User talk:Middayexpress/Archive 10

Asli Hassan Abade

I don't understand your issues, Midday. The one "source" is clearly not a reliable source, and your argument in your edit summary (it's a group of veterans) only takes away from its reliability. Restoring the "see also" section is silly and redundant: the SAF is already linked. Removing my citation template, what point does that serve? You should be happy someone is actually working on the article, and you could try, of course, to find real references for the facts in the article. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I added the one other source that Google News delivered. You are welcome to re-add the other reference using in-line citations and then to remove the fact tags. I appreciate your having written the article in the first place, but would urge you to consider that there is no ownership on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call what you're doing working on the article. I call it unnecessarily tagging it as unsourced when there clearly are sources already cited. You claim that there was only one source in the article. This is untrue. There were two (which is hardly surprising given the length of this short article). You moved the other one to the external links section. You also claimed that the other source by a non-profit by Somali Air Force veterans is "unreliable", but you have not proven it is. All you've done is point to WP:RS & claim it is. This, with all due respect, is absurd, as the article in question is on one of the most high profile Somali Air Force veterans ever i.e. the first Somali female pilot. Your argument is a bit like saying that the US Air Force veterans are not a reliable sources on matters pertaining to the US Air Force. Forgive me if I say it's a little hard to swallow. By the way, I created the article, so yes, I've already "worked" on it before. Middayexpress (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Midday, but a US Air Force Veterans site would not be a reliable source on matters such as these. Claiming "independence" for such a source, that would be truly absurd. Let's face it, the claim that she was such a trendsetter is precisely the kind of thing that requires a third-party source. That the organization is non-profit is relevant, certainly, and using that source to verify biographical details, or details about her missions, that can hardly be controversial--but the original claim, that "she paved the way for gender equality within the military ranks", that is much broader than such an organization's page can verify. Now, I also see that you have removed one reliable source from the article, and have removed the formatting--that is not the way to improve an article, of course. And I know that citation templates are not mandatory, but if any reader had to choose between "The Rise and Fall of the Somalia Airforce: A Diary Reflection" and ""Flying the flag for Somali peace". BBC. 7 October 2004. Retrieved 22 March 2010.", it's pretty obvious, I think, which one is preferable. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed that source because there is some debate as to whether or not Asli really was the only Somali female pilot. While some sources indeed indicate that she was the only one, others, such as the Somali Air Traffic Controllers Association, claim that she was "one of the first Somali female pilots". At any rate, I have no problem with the citation template vs. the other formatting method; the former just takes longer to fill out. Middayexpress (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muslim world. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Outback the koala (talk)

AfD nomination of Islam Feruz

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Islam Feruz. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam Feruz. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo W junior (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Somali Bantu did not flee to Kakuma--why did you delete my revision?

The Somali Bantu did not flee directly to Kakuma. They were transported there by international agencies. Also, it was not only the UNHCR that was responsible for the refugees resettlement to America. Please don't delete these true statements next time. Thanks for taking the time to read the article and for caring about the truth. Denverbabushka (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted them because they were unsourced; videos aren't reliable sources (see WP:RS. It's possible that other aid agencies were involved besides the UNHCR, but that wasn't sourced either. Middayexpress (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

To Middayexpress,

Thanks for your improvements to the Somali Bantu entry--especially improvements to the writing. You are a good editor, something I aspire to as well. Many did not take the time to improve the wording, and enhance the accuracy of this page. I understand that referencing sources is important. Thanks for clarifying that the resettlement decision was made in 1999, and adding the fact that it was an historically large African resettlement project. FYI, all the newspapers say it was 2003 that the Somali Bantu refugees actually began to arrive, and that is what resettlement agencies will tell you as well. I can find additional references to back that up, and so can you. The resettlement decision was made in 1999, but that does not mean any Somali Bantu refugees actually came at that time, at least not as a result of that resettlement decision.

