Talk:2012 Somali presidential election

Problem edits

The article contains a lot of original research in addition to a number of falsehoods and some pov. It claims that "there has been no government that controls the territory recognised as Somalia since the Somali Civil War, there have been democratic elections in Somaliland." First off, Somalia already has a government; it's a just an interim, not a permanent one. Secondly, it's quite interesting that "democratic elections in Somaliland" are cited yet no mention is made of the Puntland regions elections. The edits also credit "an AMISOM campaign backed by the military of Kenya and the TFG has pushed back Al Shabaab from Mogadishu and other areas to take control of bigger parts of the country than the internationally recognised government previously had" when a) this has nothing to do with the presidential elections in question, and b) the Operation Linda Nchi in question was officially a coordinated mission between the Somali army and the Kenyan army.

The edits also includes a non-sequitur that "unlike in previous years, the run-up to the election, which fell on Eid al-Adha, the capital, Mogadishu, was reportedly peaceful" without an explanation as to why Mogadishu is "reportedly peaceful" (ouster of Islamists) and when the cited link doesn't even mention the presidential elections to begin with.

The page also ludicrously claims that Sharif Ahmed is presently running for president as part of the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia, which is actually an organization he left in 2008 to join the Transitional Federal Government.

The edit also claims that TFG "corruption[...] necessitat[ed] a new election", which is blatantly untrue. The end of the interim government had been planned as far back as the establishment of the Transitional Federal Charter in 2004; its dates were just pushed back. The latest August 2012 date was agreed to last year when the previous mandate deadline of August 2011 was missed.

Additionally, the edits are outdated in spots, not taking into account the fact -- described a paragraph or two later -- that the election has actually been postponed for another two weeks (e.g. "The election on 20 August will occur if a quorum of two-thirds of members (184 MPs) are present. The president would then appoint a prime minister, who will form a cabinet of his council of ministers.[2] Even though the total of 275 MPs were not achieved by the end of the TFG's mandate, the necessary quorum was achieved and a vote could go ahead as planned.[2]").

Further, there are various repetitious statements to the effect that the international community wishes to see the Technical Selection Committee adhere to the official selection criteria while screening candidates.

The elections are also not commonly referred to as "indirect", but as "parliamentary" as far as the actual voting is concerned.

The photograph of the Prime Minister was also removed for some odd reason, yet that of Sharif Ahmed was retained. Removing the party1 parameter has that net effect, which is why the editor I contacted to help fix the infobox herself added the "Independent" field for both pictured main nominees. An independent politician is defined as "an individual not affiliated to any political party", so it obviously applies. Middayexpress (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. Because I expect this page to be edited at a faster-than-average rate, I'll also do my best to monitor some of these. Hopefully some of these things will be discussed on the talk pages before incorporated. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything on the page is sourced to the original ref (with the possible exception of the first part of the background, though that could easily be sourced/wikilinked)

To specifically answer: no government has controlled the entire territory of Somalia since 1991. Should have added that. Done

As for Somaliland, you agree its there. I forgot about Puntland, feel free to add to the page instead of deleting it. Done though it is a redlink

It is background info, which election articles with such info have, so as to give context that it is now not at civil/violent strife. Feel free to mention the wikilink. I think the mention of kenya and TFG entails the cooardinated nature, but feel free to add that. Done

"why Mogadishu is "reportedly peaceful"" follows the fact of what you said about the ouster which was already written. Once again it is background context.

The removal of Sharif Ahmed's party needs a source. See his page where he is listed as part of the party. if the change is true then please update with a source instead of claiming it as "ludicrous"

not sure where the claim of TFG "corruption[...] necessitat[ed] a new election" is made, it doesnt link that as related (at least what i wrote). The fact that the TFG was criticised for corruption is sourced, and that the new MPs were chosen as against such links is also sourced. I saw how it could be misperceived . Now  Done

Please CITE the postponement, the 20 Aug was cited (though it is postponed now)

"various repetitious statements " please show which one/s

The elections are refered to as indirect when they are not popular. Parliamentary elections choose MPs, presidential ones choose a president.

