Talk:Somalia

Map and Somaliland

The map in this page is not correct, as it shows Somalia as if the Somaliland is a recognized independent country, which is not. While it might be OK to show the boundary between the Somaliland and the rest of Somalia, it needs to be same color as Somalia. andy 08:04, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Upload the original CIA Factobook image and add a dotted line [1]. --Jiang

Done. andy 13:12, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is only one Somalia recognized by the international community, therefore the map should have one color and any enclaves such the so called Somaliland should be ruled .warsame --60.48.83.122, 09:37, 28 Oct 2004

First sentence?

The first sentence is a bit strong. According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm there is some kind of government now.

But that same report says A transitional government set up in 2000 only controls parts of the capital.

not really... transitional governmant is only a group of individuals based in kenya. And controls no teritory, its just another group. They have no institutions.

PMA 02:45, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

"Continentally, it is entirely surrounded by Ethiopia and Djibouti on the north and mid-west, by Kenya on its south-west, and by the Gulf of Aden on its north, and the Indian Ocean as its eastern border."

So, Somalia is 'entirely' surrounded? Isn't this word unncessary, if not a little bit biased? At first lecture one may understand that Somalia "is entirely surrounded by Ethiopia"

'Continentally' needs something else to make sense, otherwise I'm understanding that it is also continentally surrounded by the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.

I would like to propose this: "Continentally, it is surrounded by Ethiopia and Djibouti on the north and mid-west, and by Kenya on its south-west; by the Gulf of Aden on its north, and the Indian Ocean as its eastern border." Kauderwelsch 06:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Economy section

The summary about Somalia's economy needs a rewrite. It will be very difficult to calculate GDP and other percentages, but Somalia is quickly becoming an economic power house in the Horn of Africa. Telecommunications in Somalia, for one, provides the cheapest rates on the African continent, with international rates going between 20 cents to 50 cents now. There are many pasta companies, fisheries and internet cafes that dot throughout the country. There is even a Coca Cola plant. Nov 12, 2004

I agree with the above paragraph. I challenge anybody to read this *Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It and remain satisfied with this entry in its current state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.240.110 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the info box's "transitional goverment" links to anarchy is amusing, but is it appropriate? 67.176.18.164 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Provisional government

May the people of Somalia be fortunate and may the provisional government never step foot in Mogadishu. --Golbez 03:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

NOTICE: There are several obvious errors in this document. Unfortunately, I know very little about Somalia, which is why I came to this page. Somebody, however, should correct these mistakes. Suspected errors are followed by three parenthesized question marks.

From page, replaced with Template:Dubious. See Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute for more information on this kind of stuff--but it seems we do have a problem here. Wikiacc 22:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The page was vandalized by 64.60.74.162 on February 7, but the full extent was not realized. Every edit since then was a small fix of a part of the vandalism, so I have simply reverted it. Thanks for the catch.
— Ford 23:15, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Cleanup

An anonymous user (Friedo, perhaps) tagged this article for cleanup. I cannot figure out why. The article is not perfect, but it is actually in pretty good shape, a good article relative to the rest of the encyclopedia. If someone wants to specify exactly why this article needs cleanup, then at least the other editors can address it. Better yet, those who think it needs cleanup can actually do it. I will remove the tag in the meantime, since without details it is an impossible request.
— Ford 22:53, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I would suggest that this article needs to mention the Xeer. An article about a society without a government that doesn't mention the system of law seems unencyclopedeic to me. RussNelson 06:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

