Talk:Puntland Maritime Police Force

File:Puncoaguar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Puncoaguar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Puncoaguar.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Saracen, etc.

A newly-registered account added considerable undue weight from op-eds (including a student paper from the School of Advanced International Studies/SAIS) and the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, with little semblance of neutrality or balance. Besides likely being a sock of the earlier Factchecker1801 (same antagonistic focus on Saracen and the Monitoring Group [1]), the user also added material that was completely off-topic. An example is an attempt to tie Saracen's alleged previous associations and activities in South Africa with the PMPF (e.g. "Saracen was registered to Lafras Luitingh, one of the founders of Executive Outcomes (EO) and former member of South Africa's apartheid-era Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB), "a euphemistically named secretive hit squad that targeted anti-apartheid activists") i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS. Middayexpress (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The edits I have made refer to a public controversy that is currently not reflected in the article. The sources cited include the following:

(1) SAIS Review of International Affairs, which is a respected graduate school journal published since 1956. The Advisory Board includes a number of distinguished figures including its Chair, Vali Nasr, Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of the Johns Hopkins University;

(2) ForeignPolicy.com: an online magazine, rather than a blog, that is widely cited and meets the criteria for being an authoritative secondary source;

(3) A statement issued by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

These sources are arguably more credible than the source 'Somalia Report', which is essentially a blog maintained by a sole individual. The reference to Saracen's origins and leadership is relevant insofar as it has functioned in a training and mentoring role for the PMPF, and has been identified by the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries as an organisation operating beyond international norms and standards.--HOA Monitor (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Somalia Report is an independent news publication that has both domestic and foreign journalists on its staff [2]. It also makes no difference who is on the SAIS' Advisory Board since the paper in question is by a student at the school, one Evan Fowler [3]. I'm afraid that indeed is not a reliable source. Per WP:RS, the definition of a source on Wikipedia is the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press), and any of the three can affect reliability. Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims likewise require exceptional sources. I've also had a chance to re-read the Foreign Policy article [4], and the piece is inconsistent both in tone and content with the spin that was given to it in the wikitext. For one thing, the authors indicate that although the Monitoring Group took exception to the PMPF, it is "hard to argue with the [PMPF's] results". On this overall point, the piece (rather ironically) quotes the founder of the same Somalia Report that is erroneously described above as a blog: "this project was conceived by, and executed by what we would call pariahs, people who are not part of polite society[...] but it remains one of the most efficient and productive solutions to the problem of piracy." Also, material by the Monitoring Group is not reliable due to its extensive use of obscure and anonymous sources. The UN itself acknowledged this when it agreed in July to establish an independent adjudication panel to supervise all of the group's future publications, with much higher standards of evidence now required from the panel. The Working Group material, however, is reliable and has been retained and redacted for neutrality. Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, a graduate student does not necessary lack the experience or qualifications to publish authoritative material. Although Fowler does not have an extensive record of publication on the topic, there are no obvious grounds upon which to challenge the capability of either the author, nor the integrity of its content. It could also be argued that the fact that the SAIS Review editorial board considered the paper to have sufficient merit for publication should be weighed against the opinion of one Wikipedia editor, which is consistent with other sources on the topic. Moreover, deletion of the text you object to is not merited since it is in fact a reference from a Somalia Report article -- a publication you apparently consider to be authoritative.

With respect to the Foreign Policy article, the authors clearly intended to describe multiple points of view, recognising that there is no single, one well-recognised point of view or "best view". In other words, both the Foreign Policy article and the wikitext you have deleted are entirely consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. I therefore propose to revisit this section and restore a revised version of the text accordingly in the near future.HOA Monitor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the text in question was from the Foreign Policy piece, not the Somalia Report. The authors, however, both echo and quote the Somalia Report's founder for the actual gist of their message, as shown above. This is ironic since you just described the SR as an unreliable one-man blog. As for the student paper, the School of Advanced International Studies/SAIS published it because Evan Fowler is a pupil there. A student is not a reliable source for most Wikipedia topics, let alone those on living persons. As the SAIS itself also concedes in its About the SAIS Review disclosure on its website, "the SAIS Review of International Affairs publishes essays that straddle the boundary between scholarly inquiry and practical experience, bringing a fresh and policy-relevant perspective to global political, economic and security questions[...] The views and opinions expressed within this site are strictly those of the individual authors, and content has not been reviewed or approved by the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University." That makes the student paper an unreliable source per WP:BLP, a policy which certainly applies to the PMPF ("Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion[...] this policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages"). Middayexpress (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The new material relating to a UN "adjudication" panel appears to be incorrect and cites an article without named author, which quotes an unnamed "source". There is no evidence that the panel in question actually exists HOA Monitor (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Sahan Journal reported this, though its source is unnamed [5]. By the way, the Somali government has now formally asked the UN to terminate the work contract of the Monitoring Group's present Coordinator [6]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The source itself is not sufficient to guarantee reliability, especially if there is no corroboration from other independent, credible sources. It is certainly no more credible than the SAIS International Affairs Review, and, unlike the review, identified neither its contributor nor its sources. With respect to the Somali government's request, there is no evidence that it has in fact been acted upon by the Security Council. Previous Somali governments have made similar requests to little or no effect. HOA Monitor (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The reference to Chopra relates to a private company under contract with the SFG, acting as its legal counsel: hardly a neutral, objective source. I'll correct this shortly.HOA Monitor (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no point asserting that the SAIS's student paper is a reliable source; it isn't. As shown above, the SAIS itself indicates that its essays constitute a mixture of fact and opinion, have not been reviewed by the school, and strictly reflect the author's own views. Also, I didn't state that the Security Council acted on the Somali government's request. I said that the Somali authorities formally asked the UN to terminate the work contract of the Monitoring Group's present Coordinator, as the official communique above shows. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reinstated text deleted on the grounds that it gave 'undue weight' to the SEMG. The SEMG is an authoritative, official source and no less credible that other sources referred to in the article (Somalia Report, Inner City Press, etc.). This selective use of sources suggests a degree of 'cherry picking' that undermines the NPOV of the article. Moreover, other authoritative, official sources including the UN Working Group on Mercenaries, supported the SEMG's findings in this regard.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted references to SEMG Coordinator, Matt Bryden, for irrelevance to the central point of the article and because assertions are inconsistent with the same individual's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Bryden). Also inserted SEMG Coordinator Jarat Chopra's response to SFG allegations, as reported by the Financial Times.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the SAIS student paper is still not a reliable source. As explained above, the Working Group material was also already presented, and in its actual context. Middayexpress (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, Midday. Other sources support the SAIS content and can be invoked at a later stage. The key is to ensure that the full spectrum, of views is represented here, and to to try to impose a single or "best version" of events that may reflect the prejudices of a single editor.HOA Monitor (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The full spectrum of views was indeed not being represented because all the material presented above is negative. That's skewed, not balanced. WP:BLP policy also still very much applies: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Middayexpress (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The negative content is merited because virtually all of the current content is positive and uncritical. By removing the critical content, the article loses its NPOV. Numerous official sources have been critical of the PMPF, as I have indicated. Refusing to accept their inclusion in the article is not Wikipedia policy, it is tantamount to censorship of views you disagree with. In addition, Wikipedia editorial policy requires that, "when you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral." Repeated reversion / deletion of text you object to is inconsistent with this guidance.HOA Monitor (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite is true. A large, undue portion of the page is devoted to negative criticism of the force, and under both of its main training partners. If anything, this needs trimming. The passage you cite above is also superceded by WP:BLP, which states that "contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The policy also explicitly instructs that "material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." A higher standard is therefore in effect on such articles. Middayexpress (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, Midday, since you've adopted the contrary position with respect to other articles I see you've been involved in. There are multiple, credible sources to support toe text I have inserted, including the UN, International Crisis Group, international media etc. Since we are unlikely to agree on this issue, and since we seem to be the only two editors involved, I propose to submit it for third party opinion (WP:3O).HOA Monitor (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In a number of pages I've been involved in that you have also appeared on in the few days that you've had this account registered, I've consistently had to point out the importance of respecting the neutrality, BLP and undue weight policies. So unless you are referring to some undisclosed, pre-registration activity on your part, that is yet another erroneous assertion. Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it's clear that we can't resolve this between the two of us, it seems inevitable that we need a neutral third party involved. I will do the necessary. Thank you, Midday.HOA Monitor (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No need. I've already asked for a formal Third Opinion. Middayexpress (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please indicate where and the language you have used, so that I may assess its objectivity.HOA Monitor (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

On the Third Opinion page, obviously (which, incidentally, you first brought up, so you clearly already knew about it). Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And in answer to you question, your history page (and also Google) provides abundant information about your activities prior to my registration as a Wikipedia user. Your track record is a matter of relatively public record.HOA Monitor (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My contributions are as public as yours. Interesting, though, that you apparently felt the urge at some point to Google my Wikipedia username. I'll be sure to bear that in mind. Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I made reference to similar disputes you've had on other pages, Midday. The public nature of Wikipedia is one of the things that contributes to its credibility. Reference your last remark, Is there something sinister about using Google?HOA Monitor (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Newbies don't google other editor's usernames unless they are WP:WIKIHOUNDING or have an old axe to grind. Either way, it's not a good sign. Middayexpress (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No axe to grind, Midday, just a desire to understand what other articles you have edited and what your orientation has been. Google is often a more efficient instrument for this purpose than Wikipedia's internal search function. In the past, it seems that you've had similar encounters with other Wiki editors, and have been been proposed for a ban from editing a page on the basis of similar behaviour -- in some cases invoking the same questionable sources that we have discussed in our own interactions.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

When I referred to you as a newbie, I was being generous since the overwhelming majority of your edits, comments and allusions suggest that you indeed have an old axe to grind with me personally. I've contributed to this website for several years now, and in that time I've learned a thing or two about how genuine newbies behave. There are guidelines written on this too. Your behavior is almost the exact opposite of that. Middayexpress (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

This one was a little bit tricky, but I personally don't see the problem with both users' contributions remaining in the article (worked together somehow, of course). Whether or not HOA's contributions violate WP:UNDUE is debatable, although, granted, s/he did add quite a lot of negative information in seemingly strategically-placed areas of the article. OAN: While there's nothing on Wikipedia that prohibits Gsearching for another user, HOA, the way you did it does seem like borderline wikihounding. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Erpert, thanks for your intervention. I simply believe that the article to reflect that diverse perspectives on the issue exist, including several very authoritative sources, including official UN bodies -- sources that a far more authoritative than some of the dubious, sole source references upon which the article is currently based. Given time, I am quite prepared to substantiate this by developing a more comprehensive, sources revision of the article. The article is currently written in a style that is almost entirely positive and includes either inaccuracies or errors of omission. With respect to 'Wikihounding', I'm afraid it is Midday who merits this charge, not me. Midday has been essentially the only user to object to my edits and comments, to revert them or to contest them, asserting an almost proprietary claim to the material. I have simply argued that this article (and others) should reflect a balanced diversity of opinion: something Midday apparently objects to.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems you completely missed Erpert's point. He said that the contributions should be "worked together somehow, of course." That means consensus must still first be obtained here per convention. You can declare that you will unilaterally revise the disputed material all you want, but that won't make the consensus policy any less applicable. I can't say I'm surprised that Erpert also noted that you added almost exclusively negative material, and quite a lot of it at that. That's an allusion to both the imbalanced nature of your edits and the conspicuously antagonistic tone of the text in question. That too will therefore have to be worked out. As for the Wikihounding, that's been established as well. Middayexpress (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Midday, the history makes it clear that you refuse to permit a single edit without reverting or amending to your own preference. All I have done is defend my contributions, in a reasonable interpretation of the 'Be Bold' advice offered to Wikipedia contributors. My contributions are generally supported by multiple, credible, sources, including UN and governmental bodies as well as established international media outlets. Your grounds for objection rarely, if ever cite comparable references.

