Talk:Somali people

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Somalis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161007172120/http://somalia.unfpa.org/sites/arabstates/files/pub-pdf/Population-Estimation-Survey-of-Somalia-PESS-2013-2014.pdf to http://somalia.unfpa.org/sites/arabstates/files/pub-pdf/Population-Estimation-Survey-of-Somalia-PESS-2013-2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161007172120/http://somalia.unfpa.org/sites/arabstates/files/pub-pdf/Population-Estimation-Survey-of-Somalia-PESS-2013-2014.pdf to http://somalia.unfpa.org/sites/arabstates/files/pub-pdf/Population-Estimation-Survey-of-Somalia-PESS-2013-2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116055005/http://www.buluugleey.com/warkiidanbe/Governance.htm to http://www.buluugleey.com/warkiidanbe/Governance.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214023655/http://www.mepc.org/workshops/popstat.asp to http://www.mepc.org/workshops/popstat.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915100458/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/flags/flagtemplate_so.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/flags/flagtemplate_so.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118151830/http://www.hdcentre.org/files/Somalia%20report.pdf to http://www.hdcentre.org/files/Somalia%20report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110506172142/http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Feb_11/5Feb15.html to http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Feb_11/5Feb15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303212239/http://konig.la.utk.edu/AJPA_Suppl_40_web.htm to http://konig.la.utk.edu/AJPA_Suppl_40_web.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sultan

It has been claimed that this file of an individual named Abdillahi Sultan Deria is notable, on the basis that he was apparently a clan leader and led what was claimed to be a cross-clan diplomatic representation. However, a Google search on the individual only seems to turn up a few forum posts and blogs, as well as a link indicating that he was part of an SNL delegation to the United Nations, which was led instead by another individual [1]. This fails WP:BURDEN. Soupforone (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that someone doesn't need to meet the notability requirements for a standalone article for an image of them or their name to appear in another article. However, the information does need to be verified, so I agree on that point. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I also agree on the point, Soupforone's edit seems the most sensible in this situation. CabuuwaaqWanaag (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:PERTINENCE, images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context rather than primarily decorative. Soupforone (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a different requirement to notability, as that term is used on Wikipedia, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As stated by both Koodbuur and Cordless Larry, there is no requirement for a standalone article for the inclusion in this section. Sultan Abdullahi Sultan Deria, along with Sultan Abdurahman Sultan Deria represented the people of British Somaliland Protectorate and traveled to meet both the British Government in London, as well as the United Nations in New York. The letter below from the British Acting Commissioner for Native Affairs states:

THE SECRETARIAT, HARGEISA, SOMALILAND PROTECTORATE, 1955.

To Whom It May Concernt

The undermentioned gentlemen have informed me that they are travelling to London for tho purpose of raising certain points in connection with a number of Treaties entered into at various dates in the last century between the British Government and certain Somali tribes:-

1. Sultan Abdurahman Sultan Deria.

2. Sultan Abdullahi Sultan Deria, and two interpreters.

This certifies that these gentlemen have been chosen in open assembly of representatives of the people of Somaliland Protectorate and I am satisfied that they are therefore entitled under Somali custom to speak for the people affected by the said Treaties.

SIGNED K.M. WALMSLEY, ACTING COMMISSIONER FOR NATIVE AFFAIRS. [2]

Their arrival is documented as a "delegation representing the 650,000 inhabitants of the Somali Protectorate" [3] (650,000 referring to the total population of British Somaliland [4]).

Regarding Soupforone's argument for WP:PERTINENCE, could you please explain how your addition of a photograph to this article [5] today was "significant and relevant in the topic's context rather than primarily decorative"? --Kzl55 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that the Sultan Abdillahi Sultan Deria addition is verifiable as per sources provided by Kzl55. I would like to reiterate the point I mentioned in the edit summary that not having a Wikipedia article does not automatically mean the person is not notable. I would also like to reiterate that diversity and inclusivity are of utmost importance in ensuring that this article is fair and balanced as per WP:NPOV. Koodbuur (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP allows images of individuals in their wikibios. Its primary restriction is that "images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light", which the other file does not do anyway. As regards Deria, you suggested that he led the diplomatic delegation, but the quote above only indicates (like I did) that he was just a part of it. This is apparently because the British Somaliland delegation was actually led by one Mr. Mariano and the Ogaden delegation by Sultan Bihim Momeen [6]. If a Minister is part of an official delegation abroad led by a President, that doesn't mean that Minister is on par with the President and other heads of state. Anyway, for the sake of argument, perhaps it's okay to include this ruler alongside the other more established sultans. Soupforone (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you how your addition of a photograph here yesterday was "significant and relevant in the topic's context rather than primarily decorative", which is the point you made above. It is clearly neither significant nor relevant, especially with the article already having a portrait of the politician.

