Talk:Somali Civil War: Difference between revisions
Wowzers122 (talk | contribs) →Map conflicts: new section |
|||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
Beyond that, the Northern areas of Somalia. Namely Khatumo state should only be marked as controlling Talex, Laascaanood, and Buudhoodle. With the Northern and Western parts of the claimed territory under Puntland and Somaliland control respectivily. [[User:Emx0264|Emx0264]] ([[User talk:Emx0264|talk]]) 08:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Beyond that, the Northern areas of Somalia. Namely Khatumo state should only be marked as controlling Talex, Laascaanood, and Buudhoodle. With the Northern and Western parts of the claimed territory under Puntland and Somaliland control respectivily. [[User:Emx0264|Emx0264]] ([[User talk:Emx0264|talk]]) 08:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Map conflicts == |
|||
A discussion on the the several maps added in the previous days and their sources was started on [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Somali_Civil_War_(2009-present).svg Wikimedia Commons] [[User:Wowzers122|Wowzers122]] ([[User talk:Wowzers122|talk]]) 21:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:43, 2 June 2024
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Somali Civil War, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Somali Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 4, 2007. |
Dilla Massacre was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 March 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Somali Civil War. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
US Funding/Supporting United Somali Congress
Is there any evidence of the United States funding or supporting the USC? I bring this up because I really think we should look into this, especially considering the Cold War was technically still going on, and the US had a staunch anti-communist and anti-soviet policy until the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.228.5 (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Somalia was at war with pro-soviet Ethiopia, so probably no. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Start date
As it is right now, the start date in the infobox looks extremely confusing, and it cannot stand. Seriously, "Disputed-present", what the hell does that even mean? The asterisk note doesn't really change how jarring the start date is. I propose that some number or year be placed but the disputed asterisk remain. It can be 1991, or 1986, or 1988, or the 1980s, or whichever has the most sources supporting it. Just so that the absurd dating is removed. Perhaps something like: 1991(Disputed) - present.* 2601:85:C102:1220:640F:35E1:C872:594A (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see what's absurd about noting that the start date is disputed. There's no clear consensus amongst sources about what the start date is, so it's difficult to know which one we'd pick if we were to highlight one. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Same poster, different IP. It's jarring and reads weird: "Start date disputed-present." When is disputed? I never said I was against noting that it was disputed, actually I want it to be noted. Hence, the above example I gave, 1991(Disputed) - present*. So we are in agreement that the start date needs to be shown that it is disputed. But some year needs to be put, and there are precedents on Wikipedia. See Second Sino-Japanese War or Vietnam War, where there are different ways to show multiple dates (in the former, it is beneath the main date, in the latter an explanation is given in a note). As to choosing which year to put for this particular article, it would make sense to pick the date which has the most RS supporting it. And that would be 1991. In addition, in the explanation given by the note in the infobox, 1991 is given by the majority sources present, so it would make sense to put 1991 as the main starting date. In the note, James Fearon gives various starting dates but ultimately rests on 1991. Of course, there is still a dispute, but the note takes care of that. So "1991-present[note]" would seem like the most reasonable course of action.
- Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. Didn't mean to sound combative in my original post. 2601:85:C102:1220:D4AD:2550:813D:533D (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your further thoughts. My concern was that you seemed to be suggesting picking a date for the sake of having one, and I wasn't sure how we'd assess what the majority of sources state given the large number of sources out there. However, reminding myself of some of them, I see that there does seem to be somewhat of a consensus on 1991 (with notable exceptions), rather than there being complete disagreement. I'm still a little reluctant though, and would prefer wider input (pinging Charles Essie and Buckshot06 as obvious candidates, from the discussion above). On Fearon, while he does settle on 1991, he states that that's for analytical purposes and I wouldn't want to read too much into such a decision. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- There was a good compromise maintained for a long period, that acknowledged 1991 was incorrect, except as the end of the first phase, Barre's downfall, with a long footnote. Suggest we go back to that. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's what we have at present, isn't it? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think we had some dates in there for a while, something like c1981-1991 (disputed) - present. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's what we have at present, isn't it? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think the answer is very simple. The Somali Rebellion was the first phase of the war and that began on 10 March 1978. That's the start date. Charles Essie (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Same poster, different IP. Thanks for the replies guys. While I think 1991 is supported by most of the sources given (especially considering the Central Bank of Somalia and the UN, which should take precedence in my humble opinion), I would also support what Buckshot06 gave above: "c1981-1991 (disputed) - present." What matters is that at least a year or range of years, with a disputed note, is put for the start date, just to avoid the awkward wording of "Start date disputed-present." I believe you guys have more knowledge on this particular subject, so I'll defer to you as to which specific year or range of years to choose. Cheers. 2601:85:C102:1220:9DF3:1D7:2E92:65F (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- We could split hairs here for months on when the Somali rebellion became a civil war, but I'm more than happy to go with "1978-1991 (disputed) - present" if there is a clear and authoritative reference for 10 March 1978. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I couldn't find any source with 1978 as the start date for the Civil War. I still think "1991 (disputed) - present" would have the most support from the sources. But I'm just an IP, and you guys probably have more knowledge of this subject than I, so I defer to you. 2601:85:C102:1220:2002:F3C3:A078:B0F4 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- We could split hairs here for months on when the Somali rebellion became a civil war, but I'm more than happy to go with "1978-1991 (disputed) - present" if there is a clear and authoritative reference for 10 March 1978. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Same poster, different IP. Thanks for the replies guys. While I think 1991 is supported by most of the sources given (especially considering the Central Bank of Somalia and the UN, which should take precedence in my humble opinion), I would also support what Buckshot06 gave above: "c1981-1991 (disputed) - present." What matters is that at least a year or range of years, with a disputed note, is put for the start date, just to avoid the awkward wording of "Start date disputed-present." I believe you guys have more knowledge on this particular subject, so I'll defer to you as to which specific year or range of years to choose. Cheers. 2601:85:C102:1220:9DF3:1D7:2E92:65F (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- There was a good compromise maintained for a long period, that acknowledged 1991 was incorrect, except as the end of the first phase, Barre's downfall, with a long footnote. Suggest we go back to that. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your further thoughts. My concern was that you seemed to be suggesting picking a date for the sake of having one, and I wasn't sure how we'd assess what the majority of sources state given the large number of sources out there. However, reminding myself of some of them, I see that there does seem to be somewhat of a consensus on 1991 (with notable exceptions), rather than there being complete disagreement. I'm still a little reluctant though, and would prefer wider input (pinging Charles Essie and Buckshot06 as obvious candidates, from the discussion above). On Fearon, while he does settle on 1991, he states that that's for analytical purposes and I wouldn't want to read too much into such a decision. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. Didn't mean to sound combative in my original post. 2601:85:C102:1220:D4AD:2550:813D:533D (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Can I make a change yet or no? 2601:85:C102:1220:A054:120E:7921:9C4E (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it shouldn't have a start date at all and just say disputed. Charles Essie (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- Same OP. Aye, but then what information would the reader be getting from the nebulous start date of "disputed?" It would be akin to just putting "Start date - end date*[footnote]." But the matter is resolved now, no worries. 2601:85:C100:46C0:C51A:2566:AF10:9013 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 5 March 2023