Erpert's point is well taken. I am therefore offering to take the lead in preparing the next draft -- since I am the one proposing amendments and improvements -- which will then be subject to the usual review and revision by other editors.HOA Monitor (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the history shows me reverting a series of anonymous ips and single purpose accounts that were making disruptive edits, including adding dead-links and just plain vandalism. Your contributions have consisted of a mixture of material based on both reliable and unreliable sources (e.g. a student paper), all with one thing in common: they were exclusively negative in content, tone and placement, as Erpert just noted. What's even more disturbing is that this is the situation as well with all of your other edits elsewhere in the few days that you have had this particular account registered. This is frankly not a good sign. I will be looking forward to your draft presentation here on this talk page per the consensus policy. Let's see whether it too follows this pattern. Middayexpress (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

EU training

On 27 March 2014, a Puntland government delegation met with EU representatives aboard a NATO ship. The meeting concluded with an announcement by the European Union officials that the EU would begin training Puntland Maritime Police Force units in Djibouti. The new training schedule is intended to help the Puntland authorities strengthen their marine defense capabilities in keeping with the New Deal Compact's Somali Maritime and Resources Strategy [7][8][9]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Section blanking

Please stop removing longstanding article sections for your own POV. Take it to this talk page before you make major changes, it's the appropriate way. 26oo (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the vaguely associated paragraphs (what is a section on EUCAP Nestor doing in this article? etc) with the exception of a rather weird attack on the SEMG, which does not really belong here. They have very little relevance for this article, but you're complaining about blanking so I've put them back in for now. I have retained the expanded, referenced intro, which now is a length more appropriate for the text. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I will remind you that WP:BRD sanctions relatively bold edits, and core editing policy means that articles should stick to the topic. There's no real need to have references to UNSCRs 1772, 1976, 2015, and 2093, nor Nestor, because they don't refer to the PMPF. Should you wish to find material re those topics that do refer to the PMPF, please feel free to discuss or add. Otherwise this material will in the end be removed again. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, surely WP:BRD means that discussion on the talk page should follow a revert, not precede a major edit? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, a third opinion has already been provided on the matter on this talk page. The addition of WP:UNDUE section on strategic sections of the page is not right. The matter of legality has been discussed at length on the Sterling Corporate section. Also there is no indication that the force acts in a different manner than its mission statement as provided in the UN reports. 26oo (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into the details of the content dispute right now, but just to note that one of the editors who was involved in that discussion has now received a topic ban for POV editing. That should probably mean that any previous consensus is reassessed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That would normally be true but an outside third opinion was given at the time. 26oo (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that binds the article forever though. Consensus can and does change over time, and a third opinion was only requested in the context of a debate that Middayexpress was a party to. Perhaps Erpert would like to offer a comment? Like I say, I don't have time to look into the details of the content dispute, but it seems that this is worth discussing further. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, I have warned you previously about removing WP:RS material that disagrees with your WP:POV. I will add a quick note to your talkpage but not template you again, as you've been long enough around to know the rules. However, should you do this again, you will be one step from WP:ANI. The proper procedure for contending that a source - the Group of Experts or anything else - is not reliable is to go to the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not edit war on particular pages. Should you wish to do that, I'd happily put my point of view on the matter. But if you continue to willfully remove referenced content that has no issue except WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you will eventually get a block. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Buckshot06. You are adding WP:UNDUE material which has been tackled before in the talk page. Legality of the force as per UN allegations has no place in an introduction and is your method of inputting biased material that has already been balanced. There is a long standing consensus. The article's edit history alone shows that you might have an agenda here. I am reverting the material due to a previous consensus. Any issue you want to take up on ANI, I am happy to respond to. 26oo (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The introduction should summarise the content of the article, so if the UN "allegations" are sourced to reliable sources in the article, they should be mentioned in the introduction. I don't see how reporting them is biased, unless the article is saying that the UN allegations are correct, rather than just reporting them. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. That is a very fair point however this is a fairly large article and Buckshot06 felt the need to reintroduce WP:UNDUE material that has already been given a third party about. This is done in bad faith clearly. The positioning of the text in strategic points goes to suggest that including the threats on my talk page. His altercations with a previous user is clouding his judgement. Also I would like to point out that a paragraph like that should be balanced as per the more lengthy material in the rest of the article. None of that was done here. We should take this to an administrator that is uninvolved or we can refer to the previous outside opinion. 26oo (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where in the third opinion it was agreed not to include this material. What was said was "I personally don't see the problem with both users' contributions remaining in the article". From what I can see, the article as a whole needs a lot of work. The bit about "it remains to be seen how the U.N. can both deny and confirm that the PMPF program is an official Somali government activity" doesn't make any sense without the context of the UN criticism, for instance. User:Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you read the third opinion, User:HOA Monitor also introduced similar negative material in strategic places which is WP:UNDUE. The paragraph is not balanced like the material in the article. There should be a section about the legality and support of the PMPF but that doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the introduction of the article in that unbalanced manner. User:Buckshot06 is pushing his own POV with United Nations sources yet response to the allegations is kept out. User:Buckshot06 has no previous history editing the article before introducing negative material, which is why it can be considered bad faith. The introduced material is not balanced. 26oo (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Then surely the solution is to balance out the introduction by making it more thoroughly summarise the content of the article. While it is mentioned later in the article, the introduction is the only place in the article where the UN material is referenced, so in removing that you are removing all sources for it. I have tried to ensure that the material is clearly attributed to the UN, in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Also, 26oo, I have no idea why you changed my signature to that of HOA Monitor. I hope that it was a mistake? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant section is the the part of the WP:NPOV rulings that is designated WP:YESPOV: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." The material is not undue, rather it is critically important to maintain a complete picture of the topic. What you're doing is twisting the meaning of WP:UNDUE, as this cite from WP:YESPOV indicates. Whether I have any previous history editing any article is completely irrelevant. I'm just about to check this allegation of misrepresenting signatures, 26oo, and if that is correct, together with your removal of reliable sources, and your twisting of UNDUE in regard to YESPOV, I will notify ANI. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Cordless Larry I agree that it should be balanced. That's why I removed the material. The government response in the Sterling section should have been included in the beginning but previous bad faith aside if it must be included in the introduction so should the deployments of the force including responses in guide with the mission statement. That is a much larger part of the article that hasn't been summarized. As for changing your name, I did not such thing. I copied HOA Monitor's nickname because I didn't want to type it in my paragraph and I seem to have inserted it before your name, not replacing it. Apology for my laziness. 26oo (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, please keep your threats to yourself go through with them. I am perfectly happy to take this to ANI, you've threatened me many times unfairly. 26oo (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You're the one twisting WP:UNDUE and violating WP:YESPOV, who's admitted before that you are not here for the benefit of the encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). I have just filed the AN/I complaint, and will copy your talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sentence: United Nations bodies have questioned both the mission and legality of the force.