"Much of Somali society is highly organized and business is doing remarkably well." This is a very vague statement. What does it mean actually? Where are the statistics? --Eleassar777 07:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I put that sentence in. If you read the intro it leads one to think that's Somalia is a wasteland fraught with chaos. But that's not the case. Sure, it's anarchy in sense of no government, but much of it is organized and orderly, with a lot of business beng conducted. They even have internet cafes. One the the external links in this article points to a World Bank study showing how effective the private sector there is. HTML version There is also a link in the article in the Telecommunications sections showing how great business now that government is gone: [[2]] Also, look at these pictures from Somalia [[3] Look at the external link to Mogadishu University. The country now has more universities and more people getting an education now that government isn't functioning. Anarchy doesn't always mean disorder, so it needs to be clarified that there is some order in Somalia. RJII 17:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to agree with what is written in the section "Economy" of the article. --Eleassar777 21:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right. That section definitely needs some serious updating. RJII 04:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The economic section is a contradiction. "Somalia has a market economy. As one of the world's poorest and least developed countries", this statement seems to imply that a market economy leads to a country that is poor and impoverish. Gobstomper 01:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a contradiction, nor do I see how it makes the "market economy = poor country" implication as you suggest. With no functioning central government, how could Somalia have a command economy? Somalia does have a market economy, and it is indeed one of the poorest countries. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

...Abdirashid Ali Shermarke as Prime Minister....In late 1969, a military government assumed power following the assassination of Shermarke, who had been chosen, and served as, President from 1967–1969.

??? 154.20.186.105 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template

can someone set the table currectly?

Economy and POV

I can't really put my finger on it (well maybe I can), but I detect a POV creeping in through recent edits of the "Economy" section. I'm not sure how these specific economic hot spots (e.g. wireless telecom, internet cafes) benefit, for instance, the rural (and, I assume, pastoralist) Somalians who form the majority of the population. I'm not sure if it's what the editor(s) are trying to put across, but it comes off as "laissez-faire economics are good for Somalia, as evidenced by the growth of wireless telecom etc." It's far from suggesting that Somalia is some sort of libertarian Utopia, but reading between the lines, it feels as though that's where someone's edits are coming from. Perhaps the bigger point is that one should not expect to read between the lines in an encyclopedia.

Also the edits are leading to some (possible) contradictions:

". . . the socialist government of Siad Barre had suppressed free enterprise and neglected large parts of the country."

This comes off as criticizing the Barre government for intervening in the economy ("suppressing free enterprise"), but also for not intervening ("neglect"). ("Socialist" and "suppressed free enterprise" had been added more recently to the earlier version of the sentence.)

The wireless communications sector is important enough that the World Almanac 2004 lists it as one of Somalia's light industries. ("Economy: Industries: A few light industries, incl. sugar refining, textiles, wireless communication.") But I'm wondering if it's listed only because it is one of the only sectors sufficiently organized to qualify as an "industry."

I would also not describe the situations in Somaliland and Puntland as anarchy - they may not be de jure (i.e. internationally recognized) governments but they are de facto governments. On the other hand I would also consider the warlord militias as "de facto governments" (and thus not "anarchists") in the basic sense of imposing one's will over that of another. For what that's worth.

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, and I'm not sure that you are out of line suggesting a "Somalia is libertarian Utopia"-POV to the recent edits. The optimistic tone of the contributions, despite the fact that factionalization continues to lead to much bloodshed, is quite strange and surreal. - BanyanTree 19:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the tone is clearly trying to present Somalia as a poster-child for anarcho-capitalism whilst not being too blatant. Morwen - Talk 09:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, there are libertarian/anarchist elements out there that are looking on Somalia with great interest, it's a forbidden experiment and thus far it's doing extremely well, considering the situation and obstacles. Any NPOV article requires that side to be shown, since it's so unique in the world today. --Golbez 10:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Golbez is right. We cannot simply assume that more government is always better and that's the feeling I get when reading this article. Some argue that the violence is due to power struggles related to the formation of a new government. Violence that wouldn't exist if the current system was left intact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.240.110 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

History

Can anyone add history of Somalia prior to 1977? 207.225.246.225 23:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is on there, but for brevity's sake, the history section starts in '77. If you wantto read the complete history of Somalis, you can click History of Somalia. --Soomaali

Map and Puntland

The current map showing regions of control is inaccurate. That map has Puntland controlling almost all of Somalia. If that was the case, then why is Somalia considered as having no central government? Puntland has never considered secession, but is only supposed to be an organized/governed region. If such a region extends over most of Somalia, then ipso facto Somalia would have a government. Besides, a check on the web (google or yahoo) will not turn up a single map that shows Puntland as extensive as the one depicted here (except for the imitator websites like Answers.com).

