Talk:Piracy off the coast of Somalia

Section ships and units out of date

Information on the ships and units participating in counter-piracy operations is woefully out of date.

Either update or remove the section.

If the military ships of all major powers are still there, the section must definitely be kept. However, there is some secrecy involved so it's hard to obtain details regarding the specific ships in this international fleet. John Hyams (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

pirates or terrorists?

"There are discussions underway to begin an aggressive covert operation against these maritime terrorists."

We already have a name for them, PIRATES, so why do we need to call them "maritime terrorists"?? Rtdrury (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If they are primarily motivated by money, they are pirates. If they are primarily motivated by politics, they are terrorists.

At first sight, they seem to be pirates. However, a number of sources have said that a significant initial motivation may have been illegal over-fishing by foreigners in Somali waters, and dumping of hazardous waste off the coast of Somalia by foreigners. These are political motivations - so it is plausible that that they are more properly described as terrorists.

However, the real reason some people in the West want to describe them as terrorists, is because it allows action against the pirates to be moved into the US War on Terrorism. Unfortunately this is likely to be counter-productive. It really is more useful when formulating policy, to understand the true nature of the Somali piracy problem.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also original research, as the source that was said to support that phrase describes them simply as "pirates", not as "maritime terrorists". Middayexpress (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's really good to see the ubiquitous al-Qaeda nonsense has been removed from this articles main description. It's all too easy to dig this old chestnut out and I have noticed it used a lot on Wiki with absolutely no evidence. Some people post hopeless BBC links that offer no evidence at all other than stating terms such as "believed to have links to al-Qaeda" etc. etc. etc. Good work Mods! Unregistered 23:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.75.148 (talk)

• To be honest, I'm kinda sick of editors who want to label every threat as "terrorists". The Somalian piracy issue is going on for quite some time and now that they captured a ship under American flag some start trying to label it as an Al Qaeda terrorist operation. And yes, I am a American born citizen to be clear about possible responses.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's even more pathetic that Americans are now attempting to call these pirates "terrorists". We do not call the mafia "terrorists", nor do we call the Bloods/Crips "terrorists". What these pirates are doing has been enshrined in law for millenia and their illegality has as well. Grow the fuck up and return when your definition of "terrorist" dosn't include absolutely every single person who ever commits any sort of crime ever. Fucking moron. 58.170.147.235 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Reminds me of the days we used to use the word "communists" in the same way. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"After pirates kidnapped the British couple Paul and Rachel Chandler in October, it was reported that Islamists, far from working with the pirates, were ready to launch an assault against them to seize the hostages. Imaams in ak=l-Shabaab territory have declared piracy unIslamic." as reported in the Times in December. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6964496.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.37.153.13 (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios in the "effects and perceptions" section, possibly in surrounding sections.

I was going to rewrite some of this section (especially "Entire hamlets have in the process been transformed into veritable boomtowns, with local shop owners and other residents using their gains to purchase items such as generators -- allowing full days of electricity, once an unimaginable luxury", which seemed to me to be moving away from an encyclopedic style), and when I went to the source found that it's actually a copyvio from abc news. A lot of the surrounding content also has a glossy prose style, so it should probably be looked into a bit further. Taking that sentence out for now. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, the phrases in question don't appear to be a copyright violation but a close paraphrase. For example, the ABC source they were taken from doesn't use the word "hamlets" once in the article; it uses the "villages" synonym. The phrase "Entire hamlets have in the process been transformed in to veritable boomtowns", in fact, seems to have been adapted from the opening sub-heading "Somali pirates transform villages into boomtowns, pumping money into homes, businesses". That's not plagiarism, but paraphrasing. The second part of the phrase "with local shop owners and other residents using their gains to purchase items such as generators" for its part seems to have been taken from "Meanwhile, towns that once were eroded by years of poverty and chaos are now bustling with restaurants, Land Cruisers and Internet cafes. Residents also use their gains to buy generators — allowing full days of electricity, once an unimaginable luxury in Somalia" on page 3 of the ABC article. The "allowing full days of electricity, once an unimaginable luxury", however, is indeed a word-for-word copy of the ABC article, and therefore ought to be featured between quotation marks. Other than that, there seems to be no reason why the paragraph shouldn't be included. Middayexpress (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the discussion concerning evasive tactics?

It is never made very clear what evasive tactics are used to combat this piracy. It is not easy to board a moving ship without cooperation from the ship's crew. Grappling hooks? Please, explain how they're successfully used. It's a little like storming castle walls surrounded by a moat, or climbing a cliff, the defenders have the advantage. However, a merchant navy crew cannot be expected or asked to engage in tactical combat.

• How about a professional armed team made available to be brought on board for the short voyage through Somali and Yemen waters and paid for by the shipping company, or others, authorized to shoot on sight at approaching pirate boats?
• How about hugging coastal waters of Yemen and claiming protection from their navy, or lending them a navy if they don't have one, and then giving piracy waters a wide berth?
• How about forming convoys in the Red Sea, or Southern Indian Ocean, with warship protection?
• How about treating the problem as politics rather than terrorism, and giving the country the same millions that they obviously need to achieve stability, on condition that they stop their adventures on the high seas?

All we seem to be getting is anecdotal human interest stories of heroism more suited to Hollywood movies, than a thoughtful discussion of the practical issues. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of what you've mentioned particularly about armed guards or training the crew and the problems with that has been discussed extensively recently, e.g. [1], [2] & [3] all of which could perhaps help the article. For your personal understanding I think this [4] illustrates a key point, the small number of deaths and other factors means that gunfights with pirates is actually a potentially worse outcome from the POV of the shipping companies then the current system of just paying the ransom Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Safe passage for a convoy guaranteed by a naval escort hasn't been addressed anywhere that I can see. On the other hand, I read that only 1 in 600 ships get to be challenged. Perhaps the ship owners pursue the pay them off, no guns, and roll dice as their answer. Cost of doing business. Raise rates. Problem solved. JohnClarknew (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that they are not pirates but heroes, because our neglected sea is pirated by Westerns, thought I dont like them(Pirates). They seem better than those west..."Your enemy's enemy is your friend"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.29.88.96 (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Deaths?

Just out of pure curiosity, are these Pirates in Somalia responsible for any deaths? The word 'death' does not appear in the article and the only connection with the word 'dead' is to a ... dead web link. This seems like an important aspect of the phenomenon and something the readers might be interested in.radek (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

According to [5] 3 hostages have been killed as of November 18th 2008. However this doesn't include the number of accidental deaths such as heart attacks etc which in most jurisdictions the pirates would share some degree of criminal responsibility for Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Have moved a paragraph on toxic waste dumping to the proper section and removed some original research

I have moved the paragraph on allegations of toxic waste dumping and illegal fishing to the proper section of the forum. Since it was redundant to the "Sovereignty and environmental protection" section which already discusses the issue and because the UN envoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, said that "intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment" these allegations make much more sense in the "Sovereignty and environmental protection" section. I have also removed some original research claiming that the UN assessment report said that the illness is caused by toxic waste since I have yet to see a reliable reference state for a fact that the UN assessment report said that. --GrandDrake (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The UN report, and its claims, are explained on this page, a few topics above. It's important to address this issue because it's a central claim of pirate apologists. This edit properly cites UNEP, and this edit mistakenly reverts the citation. - Rgrant (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Middayexpress posted an explanation for why he removed it in the "Statements of fact based on opinion pieces and some original research" section. He says that it is a primary source and that he thinks that you need a secondary source for your edit. I wish you luck and I have been trying to work on NPOV and remove the original research that is in this article. Personally I do not understand why some people defend the Somali pirates who are criminals that cost the world billions of dollars and who have no problem hijacking shipments of UN food aid. --GrandDrake (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote for you the relevant policy on this issue:

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Since the edit I originally removed was of an editor literally interpreting firsthand for readers what the UNEP report (i.e. the primary source) stated and sourcing that interpretation directly to the UNEP report itself, that is obviously and very much a WP:PRIMARY vio. It's as simple as that. Middayexpress (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you for responding. please note these further (not "as simple as that") qualifications on primary sources:

"The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event" [...] "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."

— from WP:PRIMARY

first, the UNEP report does not offer an "insider's view" on the earthquake. it is a global agency's report, collecting a huge amount of information, presenting as broad an overview as is possible. by that standard it acts as a secondary source. second, UNEP did not investigate the matter of toxic dumping, relying only on hearsay, as any "reasonable, educated person" can verify. it's a simple conclusion from UNEP qualifying the dumping claim using the simple prelude "reportedly...". - Rgrant (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit that I removed specifically concerns the UN report. An editor therefore cannot interpret that content for readers and then link back to that same UN report as a source for that statement -- that is original research and a violation of WP:PRIMARY, as explained in my previous post. Here is the statement as it was before the edit in question, correctly sourced to the Times article -- a secondary source -- from which it was taken:

"...the waste has resulted in far higher than normal cases of respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding, abdominal haemorrhages and unusual skin infections among many inhabitants of the areas around the northeastern towns of Hobbio and Benadir on the Indian Ocean coast -- diseases consistent with radiation sickness. UNEP continues that the current situation along the Somali coastline poses a very serious environmental hazard not only in Somalia but also in the eastern Africa sub-region."

Here is the original research some other editor replaced it with, attributing the changed portions directly to the UN report:

"the waste has resulted in far higher than normal cases of respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding, abdominal haemorrhages and unusual skin infections among many inhabitants of the areas around the northeastern towns of Hobbio and Benadir on the Indian Ocean coast. One news article has noted these are diseases consistent with radiation sickness, but the UNEP report does not make such a claim. The UNEP report continues, citing salinity and sewage in local water sources, to conclude that the 2005 situation along the Somali coastline poses a very serious environmental hazard not only in Somalia but also in the eastern Africa sub-region."

The above is quite clearly OR because nowhere in the UN report does it state that "the UNEP report does not make such a claim" (it doesn't refer to itself in the third person), nor does the report or the Times article (i.e. the secondary source) talk about sewage and salinity with respect to Somalia. That is obviously some editor taking umbrage at the Times article suggesting that the waste dumping has caused radiation sickness (an assertion many other articles make, by the way) and consequently attempting to limit the impact of said disclosure by literally inventing information. The irony is that the UN report itself explicitly makes that link:

"The impact of the tsunami stirred up hazardous waste deposits on the beaches around North Hobyo (South Mudug) and Warsheik (North of Benadir). Contamination from the waste deposits has thus caused health and environmental problems to the surrounding local fishing communities including contamination of groundwater."

To wrap up, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

Middayexpress (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I know you do not understand "understand why some people defend the Somali pirates". Have you thought that maybe this is a problem? Perhaps you should make an effort to do so?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the explanations that been given to defend the Somali pirates and personally I do not see merit in them. Even if the allegations about illegal fishing and toxic waste dumping are true that does not change the fact that these pirates are hijacking ships at gunpoint. They threaten the lives of innocent people, they cost the world billions of dollars (which harm many, many innocent people), and they see no problem with hijacking ships that are delivering UN food aid. How is it that anyone can look at the actions of these pirates and see something respectable? Also regardless of how you view the pirates adding original research does violate Wikipedia guidelines. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your personal views are as always on wikipedia, completely irrelevant. The same as for people who feel the opposite. What is relevant is that if certain claims have been made in reliable sources particularly if coming from the pirates themselves about what the pirates are trying to do or what leads to their piracy then they should be in the article. Whether it's because these claims are purported to justify the piracy, or simply aide the reader's understanding of why it occurs doesn't matter. (It's quite possible people are interested in understanding the background and what contributes to a situation without agreeing it justifies something. Sadly the mentality that offering any background information which helps a reader's understanding of why something happens automatically means we're trying to justify what happens is common, I guess because some people like to see the world in black and white. But it's not something we should have on wikipeida.) You are however right that we should not be engaging in OR nor using primary sources to make claims. Of course if primary sources are used because they were mentioned in secondary sources that's a different matter (but I'm not aware if that is what's happening here). Definitely claims given significant coverage in al-Jazeera and other reliable secondary sources would likely meet the threshold for inclusion, even more so if they are coming from the pirates themselves.

P.S. It's worth remembering that the pirates are not some sort of monotonous group with a single aim and background. It's likely some things apply to some of the pirates, but not others. It's also not as if there is a pirates congress where each decision is carefully weighed and a consensus required before a ship is attacked. Also the pirates are primarily opportunistic. They often don't really know the cargo before attacking (the pirates who got that ship with tanks just got 'lucky'). (They do of course have the opportunity to abandon an invasion/release a ship without a ransom.) And piracy didn't develop overnight. It's likely certain conditions helped result in it developing and even if those reasons are no longer a significant factor, it doesn't mean they are an important part of the background. (In other words, even if it's true that few Somalian pirates nowadays a fishermen defending their turf, it doesn't mean it's not a key reason why piracy developed.) It's also worth remembering that the UN is not universally respected. I mean heck even in the US it takes a lot of flak. In countries it's supposed to be helping, particularly Muslim countries, it's often seen as at best ineffective and at worse a tool of the 'imperialistic' Americans/Europeans and a key part of the problem (particularly due to the Palestinian issue and other areas where it's seen as biased against Muslims/Islam). Again whether or not you agree with these views or feel they're accurate or fair doesn't change the fact that these views may be held. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In this article I have worked on NPOV, removed original research, and removed statements from opinion pieces stated as fact (one of which was even self published). As such my edits were made to make sure that this article followed Wikipedia guidelines. Also note that I have no problem with attributed quotes from Somali pirates but making statements of fact from what the Somali pirates have said does violate Wikipedia guidelines. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Some of your edits are rather POV. For instance, this edit, where you have removed context from a quote ascribed to the UN envoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah. The Al Jazeera article that the quote was taken from specifically introduces the quotes as follows:

"Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping. "The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said. "What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs.""

He is talking about the futility of piracy in preventing waste dumping when he makes those assertions, as the first sentence above indicates. Yet, you have removed that very important opening phrase from the article. Why would you do this if your stated goal is NPOV? You have also mixed sources, incorrectly attributing the first direct quote in that paragraph above to another article featured in the Sunday Herald. And you have done this when you moved the last sentence in that Al Jazeera quote above to the very end of the edit to make it a sort of "last word", as it were, nevermind the fact that in doing so you are once again divorcing that phrase from its original context.

Before I forget, in the same edit, you have also removed the phrase "so-called "pirate gangs", when that is exactly how the Sunday Herald article describes the Somali Marines and the National Volunteer Coast Guard:

"So-called pirate gangs, like the National Volunteer Coast Guard of Somalia and the Somali Marines, represent themselves not as criminals, but as defenders of native fishing rights."

Instead, you have replaced it with a direct quote that references a Nigerian pirate outfit (the 'Mend' -> 'Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta') that has absolutely nothing to do with this article. That too is not NPOV. Middayexpress (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I have done a great deal of good for the Piracy in Somalia article by removing both original research and statements of fact from opinion pieces. I have removed such statements again, and again, and again, and again, and again. This is not my idea of fun but I am trying to make this article follow Wikipedia guidelines. Also I think the UN envoy meant exactly what he said and that "The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment". The fact that he doesn't think piracy can stop toxic waste dumping doesn't change the fact that he also thinks they are not concerned with protecting their environment. Also note that the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable references does not allow opinion pieces for anything other than the attributed opinion of the author. --GrandDrake (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've already expressed how you think you're doing a great deal of good and how you believe that you're removing original research. But it stays just that: your opinion, and a highly debatable one at that, as my post & explanation above (difs alone don't cut it, I'm afraid) more than demonstrate. It is also, again, your opinion that it's okay to quote the UN directly without context, an opinion that's utterly underminded by the article's own introduction of the entire statement:

"Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping. "The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said. "What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs.""

Unless you wish to promote a certain viewpoint, kindly stop removing statements from their original context as you have repeatedly done. We understand that you "do not understand why some people defend the Somali pirates", as you have previously expressed on this talk page, but that's still no excuse for such edits. Middayexpress (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia guidelines that you are violating by adding original research when you imply that they are connected by using a ":" to connect the statement from the Al Jazeera article and the quotes that Ould-Abdallah made. The Al Jareeza article doesn't have a ":" connecting them and they are not in the same paragraph so please stop adding that to the article. Also could you explain why you removed the quote from Ould-Abdallah stating that no government endorsed the dumping of waste?

As for the comment about defending Somali pirates that was in relation to the original research and statements of fact from opinion pieces that I have found in this article. I should not have made that comment since personal comments are not supposed to be made on an articles talk page but I would point out that you were making personal comments about me days before I made that comment including a personal comment regarding my honesty and two accusations about making edits that I didn't even make. Following Wikipedia guidelines I request that on the article talk page we stick only to the discussion of this article going forward. Could you please do that? --GrandDrake (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So now you're going to use a colon as an excuse to again remove the context-establishing statement -- which, again, is taken directly from the Al Jazeera article -- that the UN envoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, has "stated that piracy will not prevent waste dumping"? This is what your censorship has come to, eh? You didn't honestly think that would work, now did you? Needless to say, the material has been restored.

Furthermore, those comments I made that you are alluding to are about your edits, not about whether or not the pirates or piracy is good or bad. Do you understand the difference? The difference is that I take exception to your edits, whereas you take actual sides on the piracy issue as your own comments reveal (and as other editors have remarked as well), thereby indicating a clear non-neutral point of view on your part:

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

A person can't constantly claim 'NPOV' and then turn around and say "personally I do not understand why some people defend the Somali pirates who are criminals", as you've done. That's hardly neutral. Bottom line: Your disclosures actually undermine the quality of the article itself, not some other editor's "feelings". Middayexpress (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer an objective discussion on this issue and once again please avoid making personal comments in the article's talk page. Also I did not remove the phrase "piracy will not prevent waste dumping" and I simply removed the colon which is not in the orignal article. You are inserting that colon after that statement to imply a position not stated in the Al Jareeza article which is original research. Also you did not explain why you removed the quote from Ould-Abdallah stating that no government endorsed the dumping of waste. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did not remove the Ould Abdallah quote (i.e. that "no government has endorsed this act, and that private companies and individuals acting alone are responsible"), as you have claimed in your latest edit. It was still very much there in my last edit. And no, adding a colon does not magically transform the phrase that the UN envoy Ould-Abdallah has "stated that piracy will not prevent waste dumping" into "original research". lol How many times must you be told that that phrase introduces Ould-Abdallah's quotes on piracy? It seems that you never know when enough is enough. So here again I'll quote directly from the Al Jazeera article in question just to show your claims up for the absurdities they are:

Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping.