Material in the article include;

• Follow-up investigations by Robert Young Pelton's Somalia Report and Dissident Nation concluded that the allegations were largely unfounded and politically motivated.

• The Puntland government shortly afterwards released a press statement where it likewise rejected the accusations, suggesting that the "SEMG reports to the U.N. Security Council have been drafted in an unprofessional manner and intentionally biased against the Puntland Government's consistent anti-piracy activities."

That's one of the sentences that should be balanced. Also there should be a paragraph about its deployments which make up a large part of the article. Perhaps significant ones such as the humanitarian rescue operation of hostages of MV Iceberg 1123 or the response to the 2013 Somalia cyclone in northeastern Somalia.

26oo (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, Pelton's perspective on the PMPF should be treated with caution, if not simply set aside, since he has acknowledged in court that he was under contract with Erik Prince to promote the force on his website, "Somalia Report". Alternatively, mention might simply be made of this fact in the article in order to qualify his criticism of UN findings? I defer to the judgement of more experienced editors on this.HOA Monitor (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, with respect to the PMPF's role in the release of the MV Iceberg, there is no question that it deserves mention as one of the force's documented successes. However, a reference to the rescue in a film about the PMPF portrays it, on camera, as a poorly-managed operation against a ship that had long since run aground. It might therefore be prudent to make reference to the rescue without lending it undue weight as a success story.HOA Monitor (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I take issue with [User:26oo|26oo]'s assertion that"there is no indication that the force acts in a different manner than its mission statement as provided in the UN reports". The UN SEMG and the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries both independently came to this conclusion (both are cited in the text so I won't reference them here). Refutation of the SEMG allegations has come chiefly from the Puntland authorities and Somalia Report which, as we've now established, was paid to promote the PMPF, so there is merit to presenting alternative WP:POV. Unlike the SEMG, the findings of the WG on Mercenaries (which state that "the PMPF had engaged in operations unrelated to piracy, including a recent case in which the police force had worked to prevent a candidate for the Puntland presidency from campaigning in Bossaso [and] was operating outside the legal framework”) do not appear to have been challenged, but perhaps I've missed something.HOA Monitor (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Following your note that Erik Prince admitted in court that he was under contract to promote the PMPF, I've removed his comments from the article. Your note, in addition to the fact that neither the SEMG or Mercenaries' Working Group reports have been challenged at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, means that Mr Prince's opinions don't stack up enough to be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 9 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Hi, HOA Monitor. The links provided regarding the humanitarian rescue mission are all from reliable international sources and thus can't be taken in a certain way or another. Unless you are trying to say that the Telegraph, BBC and the Washington Post are no credible sources. That's a non-issue. The discussion here pertains to the addition of UNDUE material. The allegations against the force comes from the United Nations and only it is summarized in the section. There should be a balanced paragraph including the Government of Puntlands response. Also I must remind you that the credibility of the United Nations Monitoring Group was damaged when one of its committee members resigned due to unrelated advocacy.1. The part regarding Erik Prince should obviously be removed.

• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.WP:BALASPS 26oo (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

I'm not sure what your concern is about, 26oo. The Puntland Government's criticism of the SEMG is already in the article. It doesn't really deny any of the facts, or, in my view, refute any of the charges raised in the report, but it is already in the article. The key thing is that Puntland is not a WP:THIRDPARTY; they are very much involved. This makes third-party sources like the Groups of Experts far more believable than non-independent, connected sources who have their interests to protect. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The United Nations allegations are also included in the rest of the article but you never saw anything wrong with including it in the introduction as if it's a significant and summarized part of the article. That's my concern. There is a clear response by the Puntland authorities which is as significant given the track record of the UN Monitoring group. One of the reasons I mentioned you had bad faith was not only the UNDUE material but also the WP:WEASEL such as "ostensibly"edit in addition to adding the UNDUE material. As for the credibility of the United Nations Monitoring report, one of its inspectors resigned due to overstepping its boundaries as I've included in my response to HOA Monitor. It is no more credible. You are right to talk about special interests and that's why Erik Prince should removed after soliciting freelance journalists. 26oo (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I think even though Cordless Larry has been quick to sidetrack the issue with insinuations of vandalism, his early suggestion was good and should be pursued as he also recognized balancing it was the way forward instead of removing it. But the UNDUE material shouldn't remain in the introduction as it appears now. 26oo (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the material is referenced in the introduction but not in the main text. That was a key reason why I restored it - in deleting it, you deleted the references. I agree that the best way forward is to expand the introduction to summarise all of the key points of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, I can't agree with your assertion that the UN Monitoring Group has been discredited. The UN Security Council has unanimously renewed and expanded its mandate several times , meaning that the Council Members consider it to have credibility. Misconduct by one of its members (who was working on Eritrea, not Somalia ) does not discredit the entire group. Moreover, the Group's reports continue to be widely cited in the media as authoritative documents. You seem to be offering a personal POV rather than an objective assessment.HOA Monitor (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC) I have noticed a problem with the statement "The PMPF was established after the Puntland administration in 2010 passed Somalia's first and only Anti-Piracy Law", which references footnote 4. The reference -- once again from Somalia Report -- makes no mention of a 2010 piracy law and I can find no other source for this information. Unless other sources for this assertion can be identified, I propose to remove the statement.HOA Monitor (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support User:HOA Monitor here. The Groups of Experts are WP:THIRDPARTY, not directly involved, sources: they're not the governments of any countries in the region. They're also, as I've said and as HOA Monitor has reiterated, backed by the Security Council, repeatedly. It is my view that because of their independence, they're much more likely to be telling the truth than involved sources. What's WP:UNDUE here, in my view, is the expected, ritual denials from the Puntland Govt that could be completely expected from a government with something to hide - a force that they can use against opposition presidential candidates!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