As for the matter at hand, please reread my post above as well as the description attached to the Sultan Abdillahi photograph, I did not suggest that the Sultan led the diplomatic delegation, in fact the description added to the article states "Sultan Abdillahi Sultan Deria, a prominent Sultan of British Somaliland who was part of the delegation sent from Somaliland to the British government in London and also....". No where does it claim he led the delegation. The official document by the British Commissioner for Native Affairs explicitly states they represented the population of Somaliland, thus verifiable and not does not fail WP:BURDEN (original contention). I hope that settles it. I agree with the point raised above by Koodbuur regarding balance, objectivity and inclusivity of the section being very important. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

One additional point regarding the photograph you cropped and uploaded today to Commons [7], the summary states the author is the British Colonial Office (no evidence of that is provided). This is inaccurate, as per your post above [8] the photograph was taken AT the colonial office, not BY the colonial office. Furthermore, the source you cited states Sultan Abdilahi Sultan Deria led the meeting [9]. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how the one portrait of the smiling politician is any less significant or relevant to his wikibio than the other portrait of the same smiling politician. You wrote that some clothing he was wearing was not representative of the politician, but WP:BLP's actual threshold is whether the individual is presented "in a false or disparaging light", which obviously neither smiling file does. As regards the sultan file/template, in an edit summary you asserted that the "Sultan was chosen to rep. all people of protectorate (including Warsangali) in London and New York". However, the text above doesn't indicate that. It just stipulates that he was part of the British Somaliland/Somaliland Protectorate's delegation in London. Sultan Bihi apparently was too, but the delegation was led by Mariano [10]. Also, I didn't actually obtain the photograph of Sultan Bihi and Mariano from the Qorilugudnews blog post that you link to above; I instead linked directly to the jpg. A Google translation of the blog text doesn't indicate that Deria/Diriye led the British Somaliland delegation [11]. Further, the Mariano-led delegation was apparently an NUF mission, whose membership included Ogaden Somalis [12]. There is therefore no valid reason to favor Sultan Deria over Sultan Bihi on the basis of clan - they were both part of the NUF delegations to London and New York, which Mariano led. Also, please note that there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed. This is just a courtesy rather than a necessity. Soupforone (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We are not discussing my edit summary, which clearly was not your point of contention as that specific summary was added after you've already removed Sultan Abdillahi's picture twice [13], [14]. Your original contention was that the inclusion fails WP:BURDEN [15], and I have cited above official document by the British Commissioner for Native Affairs explicitly stating they represented the population of Somaliland. This is inline with the actual description added to the article that the Sultan was "part of the delegation", no where did I make the claim he led it. Thus addition is verifiable and does satisfy WP:BURDEN (per your contention). We have no information from a verifiable reputable source of Bihi other than the clipping you uploaded (please refrain from using self-published/user-generated sources such as Wardheernews per WP:RSSELF, WP:UGC). The source you cited in your upload today [16] links to a jpg found on Qorilugudnews, the jpg you linked to has the exact same url as the one embedded [17] indicating it was the source. As for Google translation, you can try this link [18] which was taken from your source, the translation reads "The meeting was chaired by Suldan Abdillahi Suldan Diiriye".

On your point regarding representation, please read WP:NPOV, specifically the opening which states "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The section in question deals with history of Somalis, and it should be representative of all Somalis and not any single group. Saying that representation is a matter of courtasy is problematic as per WP:UNDUE and not encyclopedic.

Lastly, my question to you regarding the politician's portrait relates to the point you tried to make above, specifically your statement that "per WP:PERTINENCE, images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context rather than primarily decorative". The portrait you added in this edit was neither significant nor relevent, especially when the article already had a portrait present. How was adding a second one important to the article? --Kzl55 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As regards the Qorilugudnews blog post, I never linked to it. I linked instead to a jpg that is hosted on the Qorilugudnews website's servers [19], among various other media outlet servers (ex. [20]). If the translation url above is correct, that blog post is also mistaken about Deria leading the 1955 London delegation conference. The other book you linked to points out that it was actually led by Mariano [21] ("A delegation consisting of Sultan 'Abdillaahi ('Iidagalle), Sultan 'Abdarahiim (Habar Awal), Mr. Dube 'Ali Mahammad (Habar Tol Ja'lo) and led by Mr. Michael Mariano (Habar Tol Ja'lo) visited England in February 1955[...] A second delegation consisting of Mr Mariano and Sultan Bihi (Ogaadeen)[...] visited England in September of 1956 to discuss the Haud and Reserved Areas again with the British Colonial Secretary before proceeding to New York"). Soupforone (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note I have mentioned Qorilugudnews as it was the source you cited yourself in the upload. You have linked to a jpg that was originally uploaded as part of that post. Please also note, and I am repeating the point, we are not discussing who led the delegation, no one claimed Sultan Abdillahi led the delegation. We have official documents from the British Commissioner for Native Affairs explicitly stating they represented the population of British Somaliland Protectorate, that much is clear. Also note that per your source Bihi is described as a refugee from Ethiopia ("A second delegation consisting of Mr Mariano and Sultan Bihi (Ogaadeen) a refugee from Ethiopia..."). --Kzl55 (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

With regard to the sultans, I made several edit summary points, all but the first of which were responses to your varying edit summary points. My first point was actually that Sultan Shire "belongs to completely separate sultanate from other rulers", and that the "other leader is tribal chief without wikipage, not leader of an actual sultanate" [22]. CabuuwaaqWanaag pointed out the same thing [23]. After some to and fro, I asked for proof of cross-clan diplomatic representation on Deria's part per WP:BURDEN. You then quoted and linked to a letter from the British Acting Commissioner for Native Affairs. My reply above to that post was that "for the sake of argument, perhaps it's okay to include this ruler alongside the other more established sultans", and neither I nor CabuuwaaqWanaag thereafter removed the file since we were satisfied with the text & url you had linked to. The only question left is why do you keep removing the other sultans? What Wikipedia policy recommends this? Certainly not WP:NPOV, which doesn't even mention the word "clan" much less "clan representation". That policy pertains instead to views held by reliable sources, not by Wikipedians. There's no reliable source arguing that the other sultans are irrelevant just because they are from clans x, y or z. Soupforone (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

