should when just about all the other federal nations use Template:Infobox state (same coding as Template:Infobox settlement) for their constituent states, and Template:Infobox country for the federal nation itself. Middayexpress (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox settlement is certainly a logical and consistent choice. Has it got parameters for all the information in the article's present infobox? Are you prepared to make the conversion, if agreed upon? --Stfg (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I would be willing to make the conversion. Based on Template:Infobox state on Kerala, Template:Infobox settlement/state does appear to have all of the requisite parameters. Middayexpress (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Middayexpress: as no objection has been raised in the roughly 47 hours since you said that, I think you'd be fine to go ahead if you want to. --Stfg (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you User:Stfg. Per the above, I'll try and standarize the Template:Infobox settlement/state for each of the federal states. Middayexpress (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)