If they are independent them CITE then as such. Failure to do so IS OR.

Also your BOLD edits were reverted. Per BRD, kindly get consnsus through discussion prior to restoringLihaas (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are essentially the same as before, with a few minor changes.

• The inaccurate claim that Sharif Ahmed is still part of the Alliance for the Reliberation of Somalia -- which he actually left when he joined the TFG [1] -- was again re-added.
• The photograph of the Prime Minister Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, one of the main candidates in the presidential election, was again removed.
• Undue weight on graft allegations with regard to the previous government was by contrast re-added, when a quote from the Defence Minister alluding to them is already there.
• More repetitious material was likewise re-added (e.g. "The prime minister is selected by the president, who would then name a council of ministers" vs. "The president would then appoint a prime minister, who will form a cabinet of his council of ministers").
• Outdated information indicating that the elections "will occur" on August 20 was re-added (e.g. "The election on 20 August will occur if a quorum of two-thirds of members (184 MPs) are present"). According to Al-Jazeera, "parliament will eventually have 275 members, the full number required to hold the necessary votes" [2].
• Sections devoted to criticism or controversies are to be avoided per WP:CRIT. The material in the 'issues' section should therefore be integrated into the main text, which I've done.
• The Transitional Federal Government was not itself "twice-renewed" as claimed. Its mandate was twice extended, which is a different matter altogether.
• Operation Linda Nchi -- which is completely irrelevant to the presidential elections -- is now misattributed as an AMISOM-led mission. In reality, it was officially a TFG-led mission, with the Kenyan army providing support. The operation was also entirely confined by agreement to the Lower Juba region of Somalia, which is to the south of Mogadishu, so it has nothing to do with the security situation in the capital. In fact, Mogadishu was already cleared of insurgents by August 2011, months before Linda Nchi even began in October.
• It is also erroneously claimed that "the UN-brokered Kampala Accord also ended the eight-year TFG, thus necessitating a new election", when the Kampala Accord was actually an extension of the TFG's mandate for an extra year. It's the Transitional Federal Charter formed years prior that officially outlines the TFG's mandate.
• Additionally, it is asserted in reference to the "four-and-a-half power sharing formula" (which is actually called the "4.5" and typically transliterated as the "four point five" system) that "though it received praise as initiating some kind of permanent structures, it was also criticised as unfair with voting tied to clans and sub-clans in accordance with birth". However, this criticism mentioned in the bloglink was leveled at the formula's application vis-a-vis the previous parliament, not the new one ("Clan elders in parliament have been divided along what is called the 4.5 power sharing formula" [3]). The new parliament is strictly based on whether or not the prospective candidates that were presented to the Technical Selection Committee by the National Constituent Assembly meet the TSC's official qualification criteria. It's the NCA members who were actually selected based on the 4.5 sharing formula.
• The reception section was renamed to "external influence", when the comments from the international community on the election process aren't even about that.
• The key statement from the UN Special Envoy to Somalia Augustine Mahiga that summarizes the nature of the entire proceedings was also removed (viz. "This historic moment marks the long-awaited end of the transitional period in Somalia. The new MPs, selected after broad-based, grass roots consultations and representing all of Somalia's clans, have been successfully screened against objective criteria and are now ready to start their important work" [4]).
• Al-Jazeera's assertion that the overall mood in the capital during the election period was one of optimism was also removed ("Despite the tardiness, however, there was a mood of new optimism on the streets of the capital" [5]).
• Further, not one of the cited sources refers to the presidential elections as "indirect". They do, however, pretty much all indicate that these elections are parliamentary vote-based i.e. it's parliamentarians that select the president in this election, not the public, so this is what should be indicated in the lede. An indirect election is also defined as "a process in which voters in an election do not actually choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice", which obviously does not apply here. The public did not appoint the MPs who are to do the voting; the National Constituent Assembly did, which in turn was formed using the 4.5 formula.
• The statement that "unlike in previous years, the run-up to the election, which fell on Eid al-Adha, the capital, Mogadishu, was reportedly peaceful" is also synthesis, as the cited bloglink [6] doesn't mention the presidential elections much less its relationship to previous ones.
• The "Mogadishu background" info that was added on "counter-attacks and bombings, including the deaths of high-profile figures" is commentary that is likewise not part of any the cited links on the elections. In fact, the Al-Jazeera link cites the improved security situation in Mogadishu and territorial gains in other areas as one of the main reasons why Somali expatriates have returned to invest in the city, with high hopes vis-a-vis the new government ("While the government until recently controlled only a few blocks of Mogadishu, African Union and other troops have since made key territorial gains in their fight against al-Shabab fighters. With better security, members of the Somali diaspora have returned to invest in their battered homeland, and many now hope that a new government will help the war-torn country stabilise and recover" [7]).
• The same applies to the comparisons with the Somaliland and Puntland elections, which are contrasts that none of the cited sources on the elections make.
• The fact that the number of candidates in the election has been variously reported as between 24 to 35 hopefuls was also removed in favor of just 24 candidates. However, Al-Jazeera reports that "roughly 20 to 40 potential candidates are in the running for president, though there are no official figures" [8].
• Lastly, the fact that the presidential election was postponed is already sourced to the Minister of Planning and International Cooperation. Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read what i said? From the first comment it indicates you did not:

1. I said that may be true or not but you need to add a cite (as you demand of my edits saying theyre OR/Synthesis/POV and then finding some reason to exclude sourced data), not blindly revert. btw, US diplomatic cables are not a RS they are the opinion of the US state dept's employees and are certainly laden with biases
2. The photograph was not removed, see the coding, that is a coding issue.
3. what is "undue" weight about a prose mention of the allegation that were not a small part and cited across the international media?</strike Done remove as redundant.
4. as i said above, if you point out what repetitious comments, i could correct it. And i will do now that youve mentioned. Done
5. see what i said about 20th aug. You have a source on the new date?
6. There is no rule to keep out sections on criticism (which there isnt here). Youre seeming to censor any and all negative press about the TFG which is against CENSORship. Criticism is to be avoided as a section, not removed and there isnt a section as such here. With other issues this can be expanded. Improvement is not a reason to remove/delete.
7. if the wording is not perfect then change that, dont remove it. Improve dont delete. That said extendeing its mandate is a renewal. Technically it expred, then it was extended meaning...it was renewed.
8. again reword. AMISOM played a large role, and kenya was the biggest player in the southern opeation. The fact that the likes of al Shabaab have been pushed back is certainly relevant to the election (as background) Done grudginly
9. That was a reason the TFG dint have to be extended (that and the security situation). So its important, but reword if need be.
10. do you have another source? the one listed to a RS says that it was against this formula. Also change it to "four point five" with a source if you want.
11. Foreign comments on an ongoing election period, and related to the new institutions, are certainly external influence, but id be game for "external reception" if need be.
12. Actually, Mahiga's comment was originally added by me from al jaz. SO it might have been lost in the changes. Done
13. Al Jazeera's comment about the new change in the capital was not removed, i added it the first time and again. See the background bottom section.
14. "pretty much all indicate" is blatant syhtnesis. Find a source. If you want we can take out indirect (As thats not my term, i use it as other such election pages use it)
15. it mentions the timeframe as this was due to fall on 20 august (eid) and it also says what you wanted above about the new mood.
16. that there are counter attacks is commentary? That there have been no attacks by al shabaab in the last 12 months? That the heads of orgnaisations and MPs werent killed in Mogadhishu? You know thats not true. note ive now added a source that al shabaab lost ground.
17. see the wikilinked and other sources on election there. It is pertinent background info that while the rest of somalia has not had (and is not scheduled to have) democratic popular elections, the other regions ahve done so.
18. <add the source with the 35 others if you feel so. I put on the stable and sourced version before your wholescale unilateral changes without discussion. Done
19. thats fine. Done which if the page was read before the comment one will note it HAS been added.

Youre showing poor faith and wholescale reverts without discussion is not the way to gain consensus. Discuss first, dont blindly revert because there is no consensus on a 2 person conversation to change. Further bear in mind that consensus is NOT vote countingLihaas (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite the various green check marks above, many of the same highly problematic edits discussed in my post from yesterday are still very much there in the article [9]. With regard to the enumerated points that weren't struck through:

• Sharif Ahmed is the former chairman of the ARS party, not the current one. Many sources make this clear; the U.S. government cable [10] that I just posted is only one of the more prominent ones. Here's another ("former chairman of ARS, now president of Somalia, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed").
• Until another editor adjusted the coding, the photograph of the incumbent Prime Minister actually did not appear on the article [11]. And it did not appear there because you removed the "Independent" field from the party2 parameter in the coding. I'll assume that this was an accident. However, as I already explained in my first post, removing the party parameter has the net effect of obscuring the images even if they are in the code, which is why the editor I contacted to help fix the infobox herself added the "Independent" field for both pictured main nominees. An independent politician is defined as "an individual not affiliated to any political party", so it obviously applies.
• The criticism on female representation in the new parliament wasn't removed (c.f. [12]). It was integrated into the text per WP:CRIT, as I quite clearly wrote. This is despite the fact that it doesn't appear to be entirely accurate, as the U.N. Special Envoy Mahiga has indicated that many women were actually included in the new parliament ("The new parliament is characterized by a high number of university graduates, relevant professional experience and a significant number of women, said the UN Somali envoy, while acknowledging that the quota of 30 percent of the new parliament membership for women was not reached" [13]).
• The Transitional Federal Government's mandate is not the same thing as the TFG itself. A mandate is defined as "an authorization to act given to a representative". It is that authorization to act that was twice extended here, not the representative body/TFG itself. This is what the sources indicate too.
• The Kampala Accord can be mentioned as having extended the mandate of the TFG for another year. However, it cannot be stated that the agreement "ended the eight-year TFG, thus necessitating a new election" because a) this gives the false impression that the purpose of the Kampala Accord was to end the TFG itself, when its actual purpose was to extend the TFG's mandate for another year, and b) it's the Transitional Federal Charter drafted years prior that officially outlines the TFG's mandate in its Article 43 - Tenure of Office (c.f. [14]).
• The Al-Jazeera bloglink [15] does not indicate that the 4.5 power-sharing formula applies to the selection of MPs in the new parliament, but quite clearly to the old parliament. This is why it indicates that "clan elders in parliament have been divided along what is called the 4.5 power sharing formula", and then goes on to describe that earlier partition as consisting of 61 seats each for the four major clans and 31 seats for the coalition of minority groups. As can be seen here, it's the descriptively named Technical Selection Committee that actually screens the MPs according to specific criteria before they are swore into the new parliament.
• Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is not on me to source for you your claim that this 2012 Somalia presidential election is an indirect election (which, in any case, it clearly is not, as defined on the indirect election page). How hard is it anyway to provide a source indicating that it is if you believe that this is in fact the case? By contrast, pretty much all sources do indeed indicate that these 2012 Somalia presidential elections are based on parliamentary votes (e.g. "the newly elected Somali lawmakers resolved to delay the election of the new president of the envisaged permanent government for a few days" [16]).
• Comments from international actors giving impressions on how they feel the election is proceeding do not necessarily constitute external influence, but they do always constitute external reception. So yes, external reception is certainly a more accurate title. Reception, however, is even better because it encompasses the Somali reception of their own elections as well.
• The statement that "unlike in previous years, the run-up to the election, which fell on Eid al-Adha, the capital, Mogadishu, was reportedly peaceful" is still synthesis, as the cited bloglink [17] doesn't mention the presidential elections much less its relationship to previous ones. It doesn't matter if its within the timeframe in question unless the source itself explicitly indicates this per WP:VER.
• I did not say that "there have been no attacks by al shabaab in the last 12 months" or that "the heads of orgnaisations and MPs werent killed in Mogadhishu". Those are strawman arguments. I said that the "Mogadishu background" info that was added on "counter-attacks and bombings, including the deaths of high-profile figures" is commentary that is not part of any the cited links on the elections. That is synthesis. In fact, the Al-Jazeera link that was placed near that phrase cites the improved security situation in Mogadishu and territorial gains in other areas as one of the main reasons why Somali expatriates have returned to invest in the city, with high hopes vis-a-vis the new government [18]. This was also already mentioned in the article (c.f. [19]).
• It doesn't matter if you believe that the elections in Somaliland and Puntland are "pertinent background info that while the rest of somalia has not had (and is not scheduled to have) democratic popular elections, the other regions have done so." An actual reliable source must make the comparison between those regional elections and the current federal presidential elections or it's WP:SOAPBOXing. Pertinent links by themselves belong in the See Also section. Middayexpress (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned you only needed a cite, which at the time you hadnt provided and his wikipage didnt show. Done