New book

I become angry by reverts with comments like: "Remove advertising for a little known, and highly biased book" [4] of people without any respect and standard of knowledge.

The book is a new one. It is still not to buy. I list the book because it gives the reader the possibility to self-improvement on the law and culture in Somalia. There is nothing better for this widely unknown topic. Maybe it is a POVed resource. But all books and links are less or more POV. This is no problem so long as the reader know what he gets. --Irgendwer 10:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of very good books on Somalia published each year. For instance Peter D. Little's Somalia: Economy Without State is a well regarded work on this subject, and there are many others. By contrast the one you are adding is an unreleased work by a little known author from a non-academic press. Moreover it seems to less be a work about Somalia and more be an investigation of anarchist/libertarian ideas. - SimonP 13:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

So what? Somalia: Economy Without State is not a book on Somali Law. Please take note of facts. And this topic is the mainly academic work of Michael van Notten in 13 chapters. The book will be published this year. Your opinion about the publisher is extraneous. And "it seems to less be a work about Somalia" is completely wrong. I know this. If you need more information about the book, you may contact the friendly editor Spencer Heath MacCallum. But he would shake his head on seeing your silly comments here. --Irgendwer 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm very impressed that the book has 13 chapters, but that doesn't make it an academic work. I have yet to see it reviewed anywhere, and my university libraries give no indication that they have ordered copies. It doesn't even seem to be available on Amazon.com. - SimonP 16:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The book has more than 13 chapters. I'm very impressed of your ignorance. There is already one review on the website and the description of the publisher. It is written in a academic style. It seems to me you want vandalize the entry. --Irgendwer 17:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Red Sea Press appears to be a specialty publisher whose books pertain specifically to East Africa (Ethiopia in particular). I wouldn't dismiss this book solely based on its publisher. FWIW, I'm pleased with the one title I have of theirs, Ethiopia: From Bullets to the Ballot Box by Kinfe Abraham. Having said that, I must reiterate my comments below that it is useless to link to a book that is not yet available. If you are going to add this link, do so when the book actually comes out. I also suggest that you not add this again under "Further reading," make another external link instead. I put this under "Further reading" in a previous edit and now consider it a mistake. "Further reading," like "References," is for works that are the actual sources of the information in the article. As the book in question has not yet come out, it can't be a source, and won't be until the article specifically incorporates material from the book. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that it isn't useful to direct readers to a book that isn't available. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is available in some weeks and it is already avaiable in parts on the website. This problem is only temporary and it concerns also to other printings. --Irgendwer 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible primary source

I happened across the following article which has a lot of good information: http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c11e.htm Some of this would be useful as-is, but there is a copyright notice at the bottom, and it appears thatr works by the Canadian government are not in the public domain [5]. If nothing else there is a lot of info. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Somalia as "free market anarchy"

A society cannot be both in anarchy (no government) and be a free market. A free market requires a huge level of regulation and coercion to maintain its existence, for example a legal and judicial process for dealing with cases of fraud and theft. I don't suppose these are provided under anarchy. Even libertarians know that the free market requires some government. "Free market anarchy" is a contradiction in terms; it should just say, "anarchy". I won't presume to make changes to the first paragraph without discussion, however.

I wouldn't say it was in complete anarchy either, the Warlords provide de-facto government, or at least some aspects of government. I'd prefer it read "No central government". Somaliland, which is part of Somalia (although vying for independance iirc) certainly has a functioning government. - FrancisTyers 11:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hence my previous comments (#Economy and POV). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL!, I just repeated nearly exactly what you said without having read it ;) What are the chances of that? :) - FrancisTyers 03:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A free market, by its idealized definition, is a market devoid of coercion. And, anarchy in its idealized sense is the lack of coercion, so a free market IS anarchy --economic anarchy. Now, as far as "free market anarchy," that's a philosophical theory where "government" is privatized --it's funded like a business is funded, rather than by taxation (and so it IS a business rather than a government). "Free market anarchism" is also identifiable by the philosophies called anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism. Here's a relevant quote by individualist anarchist Victor Yarros: "Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." So, if Somalia has a system of private competing businesses providing protection of individual liberty, private property, enforcing contracts, adjudicating disputes, etc. (and I'm not saying it does), then it would be "free market anarchy." RJII 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[From thread-starter] That's very interesting, I'd never thought of this idea before. I suppose that a system of, basically, private vengeance could enforce the rules of the market (eg. like the enforcement of criminal sanctions by vendetta not by a State). I take your point, although I'm unsure that private security arrangements can be called 'government'. You might agree that this complex idea would have to be explained a little in the article, if we go with it.

