Talk:Economy of Somalia/Archive 1

Question on the exchange rate

Am I missing the logic in the following paragraph?

By the spring of 2002, the Somali shilling emitted by the TNG had fallen to over 30,000 shillings to the U.S. dollar. In 2003, that rate had leveled off to 20,000 shillings to the dollar. These free market rates, such as used in the Bakaara Market, are far below the official rates, which, in January 2007, stood at 1,288.26 to the dollar.

1. 30,000 Somali Shillings to the US dollar means each Shilling is worth a bit more than one three-hundredth of a cent (i.e., $0.0000333).

2. 20,000 Shillings to the US dollar means each Shilling is worth one two-hundredth of a cent (i.e., $0.00005). Thus between 1 & 2, the value of the Shilling has actually improved a bit -- even if this is only a dead cat bounce.

Yes. Hence the statement "leveled off a bit." i.e., it improved. It did not continue to plummet and reversed sligthly. --Petercorless 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. 1,288 (and change) Shillings to the US dollar means each Shilling is worth a bit more than seven hundredths of a cent (i.e. $0.000776). Is "1,288.26 to the dollar" the official rate? or is this the free market rate? In any case, the Shilling has actually improved quite nicely in value against the dollar, increasing in value in four years by over 1400%! (In comparison, had I invested in a European index stock fund for the same four years, my money would have increased barely more than a relatively modest 100%.)

Go to any of the currency exchange sites and you will find that as the official exchange rate. It is a common way to get foreigners to lose their money (and for the powers-that-be to make money) when people enter the country. It has nothing to do with the "street value" of the shilling. --Petercorless 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By these calculations, & assuming that these rates are correct, the Somali economy is doing quite well -- which means a devastating Civil War is better than four years of reasoned & informed economic policy. (And before anyone accuses me of espousing libertarian economic theory, I have a hard time seriously accepting these conclusions.) -- llywrch 05:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "street market" rate remains far out of balance with the "official" rate. It was similar to how, for many decades, the "official" rate of the ruble was far higher than its street value. Do not mistake the "official rate" for the far worse "street" (free market) rate. Counterfeiting is still rampant in Somalia. --Petercorless 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't see any problems with how these exchange rates are presented? The 30,000 Shillings to US$1 one year is not much worse than 1,288 Shillings to US$1 a few years later? I'm just looking to make the article more understandable, not where the best places are to exchange my US dollars for Somali Shillings. -- llywrch 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official rate bears little resemblance to the "street value." The historical exchange rate in 2000 was 2555.42 SoSh to the dollar (to 03/01/2000), then, to 2607.16 (up to 04/26/2000), then remained at 2620.26 for the rest of the year. That bore little resemblance to the freefall that the SoSh suffered in the free market. This often happens in international currency trading. --Petercorless 14:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I removed the following paragraph: The main problem affecting economic growth is the lack of stability. For businesses to operate, it is necessary to provide some level of security. Internationally recognized governments are widely perceived as being more reliable in this than the traditional tribal leadership that currently holds sway in Somalia. This is original research. Furthermore, the claim that internationally recognized governments are perceived as more reliable needs backing up. 169.229.53.150 08:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree This article reaks of original research and speculation and citation from whatnot which is undoubtfully reporting biased information as they have an agenda themself in the country, mostly I am not keen on the UN references. Lord Metroid 00:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption

Corruption? As it says their is no government corruption. however it also states that it is ranked by the transperancy index as #144. What kind of facts are this based on? Corruption is defined as taking money for using someone elses products over someone elses. The seller of the service of products doesn't do any corrupt for him a bribe is merely a slight price increase. The buyer however if he has a contract that obligates him to make the best deal for his employee and takes money to favour one possible supplier. Than the corruption is towards the employee and a breach of contract. If this is why Somalia got a #144 I don't know how the transpency index collected such data. The other possibility is that the UN or the UN enforced centralized government is the corrupt party that gives Somalia #144 how is that corruption considering those central powers isn't percieved as legitimate by the people of the country and has no connection to the country itself but rather UN? Mentioning this index is very confusing for this article and hence I will remove it. Lord Metroid 00:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Austrian school bias is duly noted. I will return this corruption index and ask that you do not interject your pro-capitalist nonsense again. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.208.46 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2008

GDP/Capita and banking

The GDP per capita is currently around $3000 now, not $600 right? This is really making me doubt the statistics, it was only $600 a couple of years ago, now it's $3000, with a growth rate of only 3%? In 2005 the GDP was estimated at ~$5 billion, now it's ~$50 billion according to the Somalian main page? Yeah right. Also, I heard that banks print their own currencies, is this true? Fephisto 21:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those statistics seems very questionable, I would want multiple sourcing for such suspicious numbers. However it might be possible to increase the numbers by such a large amount. In theory small investements for an unmodern economy could raise the efficiency enourmously compared to making an investement in a developed economy, just imagine what the efficiency increase would be from getting a telephone. Regarding printing money, I have no idea if the banks in Somalia does but if you know how the banking system works today in every country, you would know that every bank prints their own money. Considering however that passport administrations used to be of a central authority and if what I have heard is correct and passports has been decentralized such that anyone can get into the business of passports nowdays in Somalia. I can see how printing money could have become decentralized as well. Lord Metroid 19:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, at the least, the reported growth rate and actual numbers are NOT lining up. What should be done? Fephisto 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could mention the currently reported figures as well as present the old figure. Let the reader decide which would be more likely. However I see trouble with this method because of the encyclopedic naturw of wikipedia, whatever is presented will get viewed as the reality presented by authority on the subject. So at the same time I don't think we can expect the readers to determine which of the figures would be the correct. I suppose one way is to state that GDP has been reported from $600 up to $3000. Lord Metroid 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The front page has changed since this was written, and now the numbers match up again.

Export Data Mismatch

The amount of exports listed in the picture shows $150 million (for just UAE), while the Factbook's mention is about half that, I listed this discrepancy in the stats section.

I gotta admit, that discrepancy is huge, please notify me if I'm doing something wrong here. Fephisto (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is PPP?

The article uses an acronym for which a definition is not provided. TimBurleson (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITC external link on trade data

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC). I would like to propose the addition of an external link that could lead directly to the specific country’s trade data held by ITC. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations 2) No registration is required 3) Trade data (imports/exports) are regularly updated 4) The link gives direct access to the trade database of the specific country 5) The addition of reliable trade data to the Economy section of the country could provide an appropriate contribution to the information therein contained. Thank you for your attention.Divoc (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and content

This article has a heavy pro-market libertarian bias. To be quite honest, if such a thing existed, it would read like a promotional leaflet for the Anarcho-capitalist Party of Somalia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.195.77 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

A newly-created single-purpose account has just made massive changes to the article with no discussion. The edits are a hodge-podge of synth, original research, old data (e.g. this assessment from twelve years ago), and historical material already better covered on the relevant Economic history of Somalia article. The problems don't end there, as the edits also attempt to paint an unduly negative image of the economy in the wake of the recent drought, when in fact the latest UN report points to a general rebounding of livelihoods in the affected areas. Oil exploration began for the first time last month in Puntland, and is estimated at nearly $300 million barrels in one of the two designated oil blocs [1]. The BBC also just published an investigative piece noting remarkable overall growth in the economy despite some political stagnation [2]. One permanently banned user User:Radicalafrica and his multiple accounts have been adding all sorts of negative material to various Somali articles these past few months, so that's another thing to be aware of. Middayexpress (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian bias

This page has seriously been modified by some sort of libertarians or anarcho-capitalists to fit their ideological goals. I suggest the powers that be investigate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.188.178 (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is unlikely since pretty much every area of Somalia has an administration of some sort now. Middayexpress (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Exchange

The Somalia Stock Exchange's Memorandum of Understanding with the Nairobi Securities Exchange includes both identifying the most suitable business associates and supplying technical expertise [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy economy?

I was surprised to see this article led off in the first sentence by stating Somalia has a healthy economy. It's a little like leading off the Jack the Ripper article with what a nice guy he was. Also, neither quoted source said Somalia has a healthy economy. I changed the opening to indicate Somalia has one of the lowest per capita GDPs on earth, and the change was reverted. I am trying again.184.8.220.58 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a healthy informal economy. That means much of it is unrecorded, not non-existent. See the Central Bank of Somalia's annual report droid.net/fjeo. Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the context for the quote about the informal economy in the CBoS report? The report offers a highly qualified view of the "healthy informal economy." To imply that the economy itself or even the authors of the report believe the economy was better without a government is pure ancap propaganda. Like the majority of the tone and the highly selective figures in the Economy of Somalia page.

(page 12) In the absence of current sector estimates, economic structure can only be inferred from the estimated shares of the population engaged in broad categories of economic activity. However, given the lack of recent household survey and other data sources and how economic indicators are generated, conclusions about GDP shares and related estimates are very speculative. Despite the absence of an effective national government, Somalia managed to maintain a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock trade, money transfers, and telecommunications.Livestock is the most important sector of the economy and it contributes 40 percent to the GDP and more than 50 percent of export earnings.Livestock, hides, fish, charcoal and some fruits are Somalia’s main exports, while cereals, sugar, khat, and machine goods are the principal imports. droid.net/fjeo/beb93a-28d547aa03b1b5ba025b4f6aa679cbaa.pdf.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.172.37 (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Central Bank of Somalia is indeed the premier authority on the Somali economy. However, it seems that you misunderstood the part in bold above. It is actually an allusion to the CIA's GDP estimate and other similar figures. Those are the "conclusions about GDP shares and related estimates" that the Central Bank is saying are very speculative. And it asserts this because much of the economic activity in the nation is actually unmeasured (GDP is calculated using either production, income or expenditure approaches; since none of these have been fully gauged in the first place, the GDP estimates are themselves thus speculative). The Central Bank then goes on to note that "despite the absence of an effective national government, Somalia managed to maintain a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock trade, money transfers, and telecommunications." That is its conclusion. Middayexpress (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oil and gas

The second Somalia Oil & Gas Summit just concluded in London. According to Robert Sheppard, chief executive of the event's lead sponsor Soma Oil & Gas, it was "a great opportunity to highlight that the oil and gas sector is now an active part of Somalia's future[...] with the country's continuing political stability and the exploration activity and success in east Africa, it builds enthusiasm to go into Somalia". He also emphasized the size of the exploration area, likening it to that of the North Sea [4]. The Ministry of Petroleum & Mineral Resources co-chaired the conference. It aims to start producing oil within five or six years (i.e. by 2020), and has already produced the attendant legislation [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've just removed a heap of dubious claims from the article. These were all puffing up the state of the Somali economy, with a claim in the first sentence that the economy is somehow "healthy" being particularly extraordinary - and not in the sources provided. Other dubious material was referenced to unreliable sources - especially a Libertarian economist's personal website - and dead links. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I fixed the dead link. Contrary to your statement's the source does provide for that but you chose to remove it because you didn't like it. 26oo (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Central Bank of Somalia claiming that the country has a healthy economy is a reliable and unbiased source? Surely you don't believe that given the GDP figures. Re the meat exports stuff, thanks for finding a link back to that story, but it also obviously doesn't support the bold claims being attributed to it - it's only a report of one person's presentation at a conference, and he was referring to the horn of Africa in general. At best it could be presented as what this person thinks might happen (but how notable this is is questionable), but not as a statement of fact. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not at all bias. The Central Bank of Somalia is the authority of the Somali economy. It is the primary source of economic information on the country. As addressed above in the talk, it clearly does say that it's an healthy informal economy based on livestock, meaning it's a stable market. I'm not sure how this is bias. [..]"despite the absence of an effective national government, Somalia managed to maintain a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock trade, money transfers, and telecommunications." 26oo (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi also, I'm not sure what the issue with the meat reference is. It's the owner of a company that does general trading in the region. Plus it does mention Somalia among the nations. 26oo (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick-D, is it possible for you not to remove the paragraph altogether when it does have a reference but fix it according to the reference? For example here, you remove Australian even though Range Resources is among the companies and has been granted a license? 26oo (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

Re: "healthy": the Central Bank of Somalia is highly unlikely to be a reliable source on any topic given that it's part of a barely-functioning government, and this claim contradicts what independent expert sources say, as well as the obvious state of the economy as shown by what economic data is available. The CIA reference doesn't say that the economy is "healthy" or similar. The recent IMF assessment of the Somali economy states that living standards are "among the lowest in the world" and while the rate of economic growth is picking up, it "will remain inadequate to redress poverty and gender disparities" both of which are hardly the hallmark of a "healthy" economy. Similarly, The World Bank states that "Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and human development outcomes are now among the lowest in the world" and "Somalia’s economy has been shaped and sustained by conflict. The 2012 Human Development Report estimates per capita GDP at $284 - against a sub-Saharan Africa average of $1,300 per capita". The Somalia country note for the African Development Bank's most recent African Economic Outlook report also says that "The socio-economic indicators of Somalia remain very low".
Re meat exports: It is being presented as a statement of fact that Somalia is going to take on Australian meat exports in a major way. It's actually one person's opinion only, and he was talking about the region. The reference obviously doesn't support the bold claims being attributed to it.
Re oil: the source was referring two two companies only being granted exploration licenses (and not multiple companies in each country as the wording stated), and also clearly didn't support the bold claims. It's not my job to fix other people's copyright violations, especially when they'd been originally added in bad faith. Note also that there's a massive difference between looking for oil (which is a fairly short-term activity involving no binding commitments) and extracting the stuff (which requires a very large and long-term investment, which companies will only enter into if they're confident that the long-term prospects for the region they're operating in are solid). Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources did say that they were "excited": "This move highlights China's enthusiasm in its search for natural resources". AcidSnow (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Nick-D

Just because the Central Bank is located in Somalia doesn't mean you can disregard the reference. It is the authority regardless of it being part of the federal government. Your whole argument here is that the Central Bank is unable to correctly assess the economy of Somalia so we must disregard the source, that is your opinion. It is tasked as being the sole formulator of the economy. The CIA reference does not allude to the state of the Somali economy as healthy or unhealthy. And the CIA reference does not need to state whether or not the economy is healthy for the other source to be included. If you read the report, you will find that the economy has been droid.net/fjeo/beb93a-28d547aa03b1b5ba025b4f6aa679cbaa.pdf.html healthy in spite of the civil war when per capita income was lower than after civil war. Subsequently after the collapse of the government, there was a massive growth in sectors such as the telecommunications. So it did maintain a growth and not a downward spiral in the economy. 26oo (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank are the best sources here (all are independent organisations with deep expertise in assessing the economies of developing countries). And they all say that the Somali economy is very much not "healthy": you seem to want to dismiss these sources in favour of cherry picking what's obviously not a sensible bit of analysis from a low quality source. I'd note that Somali Central Bank report you link to (which is about three years old) starts with a disclaimer saying that "The compilation of this report was sometimes a difficult exercise because of the lack of available information to use for analysis"... Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who dismissed the reference because you don't like its source. The term healthy is in regards to maintaining a stable economy despite the civil war as it is said per source if you bothered to read it. The Somali economy grew in the civil war and didn't collapse despite the absence of government. Now you are moving the goalposts, by excluding any reference to the the CIA ref which you did earlier which does mention "despite" the lack of effective central government. International banking establishments are not the premier authority on economic policy in Somalia as is the Central Bank. 26oo (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest changing the lead sentences to: "Somalia is a developing economy, with among the lowest levels of GDP per capita in the world. The country's economy has been adversely affected by a prolonged period of political instability and civil war, and recent economic growth has not been sufficient to improve standards of living". This is in line with what the international organisations say. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly that wouldn't suffice as the civil war is still ongoing and therefore there is no current statistics as addressed in the source. The first population census is to be completed this year and the international banking establishments (as in the reports) use speculative numbers at best. As per source it says that "In the absence of current sector estimates, economic structure can only be inferred from the estimated shares of the population engaged in broad categories of economic activity. However, given the lack of recent household survey and other data sources and how economic indicators are generated, conclusions about GDP shares and related estimates are very speculative." droid.net/fjeo/beb93a-28d547aa03b1b5ba025b4f6aa679cbaa.pdf.html Refer to page 12. It's incredibly important that the lede summarizes the contents of an article accurately. 26oo (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense I'm afraid - the assessments of the Somali economy which exist generally say that it's in a seriously bad way, albeit showing some signs of progress. I suppose given that the article is a POV pushing disaster the lead should indicate this (if only as a warning to readers!), but you seem to be desperate to exclude the views of the international organisations and cherry pick positive viewpoints. Nick-D (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you keep removing sourced work because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. 26oo (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The meat reference is a statement by an owner of a large livestock company and he does mention Somalia among the nations. The only thing wrong with the text is that it should refer to it as strategic investments in "the region", rather than in Somalia and I will fix that.

That still doesn't get around the problem with this being only one person's opinion, and that he expressed this opinion five years ago - has this development actually occurred? Including it would be WP:UNDUE. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I found a second reference from the Financial Times which says pretty much the same. 26oo (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much better source, though I can't access the URL and can't verify that your interpretation is correct. Why through did you edit war the first source back in? It obviously doesn't support what's being attributed to it. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added it back in as you've said above, it is an opinion expressed five years ago, and you asked if it has occurred. Indeed it has according to the Financial Times, so it's great to show a development timeline in the Agriculture section. I also fixed it to strategic investments in the region instead of Somalia, in line with the reference of course. 26oo (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really unable to tell the difference between one guy's opinion and a statement of fact? You can't present one as the other. Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's a THIRD PARTY source, if you find the source unreliable you should taken it up with the Reliable source noticeboard. 26oo (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was one person's opinion. Full stop. You have presented it as a fact, rather than as an opinion. That's not good practice. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:THIRD PARTY. 26oo (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THIRDPARTY says that articles "must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered". You're basing this material entirely on the views of someone involved in the live meat trading industry, who obviously isn't a third party, and presenting it as facts rather than his views. It's also an essay. Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The oil reference does mention Australia but you felt the need to remove it altogether however I added a second reference. Also it is not good faith to remove the text rather than realign it with the text in the reference. I did not add the text but I am doing my best to maintain its balance, you should help me out rather than remove it altogether. Also I agree with your last statement regarding short term, long term oil investments.

26oo (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick-D also, may I ask why you removed the reference regarding fishing licenses? I'm not sure why the source is fringe, but the text itself and the source seem very benign to me. 26oo (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be verified that that article was actually published in a journal? Moreover, this seems to be cherry picking a positive development: while some fishing licenses may have been granted (which presumably generate some income for Somalis), there's also the major issue of widespread illegal and unregulated fishing in Somali waters. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, a lot of things mentioned in this individuals report checks out. What exactly was the problem? AcidSnow (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of illegal fishing is addressed in the Piracy off Somalia article. This is the economy article, I see no reason why it should be removed. Perhaps you should create an article for Fishing in Somalia and post how it has affected the industry. 26oo (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cherry pick the good news into this article, especially if you want to try to argue above that informal (read: unregulated and often illegal) economic activities have somehow created a "healthy" Somali economy. The theft of Somali economic resources is an important part of the Somali economy, unfortunately.

More generally Re: why I removed stuff cited to the libertarian's article (which I see has just been edit warred back in)

"Libertarian economist Peter T. Leeson attributes this increased economic activity to the Somali customary law (referred to as Xeer), which he suggests provides a stable environment to conduct business in" - his argument seems to actually be that the lack of government is preferable to the the actively predatory government which collapsed, and not that Somali customary law is a particularly good basis for economic growth. More generally, putting one person's view (which appears to be influenced by his agenda) into the lead is an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE.

You seem to fault him for the fact that the Somali economy remained stable regardless of the lack of government. It's not UNDUE because it is clarified that the comments are attributed to a Libertarian economist. 26oo (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The robust private sector has also attracted foreign investment from the likes of General Motors and Dole Fruit." - "robust" is pretty dubious, and isn't really supported by the source. More generally, the issue is that there isn't much FDI going into Somalia, so this is cherry picking.

I changed it to "Various other sectors" and improved the source. AcidSnow (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the source, it says that areas of the economy have been thriving in this period. 26oo (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material on growth of light manufacturing and hospitality: dates to 2001, and again is cherry picking given that the problem is that both sectors are relatively small. The UNDP report the author was using as a source [6] actually says that Somalia had "very low levels" of manufacturing at the time (despite the growth in some cities). The hospitality industry seems to have been much healthier (the report calls it "vibrant"), so there might be more merit to that material. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this was also mentioned in the Peter Leeson report that you chose to remove along with the text in the hospitality sector. 26oo (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted notifications of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa. Nick-D (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help here, but it's a bit difficult to take in all of the arguments. I see some discussion of describing the Somali economy as healthy, based on a central bank source. That seems like a bit of a remarkable claim to me, and as such probably requires more than one reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not healthy, healthy informal economy. There's a difference between formal and informal economy. The Somali economy is described at best as informal based mainly on livestock and in those circumstances it's deemed healthy by the CBS. Furthermore there are not current statistics in regards to the Somali economy due to an ongoing civil war and lack of complete oversight. All statistics have at best been speculative as third party sources report, that's why the ones that appear here are from the CIA. 26oo (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. Looking at the article, it seems a bit odd that it starts with the statement that the informal economy is considered healthy, before any coverage of the broader picture and the lack of data. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not odd at all. There is no current reliable data and the IMF has started the first case study since the civil war this year furthermore there is no statistics on population stats either. If it said a healthy economy, then it would be false. I'm failing to see why the claim is dubious given it's a informal economy not formal as clarified, there's a big difference. 26oo (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd to start an article's introduction with a discussion of one particular aspect of the economy, rather than a broad overview. It's a bit like the Economy of the United Kingdom article starting with "The UK has a large financial services sector" or something similar. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd comparison. Somalia doesn't have a diversified economy like the United Kingdom, it's economy is mainly based on livestock. So in that context it's perfectly rational to introduce the topic as such. 26oo (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would make more sense to start the article with a statement that the Somali economy is dominated by the informal sector, rather than a comment on the health of that sector. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... Somalia has maintained an informal economy, largely based on livestock...". Would that suffice? 26oo (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be better than the current version, although I still think the article should start with a summary of what data there is on the size of the economy, in line with other country economy articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A different source was already provided which is why I changed it back since that's what the CIA Factbook stated and it was also the ref used at the bottom of the infobox. But I don't plan to revert you again since you were referring to the Central Bank and not the CIA which is fine. However, you should link to the Central Bank in the infobox to clarify next time. AcidSnow (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA figure is for per capita income in PPP terms in 2010, not per capita income in nominal terms in 2012, which is what the infobox is reporting. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no reliable statistics. Statistics are based on population figures which are non-existent as all third party sources indicate which means they are speculative at best. The lede is a summary of article content, not dubious figures. The Somali government has released an estimation in 2015 but not a definitive census as of yet. 26oo (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can report whatever figures there are, with suitable caveats. There are plenty of statistics cited in the article, sourced to reliable sources. I've also just added a UNDP source, which should be helpful for expanding the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the summary point, Leeson is mentioned in the introduction but nowhere else in the article. That should be fixed. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Central Bank doesn't say that $226 was the income during 2012 but rather some time in the 2000's: "The rough estimates made by the WB/UNDP indicate that per capita income in the 2000s was about US$ 226". This isn't even there figure but the World Banks. I think it should be replaced with the current figure of the World Bank or the CIA. AcidSnow (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the figure from the UNDP, via the World Bank source. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am wondering what's left to the dispute? 26oo (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the only "problem" was calling the economy "healthy". Other than that, it was only removing sourced content because the source was an "opinion" when the same thing can be found in other sources. AcidSnow (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to remove healthy in the context of informal unless the source itself is invalid which is not the case being made here. In fact, it looks like it's been used in several areas of the article. Given that the informal economy is based on livestock and there has been a growth in the industry, I fail to see how it is the least bit controversial. I added a Financial Times source because the previous user who raised a dispute seemed to have a problem with the notion. 26oo (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point about leading off with the healthy informal economy material still stands. The Leeson argument about customary law is still only in the introduction, not the article body. I haven't had chance to read the whole article, but I reckon it needs checking for source misrepresentation. For example, I've just spotted "Somalia is also major world supplier of frankincense and myrrh". It doesn't seem to me that the source given supports that statement. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually: "The largest supplier of Gum Arabic is Sudan. With regards to Myrrh and frankincense, it is the 2 countries around Kenya (Somalia and Ethiopia), that have established an effective trade". Other sources can confirm this as well: [7]. AcidSnow (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is having "established an effective trade" the same as being a "major world supplier" though? Not necessarily. I'm not saying that this is wrong, but that the source doesn't sufficiently support it. That makes me worry about the rest of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, being the only two countries to have established an effect trade makes you a major supplier. I have already provided another sources that confirms this as well. If another is needed, then so be it but it isn't necessary. AcidSnow (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say the only two countries, though. Never mind, I've found a better source and will add it. The point though, is that I picked this statement pretty much at random and it wasn't supported by the source given. I worry that other parts of the article might be the same, given Middayexpress's involvement. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was supported by the source given and it does pretty much say the "only two" as well: "it is [...] Ethiopia and Somalia". But like you said, never mind as it doesn't matter at this point as this specific discussion has ended. If you actually do find any then please bring as it will inporove the article. Nonetheless, I thank you for your assistance these past few months. AcidSnow (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