As mentioned, you need to show a SOURCE saying he is an independent, otherwise that is OR/Synthesis (something you preached to me about) just added for the sake of getting past coding issues. The BURDEN is on you to show they are independencts.

Mahiga may have praised it, but there was criticism too from individuals involved in the process and it was cited to a RS.

If an institution doesnt have a mandate it ceases to function. Is that not true?

I dont see how the Accord gives the impression that its purpose was to extend the mandate, it says it was the end of the TFG that had a new election. But if you feel otherwise give another wording/change that.

Al Jazeera does not indicate its for the old parliament. It talks of THIS election based on clans and then mentions the formula.

 Done by removing the bit, a parliamentary election as you said is not the term. Such similar elections occur in other places like South Asia, hence the term indirect election.

Comments from international players is certainly undue and biased towards the side they support (eu in finland ad portugal election) as sanctioning an event from one side, that is influence. It shows they sanction what the TFG has carried out. That is not neutral. Does al Shabaab and its supporters approve of this? They are Somalis too. And reaction is different from reception, albeit a somewhat minor one.

Sorry i disagree, that fact that the source (and you) already on the page mentions this campaign as different and not amidst war drums is indicative of background info that the city is not at war. Feel free to reword it through. Also see the VER page that you cite: "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." You are synthesisng your interpretation to suit what you want in and out.

Akin to the above there is mention of the improved situation, but at the same time since the removal of al Shabaab from the city there have been attacks. improved security, but not completely gone. That context is relevant. It also shows that all Somali forces (al Shabaab, etc) are not in favour of the election. it is context.

Its context in accord with election articles to help the reader. But if consensus is against its inclusion then thats okey. Its also soapboxing to deem this election as in perfect accord without negative press. There certainly have been plenty of questions asked. Al Jazeera (RS) even asked if Somalia is ready for the election.

Discussion would have helped along if you dint satart and continue in such a confrontation manner showin bad faith. The "green check marks" indicate the specific issue is answered (And per you, not me), the uncheked marks/stences are outsanding. So "many of the same" problem edits per you are not the ones i hecked off. Read above. Youre reiterating that you havent read any of it.Lihaas (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as can clearly be seen above, I have only addressed the actual edits. If those edits are unsatisfactory (and they indeed largely are), then they will be described as such per the talk policy. The fact that we can't even find common ground on something as simple as what the term "influence" means in a political context likewise does not bode well. Despite those various green checkmarks and strike-throughs, few substantive fixes have actually been made. The fundamental, core problems described ad infinitum above that are hindering the article are still very much there and have not been adequately redressed, as difs readily show [20]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Structure and other issues

I've restructured the page so that the main phases of the election are clearly outlined. In the process, I spotted more clear examples of original research and pov. There was a weird passage that "Though this was the first election in decades to feature campaigning, some unnamed yet attributed as leading candidates said they were keeping a low profile due to the tenous security situation. Further, the 30% representation for female MPs was frowned upon by the elder advisors who said it was too great a move in accordance with Somali culture. Despite lobbying by suffragettes, only 16% representations had been agreed upon". However, none of this is mentioned on the cited Al-Jazeera link [21].