We have already gone over your point regarding the lack of a Wikipedia article as pointed out by both Cordless Larry and Koodbuur, the lack of an article does not exclude anyone from addition to the section. Again, we are not discussing edit summaries here, your original contention in this talk page was that the inclusion fails wp:burden [24]. I have provided citation from official British records and thus reinstated the addition. You have then made the unilateral decision to lump all the photos together, which was not helpful. I have restored the Sultan Bihi addition because verifiable citation from reliable sources was provided to remedie the contention as per your first post as well as Cordless Larry's first comment [25]. As for the removal of the Warsangali Sultan, Sultan Abdillahi was chosen to represent all of British Somaliland protectorate, that includes the Warsangali, hence more appropriate for the section. Also note, the Warsangali Sultan you kept including represented only 20,000 people of the total population of 640,000 (or 3.1%). There is also the issue of representation and neutrality, the section already includes a photograph of Ali Kenadid, him and the Warsangali Sultan belong to the same group. This section should represent the history of all Somalis and not just one group. Which is why I also included Mahmoud Harbi who was a leading Somali figure from French Somaliland [26]. This should satisfy both WP:UNDUE as well as WP:NPOV (and no, you do not need to have the word clan explicitly mentioned in WP:NPOV to apply in this situation). --Kzl55 (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, your comment above on what you believed was my original point linked to edit summaries, not to my original talk page post. Hence, that is what I addressed. Anyway, it is incorrect to claim that the tribal leader Deria regularly represented more people than Sultan Shire. That 20,000 figure you linked to just indicates the number of Warsangali inhabitants of the Somaliland Protectorate - it doesn't stipulate anything about Shire [27]. It would be odd if it had since, according to Shire's official website, his reign as Sultan ended in 1960, a few years before that population estimate. On the other hand, the Acting Commissioner for Native Affairs letter above indicates that Deria was chosen as a representative of the Somaliland Protectorate's residents specifically for the purpose of the 1955 London delegation. It does not indicate that he represented the territory's residents for any other purpose or time period. That is an ad hoc diplomatic representation. It is obviously not a permanent cross-clan representation since the other clans already had their own respective tribal leaders. WP:NPOV and its WP:UNDUE clause pertain to "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Per those policies, appropriate representation works "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", and "giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Yet, a Google search produces few reliable sources on Deria, and the handful that exist are almost invariably on that one 1955 delegation that he was a part of but which was actually led by Mariano. By contrast, there are plenty of reliable sources on the sultans Shire and Kenadid. This establishes that they have a much greater prominence as sultans in the published reliable literature, and therefore should be accorded a greater representation per WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE. Soupforone (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your contention on this talk page was based on wp:burden [28]. Cordless Larry seconded this particular point (of providing sources for verification) [29]. This contention was remedied by evidence from official British documents confirming the Sultan was representing the people of Somaliland [30]. The Warsangali Sultan you keep including was an elder of his clan (the Warsangali), numbering 20,000 people of the total population of British Somaliland which was 640,000 (or 3.1%) [31], they made up the smallest community in the Protectorate (jointly). If by Shire's official site you are referring to Warsangeli.com, please note it is a self-published site and you have been asked to stop using it repeatedly per WP guidelines [32], [33], at any rate your point (of when he died) has no relation to the size of his community. It is incorrect to claim Sultan Abdillahi represented the people of British Somaliland Protectorate in this one occasion only, here is an example of a separate occasion where he represented the population of British Somaliland Protectorate ("Sultan Abdillahi Sultan Deria, and Sultan Mohamed Sultan Farah - Representing British Somaliland") [34]. I hope this settles the issue.

With regards to your stance on representation, I am in agreement with Koodbuur. The section relates to the history of Somalis, it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group. This is in line with WP policies WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as well as the general purpose and spirit of the English Wikipedia. Stating that representation is a matter of "courtesy rather than a necessity" is very problematic and may be confused with bias. Other actions such as insistence on the addition of unsourced titles such as "Sultan of Sultans", "26th Sultan of the Warsangali Sultanate", "Sovereign of the House of North East of Somalia Sultanate" (and other unsourced content) [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] to the WP article of the same tribal elder you are attempting to reinstate to the section, despite repeated warnings, are also problematic.