"The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said.

"What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs."

Note that I've even retained the original formatting above. That is how Al Jazeera introduces all of its quotes throughout the article i.e. with a brief introductory phrase. In case you haven't read many articles before, this is common journalistic practice. Oh, and before i forget, pointing out your obvious bias by quoting you directly revealing said bias (e.g. "personally I do not understand why some people defend the Somali pirates who are criminals"), I'm afraid does not qualify as a personal attack. I'm merely pointing out your obviously tendentious editing, which is indeed very relevant to the overall quality of this article. An Obama hater, after all, can't exactly contribute in an NPOV fashion to the Barack Obama article. This is commonsense. Middayexpress (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you had left in the Ould-Abdallah quote in your most recent edit and I apologize for saying that you had removed it. On the matter of original formatting though you are adding a colon to connect a statement from the article to two quotes from Ould-Abdallah and you have said that "He is talking about the futility of piracy in preventing waste dumping when he makes those assertions". I do not see anything in the article though that supports your statement and note that he said "The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment".

Okay GrandDrake. Since you're going to insist on playing dumb, acting as if this has not already been explained to you and in detail, I shall literally copy and paste my earlier explanation of this situation, and now this time pay particular attention to the part in bold:

So here again I'll quote directly from the Al Jazeera article in question just to show your claims up for the absurdities they are:

Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping.

"The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said.

"What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs."

Note that I've even retained the original formatting above. That is how Al Jazeera introduces all of its quotes throughout the article i.e. with a brief introductory phrase. In case you haven't read many articles before, this is common journalistic practice. Middayexpress (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also repeatedly making personal comments against someone is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines since you are not talking about my edits but instead about what I personally believe. I made a mistake posting my personal beliefs on the talk page 5 days ago but you are the one who is now violating Wikipedia guidelines. Also you say that it is common sense that someone who is against something can not make neutral edits on it but there is no Wikipedia guideline which says that. In fact [the Wikipedia guideline on NPOV] states that "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." As such please avoid making personal comments in the article's talk page. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes GrandDrake. WP:NPOV acknowledges that people have biases in the sense that they have opinions. However, what it also specifies is that one shouldn't let those biases get in the way of one's editing:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Unforunately, however, that is exactly what you have repeatedly done when you keep removing references that portray the pirates as anything but the common "criminals" you keep insisting they are (I don't see you relentlessly tampering with any other section of the article; just the lone one that tries to air the other side of the story). That is not NPOV. Middayexpress (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal comments are not relevant to the discussion. Please avoid making personal comments in the article's talk page and please read this Wikipedia guideline on civility. Also since you asked I would note that only yesterday I added a paragraph to the history section on an event that happened this month and that the last paragraph in the history section before my edit was from November of last year. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are not "personal comments". That's a discussion of your edits. And I never "asked" you anything; I told you that I don't see you relentlessly tampering with (i.e. removing/censoring information from) any other section of the article besides the Sovereignty and environmental protection section -- I wasn't talking about editing. It's beyond deliciously ironic that you should then produce a link which yet again predictably condemns the pirates as criminals as some sort of "proof" that you do other things besides tamper with the aforementioned section. Earth to GrandDrake: The Sovereignty and environmental protection section is the only section in the article that tries to air the other side of the story, as I have already clearly stated. And that's the very section you have been relentlessly targeting during this entire edit war. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You say it is a discussion of my edits but when you commented on my edit about what Hillary Clinton said on a recent pirate attack you didn't say anything about the edit itself. Instead the only thing you said about it was that "It's beyond deliciously ironic that you should then produce a link which yet again predictably condemns the pirates as criminals" which is a personal opinon that is not relevant to Wikipedia. Whether you think the Somali pirates are criminals or something else doesn't matter. What matters is what reliable references have said about piracy in Somalia. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Sunday Herald article, thank you for bringing the fact that it's an opinion piece to my attention. The link I originally got it from did not indicate this, so I assumed it was factual. However, a subsequent Google search indeed indicates that it's an opinion piece. My bad. Middayexpress (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"diseases consistent with radiation sickness" If there is radiation sicness there should be extremely high radiation levels easily detectable even in the neighbouring countries. This "consistent with" is just a piece of fearmongering.--128.214.182.110 (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Entry question

Is this accepted, especially using this wiki article to reference the following?