That link also contains a number of quotes from the Somali federal government's main partners within the international community, including the UN Special Envoy to Somalia, which generally express optimism over the election process, yet all of this was completely ommitted (e.g. "This historic moment marks the long-awaited end of the transitional period in Somalia. The new MPs, selected after broad-based, grass roots consultations and representing all of Somalia's clans, have been successfully screened against objective criteria and are now ready to start their important work.").

Perhaps strangest of all, one of the key candidates in the election, former Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, was literally removed from the list of main candidates. This is despite the fact that he is explicitly profiled in the cited link on the leading candidates [22] and was already picked by many as one of the potential favorites in the lead up to the elections. Middayexpress (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Per BRD kindly get consensus to restore your BOLD changes that were reverted through discussion instead of unilaterally inserting one side without discussion

Let me bring also bring to your attention that there are copyvio concerns for having verbatim from text into WP articles. So to explain your queries:

What you cited above is NOT the cited Al Jazeera links, please see the page for which one it is (that had been removed (you cant claim a source to a new version, hence the confusion that also lead to non AGF accusations)). "For the first time in years, candidates have been holding rallies and distributing campaign flyers in the streets." + "Some frontrunners have told Al Jazeera they are keeping a low profile because of security concerns." + "While it was agreed that 30 per cent of MPs should be women, elders say this is a step too far for Somalia's culture." + "Women’s rights campaigners say this is non-negotiable." These are quite clearly NOT "clear examples of original research and pov"

Al Jazeera changes its reports at the same link (many times). I just read some links/quotes and will add them (you could have added them too, per AGF you shouldnt presume they were ommitted

Not sure about the removal , must have been in the cleanup (which kept many of your edits). DoneLihaas (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with BRD, i have reverted your changes pending discussion.

Further yur claim of "falsehoods" and atacks here dotn show AGFLihaas (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, personal attacks are comments that are directed at contributors, not at contributors' edits. I have not made any reference to you personally, but I have commented on your actual edits as per WP:TALK. There is also more consensus for the latest version of the page that I submitted than any of the edits you submitted (see the admin comments here). That makes those "copvio" claims moot. The two links that you just submitted above also were not part of the page when I made my comments earlier, and in any case, it is not my responsibility to source your edits for you (c.f. WP:BURDEN). Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no consensus for your version as there has been no discussion to get it (which is done at the talk page). What does CambridgeBayWeather agree to?