Right, it's not government if it doesn't tax and only uses its power in defense of liberty rather than in agression -it's business. Somalia has a whole isn't free market anarchy, however some areas may be. There are private police in some areas. Mogadishu has private police that patrol the city streets for petty crime. These are funded by businessmen who got together to fund them. [6] [7] So with private police, private courts, and no taxation, Mogadishu may actually be free market anarchy or anarcho-capitalism. RJII 17:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Flag

I had to remove the flag as it linked to an offensive image. Bearbear 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Blog link - LVM Instititute Link

I've again removed the link to [8]. It is simply a blog posting by someone who has "studied law in London, where she now works in financial services" and has no apparent expertise on Somalia. No one would ever consider linking to a highly POV blog entry about the American economy at the United States article. So why would we allow it in this one? - SimonP 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

SimonP, the story is a review of Michael van Notten's book. I met Michael in 2002, at a conference in Houston on Somalia. He impressed me greatly as a thoughtful man. I don't think it's possible to make sense of Somalia without an understanding of its system of clans and clan law. Michael lived in Somalia for many years, was married to a Somalian woman, and was a member of a Somalian clan. I don't see how this article can be harmed by presenting more information about his book. RussNelson 06:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

SimonP - the link you have removed from various wikipedians is not a link to a blog. It's a story of the day at the well respected Ludwig von Mises Institute. It seems to me that the story is quite relevant as half of this talk page seems to be discussing the issues therein. Moreover the story is not just or even primarily the author's POV.

Quoting from the story,

"To understand more about the country without a government, turn to The Law of the Somalis, written by Michael van Notten (1933-2002) and edited by Spencer Heath MacCallum, sheds light on the little known Somali law, culture and economic situation. Somalia is often cited as an example of a stateless society where chaos is the "rule" and warlords are aplenty."

It's as much a book review as anything. To myself and others (looking at the history you've removed a link added by at least 2 of us) this information improves the Somalia article. Somalia is a unique place in the world right now. In some ways this is good. In some ways this is bad. wp is only concerned with this being verifiable. The link is verification.

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this. I'm putting the link back for the last time. Before you remove it again please consider that more than one of us have independantly added it. Please respect our reasons for doing so. Please read the article linked. And please get consensus before removing the link again. Thanks HSchickel 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The link itself calls it a blog posting calling readers to "comment on this blog" at the bottom. Looking through your contributions most of your edits seem to be adding external links to similar articles. Either you have a personal interest in the site, or more likely you are try to propagate a particular point of view. Either behaviour is unacceptable. We don't normally allow links to blog postings in articles, and book reviews are equally rarely linked to. You also haven't responded to my comparison with the United States project. We have an active project to counter the systemic bias of Wikipedia, and one of those goals is to ensure that nations with few contributors, such as Somalia, are of the same quality as those with many, such as the United States. - SimonP 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. The link is in fact to an aricle of the day at LVMI. Comments are welcomed and the link at the bottom is a redirect to LVMI's blog where the comments are actually posted.

I've linked twice to LVMI in my logged in time on wp. The other link is to a pdf download of Bastiat's, "The Law." I suspect that link would be non-controversial as the Bastiat article is in good part about that work. A free download for interested parties would likely be welcomed. (The Law was published in 1850 and is out of copyright.)

I fully respect the NPOV aspect of wp. We all come with our own biases and our areas of expertise reflect those biases. The links that I provide, and the articles that I write and edit will show mine. It's up to the other editors to tone them down if required. I certainly try to not to let my biases show but I know it's impossible to do that entirely. As an editor here I expect and encourage that aspect of wp.