OEF‐MIO Support
(DD-108 Akebono)
(AOE-423 Tokiwa)ja:自衛隊インド洋派遣

Answer appreciated for clarification. Ominae (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Piracy in Somalia Edit War

I have posted the following notice on the Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts

There is an edit war with the Piracy in Somalia page. I suggested to the two editors involved that their edits were taking on characteristics of an edit war, and asked them both to take a one week holiday from editing the article... however both insist on having the last word. Both insist that what they are doing is needed for NPOV, and one of them uses [OR] to justify removing anything that he disagrees with. Both are clearly well-intentioned people. It really needs some neutral people to become involved.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Piracy in Somalia article contained a great deal of original research and statements of fact from opinion pieces. I have removed such statements again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. Let me give three of the more noticeable cases that used to be in the article. Most of the first paragraph in the history section of this article contained original research which did not have a single reference in it. An opinion piece which was also self published was added to the article as statements of fact. And information about a UNEP report which reported illnesses in Somali had original research added to it which stated that alleged nuclear and toxic waste dumping caused it even though there was no statement from UNEP in the reference which stated that.

Also excluding statements of fact from opinion pieces here is some of the original research I have removed:

"Since the Somali government collapsed in 1991, including the coast guard, there have been a lot of questions regarding the motivations and intentions of the so-called "pirates"."

"However, no efforts from the international community have been conducted on behalf of the people of Somalia to deter and punish multinational corporations for their violation of international law."

"In terms of territorial sovereignty, there has been a lack of questions regarding the illegal presence of these "victim tankers" off of the coast of Somalia"

"European ships began dumping millions of barrels of toxic waste into the ocean off the Somali coast."

As for the current issue with the other editor despite the fact that he has added several quotes from the Ould-Abdallah, UN envoy of Somalia, he has twice removed this quote about nuclear and toxic waste dumping without giving any explanation:

"I must stress however, that no government has endorsed this act, and that private companies and individuals acting alone are responsible,"

The other editor has also changed how some quotes are presented which I added to the Piracy in Somalia article. Here is what was said in the reference:

Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping.

"The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said.

"What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs."

Here is my edit:

that piracy will not prevent the dumping of waste, "The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment,", and "What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs.

Here is his edit:

that piracy will not prevent waste dumping: "The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," and "What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs.

Though adding a colon is a small change it does make an implication that was not stated in the article itself. The other editor has accused me of censorship which is a bit surprising since I am removing a colon not found in the original article, which I have explained, and he is removing a quote from the UN envoy for Somalia without giving any explanation. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading parties: Please refer to this section above for a detailed discussion of each and everyone of GrandDrake's points above. They are nothing new. He has literally repeated all of the same hollow charges he has raised over the past week or so, and which have already been addressed point by point. Middayexpress (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the edits that I refer to in that post you did not make nor did you challenge me on so are you only referring to the edits you made? Also since you refer to "hollow charges" are you claiming that you did not add any original research or statements of fact from an opinion piece to this article in the last week? --GrandDrake (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that all of the points you have raised above have been addressed point by point in this earlier section of the talk page, including your many claims of so-called "original research". Kindly stop regurgitating the same dubious arguments of the past that started this edit war in the first place and that have already been dealt with. That is neither helpful nor productive. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to make this clear when you say "all of the points you have raised" are you referring to the entire post or only to the part about the current discussion (starting with the sentence "As for the current issue with the other editor")? Also I didn't notice that you had left in the Ould-Abdallah quote with your most recent edit and I apologize for saying that you had removed it. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask that the disputants please use edit summaries? If you're going to hoard the top of my watchlist for your neverending argument, at least use edit summaries so I can follow the drama and get hints as to if I get to block everyone administrative intervention is necessary. - BanyanTree 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We have been using edit summaries. And this is an edit war, not a revert war. It's also pretty much over with, it seems. But thanks for the advice anyway. Middayexpress (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me that the point of my post has been missed. In any case, you're welcome. - BanyanTree 04:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried my best to follow Wikipedia guidelines including explaining and posting links on Wikipedia guidelines and have made multiple requests for the other editor to stop posting personal comments (here, here, here, and here). Despite that the other editor has repeatedly made personal comments about me in recent edits and the recent exchanges between us can be found at the bottom of this section. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Videos About Somali Pirates

There is a plethora of video footage about Somali Pirates.

Somali Pirates strike again - News Footage [6]

Top 10 Things To Do When Somali Pirates Attack [7]

Somali Pirates Captured [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.138.254.21 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral article?