While we're on WP:UNDUE, I have removed the section about EUCAP Nestor which appears not only undue but completely irrelevant : it simply doesn't mention the PMPF at all!! Buckshot06 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

HOA Monitor, you don't seem to know the Group of experts take their recommendations from the United Nations Monitoring committees.reference Their decisions are directly influenced by the group and they take decisions based on its recommendations. The United Nations monitoring group's Monitor Mahtani has resigned due to advocacy. 1. So yes, the United Nations' monitoring group can not be held in a standard where its POV is the only one included in the summary. Any assertions you have about motivations for denial are yours alone, they exist however and are a major part of the story given that the force has as you said 'ostensibly' acted within it's mission statement. The problem here is that it's the only sentence you found to include in the introduction and shows you have bad faith. Also the 2010 piracy law has nothing to do with the PMPF establishment, you should remove those. 26oo (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, of course you strongly agree. You have an agenda to push POV in Somali articles just as your initial threat a few days earlier seems to suggest.ref. 26oo (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments 26oo. My agenda, here and everywhere else (and I've been accused of bad faith in my armed forces edits as widely as Azerbaijan, Poland, and Afghanistan), is what makes sense, in accordance with NPOV. It makes a great deal of sense to me that the President of Puntland would try to hide a force he could use against opposition candidates as a 'anti-piracy' force; it makes a great deal of sense to me that South African advisors ("mercenaries" seems too strong a word) would be involved; it makes a great deal of sense that it would be a military-style force, sometimes described as "Marines"; and it makes a great deal of sense that the UAE for example might try to fund it. None of this sounds strange at all. It also makes a great deal of sense that an internal security force might be promoted to Western potential donors as an 'anti-piracy' force. What doesn't make sense to me is why you consistently think the official statements from Puntland etc are more worth noticing over groups and individuals who are less involved, what we call Third Party sources. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Refer to my talk page and ANI regarding soapboxing and threats. ANI. Again, moving the goalposts is not the way forward. You summarize an article per content, not the amount of negative information you can find so you can move the goalposts. The United Nation's monitoring group can't be regarded as a credible third party given recent allegations, look in the response to HOA Monitor. I am reverting the introduction to how it was summed up before your section blanking until we summarize it per new content, if that's what you intent to do. 26oo (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, please stop inserting the UNDUE introduction material. I've reverted per material in the article, as it was intitially. Also, there is no consensus, I'm not sure if you are bulldozing through material on a summary to appear as if there was. Cordless Larry has recommended balancing the introduction per article content, I'm not sure why you are pushing this. Until we balance it, it has no place to act as introduction. 26oo (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I think it's telling that you remove the UNDUE EUCAP section which you could have found references for but will allow the UNDUE material in the introduction and don't want it balanced. I've also noticed you put in the UNDUE material into the overview link which is wrong as well. I think this is a method to push it into the body so it can appear in the introduction. This is wrong as well as a balanced overview of the legality of support already appears in the Sterling Corporate Services section. That should surely be removed you can see. I recommend that we create a legality section in which the United Nations, Puntland and other third party material can be inserted, we summarize it in the introduction. 26oo (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The article refer you claimed was written by the solicited freelance Robert Young Pelton was no written by him nor is there any mention on the Somalia report article, it has been reinserted. 26oo (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:HOA Monitor, you were right about the reference regarding the establishment of the PMPF in the overview, it has been fixed. Previous link made no mention of the piracy law. Thanks for pointing that out. 26oo (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo Your opinions on the function of the Monitoring Group and sanctions committees are interesting but poorly informed. Experts on the Monitoring Group are nominated by the UN Secretary General and are independent of Member States. Mahtani resigned after drafting unauthorised and inappropriate correspondence. The fact that he was forced to resign reinforces the neutrality and professional standard of the Group as a whole, and also of the Committee mechanism. Unless you have some sources to validate your assertions about Committee influence, I suggest you let this argument rest.HOA Monitor (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Cordless Larry, (talk), 26oo I'm not clear on why the Overview section jumps straight to references to Somalia report. As an overview, shouldn't it summarise article content, and not introduce new material directly from a source? If so, I will remove the references to Somalia Report in the Overview and adjust the remaining language accordingly. Moreover, since Somali report was essentially paid propaganda in support of the PMPF, I propose that this be stated up front so that readers understand where Somalia Report is coming from and do not assume it to be a WP:NPOV.HOA Monitor (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you removed the updated link edit, which is not from Somalia report which you accurately pointed out did not mention it. 26oo (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I've removed Somalia Report which Buckshot06 removed before me refer. I also removed the sneakily inserted UNDUE material in the overview. I think you are confusing the overview with the introduction, the former should give an overview of the subject while the latter should summarize the article content. 26oo (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reintroduced the material about the legal status of the force. You have two editors saying here that it is valid, RS, and WP:THIRDPARTY, and another who has at least raised no complaint. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Buckshot06. Please do remove it again as I have looked into the report. It reports that there has yet to be a deployment however the report is from 2012 and is out of date.