I will look at your project (this is the first I've heard of it). If I can contribute I certainly will. HSchickel 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

SimonP - I looked into the CSB project. I wholeheartedly agree with the principles. I'm not quite sure what it has to do with the LVMI link. I would love to hear your thoughts. In any case I won't reference it again. You are an administrator. If a reference made by multiple users is so far from policy you would know better than me. Cheers. HSchickel 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of CSB is that we should no treat countries differently. Looking at the LVM article of the day list there are dozens of them analyzing the United States, but one would never consider linking those articles from the United States page, as any POV links would be rejected out of hand. The same high standards should apply to countries where there are not many residents available to scrutinize what is linked to. - SimonP 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick response. I'm still a bit confused about the rules. WP Guide...External Links seems to allow POV linking if it's referenced in the article or as a source or for further reading. Somalia is currently a very interesting place to many people. Economists are especially interested. The majority of them have a strong POV. It seems we could write about topics that contain POV in an NPOV way. I'm curious, if the article read something along the lines of,

"AUTHOR/ECONOMIST/NEWSPAPER/JOURNAL stated the following about Somalia, 'STATEMENT, STATEMENT, STATEMENT.'" and other "AUTHOR/ECONOMIST/NEWSPAPER/JOURNAL stated the following about Somalia, 'STATEMENT, STATEMENT, STATEMENT.'" w/ references and external links for backup...

Would that be acceptable? Or does Somalia's status as a country mean POV topics cannot be discussed in even an NPOV way? I'd love any suggestions you may have for a proper (CSB/NPOV) way of handling this type of information in articles (especially if some articles work under more stringent rules and this is an example). HSchickel 22:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Somalia has no (...qualities...) nor any other feature associated with an established nation state.

I removed "nation" from state; since this is more restrictive term and does not have a legal definition. The change also reflects the definitions in the respective artices- nation state, and state- in Wikipedia.Beside, at he heart of the conflict are differing cultures and the country consists of many cultures- so the reference to "state" is correct, while the one to "nation" is not.(Gary Joseph 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

As far as I've researched based upon sources cited in this article, Somalia has an interim government with Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed as President and Ali Mohamed Ghedi as Prime Minister, and a, although weak, national currency known as the Somali shilling (11,000 per $1 US in 2000). I believe that the first paragraph needs to be edited regarding these delopments as cited in [9] and [10]. --Zsinj^Talk 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Has this provisional "government" managed to sneak into Mogadishu yet? --Golbez 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

According to those same sources, the provisional government has no building that it is housed in. --Zsinj^Talk 23:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Kind of an existential question, isn't it. Can it be a government if it's never stepped foot in the country? I mean, hell, I could declare myself prime minister, but if I can't back it up, does it matter? --Golbez 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am quite sure they've stepped foot inside the country. Anyways, I would still consider the Somali shilling the national currency even if it is very weak. This fact is mentioned in the infobox, but I feel this should be reflected in the opening paragraph (even if that part is just removed). --Zsinj^Talk 05:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Have they? Can you find a newslink verifying that? Because last I heard, they were still cowering in fear in Kenya. --Golbez 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The government has moved back to somalia and for the first time met in baidao with over 200 PM's and western diplomats.

Aww, they finally made it. Maybe someday they'll even be actually elected. I'd like to see them get into Mogadishu, though. --Golbez 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the Somali shilling is that there is no one entity which controls the quantity of currency issued. That would make it NOT a characteristic of a central government. You might ask why people accept it. If there are no currency amounts larger than some fixed value, then the paper currency, nominally a fiat currency, will not be inflatable if the largest bill costs as much to print as it is worth. What will happen then is that the supply of currency will stay fixed until enough deflation occurs to make printing of bills (slightly) profitable. Competition will ensure that the profit from "counterfeiting" will stay low. RussNelson 06:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

photos request

Anyone have a photo of Somalia that shows the more modern aspects? Cities, buildings, cars, electricity, internet cafes, etc? The photo of a livestock herder makes it look like they're stuck in the stone age, but that's not the case --as can be seen here in these copyrighted photos: [11] RJII 16:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Somalia has been in various wars since the 60s, so they don't have sky scrapers and the sort, rather Morrocan type cities with rather beautiful white buildings everywhere. Typical Arabic architecture. I was just wondering though why Canadian troops and an American helicopter are displayed on a page that details an east African state. razr [May 11, 2006]

photos huh?