Talk about slavery, centuries of exploration, opression and forced civilization by Capitalism. Those people had not to lose they are poor and theyre only attacking as a response to extreme porverty. BTW a very one-sided article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.68.104 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The above comments were deleted at 03:13, 24 April 2009 by User:GrandDrake, on the grounds that Removed section not relevant to improving the article which contained racist statements. Whilst I disagree with the above comments, I do not think it appropriate to delete them. If people think that the article is unfair, it is permitted for them to complain about the POV in the article, in exactly the manner done by 201.78.68.104 at 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

Given the history of Somalia, the complete opposite of slavery, centuries of exploration, opression and forced civilization by Capitalism is the truth.

However just because User:GrandDrake and I disagree with a comment is not in my view a legitimate reason to delete it from the Talk:Piracy in Somalia page.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I deleted that edit was because it offered no relevant statements on how to improve the article and it contained racist statements. Based on Wikipedia talk page guidelines and Wikipedia civility guidelines I considered that to be grounds for deleting the edit. Could you explain based on Wikipedia guidelines why you believe that an edit containing racist statements should be allowed on the talk page? --GrandDrake (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your deletion of 201.78.68.104's comments was in violation of Wikipedia talk page guidelines. The statement made by 201.78.68.104 did not breach Wikipedia talk page guidelines or Wikipedia civility guidelines. You know this. I know this.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I will explain exactly why I consider that edit to be a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The section header was a racist personal opinion, the first sentence said nothing specific on how to improve the article and only made vague statements of what the editor thought should be added to the article without any explanation for why, the second sentence was a personal opinion, and the third sentence was a racist personal opinion. Based on the Wikipedia guidelines I considered that grounds for deleting the edit since "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views", the edit was "not relevant to improving the article", and the edit refers to "groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner". --GrandDrake (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk page post above strikes me as a mixed bag. The first part of it is a personal view, laced with ethnicity/race-directed comments that the IP clearly should not have made. The second part, by contrast, is about the article. The IP has indicated that s/he believes the article is biased and one-sided. Instead of deleting the IP's comments wholesale, this latter observation should at least be taken into consideration, and viewed as an opportunity to re-evaluate the overall balance and neutrality of the article; it should not be censored altogether, which I've noticed is something that appears to be a major problem on this article. If someone, for example, had deleted those first few comments various editors had made months back on this talk page drawing our attention to the fact that overfishing and toxic waste dumping has a lot to do with the piracy (as they ironically and repeatedly have in the article proper), then the article here too wouldn't be nearly as balanced or neutral. It's also a central part of WP:TALK to allow observations directly pertaining to the article to be aired. So if others still want to delete the IP's comments, I for one am not at all in objection since most of them really are offensive and off-topic (last I checked, for example, Somalis were never "enslaved"). To this end, I've renamed the heading to make it more neutral per Wikipedia:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages. However, that last bit about the article being one-sided is quite clearly relevant and worth considering. Middayexpress (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia guidelines regarding personal opinions and racist statements found in Wikipedia talk page guidelines and Wikipedia civility guidelines I removed the racial group mentioned in the third sentence of the edit posted by 201.78.68.104. Saying that the article is one sided towards a certain racial group does not explain why he thinks that it only tells us that the editor has a personal opinion about that racial group. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with article

I see 2 problems with this article.

Problem #1

This entire article is original research. People have taken the topic and shaped it like a term paper. Writing like a term paper is ok for school but the organization and slant is original research.

On the other hand, should Wikipedia just copy another encyclopedia?

What this article is doing is original research backed up by selective clipping of sentences for other references.

What is the solution to this difficult question?

Problem #2

Problem 2 is easier to solve. It's just a matter of facts. Not all pirates are former fisherman. Some are high tech people and some are arms experts. A reliable news source mentioned this. The techies have to know GPS and how to run some stuff in the captured ship. Nohars (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be relevant that Nohars is a new user. According to Special:Contributions/Nohars his first edit was to create his talk page at 03:40 GMT, and then at 03:45 he made his second edit, which was to place this in the talk page. All seems very suspicious. The claim that an article with all the good references this article has is original research is not plausible. Does someone who is on their first edit to an article really all that au-fait with the original research policy?--Toddy1 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Most suspicious indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Current event: Somali pirates capture German owned ship

The Comcast website has a story about a German owned, Maltese flagged ship taken by pirates off Somalia:

Piracy off Somalia--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

B-Wasy's?

Caption under the firt image on this page says: A collage of "B-Wasy's" Somali pirates [...]