@Cordless Larry and Koodbuur: any opinion on this? Namely the issue pertaining to the main contention in the first post of this discussion (regarding wp:burden and whether or not the sources provided, including official document by the British Commissioner for Native Affairs explicitly stating representation of the population of Somaliland (full letter above, source [40]) as well as source stating "delegation representing the 650,000 inhabitants of the Somali Protectorate" (i.e. the total population of the Protectorate) [41] as well as that of representation? --Kzl55 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure whether I understand what I'm being asked here when it comes to verification, but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, perhaps I should have worded it clearer. Since the original contention was wp:burden and verification that Sultan Abdillahi did indeed represent the people of British Somaliland Protectorate, I was asking your opinion if the sources provided are sufficient to satisfy wp:burden. And yes, the page and section should be representative of Somalis as an ethnic group and not be concentrated around any single subgroup. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Sultan Shire's titles were sourced to Warsangeli.org [42]. That is indeed the official website of the Warsangali Sultanate, but it is maintained by ECOTERRA Intl. [43]. Even if the website had instead been maintained by the sultanate itself, WP:SELFPUB indicates that "self-published sources[...] may be used as sources of information about themselves" as long as "it does not involve claims about third parties", among a few other conditions. Soupforone (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

A few points. Warsangali.org is a self-published site, using it here is against WP guidelines as per WP:SELFPUBLISH. The fact that it is supported by a charity [44] changes nothing about the self-published nature of the source. You are incorrect in your use of that particular policy, because although it indicates instances where self-published sources are usable (of which you quoted point no.2), you have ignored the first point which states ("Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources [...] so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim"). You will find that all the titles you kept adding to the article such as "Sultan of Sultans", "26th Sultan of the Warsangali Sultanate", "Sovereign of the House of North East of Somalia Sultanate" were both unduly self-serving AND exceptional claims. In this situation we go by WP:EXCEPTIONAL which stipulates that ("Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"). Particularly of interest are the first two points of the policy which describe red flags as ("apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"), and ("challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest"). You are yet to provide multiple, high-quality sources for these exceptional claims. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As regards the sultan files/template, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE pertain to "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Those policies don't indicate anything about clan representation. It is also a fact that the protectorate's 650,000 population figure has nothing to do with Sultan Shire since (a) it doesn't mention him, and more importantly (b) Sultan Shire died in 1960, a few years before that population estimate was published [45]. Further, that url you link to above is just a letter addressed to the UN, which Deria signed in his capacity as a sultan from the Somaliland Protectorate along with various other traditional leaders and politicians. It is not a diplomatic delegation nor does it have any legal binding, unlike the protectorate treaty that Sultan Shire signed in 1886 with the British Empire [46]. By any objective measure, the latter actual legal treaty is far more significant than just taking part once in an unsuccessful delegation led by another party. If Deria is therefore pertinent, Shire certainly is. Anyway, I've asked the experience moderator Doug Weller to explain here how WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE works with regard to ethnic groups. Soupforone (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid you are inaccurate on a number of points:

• You stated that the protectorate's 650,000 population figure has nothing to do with Sultan Shire since it doesnt mention him. This is inaccurate because although the population figures do not explicitly name the Sultan, it explicitly states the population figure of the clan for which he was a Sultan, namely the Warsangali, who comprised 20,000 people of the total population of 640,000 (or 3.1% of the population of British Somaliland Protectorate) [47]. If we are talking about representation, it is important to stress that he was a tribal elder representing only 3.1% of the total population of British Somaliland. This is very important.
• You stated the Sultan died in 1960, a few years before the population estimate was published. This is incorrect. The publication date of the population figures is 1951 [48], well before his death.
• You suggested that the source I linked to earlier ([49]) providing additional examples of representation of the people of the Protectorate is somehow unimportant. If you look at the citation provided you will see that the Sultan (Abdillahi) was one of two Sultans that represented British Somaliland Protectorate. The other traditional leaders you referenced were from other Somali speaking regions (be it Somalia, NFD, Ethiopia, Djibouti), only two Sultans represented British Somaliland Protectorate, one of which was Sultan Abdillahi.
• You stated that Sultan Shire signed a treaty with the British Empire. This is inaccurate. The treaty was officially signed by "the Elders of the Warsangali Tribe" (per your source [50]), you can find a list of all 13 other elders of that clan on the same page. Additionally, the British signed treaties with all clans of the British Protectorate [51], all of these clans being larger than Warsangali. It is especially important to stress the Warsangali tribal elders only represented their clan in signing the treaty (just like all other clan elders were representative of their immediate clans). Sultan Abdillahi Sultan Deria represented all of the population of British Somaliland Protectorate in his London visit.
• Lastly, on the point of representation, I think it is fair to say that Koodbuur, Cordless Larry and myself all agree that the section should be representative of all Somalis, seeing that it is titled History of Somalis. Your point regarding representation being a matter of courtesy clearly goes against both Wikipedia policy and the spirit of Wikipedia as a project. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• • I'm not quite clear about what the WPUNDUE argument is about. WP:UNDUE is purely about sources. It applies to any content. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Per WP:NPOV, representation strictly pertains to prominence of significant views within actual reliable sources. It has nothing to do with whether sultan x should be noted instead of sultan y just because there may be fewer examples of his clan x represented on a wikipage than clan y. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The web address is actually Warsangeli.org. ECOTERRA Intl. actively maintains the website. It doesn't just support it ("this Web site is maintained by ECOTERRA Intl." [52]). I do agree, though, that the titles "Sultans of Sultans", etc. (which I did not originally add) are perhaps exceptional; probably because English was/is not the Sultanate's primary language. Anyway, the 650,000 population figure indeed doesn't have anything to do with the Sultan Shire. The original url you linked to above pointed to a work by I.M. Lewis; it did not point to that 2001 paper that you've linked to just now. Either way, neither url mentions Shire. Per WP:VER, "sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy." Further, the other url you linked to is just a letter noting that Sultan Deria and various other traditional leaders and politicians indicated that they were going to travel to London to discuss some points related to existing treaties ("the undermentioned gentleman have informed me that they are travelling to London for the purpose of raising certain points in connection with a number of Treaties entered into at various dates in the last century between the British Government and certain Somali tribes") [53]. This memo is not an example of representation on the same level as an actual diplomatic delegation, much less a legally binding treaty like the 1886 Warsangali treaty that in part established the protectorate. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe Kzl55 has provided the sources that satisfy the inclusion of Sultan Abdillahi in this page as per WP:BURDEN. As I've mentioned before, as per WP:NPOV it is imperative that diversity and inclusion is maintained on this article, as this article describes the entire Somali ethnic group and should not be limited to a certain family. Lastly, the inclusion of Sultan Abdillahi's trip to New York should be restored in this article, as this source [54] describes it. Koodbuur (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That article appears to mistaken. According to I.M. Lewis, the New York delegation included Michael Mariano (leader) and Sultan Bihi [55]. Soupforone (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The article should cover Somalis across the board. I don't even know why this is up for debate. Sultan Abduelahi's international representation is well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandMan25 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, could you please also remove the Deria file until this talkpage discussion has ended? The source url on the file's description page also doesn't seem to contain that file [56]. Soupforone (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, the situation is basically that Kzl55 would like to replace the original file of the Sultan Mohamoud Ali Shire [57] with that of the Sultan Abdillahi Sultan Deria [58]. His general rationale is that the Darod clan (arguably the largest overall clan, to which Shire belongs) is overrepresented, and so a file of a member of the Isaaq clan (the largest clan in the northwest, to which Deria belongs) should instead be shown. That is what he means above by WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Koodbuur and SandMan25 have supported this rationale, Cordless Larry has not indicated which file he prefers, and I (and Cabuwaaqwanaag) have preferred the Shire file. My general rationale for this is that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE actually indicate that they pertain to "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", and a Google search turns up more reliable sources on Sultan Shire [59] than on Sultan Deria [60]. Of the handful of sources on Sultan Deria that do exist, virtually all appear to be one or two line mentions to that effect that he, among a few other traditional leaders and politicians, was part of but did not lead a British Somaliland delegation to London in 1955 [61]. By contrast, Sultan Shire is an established historical figure, having been deported to the Seychelles and honored by Queen Elizabeth II upon his release [62] [63] [64]. He was also featured on the cover of History Today, one of the more prominent global history magazines [65]. Despite this, for the sake of compromise, I am okay with linking to both files, whereas the other party would apparently prefer just the Deria file. With the above considered, given your experience as a veteran moderator, could you please explain which scenario (Shire file, Deria file or both files) works best and is more inline with the actual WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:PERTINENT policies? Soupforone (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that CabuuwaaqWanaag is now blocked for sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd rather not get involved. RfC? But I'm not sure that's warranted. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Soupforone, You have made the claim that Mr. Mariano led the British Somaliland delegation a number of times now. This is incorrect (though it is reported by some outlets as such), as per official British wording stating the role of the two politicians in the delegation as that of interpreters [66]. Also please note per your own source, plenty of residents of British Somaliland Protectorate were honoured by Queen Elizabeth II, this was not exclusive to Sultan Shire. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that Mariano led the British Somaliland delegation is per your I.M. Lewis url [67]. The Jama url above doesn't indicate anything to the contrary. It just mentions a letter wherein Sultan Deria and various other traditional leaders and politicians indicated that they were going to travel to London to discuss some points related to existing treaties ("the undermentioned gentleman have informed me that they are travelling to London for the purpose of raising certain points in connection with a number of Treaties entered into at various dates in the last century between the British Government and certain Somali tribes") [68]. Also, different honors were given to the residents. Sultan Shire was presented a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE) [69]. Soupforone (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, honestly I understand, given the mountains of text and all. Short, pithy explanations are instead recommended per WP:TPYES. Anyway, I don't have qualms with the Deria file remaining (although the source url on its file description page doesn't appear to actually contain the file). Soupforone (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You are well aware this is not the source url as you have previously made an unsuccessful attempt to get the file deleted in which it was explained that the file was scanned [70].--Kzl55 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If the Haldoornews website is not the file source, it does not belong in the file's description parameter.[71] Yet, there it is. Soupforone (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Kzl55's summary: The situation has arisen following the addition of two files, one belonging to Sultan Abdillahi Sultan Deria of British Somaliland Protectorate [72] (replacing that of Sultan Mohamoud Ali Shire) and politician Mahmoud Harbi of French Somaliland [73]. The rationale being that the section being about the history of Somalis as an ethnic group, should be representative of as broad a base of Somalis as possible across clans and regions (Somalis live across 5 regions being Somaliland, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya and are divided into separate clans). The section already had a photograph of Ali Yusuf Kenadid, who belongs to the same clan (Darod) and same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti) as Sultan Mahmoud Ali Shire who Soupforone was campaigning for. Furthermore, Sultan Shire was the Sultan of the Warsangali clan, who comprised 3.1% of the total population of British Somaliland Protectorate (their population figure being 20,000 out of total protectorate population of 640,000 [74]). The addition of Sultan Abdillahi Sultan Deria was due to his representation of the entire population of British Somaliland Protectorate in foreign missions (as attested to by official British records) as well as his belonging the majority clan in Somaliland (Isaaq, as opposed Darod to which both Kenadid and Shire belonged). The addition of politician Mahmoud Harbi was due to him belonging to a completely different Somali region (French Somaliland) as well as a different clan (Dir) thus broadening representation within the article and also being a noted pan-Somali leader which was relevant to the section. This would have had the effect of having Sultan Kenadid (representing Somalia Italiana and Darod clan), Sultan Deria (representing British Somaliland and Isaaq clan) and Mahmoud Harbi (representing French Somaliland and Dir clan) which would have been more inclusive and representative than having Sultan Kenadid and Sultan Shire (two figures belonging to the same sub-sub-clan of just one clan, Darod, out of all Somali clans). Please note that The main contention on part of Soupforone against the inclusion of Sultan Abdillahi Sultan Deria on this talk page was wp:burden [75] particularly with regards to ("he was apparently a clan leader and led what was claimed to be a cross-clan diplomatic representation"). They also mentioned Sultan Abdillahi not having a Wikipedia article being a reason on their edit summaries, a point which was challenged by Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, and myself as not having a standalone article does not stop their image from appearing in the article (if relevant). As for the original contention of Soupforone regarding verifiability and sourcing, an official document by the British Commissioner for Native Affairs explicitly stating that Sultan Abdillahi represented the whole population of British Somaliland Protectorate was cited [76] [77]. Sultan Abdillahi represented the entirety of the population of British Somaliland in dealing with the British Government, whilst Sultan Shire only represented his clan, the Warsangali, who made a small minority in British Somaliland Protectorate (3.1%)