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Somali Civil War → Somali civil war – Doesn't need capitalization per WP:NCCPT - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 12:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't it a proper noun? We appear to use capitals for other wars, such as World War II (which I don't think I've ever seen rendered in lower case, anywhere), Cambodian Civil War, Bosnian War, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- See Syrian civil war, Myanmar civil war (2021–present), Afghanistan conflict, Iraqi conflict (2003–present), Mexican drug war for some recent examples that the "war" isn't capitalized. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 13:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting. I think perhaps the "conflict" ones are different, since conflict is less specific than war, but the others show that we have some inconsistency between articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- How do we ensure WP:CONSISTENT? - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 13:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting. I think perhaps the "conflict" ones are different, since conflict is less specific than war, but the others show that we have some inconsistency between articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- See Syrian civil war, Myanmar civil war (2021–present), Afghanistan conflict, Iraqi conflict (2003–present), Mexican drug war for some recent examples that the "war" isn't capitalized. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 13:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Like all wars with a recognised name, the title is a proper noun, not a description, so NCCPT doesn't apply. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per HJ Mitchell; the title is a proper noun, so is explicitly exempt from WP:NCCPT. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Read Proper noun. "civil war" can't be a proper noun. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 13:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it can, that's a ludicrous statement. A proper noun is something's name. The general term "civil war" is not a proper noun, just as "war" isn't, but when it becomes part of a name it is a proper noun. English Civil War, Sierra Leone Civil War, American Civil War, Irish Civil War are just a few examples. Those are all the recognised proper names of conflicts, just as this is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose moving per this rationale (and thus TITLECON) BhamBoi (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it can, that's a ludicrous statement. A proper noun is something's name. The general term "civil war" is not a proper noun, just as "war" isn't, but when it becomes part of a name it is a proper noun. English Civil War, Sierra Leone Civil War, American Civil War, Irish Civil War are just a few examples. Those are all the recognised proper names of conflicts, just as this is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Read Proper noun. "civil war" can't be a proper noun. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 13:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per above Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I've been working on a draft for the period of the Somali Civil War between Barre's fall and the withdrawal of UNOSOM. I may change the scope to just between Barre's fall and the beginning of UNITAF, or expand it from Barre's fall to the creation of the TFG, idk. If anyone could help with this, though, that'd be appreciated. Posting this to WP:SOMALIA's talkpage to gather more participation - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Jamame under government control?
If that is so, why are there literally no news reports covering this development? Or in that case why the timeline doesn't mention that it has been recaptured? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 07:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
People keep changing the map to an unsourcred one where Al-Shabaab controls all of the south.
There are egregious claims that Al-Shabaab is still in places like Diinsoor which they were expelled by Amisom 9 years ago and current disputes are handled by the South-West State of Somalia, so the area connecting Diinsoor and Baidoa should be marked red.
The road between between Baidoa and Mogadishu, notabally including towns like Buur Hakaba, should be marked as red, albeit with Al-Shabaab presence in rural areas
Along the Somali-Kenyan border, the area arounf Geriley should be marked as under government allied control, and since the entire border region is under vague control it should be striped.
Beyond that, the Northern areas of Somalia. Namely Khatumo state should only be marked as controlling Talex, Laascaanood, and Buudhoodle. With the Northern and Western parts of the claimed territory under Puntland and Somaliland control respectivily. Emx0264 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Map conflicts
A discussion on the the several maps added in the previous days and their sources was started on Wikimedia Commons Wowzers122 (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles under general sanctions
- Selected anniversaries (December 2007)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Ethiopia articles
- Mid-importance Ethiopia articles
- WikiProject Ethiopia articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- C-Class United Nations articles
- WikiProject United Nations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
- C-Class Salaf articles
- Unknown-importance Salaf articles
- Salaf task force articles
- C-Class Sunni Islam articles
- Unknown-importance Sunni Islam articles
- Sunni Islam task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Limited recognition articles
- Mid-importance Limited recognition articles
- WikiProject Limited recognition articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class African military history articles
- African military history task force articles
- Start-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- Start-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- Start-Class Italian military history articles
- Italian military history task force articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Start-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- Start-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- C-Class WikiProject Somalia articles
- High-importance WikiProject Somalia articles
- WikiProject Somalia articles
- C-Class WikiProject Somaliland articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Somaliland articles
- WikiProject Somaliland articles
- C-Class Terrorism articles
- Mid-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles