Talk:Piracy off the coast of Somalia

Split

Per WP:SIZESPLIT, this article "Probably should be divided." The Anti-piracy measures section is well developed and could stand as a spinoff article under a title such as Anti-piracy measures in Somalia. That the article is large enough to be split is probably not controversial, but I thought I'd give a week or so for discussion over what to split and at what title. If there are no objections, I'll proceed with my original proposal. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Split It seems to me that this article should have a short, one-to-two-para section on a timeline of counter-piracy measures and efforts implemented and their effectiveness (ie: drastically reduced seizure of vessels), but that section should largely be a quick summary, and should rely on a Template:Main setup with the new article. Cdtew (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose According to most authorities, the piracy phenomenon off the coast of Somalia is nearing its end. This is due to the combined counter-piracy efforts of international and local navies (c.f. [1]). A spinoff page devoted solely to anti-piracy measures on the mainland is thus unnecessary. Such measures can instead be dealt with on this page in the allotted section. Middayexpress (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you support splitting another section? Is the article too large, in your opinion? --BDD (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The article seems to have already been split a few times. I would, though, support a new spinoff page on the burgeoning general private maritime security industry. While piracy in the Indian Ocean is quickly approaching an end, there has been a rise in pirate incidents in other waters; specifically, in the Gulf of Guinea and the Strait of Malacca. This should keep the private contractors going for some time. Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Middayexpress --LNCSRG (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

PS.: to further elaborate and clarify, I think the new article should incorporate material from this one as well as from a/m Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea and Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, but also from 2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea, where a section deals about impact on anti-piracy measures due to that incident: BTW, on that article talk page there has been a discussion about moving some of those concepts elsewhere. Accordingly, I would not rename the split page Anti-piracy measures in Somalia as proposed, but something more general, like Measures against modern international piracy. --LNCSRG (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If material on the Italian-Indian shooting is included, then the article will actually be about counter-piracy in general rather than the budding private maritime security industry, since that incident involved some Italian navy marines. Middayexpress (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a part where is hinted that that incident, and the legal outcome of it, could eventually cause private guards to be preferred to military ones or viceversa, which is IMHO is both relevant and interesting. Please have a look here. --LNCSRG (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That particular section would seem relevant to the hypothetical private maritime industry page. Middayexpress (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Split The sections are all overly detailed and a few of them could have their own pages. I think that it would serve Wikipedia better to pick out a few sections and add a Main article redirect at the beginning of the sections. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I might push to make splitting the Legislation section a priority. The trials are unique and notable. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A split of the legislation section does not appear necessary. It's not particularly large to begin with and the Somali authorities recently instructed officials in Kenya and other foreign countries to send the pirates to Somalia for trial and imprisonment (c.f. [2]). Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think splitting that makes sense because Piracy trials in general are very unique. They are different than the older pirate trials and have started to involve pirates not directly involved in acts of piracy. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The trials primarily involve individuals suspected of engaging in acts of piracy. What's new is that Somalia now has the institutional capacity to both prosecute and imprison the pirates. This is largely due to the Somali authorities' efforts, in coordination with the UNODC Counter Piracy Program, at upgrading their national court and prison facilities. Hence, why the Somali government is now in a position to request the transfer of the pirates for domestic internment. Middayexpress (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am suggesting that these trials are different from the trials from before, but I still think that Somali trials should be addressed as well. Would you be opposed to adding something into a page similar to Judiciary of Somalia? What I am getting at is that the definition of "piracy" is evolving and the easiest way to illustrate that is through the trials. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not forget that pirates captured in that area has been tried (when not simply freed to avoid complications) not only in Somalia but also in other neighboring countries, such as Kenya and Yemen, as well as in some of the countries of assaulted ships, including India, USA, France, Italy and possibly other ones. BTW piracy is one of those crimes against humanity for which universal jurisdiction applies. LNCSRG (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the Indian Ocean, the current pirate trials are little different from the earlier ones. The only major difference is that they are dwindling in number due to a decreasing number of attacks, and are now being assigned toward Somali courts and jurisdiction. Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The anti-piracy section seems to have already been split several times. There are already spinoff articles on Operation Ocean Shield, Operation Atalanta, etc.. What perhaps remains is a page on the private maritime security industry, which the section touches on. Although piracy in the Indian Ocean seems to be nearing an end, private security services are increasingly being employed in other areas like the Gulf of Guinea, where pirate attacks are conversely rising (c.f. [3]). Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Split, the article meets WP:LIMIT by leaps and bounds! The History section seems the best split candidate to make into a sub-article, a paragraph or two summary can be left in its place with a main article section hatnote at the top of the summary. Additionally a subarticle template can be placed on the new article's talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Remark: Consensus about splitting does exist ... however not so as to what to split and how. So what now? LNCSRG (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Error in fourth paragraph of the introduction?

The fourth paragraph of the introduction has this sentence:

About 25 military vessels from the EU and NATO countries, the United States, China, Russia, India and Japan patrolled approximately 8.3M km2 (3.2 million sq miles) of ocean, an area about the size of Western Europe.

It seems that the last part, giving a comparison for the area, is inaccurate.

8.3M km^2 is substantially more than the size of Western Europe - it is 80% of the size of the whole Europe (about 10M km^2). Even defining Western Europe as the European Union (which is bigger than most definitions of Western Europe), it is still less than 4.5M km^2.

I note that this appears directly in the source; however, the comparison given is too small by approximately a factor of 2 at a minimum, and there are better comparisons: Europe (about 10M km^2), USA (about 9M km^2), China (about 9M km^2), Australia (about 8M km^2). How does one reconcile this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.19.22 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2015

Piracy in Somalia → Piracy in the Gulf of Aden – Body of water per standard; piracy actually took place in the Gulf of Aden (e.g. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake, Piracy in the Persian Gulf). Middayexpress (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This should have been done years ago. AcidSnow (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Counterpropose Somali piracy (and oppose the proposed move) - it doesn't appear to be just in the gulf, and it does appear to be 100% Somali Red Slash 01:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Piracy in the Gulf of Aden. According to the map in the article, many if not a majority of the cases are outside of the Gulf of Aden. And the article text in no way limits the topic to the Gulf. Instead, as User:Red Slash points out, the article is about Somali piracy so let's move it there. —  AjaxSmack  02:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the pirates range far and wide, beyond the Gulf of Aden. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. "Piracy in Somalia"? How does that work? It is largely a desert country. Suggest Somali based piracy. I don't personally like the idea of directly saying that the piracy is Somali but prefer the idea of saying that the piracy is Somali based. Not all Somalis arrrgh pirates. "Somali based piracy" may not be the most commonly used form of designation but it meets well the fundamental requirements of WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:AT. I could be wrong but as far as I know the piracy is not endorsed by the Somali government. GregKaye 13:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why "Somali" implies government endorsement and it certainly doesn't imply inclusion of all Somalis. We have other articles on a range of topics like Somali art, Somali civil war, Somali diaspora without approval of the "Somali government" (inasmuch as it exists) or including all Somalis. "Somali-based piracy" seems a little wordier and vague but is still preferable to the current title. —  AjaxSmack  14:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: "Somali-based piracy" is a non-standard, non-neutral title. We don't see any "Nigerian piracy", "Indonesian piracy", etc., so there is no reason why this title should be singled out. It is also inappropriate, since, unlike "Nigerian" or "Indonesian", "Somali" is the name of an actual ethnic group inhabiting Somalia and adjacent nations; it is not just a nationality. By the same token, not all of the pirates originating from Somalia were ethnic Somalis. Further, not all of the piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Gulf of Guinea, etc. was confined to these waters; some also took place in adjacent maritime areas. Most of the attempted hijackings, however, were in these waters, so the pages were logically named after them. Middayexpress (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Counterpropose: Piracy in Somalia → Piracy in the Indian Ocean. Per the above, the Indian Ocean is where all of the hijackings have actually taken place (although most were in the Gulf of Aden). It is also the most neutral, accurate and consistent title available. Middayexpress (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Strong oppose counter proposal' clearly fails WP:CRITERIA as it does not identify the topic of the article. The counterproposal changes the scope of the article to cover piracy in the Indian Ocean, which is a much greater scope than just pirates based in Somalia, there being pirates based elsewhere, such as Indonesia and Burma, and other parts of Africa. This article is not the article about piracy in the Indian Ocean, it is solely about piracy from pirates based out of Somalia. Further, historically, there have been pirate havens from India through Southeast Asia, and the Arabian peninsula, and all along the coast of Africa, so given historical context, makes even less sense. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Your rationale above for opposing Piracy in the Gulf of Aden was that "the pirates range far and wide, beyond the Gulf of Aden". Now that Piracy in the Indian Ocean has been proposed, you object on the grounds that it is apparently too broad. Yet you don't seem particularly concerned that none of the pirate attacks obviously occurred within Somalia itself, or that all of the other modern piracy pages are titled according to the actual bodies of water where the hijackings took place. At any rate, per Oceans Beyond Piracy, "Piracy in the Indian Ocean" is indeed a WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon [4]. The Indian Ocean is also certainly where all of the piracy has actually taken place. Another alternative per NATO is Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • No, you're changing the scope of this article, not just the name. This article covers pirates based in Somalia. This article does not cover other pirates from other regions. The first proposal is wrong because the scope of this article is pirates based in Somalia, and they do not confine themselves to the Gulf of Aden. The counterproposal is wrong because the scope of this article is pirates based in Somalia, and there are other pirates in the Indian Ocean. They both fail for the same reason, they do not reflect the scope of the article -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • If you wish to have geographic articles based on the body of water, feel free to create new articles for the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Actually, the Oceans Beyond Piracy and NATO links both pertain to the same piracy phenomenon that this page is on. "Piracy in the Gulf of Aden" (as well as "Piracy in the Indian Ocean" and "Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea") is also consistent with the titles of all of the other modern piracy wiki pages, which are all named after the bodies of water where the piracy actually took place. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Somali piracy or some such per WP:COMMONNAME. Virtually every source uses 'Somali' or 'Somalia' and pirate in the same sentence; to avoid it by talking about the IO or Arabian Sea would be creating a Wiki--neologism, which is not what we're supposed to do. The vast majority of the pirates have been Somali, and saying 'it's not neutral' perverts the meaning of WP:NPOV. We're here to describe fact, and the piracy has mostly been done by Somalis. I'm surprised that the article has been at 'Piracy in Somalia' however, because this has been offshore at sea. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Please comment on the actual proposed title, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, not other random titles. While "Piracy in the Indian Ocean" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this phenomenon [6] (not "Somali piracy"), note that the vessel hijackings largely took place in the Gulf of Aden specifically. "Piracy in the Gulf of Aden" is also consistent with the titles of the other modern piracy pages (e.g. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake and Piracy in the Persian Gulf). Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: "Piracy in Somalia" is a bit of a nonsense, if you ask me, and there doesn't seem much support for keeping that title. The problem with something like "Piracy in the Indian Ocean" is it suggests that the article will cover all such piracy, including historical piracy there. There were undoubtedly pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden before the current wave of piracy there, so I'm not sure that's appropriate either given the focus of the article. I'm not sure what the best solution to this is. One would be to specify in the title that it's Somali piracy. Another might be to specify a time period in the title. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: "Somali piracy" doesn't work either because "Somali" refers to both Somalia nationality and an ethnic group that traditionally inhabits Greater Somalia (not just Somalia), whereas the pirates themselves were from various groups from within Somalia. That phrase is also inconsistent with all of the other modern piracy wiki pages. The time period suggestion makes a bit more sense, but here too that title would be inconsistent with the other modern piracy pages. Bottom line, there is no reason why this page's title should be singled out. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the title should instead be worded in accordance with those of the other similar pages ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). The only titles that are consistent with the other modern piracy pages are those named after the bodies of water where the piracy actually took place (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea vs. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake, Piracy in the Persian Gulf). Middayexpress (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Take an article like Piracy in the Persian Gulf though, and it discusses piracy there going back to 1800 BC, which this article doesn't. I agree that we should generally aim for consistency across articles, but they're not all discussing contemporary piracy (though some clearly are). I'm not really convinced by the ethnicity versus nationality argument, because that doesn't stop "Somali" being used to describe the Somali Civil War. Overall, I think naming it after the body of water it takes place in is probably the best of the range of options that have been discussed so far, though, even if none of them are perfect. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The Somali Civil War almost entirely involves ethnic Somalis and takes place in Somalia itself. Nonetheless, I see what you're trying to say. AcidSnow (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Suport move to Somali piracy. Seems to be the most succinct way to sum up the scope of what the article is about (which the titles with bodies of water clearly do not, since they imply inclusion of piracy from other sources than Somalia). Also better than the current title, as many of the attacks aren't in Somali territory or waters. Also seems to be a faily well used WP:COMMONNAME: [7][8][9][10] Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, "Somali piracy" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon [11]. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the title should instead be worded in accordance with those of the other similar pages ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). The only titles that are consistent with the other modern piracy pages are those named after the bodies of water where the piracy actually took place (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea vs. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake, Piracy in the Persian Gulf). Middayexpress (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Middayexpress, stop trying to deny obvious fact. The pirates are almost all Somali and the whole world knows them as that. Merely wanting to divert attention from their Somali origin is a perversion of WP:NPOV. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • "Somali piracy" is not "npov"; even "Piracy in Somalia" is more objective than that. As Gregkaye notes above: "I don't personally like the idea of directly saying that the piracy is Somali but prefer the idea of saying that the piracy is Somali based. Not all Somalis arrrgh pirates". And that's an understatement; there were only a few hundred pirates during their heyday. AcidSnow and even the ip seem to understand this basic fact as well. There's also of course the actual WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which stipulates that the title should instead be worded in accordance with those of the other similar pages ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). Since all of the other similar modern piracy pages are titled after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place, so indeed should this page. Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Personally, I don't see how "Somali pirates" suggests that all Somalis are pirates any more than the title (to pick an example at random) French nationalism suggests that all French people are nationalists (i.e., it doesn't). It does suggest that all of the pirates involved in this particular wave of piracy are Somali, however. As hinted above, I don't really think any of the options being discussed is perfect, and I still think that a body of water-based title should be disambiguated in some way to indicate that the article is only about recent piracy in the region. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
          • "Somali piracy" places undue weight on "Somali", which is both a nationality descriptor for Somalia nationals and an actual ethnic group inhabiting Greater Somalia. Somalis from Djibouti, the Ogaden and Northern Frontier District outside Somalia had little to nothing to do with the piracy, nor did the ~16 million other ethnic Somalis. A few hundred pirates based in Somalia, who may or may not have been ethnically Somali (Somalia is a multiethnic country), is not a legitimate reason to rename the page to apply to all Somalis. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the most neutral title is therefore indeed a title named after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place, as on all of the other similar modern piracy pages (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea ≈ Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake). Middayexpress (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Actually it does not place undue weight, rather the opposite. Because that's what the article is about. Somali pirates. i.e. Pirates who come from the country of Somalia (whose demonym is Somali). So to not mention Somalia in the title is to miss the point of the article and make it much broader than it actually is. Of course use of "Somali" does not imply that all Somalis are pirates, any more than African American implies that all Africans are American, or Islamic terrorism implies that all muslims are terrorists. I can see that the proposed title is designed to try to avoid offending people, but in doing so it fails WP:PRECISE, because it no longer describes what the article is about. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Actually, the article is on piracy; the phenomenon itself rather than the alleged perpetrators. That's the WP:PRECISE term. African Americans all traditionally inhabit the United States and Islamic isn't an ethnic group, so inappropriate analogies there. Somalia also has two demonyms; "Somali" and "Somalian". The Somali ethnic group happens to be the largest in the present-day Somalia. Hence, the territory was named after them (the Latin suffix "ia" means "land of"). However, ethnic Somalis aren't the only inhabitants of Somalia, nor do they only traditionally inhabit that landmass. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the most neutral title therefore indeed remains a title named after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place, as on all of the other similar modern piracy pages (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea ≈ Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake). Middayexpress (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
                • I really do think that we can treat readers as intelligent enough to understand that words have different meanings in different contexts. Cornish is an ethnicity, but we can still talk about Cornish pasties without worrying that people will think someone from Cornwall is a pasty. I find the consistency of naming argument much more convincing, but we should consider that the "piracy in..." articles aren't quite all the same in terms of time period covered. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • Cornish people traditionally inhabit the same territory; the term also doesn't double as a nationality, so there's no comparable ambiguity there. The modern piracy pages are titled "Piracy in x body of water", so this page should as well per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA's title consistency clause. Middayexpress (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
                    • What I don't know about those other "modern piracy" pages is whether modern piracy is the only piracy to have been recorded in those bodies of water. If it is, then the titles make sense. What we do know about the Indian Ocean is that there was piracy there long before the recent wave, so simply renaming the current article Piracy in the Indian Ocean would be misleading. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
                      • That applies to the Strait of Malacca too and most of the other modern piracy pages, so they'd probably have to be similarly time-disambiguated. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
                        • OK, that's something I could support. It would help us achieve consistency between articles and to meet WP:PRECISE. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
                          • Indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
                          • No, it does not meet WP:PRECISE. The opposite in fact. This article is about Somali piracy, meaning piracy emanating from the nation of Somalia, which is a notable topic in and of itself, outside of any other discourse on piracy in the Indian ocean. If you change the name of this article to something not involving Somalia, then we'd be forced to simply fork a sub-article to keep coverage of the specific concept of Somali piracy, which is notable through widespread coverage in the media and published sources. If people don't like "Somali piracy" then fine, but in that case we're far better to just leave things at the current title, per WP:PRECISE and WP:ASTONISH. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
                            • This page is on piracy in the Gulf of Aden and environs, not Somalia. All of the piracy actually took place there, on the high seas. "Piracy in x body of water" is therefore indeed and obviously the more WP:PRECISE title. Per the actual WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy, such a title would also be consistent with those of the other modern piracy pages. All that these "Piracy in x body of water" titles would perhaps need is some time disambiguation. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, it's illogical on the surface, but it's the way English works. The current article name Piracy in Somalia describes the topic well, in that the phrase is commonly used and well understood. No case to answer. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. In terms of consistence in relation to other similar articles, I think it's appropriate that it be named after body of water, preferably Piracy in the Indian Ocean instead of the Gulf of Aden. 26oo (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. after all the others piracy activity in the world are named after the area they work in , and hearing or reading about Chinese piracy which there is ,and Philippine piracy or even in Indonesia and India i wish it to be called the Piracy in the Indian Ocean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)