The extent of edit warring here is pretty horrible - rather than consider and discuss the material I've raised concerns about, the emphasis seems to be to edit war it back in. I'm going to bow out of editing this article for now (not least as I don't want to be blocked), but maintain my above concerns. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? You removed content because you didn't like the source. As such, I added various other sources which oddly enough where the ones used in the original. AcidSnow (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed any content nor has there been an edit warring, I just corrected the information as per source while the user chose to remove referenced work altogether when they could have realigned it per source. They chose to say it's not their job. 26oo (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick-D your concerns may stand however the article can't remain disputed and the tag reinstated unless you address the issues. Thanks. 26oo (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I may have missed it but I think I fixed the references you removed i.e meat and UNPOS which was from 2001. If the issue regarding healthy still stands, then that's okay. Please do respond. 26oo (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? You've reverted my attempts to improve the article, and are furiously disagreeing with my suggestions for further improvements above so that doesn't make much sense. This really is some of the worst faith and dishonest editing I've seen in almost 10 years on Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you didn't improve the article at all. You removed text rather than realign it per source and you said it's not your job to do so, as proven above. There's no need for ad hominem attack here, it's all in the edits. No one is disagreeing with you to improve the article. 26oo (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets all take a breather and calm down. AcidSnow (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually said that it's not my job to re-write text to fix other editors' copyright violations, especially when the material was added in bad faith... (which it isn't: see the third para of WP:DCV - the onus is on removing offending material). Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the material nor do you know if they were added in bad faith, that's your assumption. However, it is bad faith to remove it altogether with no regard for improvement. These weren't copyvio yet you removed them anyway. 1 2 3 and more. They could easily have been improved as I did but you chose to remove them altogether. 26oo (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually in good faith regarding our global copyright obligations, 26oo. We are obliged not to infringe copyright, and readding of WP:COPYVIO material is in direct breech of policy. Do not do this. I will add a note to the previous note on your talkpage regarding violation of WP:NPOV. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a copyvio, let me know and it will be fixed. But you have not mentioned in it in your summary, please do next time you do edits. 26oo (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my summary, it's Nick-D's of days and days ago. You appear to remain in fundamental ignorance and opposition to some of Wikipedia's most important principles, this time by readding copyrighted material after Nick had raised it with you. Now, I've also reverted your reversal of my improvement of the source, plus the verbiage you added at the top - everybody knows Somalia is in a civil war, one doesn't need CIA to say that. This is especially in disregard for the way things should start in accordance with WP:Lead. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attributing which is okay. Perhaps you need to look up WP:Attribute. You have attributed things before, you are doing this to harass editors on the page. Please do refrain from that. 26oo (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Buckshot06, also the original issue with Nick-D has actually been solved with Cordless Larry's edits regarding health which was removed. 26oo (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"everybody knows Somalia is in a civil war, one doesn't need CIA to say that", please see WP:BURDEN. AcidSnow (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buckshot06, you removed referenced work yet in the summary you wrote unreferenced? Please do not do that again, your summary should accurately describe your edits. 26oo (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look again carefully at that diff. I removed the sentences that did not have references attached, and changed the header. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, it was referenced, check ref name Petletbet page 703. Perhaps it was a mistake. 26oo (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are now accusing me of things that are factually inaccurate. I did not remove the Petletbet-referenced sentence; while there was some other dubious material in that section, I only removed the unreferenced sentences. Regarding your nonsensical accusation of following you around below, your edits appear to be a continuing menace to this encyclopedia, as editors Cordless Larry, HOA Monitor, Nick-D, and Spumuq, in addition to me, have said. This "nonsense Wiki law" is our fundamental policy, NPOV being one of our WP:PILLARS. You have not responded in any substantive way to any of the problems repeatedly raised. In addition to the clear right for anyone to edit any article, I am discharging my duty as an admin by trying to limit the damage to the encyclopedia that you are causing. Thus I'll be monitoring your edits for a very long time to come. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where you make the bizarre claim: [8]. We can all see you edits so there's no need to deny it. Its bizarre that you would claim that something is "unreferenced" when it was, let alone continue to deny it. Nonetheless, go ahead and continue to use your admin status as a "shield" if you so desire to. AcidSnow (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's the one. "Somalia's hospitality sector has seen an unprecedented level of growth in the past few years." It appears on the Petletbet reference, page 703, attributed to the UNDP. 26oo (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the news that this user is discharging his admin is because he has threatened us both using intimidating tactics but it's great that such an individual does not have such powers. 26oo (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems that he meant that he is "using" his status rather than "leaving it". Hence why he said he will continue to follow you around. AcidSnow (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having now found the Leeson article, yes that exact statement is reproduced word-for-word. So yes, that sentence was actually referenced. But do neither of you realised that (a) having it in the article word-for-word was copyright infringement? or (b) if somebody wanted to keep it in the article in quotes, it should have been attributed to UNDP? Therefore even if I had known it it was referenced the very least I should have done was make sure the wording changed. This is why Nick-D was concerned about your copyright infringement actions 26oo: because WP:BURDEN means that if you reinsert it, you bear the burden of the copyright violation. This is an albeit-unintentional additional example of the casual violation of WP policy that appears to have been constant throughout WP:Somalia articles, and thus would present another reason why your actions need to be monitored. Copyright violation, in the wrong circumstances, could get us sued. If either of you are confused about my exact status on this site, I suggest you check Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buckshot06.