• Although described as a counter-piracy initiative, the PMPF, formerly known as “Puntland Marine Force”, has yet to be deployed as part of a comprehensive strategy to fight piracy in Puntland in cooperation with international partners. It has no basis in Puntland’s constitution or domestic legislation, operating instead as an elite force outside any legal framework, engaged principally in internal security operations, and answerable only to the Puntland presidency. It is therefore questionable as to whether the PMPF can in fact be considered a legitimate ‘Somali security sector institution’

Monitoring report, 2012, p.236 which is your reference. The article contents under deployments shows that it has indeed been deployed and there's a reference to it's establishment under the anti-piracy law. 26oo (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I noticed on HOA Monitors talk page that you said your knowledge on the subject is limited and thus would take his lead.

• "I'll follow your lead initially, because my knowledge of the PMPF is currently once-over-lightly; basically I get the impression that it was a private force of the President, or some such. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Two editors canvanssing on the talk page and you are still pushing the UNDUE material, using WP:WEASEL. And you still claim to have no bad faith. 26oo (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You're distorting the meaning of WP:CANVASS, as User:Cordless Larry is explaining at the AN/I, you don't comprehend the meaning of WP:UNDUE, and you certainly are misusing WP:WEASEL. For example, 'weasel words' mean, in wikipedia terms, that 'aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated'. You applied this when you said that 'Ostensibly' was a use of WEASEL. What actually happened was that a WP:RS, the Group of Experts, has in page after page after page of S/2012/544 and the other reports shown that the PMPF is not doing maritime policing or fisheries work, but is training and operating for other purpose - being 'Marines' as the British trainer put it, for example. So ostensibly is not a weasel word, but means that the Puntland Govt is misleading people about what the PMPF's for. That isn't WEASEL, it's a great example of WP:POV and biased editing. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No distortion. The quote is from the 2012 report, before the force was deployed. Since there is a whole section on deployments, I'm not sure how you fail to see your error. Also, it is WP:Weasel when you use 'ostensibly' and follow it up with "actually". It's primarily used to set a false narrative. This is even worse given that your reference is out of date and therefore not valid. 26oo (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

All the deployments that have been publicised (it is good, there is a nice list there now) are anti-piracy, humanitarian assistance, etc. They don't publicise the internal security operations which are the force's real mission because they would not make good public relations. Ostentiably=all the deployment listed. In reality=internal security operations, or things like blocking in a presidential candidate.

Regretfully I've had to revert your second-to-last edit, 26oo. While the 'has yet' section is actually still valid, because it has not been employed as part of a coordinated anti-piracy strategy with international partners, the key point is that it is only answerable to the Puntland presidency; is primarily an internal security, rather than counter-piracy, force; and has no legal founding instrument in Puntland or Somali law. Thus there are no grounds for removing the internal security note. Did you actually read the section - it hasn't been deployed, the Group said, with other international partners as part of a coordinated strategy. Overall there is no real coordinated strategy - there are three, (or more, depending on how you count them) separate international naval task groups at sea!! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

These are assumptions on your part. I'm not sure why you are continuously moving the goalposts. Now you are talking about coordination with international partners which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. It has been deployed at its own behest since 2012 when the report was being made. Deployments since 2012 contravene the report which I must stress again is before the deployments, it's 2015/16/10 today. Look I must stress that it's an absolutely ludicrous position to say that because there was no international coordination to a humanitarian rescue mission i.e a hijack or a natural disaster, the force's official mission is invalid. 26oo (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I raise this coordination-with-international efforts issue was that I was trying to respond to your note starting 'No distortion.. ' which I took to refer to this section from the SEMG report. That was the reason I responded re international coordination. Nobody is arguing that the force has not been deployed. That is not at issue; it's clear that it has driven out and done things. But it's primary mission, internal security, isn't widely publicised. That's why it took the Working Group's investigations to find out!! (plus the odd corroborating news report). Stop trying to discredit the Working Group, unless you're prepared to take the matter to the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which is the proper arena for such things. You have three editors who are all prepared to believe a WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:Reliable Source over official, involved-body denials. It just won't wash. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are missing any of this. The allegations from the report is before the deployment, well now the force has been deployed and the reference is out of date. Of course there's no knowing what it was before it was even deployed but at that point it didn't exist as a deployment force. It does as per today. So unless you want to clarify that initially that's what the report said then that's one thing. As such, it has no place in the article, let alone in the introduction. Anything else is your assumption at this point. No one is discrediting the Workers Group, just the time from which the reference is from. 26oo (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The article should cover the history of the force, so the UK Working Group's views do belong in the article, whether or not they are still applicable today. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That's wrong. The report is from 2012 and says 'has yet' deployed. It's drawn on the conclusion that the force has not been deployed per mission statement and there's no clarification saying that the report is from 2012 and before the force was deployed in the article content. Buckshot06 then inserted it into the introduction without clarity pushing a POV. If it was clarified, it could appear but otherwise it's an out of date reference. Given that the user insists putting it into the introduction and includes 'ostensibly' vs 'actually' it's clear that it's a UNDUE POV. 26oo (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo Cordless Larry That's a clear distortion of the phrase 'not yet deployed': reading the original source material makes it clear that the force was indeed already operation by 2012, and had therefore been "deployed", but not for the stated purpose of fighting piracy.HOA Monitor (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the wording couldn't be made clearer that the report is from 2012; I'm contesting your assertion that material from 2012 doesn't belong in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't belong in the article, we are referring to the introduction. It already appears in the article's overview, which should be reworded that it's from 2012 and before the force was deployed. 26oo (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it does belong in a balanced introduction, which should summarise the main points of the article including any prominent controversies, per WP:LEAD. We do need a more thorough introduction in general though. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

But it's not balanced yet in the introduction. I agree that controversies should appear in the lead as well but only when balanced. That's why I recommended a section on the legality of the force in which we can break down the overview into all of the sections, so it's not all over the place. 26oo (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo I agree that the introductory sections, whether they include an 'Overview' or not, should summarize all points of view in the article - not simply present what one party - the Puntland administration - claims the force is intended to do. I agree with Cordless Larry that the introduction should be more through, on these grounds.HOA Monitor (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

How about we make the sections;