I don't have a slightest clue what "B-Wasy's", and the internets don't seem to have a clue too. Can someone elaborate what that stands for? Thanks

--89.143.199.130 (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Long list of missions

Should every mission of a single ship in Combined Task Force 150 and Combined Task Force 151 be listed in the list in the subsection Piracy in Somalia#Military presence? Rubenescio (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of German Sailors Looks Weird

I was skimming through this article when I noticed that in the table showing the military presence of various countries in the area, Germany is only listed as having one ship (the F122 Karlsruhe) while it is listed as having 1400 sailors. For some reason that doesn't seem plausible, especially because that ship supposedly only usually has 202 crew. Caleb Jon (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian "commitment"?

From what I've read of the 17 May incident involving two Australian warships, I don't think that their actions count as an "Australian committment" to the Somalia piracy problem as described in this article, and probably shouldn't be included here. The ships (HMA Ships Sydney and Ballarat) were deployed on an around-the-world voyage and were literally "just passing through" when two merchant vessels in the area were attacked. The RAN ships responded to the distress calls, chased off the pirates, took measures to ensure the merchant vessels were safe, then moved on.

Thoughts on the matter? -- saberwyn 08:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the ships were just passing through the area en-route from India to the Mediterranean and are continuing on their voyage. I've just removed this from the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems a fair call. Australian naval units in the Middle East are deployed under CTF 152, not 151 (which is tasked with anti-piracy operations). Anotherclown (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

While we're on the subject of Australia's "commitment", why is New Zealand's navy listed as a contributor? There are no references to their "commitment", and considering their navy is smaller than Australia's and they are further away from the Gulf of Aden, it is unlikely they would contribute naval forces to combat Somali piracy.--Just James ^T/C 07:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, if Australia and New Zealand are not using naval forces to combat Somali piracy, why are these countries highlighted green in the figure within the "Anti-piracy measures" section?--Just James ^T/C 07:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I've just removed NZ as they don't have either of their two frigates anywhere near the region and the map as it was incorrect. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just added the map here for safekeeping Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia, again

I found this link on the Australian Defence Department website: [9]--Just James ^T/C 13:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pirates attack Navy Helicopter?

>Hi, I was wondering, could we put somthing in about the pirates attacking the US Navy helicopter? Here are some links: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/08/27/somalia.us.pirates/, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_piracy_us_helicopter, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32578628/ns/world_news-africa/?ocid=MSNToolbar130 Wackogamer123 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Military presence table

On this table India Iran and Pakistan are shown as members of the Shangai Cooperation Organization. Does someone know how to correct it?

Nevermind i found how to do it

 this is cool im so using this for my school report  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.210.199 (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 

Regarding the "Alliance" column in the table I would like to rise some points:

• to list Pakistan and India as part of common military alliance (SCO) is a big stretch - they are only observers to a this Russia and China led forum. SCO is by no means an "alliance" for common military actions - Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan send their vessels on their own, in coordination only trough the UN, not trough SCO.
• on the contrary, listing EU members contribution to the EUFOR mission Operation Atalanta as under "NATO" is wrong - they should be listed as EU or ESDP or CFSP or dualy as NATO/EU or NATO/ESDP or NATO/CFSP where applicable. Alinor (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Piracy in Somalia

I was looking at the first sentence for that section:
"The military response to pirate attacks has brought about a rare show of unity by countries that are either openly hostile to each other, or at least wary of cooperation, military or otherwise."
I am not sure what the original author was trying to say but it looks like a bit POINTy, (and/or weasel words), to me.
What navies are "openly hostile...or at least wary of cooperation" to each others?
Is this sentence needed at all? FFMG (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Move or Delete Section

The section "Sovereignty and environmental protection" really has nothing to do with Piracy. Recommend moving it or deleting it. The fact that environmental problems have developed on the coast is not a result of piracy. It's the result of the governmental breakdown, of which piracy is another product.--S. Rich 22:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)--S. Rich 04:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Offensive CIA article?

The IP user who deleted a recent update on current events said the CIA article was offensive. Did s/he mean it was personally offensive or that it was talking about offensive action against the pirates? In any event, I have restored it, but changed the introductory sentence of the paragraph. Reason -- the article itself did not mention any possible, planned, or discussed offensive actions against the pirates. Rather, it referred to vigorous actions against pirates 200 years ago and bemoaned the fact that such actions were not being taken today. Still, the fact that such statements are now published indicates that planning may be in the works. But with nothing more, a supposition that more action is planned is not a basis for saying that more action is actually being planned.--S. Rich 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)

Chinese Committment

The estimate of 800 sailors (includidng marines) seems a little low when you look at the ship types and how much crew they have.