A copyright violation wasn't the only problem with the hospitality statement, either. It claimed "Somalia's hospitality sector has seen an unprecedented level of growth in the past few years". This was based on the Leeson source from 2007, which in turn uses a UNDP source from 2001. So, in 2015 the Wikipedia article was reporting growth "in the past few years", based on reports of growth 14 years previously. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

Buckshot06 read through to talk page to understand the nature of the dispute, the original dispute has been settled regarding healthy informal economy and there has been additional economic indicators by Cordless Larry. A tag is temporary until such problems are solved or the discussion is dormant, refer to WP:DETAG. Sources have also been updated. I'm noting this as part of your continual harassment since you were never involved in the discussion. 26oo (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick-D added the tag, and consistently noted, above, that that UNDUE and even copyvio material had been readded to the article. User:Cordless Larry and I supported its inclusion. No consensus, in line with Template:POV#When to remove the tag, exists at this article at the moment, as shown by the frequent reverts and accusations being traded. Thus again, the tag should not be removed, and should you be looking for diffs that would explain to you why your behaviour shows that you are WP:NOTHERE for the benefit of a high-quality, third-party-sourced encyclopedia, YESPOV, etc, please include your immediately previous edits at the article, including removing the tag.

Now, administrators are supposed to try and set an example, and for that reason for the moment I will not readd the tag to the article, because it seems likely to lead to further reverts. That does not change the fact that this article is no longer properly WP:NPOV. I will wait on later administrative action, which, as in Middayexpress's case, may include AN/I, and other forums as necessary. I've tried over and over and over to try to explain and reason with you, and I am beginning to lose my patience. Please, again, review why you edit at this site, and consider whether constant bickering to add non-third-party views which only have minority WP:SOURCE support fits what contributors are supposed to do here. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio has been added nor has it been raised by any of the people you mentioned. You are following me on every page. You haven't been part of this discussion nor have you added any reasonable input. You haven't explained anything, you are floating nonsense "Wiki law" to appear reasonable but you don't produce edits in which I have wronged anything. I've already asked you to report me to the administrators if you feel I have violated any rules. I removed the tag as the original issue has been solved however if they raise a new issue then that's fine but till then it is removed. If I see you following me to a single more page where I've edited and you have no history, I will report you for harassment. 26oo (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, how the article was tagged, notice dubious. 26oo (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spumuq, literally article text you removed in this edit was referenced after diligent work aligning it to the references. So can you explain why you removed it? 26oo (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not neutral. Economy of Somalia has suffered after civil war, but each problem is, in your edits, reworded as a Somali triumph. Spumuq (talq) 12:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spumuq, could you kindly stop removing sourced content? AcidSnow (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AcidSnow, you criticize removals of un-neutral text, but your own edits remove sourced and neutral text, is this intentional, or do you really not see the damage you are causing? Spumuq (talq) 15:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but I will aware of what I am doing and I have done nothing wrong. AcidSnow (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made three reverts, 26oo ‎made five reverts, you warned me but did not warn or report 26oo, you continued reverting on behalf of 26oo to add unneutral content, why? Spumuq (talq) 16:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you follow the advice given by me and 26oo to Buckshot06 and give up with these baseless accusations. Watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked every sources, the user tampered with each one and removed a whole section that was referenced (see hospitality). 26oo (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sections below demonstrate that there are still considerable problems with the article, which justify the NPOV tag. I get the impression that the article has been written to an agenda (Somalia's economy is doing fine, despite the context) and sources have been found to try to fit this agenda, regardless of whether they fully support the picture given or how dated they are. Thorough review of the article's content is clearly necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Spumuq (talq) 14:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Construction section

I've just re-worked this section. Despite the problems noted above, it was astonishing that a claim that "Much construction is taking place in Mogadishu and other major urban centers" was being included - the ultimate reference for this was a 2001 report, so there's obviously no way that it can be presented as a current development. The CIA World Fact Book entry being given also didn't support the material being attributed to it - it notes that there's construction activity and other development in Mogadishu, but states that this isn't spreading to other areas. Instead of presenting the presence of private security as ensuring "safety and the normal conduct of [hotel] business" it only says that "Hotels continue to operate and are supported with private-security militias" and that "within the city, security concerns dominate business", which hardly supports such a rosy analysis. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications section

I've also tweaked this section heavily. The claim that "Lacking regulation, these firms now offer the cheapest and clearest phone calls in Africa" was cited to a report which was clearly marked as being a draft, and so unlikely to be a reliable source, and was written in 2004 anyway and hence clearly not able to support a claim about conditions "now". I've also toned down some of the material which was being cited to a report in the Wall Street Journal but ignored the various provisos in the article (not least that Somalia's telecommunications system was destroyed in 1991 and the security situation continues to constrain the sector). Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2007 British Chambers of Commerce report

Can we try to find an alternative source to replace the 2007 British Chambers of Commerce report with? It's no longer available via the link in the reference, I can't find an alternative working URL, and it's pretty dated. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, if you're not happy with the data in the report, just remove the whole section. This article is getting a rip-down and rework anyway. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]