Further your accusation of pov and blatant bbad faith ar euntrue because that link WAS there and i showed it in the edit tha tyou removed!Lihaas (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No discussion? Last I checked, I started this talk page discussion and you first responded only two days later. This is despite the fact that I had initially posted at the same time as you were editing the very article. All of this can be easily confirmed via time stamps, too. Your charge that I don't have at least something approaching consensus for my edits is also especially ironic when not one, but two admins have agreed with my assessment of the situation. After I posted my two initial comments from 19:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC) and 13:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC), User:Gyrofrog responded on my talk page that he felt that I had "laid out a good case at Talk:Somali presidential election, 2012". Similarly, User:CambridgeBayWeather wrote that he "would agree with Gyrofrog's comments above" [23]. At any rate, I am willing to continue with this discussion as long as it is conducted in a civil environment (i.e. without WP:SHOUTing and the like). Middayexpress (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, what is actually the main issue here? Sorry, I can't read the discussion from top to toe, 'cause I'm struggling with a heavy headache at the moment. Runehelmet (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is summarized point-by-point in the initial 'Problem edits' section. Middayexpress (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesnt matter who posted firt, a discussion involved more than 1 view and that hasnt happened, read BRD. Gyrofrog's comment came up after yours and before mine so it doenst entail any consensus cause ther was no discussion. Please re-read CambridgeBayWeather's comment on YOUR talk page, it explained nothing in regards to "Consensus". A discussion to gain consensus means discussing not saying a statement or 2 "support" (which wasnt even there). You cant have consensus without a discussion, that would just be canvassing vote totals, which is not what CONSENSUS is here.Lihaas (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's clear by now that nothing fruitful can come from this discussion. You've at least twice accused me of bad faith for basically having the audacity to point out how substandard the article in its current state is. The fact is, it is factually wrong on so many points -- sometimes to a preposterous degree; for example, the claim that Operation Linda Nchi "pushed back Al Shabaab from Mogadishu", when in reality that mission was by agreement completely restricted to areas well south of Mogadishu and never even operated in the capital -- is poorly written, degenerates into soapboxing in several areas, and is badly structured and formatted to boot. This has all been extensively and patiently explained above, point-by-point, but to little apparent effect. You now allude to "canvassing", apparently unaware that appropriate notification per the canvassing policy itself includes posting "on the talk pages of concerned editors", which "include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." Gyrofrog and CambridgeBayWeather are the two main administrators on wikipedia's Somali-related articles and Runehelmet is one of the most active contributors from WikiProject Somalia, so that makes them "concerned editors". I've also asked you politely to stop WP:SHOUTing and linked you to the appropriate policy ("CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate"), but here too to no avail. A wider consensus would certainly be welcome at this point. Middayexpress (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant that Middayexpress has laid out a good case here, as did Gyrofrog, and that I was not completely familiar with the subject matter. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That's what I figured you had meant. Middayexpress (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Middayexpress had some concerns about the article and I said he had laid out some good points regarding resolution/improvement. I probably should have said so on this page in the first place. No offense to any of the involved parties, but I am having a very hard time following the subsequent discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

None taken, and thanks for the clarification. Middayexpress (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfc

The dispute is between two fundamentally different approaches toward the article: The one that at the time of writing is currently displayed, versus this other version that was also at various times in large part featured on the page. Which treatment do you believe is more factually accurate, better written and formatted, given the extensive discussions above? Try and imagine if this were, say, the US or Japanese elections; which overall approach would be more fitting given the importance of the topic? Middayexpress (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No offense to those involved, but I am having a hard time following the discussion that has taken place in the previous sections on this page. Having said that, here's what I take away from the article and its discussion:

• Agree that crediting "an AMISOM campaign backed by the military of Kenya and the TFG has pushed back Al Shabaab from Mogadishu and other areas to take control of bigger parts of the country than the internationally recognised government previously had" doesn't really have much if anything to do with this subject. While elections in Somaliland are relevant, this in combination with the military campaign (especially as the earlier version excluded Puntland elections) suggests WP:COATRACK issues (at best). In other words, reading between the lines (which I should not have to say about any Wikipedia article), it seems to castigate the TFG for being ineffectual (this may not have been the intent, but that's how it comes off.)
• Agree that it's questionable to cite the political/social atmosphere in Mogadishu during an election, when the reference is not about (or doesn't mention) said election.
• I don't see the problem with citing that particular US diplomatic cable (about ARS and Sharif Ahmed) in this context.
• I also don't see anything useful in in criticizing another editor for reverting, and then going on to make a revert, and invoking WP:BRD in both cases.

My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The winner is not added as a nominee?

It is quite strange that the current President of Somalia, Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud, is not listed as a nominee in the presidential ecection of 2012. It is not too late to add it right? Even if the elections happened the day before yesterday(10 september). Runehelmet (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Calling a vote by an appointed parliament an "election" is very misleading.

That's all I have to say.Haberstr (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)