• Support (legality)
• Recruitment
• Training
• Deployment (more likely to be updated)
• Equipment
• Anniversary
• Leadership

Thus we can cut the overview, summarize the contents in the introduction. 26oo (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read enough of latter the sections article to say whether I think that structure is appropriate, but I agree that we shouldn't have a section titled "overview", given that the introduction is supposed to provide a summary. Do we need an "establishment" section as well? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC

We could create a section regarding 'establishment' but a much of the content might bite into the 'support' section given UAE as a main benefactor in its establishment. Is it possible to merge establishment and support? Also, the deployment section could be renamed history given possibility non-deployment related content. 26oo (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo Regarding your question about sourcing on UAE support for the PMPF, this document dated July 2012 states on page 236 that the UAE officially denies backing the project and refers to a meeting with a UAE MFA official in footnote 2 . The next reference, dated 12 July 2013, cites the UAE Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN acknowledging that some individuals in the UAE were providing support on page 329 footnote 32 . Arguably this still does not amount to official support, but rather an acknowledgement of unofficial or tacit support.HOA Monitor (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just realised that no reference is made in the article to its genesis as the brainchild of Erik Prince and have inserted some language to this effect. But I think we could probably do more to describe its evolution from a Prince project, through Saracen and eventually SCS. talk, perhaps we should consider and 'Origins' or 'Evolution' section in which we could capture this part of the force's history?HOA Monitor (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What you are claiming doesn't appear on page 329 nor is there a footnote 32. Please look at again and let me know. I've created an 'establishment' section and gotten rid of the overview. I also moved items from the overview in support where they belong. 26oo (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

talk The the following reference re: UAE support., page 329, footnote 32. You have also reinserted the reference to Somalia's only piracy law, which is incorrect and relies only on the PMPF's own website, undone the edits about UAE support without waiting for my response on WP:TALK, removed elements that you object to from the Overview, once again engaging in WP:IDONTLIKE, and failed to make reference to Saracen in the Establishment section you have created. I have the impression you're engaging in edit warring and trying to edit this article in contravention of WP:NPOV policy, but would be interested in seeing how others perceive your inputs on this topic.HOA Monitor (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Buckshot06 I am of the view that this article should be downgraded to B-class until these problems are resolved, since it features serious problems with balance of content and NPOV.HOA Monitor (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it was ever considered A-class, to be honest, given the problems with the article! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Saracen didn't establish the force. You can't remove references because you don't like them. There's already a reference in place regarding its establishment. Also I included the Erik Prince reference about the idea, not sure what your problem here is now. The link you posted now regarding UAE support is not working. The previous one has no mention of it on page 329, that's a table. (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo It is well documented that Saracen took part in the establishment of the force in UN Monitoring Group reports. With respect to references, I am not proposing to remove the reference because I don't like it, but because (1) it is inaccurate, as I pointed out by referring to the Somaliland piracy legislation and (2) it represents an interested party (the PMPF) and cannot corroborated elsewhere, raising a question mark as to whether it can be considered a RELIABLE, PUBLISHED SOURCE. At the same time, you have also removed the NYT reference that you didn't like and replaced it with one that employs a spurious quotation from Prince, rather than the more neutral statement that the force was his idea. Not exactly WP:WEASEL, but close. Lastly, the link I gave you leads to a large document. Be patient. In the meantime, the previous link makes it clear that the UAE officially denied supporting the PMPF at least through 2012.HOA Monitor (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The force was established 2010 per anti-piracy law. The text has references, you can't remove it. You can't exclude references either because you don't like what it says. PRIMARY sources don't have to be THIRD PARTY as you claim and so given that it's from the official website, it is reliable. You are also wrong, I didn't remove the source from the New York Times, it's citation 16 refer. Also you have forgotten to post the information supporting your claim of UAE denial from page 239 footnote 32 in the second monitoring report you posted. Thanks. 26oo (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Erik Prince reference, I have included it. It appears here.1. 26oo (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo (1) We cannot establish that the Puntland 2010 Piracy Law was the first and only one of its kind. Or (so far) even that it exists. I therefore suggest clarifying that this is according to the PMPF website; (2) You have replaced the NYT neutral reference to Erik Prince being behind the force to one in which you include a spurious quote that suits your agenda; (3) The link to the UN report concerning UAE admission of support (reference 9) works fine. Try page 329, footnote 32. I've just checked. Lastly, you've once again removed any content from the Overview section that you disagree with, against the convictions of other Users, and in disregard for the pursuit of consensus -- since you are clearly in the minority here. We really seem to be wasting a lot of time going in circles. I am inclined to flag this for ANI and NPOV:DISPUTE, but since other users ahve been offline for a while, I'd like to leave time for them to weigh in one way or the other.HOA Monitor (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We can establish it, it's in the reference from the official website. You have no basis for removing it as it is primary with no ANALYSIS. However I have added a THIRD PARTY link which is the second reference now, perhaps that will end this. I haven't replaced the NYT reference in the article as I've shown above, check citation 16.

UAE continued to support the force in violation of paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 1425 (2002) which is in the article. refer to citation 1226oo (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'd also like to point out that Cordless Larry agreed with the removal of 'overview' as content should be summarized in the introduction. 26oo (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with the removal of the heading, but that doesn't mean that I support removal of content which is reliably sourced and relevant and can be placed elsewhere in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You keep assuming things. As said above, I moved it to the 'establishment' section and the other to the 'support' section. 26oo (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I just wondered why you were pointing to my support and thought you were using it in relation to content. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In response to HOA Monitor's comments above, yes, we are spending a lot of time going in circles; yes, we have a clear consensus on insertion of SEMG and Mercenaries' Working Group material (that's me, HOA Monitor and Cordless), and yes, I believe that this should be flagged for AN/I. I already have raised previous behaviour at this page already at WP:ANI#Violations of WP:YESPOV on Somali pages, but this would benefit from further comments from other talkpage discussants here.