• Additional information: Please note that Soupforone's push for Sultan Shire is mirrored on other pages, including the main article of Sultan Shire where he kept adding unsourced content and content from self-published and user-generated sources (even travel guides) with the same combative style repeatedly even when asked to only add content cited from reliable sources [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]. On both occasions (this page as well as Mahmoud Ali Shire's article) he was supported by now confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. Please also note that following a request to take the matter to the talk page by Cordless Larry [85], everyone was discussing the issue in the talk page until Soupforone's unilateral decision to go back to editing the page [86], which they continued despite requests to continue the discussion in the talk page [87], [88]. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

My first point was actually that Sultan Shire "belongs to completely separate sultanate from other rulers", and that the "other leader is tribal chief without wikipage, not leader of an actual sultanate" [89]. This was made in an edit summary, not through my first talk page post. For the actual chronology of my arguments, please see my talkpage post above dated to 05:02, 11 February 2018. Soupforone (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What we are discussing here are the explicit reasons you stated for the removal on this talk page, namely your citation of wp:burden [90], for which adequate sourcing was provided.--Kzl55 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What actually matters is all indicated reasons for removal and in their proper chronological order, including both edit rationales and talk page posts. Soupforone (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We can only discuss what you have stated in the talk page. You could have added that point to your post, but you didnt. Instead you cited wp:burden as per [91], and that was fully answered. --Kzl55 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK#USE, "talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject." That would include both edit summaries and talk page posts. Soupforone (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect. As editors we can only go by what you cite yourself within the discussion you have started. You only specified wp:burden in your post [92] and that was answered fully. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TALK#FACTS-- "the talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits." That obviously would include edit summary rationales. Soupforone (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You left out the rest of the explanation "it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so". You only cited failure of wp:burden in your talk page post, you could have added to that comment, but you didnt. Editors in that talk page can only respond to points you raise in your posts, that much is common sense. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TALK#FACTS doesn't indicate that editors in a talk page can only respond to points raised in talk page posts. On the contrary, it indicates that the talk page is also useful to talk about edits. Soupforone (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No one stated that "editors in a talk page can only respond to points raised in talk page posts", that is a point only you are making. I have simply stated that you can not expect editors to engage with points you did not bring up yourself in the talk page. It is common sense. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As regards the two sultan files on this page, the disagreement actually began after Kzl55 replaced the original Sultan Shire file with one of Sultan Deria, while also adding a non-free image of Harbi [93]. Soupforone (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Harbi's file was added for the section to be more inclusive of Somalis across a wide geographical/political/clan base as possible. Harbi belonged to French Somaliland, and was a prominent pan-Somali leader, hence the inclusion. A non-free use rational was provided upon addition here. The goal of inclusivity and representation is agreed upon by all participants of this discussion except Soupforone. They went out of their way to state that representation "is just a courtesy rather than a necessity" [94]. This is very problematic for a section and an article that covers Somalis as an ethnic group. --Kzl55 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, your interpretation of inclusivity and representation is not the same as mine, Doug Weller's or Cordless Larry's. The latter two individuals clearly explained that they weren't even sure what exactly the argument was/is about. Your interpretation does, though, appear to be the same as that of Koodbuur and SandMan25. Soupforone (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. Please do not misrepresent editors' opinions. Cordless Larry has stated his agreement with with the aim of diversity and broad representation [95], this is also echoed by editors Koodbuur, SandMan25 and myself. Your view that representation "is just a courtesy rather than a necessity" [96] is only supported by yourself (and a confirmed sock).--Kzl55 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Kzl55 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry just indicated that "on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim". He didn't specify whether your Deria and Harbi files actually do that. Neither did Doug Weller. Koodbuur and SandMan25 do, though, apparently share your interpretation that these particular files are representative. Soupforone (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my statement. Reread my post because that is exactly what it says "Cordless Larry has stated his agreement with with the aim of diversity and broad representation", I never mentioned the Sultan Deria or Harbi files in my post above. As it stands, all the editors involved in this discussion (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman and myself) agree with the aim of diversity and broad representation. As far as I know no one in this discussion supported your statement of representation "is just a courtesy rather than a necessity" [97], other than a confirmed sock. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