Hello again, I just realized how patently banal it is having pictures of an invading army on a page thats supposed to detail a foreign country. Would it be appropriate for the US page to have the drawings of British soldiers in the revolutonary war? I'm wiki challenged and unable to change it, could someone please take 2 minutes out of their very busy schedules to fix it. Mogadishu has some very pretty scenary, i'm sure you could come up with beautiful pictures. razr May 11, 2006

If you own some photos which you can release under the appropriate license, please consider uploading them. The photos currently on this page are, unfortunately, the only pictures available here on Wikipedia or on Commons. Better than nothing, but maybe not by a lot. bcasterline t 13:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction about Operation united shield

There seems to be a clear contradition in this paragraph:

Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions. The UN withdrew in Operation United Shield by March 3, 1995, having suffered significant casualties, and the rule of government has not yet been restored.

However, the concluding sentence of the article on Operation United Shield is:

A success, the operation saw the safe withdrawal of all 6,200 troops, as well as over a hundred combat vehicles, without a single UN or US casualty.

So, which one was it? Were there significant casualties or not a single fatality?

I believe that the ending sentence is refering to the withdrawal period, and not the duration of the operation itself. Perhaps this shoul be made more clear. 67.180.248.197 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier Somali history

As a World Civilizations student, I find this artical lacking in details on Somali colonization, and general early history. The earliest date mentioned in the history section is 1960, and the start of the section says "independence of Somaliland from the United Kingdom was proclaimed" without explaining how Somaliland came to be under the rule of the UK, etc. 67.180.248.197 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

APC-EC Courier

I can find no evidence for this publication. It gets virtually no Google hits, and does not seem to be available in any major library. Perhaps you are just copying a mistyped reference from this site, a highly POV work by someone with no background in the subject at hand. However, I'm sure you would not cite a source that you had not actually read, because doing so would be a major breach of research standards. If you have a copy of this journal, what is its full name and what date did this article come out? With this information it might be possible to find it. Also this article comes from some time prior to 1998, so presenting it as a view of the current situation in Somalia is somewhat inaccurate. - SimonP 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk about assuming bad faith. Maybe you're only looking for it on the internet? What's on the internet is only the tip of the iceberg of all the information that's out there. It's called "The Courier." ACP-EC stands for Africa, Carribbean, Pacific - European Community." It comes out every two months. That issue, 102, is the March/April issue from 1997. RJII 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, I should be able to check that out. - SimonP 02:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the report. The quotes do make a few errors, and they certainly misrepresent the thrust of the report. The title of the article cited is also incorrect. I've made the necessary corrections. Also where does the Coca Cola information come from? The Coke website does not list there being a bottling plant in the country. - SimonP 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing the Mogadishu Coca-Cola plant in the news. Here's a BBC article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Timeframe Contradiction

"The 2nd Battle of Mogadishu started in May 2006. The battle is being fought between the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism or "ARPCT" and militia loyal to Islamic court union or "ICU". The conflict began in mid-February." So did this start in mid-February, or in May? Adoubleplusgood 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is unclear. Essentially the conflict between the two groups has been going on since at least February, but the current round of fighting only began a few weeks ago. - SimonP 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can that phrasing be incorporated into the article if it can be sourced? -Fsotrain09 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

International Recognition of Somaliland

The article on Somaliland claims that Ethopia has recognized Somaliland's independance (no source is given, however). If true, the statement in this article that Somaliland is unrecognized should be changed. In addition, Wales has recognized the sovereignty of Somaliland[12], and that should probably be noted, even though Wales is part of the UK, not a separate nation.