Regarding the official PMPF website, it's a clear wikipedia mirror, and thus only replicates an earlier version of this page. It is my strong contention that the 'official' PMPF website is not a reliable source. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's correct that the official website is based on old material from Wikipedia, we definitely shouldn't use it, otherwise we'll get into a horrible WP:CIRCULAR mess. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06. There's no evidence it's based on old material from Wikipedia. There's a reference and it's PRIMARY without ANALYSIS. In any matter, a THIRD PARTY reference has been added, check citation 4. 26oo (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What's the URL, so I can have a look? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Somalia: UAE Pledges Continued Support for Puntland Marine Forces. 26oo (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought it was the official site of the PMPF that we were talking about? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you wanted to see the THIRD PARTY. About - PMPF. 26oo (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks fairly clear that that text is from Wikipedia. When you click the "More..." link at the bottom of the text, it brings you to this article. We shouldn't be using that. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, so I found the original source which is where it comes from. Thankfully, it was archived. 26oo (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not "Puntland sources", it's the PMPF per source. Puntland sources is broad and nonspecific. 26oo (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest "The PMPF's website states that it is..."? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

However, we've just discovered that this page is a wikipedia mirror, and thus, I'm not sure how valid the page's information is, however it is worded. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not WP:CIRCULAR, I just proved that above, stop tampering with the text. It was WP:CIRCULAR when it was 'pmpf.so', however I found the original source. It is according to the PMPF website per mission statement. It's perfectly fair to say 'According to...' not 'Puntland sources', which Puntland sources? The PMPF of course. Also stop tampering with your own source.

• Although described as a counter-piracy initiative, the PMPF, formerly known as “Puntland Marine Force”, has yet to be deployed as part of a comprehensive strategy to fight piracy in Puntland in cooperation with international partners.

HOA Monitor, stop removing THIRD PARTY link namely HORSEED MEDIA. If you want to add that according to the UN, UAE has not provided it with the evidence it required regarding support, then that's another thing. 26oo (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And you're suddenly dropping this insistence on official sources when it is shown to you that the official source is a WP mirror? Surely we use the official line, or not at all, from the official source, for the official definition of the mission? HOA Monitor, Cordless, what say you? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an official source and not WP:Mirror, I'm not sure how many times you have to be told. Look at Cordless Larry's response above, the original source was removed and I reinstated it. It's PMPF.NET, not PMPF.SO which is why it appeared to be a mirror. Also, I reverted to its original reference. Stop tampering with it. 26oo (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe part of the confusion is that the .so address is still in the reference? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It kept getting reinstated during revisions. I've removed it now, please check. 26oo (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand my point. The .net source is not the official current site of the PMPF. Now that it's been shown that the official current site is a WP mirror, should WP reference a dated site that may or may not have official status? This is what I would appreciate Cordless's and HOA Monitor's views upon. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem using it, providing that it's not a mirror, that we are sure that it's genuinely the official site of the PMPF, and that we attribute any POV clearly to the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is the official source which the MIRROR was based on. Here is the web archive from 11 August 2012. I've shown this above already proving it's not WP:CIRCULAR.

Also Buckshot06 and HOA Monitor are not reading their own sources. The UAE acknowledged supporting the source in 2013, which I inserted. As for the "publicly reported" edit. Refer to WP:NOTOPINION. S/2012/544 which you cite says that the force was not deployed, not sure how you can miss it. 26oo (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

References

26oo You keep reverting to language stating that the UAE has officially been supporting the PMPF since 2010 when this is manifestly not the case. I have given you two WP:THIRDPARTY sources citing interviews with UAE diplomats to demonstrate that this is not true. Even in 2013, the UAE only acknowledge that individuals within the UAE were supporting the force, not the government itself. Unless you can demonstrate why these sources should be disregarded, please stop UNDOing my edits to support your POV.HOA Monitor (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

HOA Monitor. I am not saying the source should be disregarded but you rewrote the first sentence. It never denied supporting it, it 'acknowledged' it in 2013 as per the source. There's nothing wrong with putting that in, please do. 26oo (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo I rewrote the first sentence because it is inaccurate. The UAE was not officially supporting the PMPF since it denied doing so. You continue to insist that it was officially supported, but provide not reliable source for this assertion. Until you can provide better sourcing than the SEMG statements to the contrary, which are based on official UAE sources, I am afraid I cannot accept your formulation.HOA Monitor (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

HOA Monitor. There are two references saying since 2010, one from the official website, which we have now established is not WP:MIRROR, it's the original, not PMPF.SO and there's a THIRD PARTY source. Your reference has also been inserted as an acknowledgement of support, not denial, as is in your reference. Read your own citations before you remove them.

Check it out now, I removed official and inserted acknowledgement per Group of Experts reference you provided. 26oo (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I found a reference mentioning PMPF being trained under EUCAP NESTOR. EUCAP Nestor: maritime security workshop. Previously there was no mention of the PMPF and was rightly removed by Buckshot06. 26oo (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Should a wikitable be created for equipment? 26oo (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Reinserted the DN reference that I was mistakenly removed alongside the solicited Somalia Report. 26oo (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06 Cordless Larry Editing this page has become a tremendous waste of time and energy. Editing and re-editing this page line by line and phrase by phrase is akin to literary mudwrestling. 26oo is behaving like a Wikiclone of Middayexpress, a propagandist determined to promote a narrow political point of view, instead of developing an honest, objective contribution to knowledge. By now it should be clear that this individual respects neither the letter, nor the spirit of Wikipedia and is exploiting it instead as unpaid advertising for his/her cause. Much as I would like to contribute to the improvement of this and other pages, I find no reward or pleasure in engaging with this kind of crude, clannish/tribal intellect that has served Somalia and the Horn of Africa so poorly in recent decades. I'll return once this Wikitroll has been topic banned. I wish you well.HOA Monitor (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No need for ad hominem attacks. I wish you all the best. 26oo (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Puntland Maritime Police Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dissidentnation.com/why-did-the-new-york-times-lie-about-somalia-this-week/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Puntland Maritime Police Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pmpf.net/about-2/=Puntland

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)