By "necessity" I meant actual Wikipedia policy, as my full phrase makes clear ("Also, please note that there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed. This is just a courtesy rather than a necessity."). Also, you wrote above that you "restored the Sultan Bihi addition because verifiable citation from reliable sources was provided to remedie the contention as per your first post as well as Cordless Larry's first comment". Ergo, you apparently did believe that by "a good aim" Cordless Larry meant that your sultan file specifically was representative. However, he did not indicate this. Soupforone (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect again. My statement you are quoting was actually posted before Cordless Larry's "a good aim" comment. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. My reference to Cordless Larry's "first post" (which was linked) was clearly regarding the 'verifiability of the claim' (the specific point I was addressing), as I explicitly stated "I have restored the Sultan Bihi addition because verifiable citation from reliable sources was provided to remedy the contention as per your first post as well as Cordless Larry's first comment". In your first post you cited wp:burden, and Cordless Larry's first comment stated "However, the information does need to be verified, so I agree on that point" [98], as such my statement was very clear in addressing the verifiability issue. Cordless Larry did not even make the "good aim" comment until later in the discussion [99]. It still stands that a majority of participants in this discussion (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman, and myself) agree with the aim of diversity. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The idea that Cordless Larry's "a diverse range of images" specifically means all Somali clans is reaching. That diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan. Soupforone (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect, it is not reaching. Please do not misrepresent other editors' opinions on here. My post specifically tackled the issue of the highlighting of specific groups only being problematic in saying "With regards to your stance on representation, I am in agreement with Koodbuur. The section relates to the history of Somalis, it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group", and at the end of that post I asked for the opinions of Koodbuur and Cordless Larry on a number of issues including representation [100] to which Cordless Larry replied: "...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim" [101]. It is very clear. And It still stands that a majority of participants in this discussion (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman, and myself) agree with that aim of diversity.--Kzl55 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That interpretation of what Cordless Larry wrote is also clearly incorrect since you similarly suggested elsewhere that "if you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group", to which Cordless Larry clarified that he actually wasn't even sure what the file issue was about ("Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are."). Soupforone (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Cordless Larry's comment you are quoting is regarding the specific proposals, which he stated he hasn't been able to grasp exactly what they are, I was not discussing the specific proposals in the above post but the aim of inclusivity and the importance of (" an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group"). His comment was in reply to that point, nothing about proposals, and he made it clear that he supports the article featuring a diverse range of images to represent the population as broadly as possible. It still stands that a majority of participants in this discussion (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman, and myself) agree with that aim of diversity.--Kzl55 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Inclusivity" is a nebulous term. If by that "clan/subclan" specifically was/is meant, this is not clear from foregoing since the word "clan" is not even used. What is certain is that I never indicated whether the page should or should not include as broad a population base as possible. I wrote instead that there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed, which is a different thing. Soupforone (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As for Shire's wikibio, my initial edit there was adding honors that he had received [102]. I did not add any self-published or user-generated urls. Kzl55 then removed large swathes of apparently sourced text with the non-descriptive edit summary rationale that the material was "unsourced content" [103]. This looked like blanking to me, so I restored the text per WP:VANDTYPES. When Kzl55 finally explained that it was specifically the Wardheernews and Warsangeli.org websites that he meant were self-published and user-generated, I then began to replace those urls with better sources. Soupforone (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is incorrect. My edit summary was not non-desciptive, I explicitly stated ("saving unsourced content to history pending sources"), this is a descriptive edit summary and used regularly by many Wikipedia editors including administrators [104]. Your edits were very problematic, you did not do it just once [105], but you kept combatively restoring unsourced/self-published/self-generated content repeatedly [106], [107], [108], [109], even using travel guides [110]. It was clearly unnecessary and disruptive. If you can not see that this behaviour is problematic then that is a cause for concern. --Kzl55 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The rationale "unsourced content" is indeed non-descriptive if a dif (like the one above) actually shows large swathes of sourced content being removed. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia also does not have a policy against travel guides. Soupforone (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have explained, the edit summary is adequately descriptive as used by seasoned WP editors as well as administrators of the English Wikipedia. The fact that you did not look at the content removed being of dubious sourcing (as correctly indicated by the summary) is a shortcoming on your end. The fact that you combatively restored content repeatedly despite multiple requests is also problematic behaviour. As for your use of travel guides as source, you must be aware that it is not acceptable per WP guidelines on sourcing including wp:exceptional. I think you should accept that your edits, particularly on that page, have been disruptive. --Kzl55 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, few editors would describe already sourced content as unsourced content in an edit summary (including in that Vashi dif above, which instead pertains to removal of unsourced content). They perhaps might indicate that the existing source(s) is unreliable or partisan, but they won't claim that it is unsourced because that would be incorrect. Soupforone (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. There were multiple instances of you restoring content despite very clear descriptions and citation of WP guidelines. The article had a problem with unsourced content (e.g. the statement: Shire was one of the three prominent rulers of present-day Somalia at the turn of the 20th century) as well as self-published/user-generated sources, which are unacceptable on the English Wikipedia and you have restored the problematic text repeatedly despite clear description in the edit summaries repeatedly [111], [112], [113], [114]. You even went as far as using travel guides [115] as a source when you are aware of this being unacceptable under wp:exceptional. I think you should accept that your edits in this case have been disruptive. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, your first edit on Mohamoud Ali Shire removed mostly sourced text, with the editing rationale that the text was "unsourced content" [116]. I restored that mostly sourced text per WP:VANDTYPES - Blanking, illegitimate [117]. You again removed that mostly sourced text with the editing rationale that the text was "unsourced content", only this time you also wrote that "self-published sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia as per WP:RSSELF" [118]. Since you didn't explain which exact sources you believed were self-published, I restored the text with the explanation that "all urls are working; none were self-published (sultan is deceased)" [119]. You removed the text again while finally identifying which exact source you believed was self-published ("please do not restore without providing of reliable sources. http://www.warsangeli.org is a self-published per WP:RSSELF, it is also reliant on user-generated content as per WP:UGC, unacceptable on Wikipedia" [120]). I therefore restored the other text without the Warsangeli.org website ("sort text w/o sultanate website" [121]). You removed that other, mostly sourced text with the editing rationale that it was "unsourced content" and that it was "content from self-published or user-generated sources" [122]. I restored the sourced text with the explanation that "all urls are working, none are self-published or user-generated" [123]. You removed that mostly sourced text with the explanation that it was "unsourced content" and that "Wardheernews is self-published and/or user-generated as per WP:RSSELF, WP:UGC, also links are dead" [124]. However, it turned out that Wardheernews was not actually the original publisher of the work in question, but was instead republishing the piece. I therefore restored the text and pointed the phrases that were previously attributed to Wardheernews to the Biyokulule website where the article, which was apparently written by a former Ambassador of Somalia (not user-generated), had originally been published ("fix text w/o newsblog" [125]). Right after that, I replaced the Ambassador's piece for good measure [126]. That is the actual chronology. Soupforone (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:UNSOURCED: (All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution). The article had content that was largely unsourced or had sources that would not satisfy WP:RS. Thus content was saved to history pending sources. You kept restoring content that was unsourced or with problematic sourcing repeatedly [127]. Even when further explanation was provided ("please only add sourced content with citations from reliable sources. Self-published sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia as per WP:RSSELF") you restored the page complete with unsourced section and self-published/user-generated sources [128], [129], [130], [131]. Every single one of your restorations included problematic sourcing (be it unsourced content and/or sourcing that does not satisfy WP:RS). You have even introduced problematic sourcing yourself to the article by citing travel guides which goes against WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I think you should accept that your repeated restoration of content in this case has been disruptive. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL doesn't indicate anything about travel guides. Anyway, those difs actually demonstrate the opposite of what you're suggesting. That is they show that I was restoring mostly sourced content, not mostly unsourced content. Mostly sourced content which, as chronologically demonstrated above, you removed under the editing rationale that it was "unsourced content". My restorations were per WP:VANDTYPES - Blanking, illegitimate. There are even specific templates for this. However, there is no policy or template which indicates that sourced content should be blanked while using an editing rationale which claims that it is unsourced content. Soupforone (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The policy is very clear I am afraid, per WP:UNSOURCED (All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution), operative phrase here being "or restores". The article had content that was largely unsourced or had sources that would not satisfy WP:RS. You repeatedly restored such content, even when further explanation was provided in edit summaries. As I said above, every single one of your restorations above included problematic sourcing. This is disruptive. WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not need to specifically name travel guides as it explicitly states (Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources), which was not included in your repeated restorations. I believe you should accept such repeated restorations of content on your part have been disruptive.--Kzl55 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you did not explain what you believed was an exceptional claim in the Briggs travel guide and why, so there was nothing to explicate. The fact is, the difs above show that the material was largely sourced, not largely unsourced. Per WP:VER, proper procedure is to either tag or remove the few unsourced phrases rather than to blank half the page, most of which actually contained sourced text. If the sourced text itself is problematic, then the edit summary rationale for the text removal should indicate this rather than describe that text as unsourced. Soupforone (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I dont want to quote the policy for a third time, but it is very clear that (the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution). You have repeatedly restored content that was not compliant with WP:RS. You did not check if the content you were restoring was compliant with WP policy. That is very problematic. You have also introduced the use of problematic sourcing (such as travel guides) to make WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims in the article, that is also very problematic. I believe you should accept such repeated restorations as well as insertion of content on your part have been disruptive.--Kzl55 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I restored the Briggs travel guide only once [132]. It is also incorrect to claim that travel guides are not allowed to be used on Wikipedia. WP:EXCEPTIONAL doesn't mention them. On the other hand, WP:NTRAN does permit them provided that they aren't self-published which the Briggs travel guide (published by Bradt Travel Guides) is not-- "information published in a reliable travel guide may be used to verify information. Self-published or other homemade travel guides are not considered "reliable" by Wikipedia guidelines." Soupforone (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting admins to add Template:Pp-dispute icon to fully protected page.

As the article is fully protected, I would like to request admins to add Template:Pp-dispute icon to the article in duration of the full protection as edit war has been occurred --Stylez995 (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)