Also, I have found references that said that Somali and Somali Bantu intermarriage was "rare", while many articles do, indeed, say "no intermarriage". I am personally familiar with at least one case of intermarriage, so I think "rare" is the most accurate way of putting it.

Our little editing skirmish improved this entry vastly, and I thank you for that. Why do you know so much about Somali Bantu resettlement?Denverbabushka (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Denverbabushka. I know about the Bantus because they are one of Somalia's minority ethnic groups, and the region is an interest of mine. Somalia has many ethnically non-Somali residents (see, for example, the "Ethnic groups" section in the "People" category of the CIA World Factbook), something the mass media does not always seem to be aware of but which scholars involved in Somali Studies are very familiar with -- the country was just named after the area's dominant ethnic group, the Somalis. This is why I work on the page, just like I've worked on the Benadiri people, the Bravanese people and the Italian Somalians articles, among others i.e. pages belonging to some of Somalia's other minority ethnic groups. You may be right about 1999 being the year the resettlement plan was first put into motion, while 2003 marked the first time Bantus actually set foot in American cities. This wasn't completely clear in the paper I referenced, so I've tried to clarify it in my latest edit. The issue of intermarriage between Somalis & Bantus is also better termed extremely rare, as it is not only socially frowned upon in Somali society, it usually results in ostracism the few times it does occur. This acts as an effective check against future intermarriages & serves to preserve the homogeneity of the Somali ethnic group (that's its purpose; not a pointless "hate", as is often caricatured in the lay media). You are also correct in noting that our edits have vastly improved the article. Mind you, some time ago, the article didn't even have an info-box. And info-boxes are a common feature on the articles' of all ethnic groups (for whatever reason, it never occurred to the editors that used to edit the page to add one). Now we can at least say that the article has that & more. Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your respectful and informative response. I may continue editing the entry, as I believe it still needs some work. Now I know you will hold my feet held to fire, and thus try to back up what I say to the best of my ability. And I will check out the other articles you have contributed to as well.

It's very important for the world to understand that there are many diverse populations in Somalia. I find that understanding minority populations and ethnic diversity throughout the world creates a richer, and more nuanced perspective on stories that make the headlines. There are many "national identities" that really represent only one group of people living in a given nation. Many times efforts to create "national unity" are really efforts to silence minorities, or even disenfranchised majorities.71.211.247.35 (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely important to acknowledge the ethnic & cultural diversity in territories. It is also important not to lose sight of the fact that many of the so-called "national" identities (and national borders) in Africa and other parts of the developing world are, in fact, vestiges of colonialism that were more often than not artificially and arbitrarily imposed on often-times disparate (and sometimes mutually hostile) peoples. They bear little to no resemblance to the comparatively benign American/New World model of national identity. That said, I must correct you and point out that there was never an effort to create national unity in the Somali case since Somalis have always been a nation in the ethnic & cultural sense. The venerable Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui explains this well in his old classic, The Africans:

"Most other African countries are diverse people in search of a sense of national identity. The Somalis were already a people with a national identity in search of territorial unification."

Middayexpress (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to improve the entry further, this is an excellent, and authoritative, although not perfect, source, that has been referenced on other edits. It was written by two scholars who were the foremost advocates for the resettlement of the Somali Bantu. http://www.cal.org/co/bantu/sbhist.htmlDenverbabushka (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm familiar with the website and have referenced it, among others, in the past. Middayexpress (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mary Joan Elliott Said.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Joan Elliott Said.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work

Midday, just wanted to say good job on the Somalia wiki page, it's well balanced and informative. ailamos 12:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Middayexpress (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Somali people edits

I just saw your edit to this article. Unfortunately, the text of the citation you prefer is so vague that it doesn't help anyone who wants to verify it; readers are forced to accept on faith that the source says what the citation claims. If you disagree with my attempts to improve the sources, instead of simply reverting my changes could you replace them with more accurate citations? That way everyone benefits: you, me, Wikipedia, & the readers who come here looking for accurate information. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch. Although I don't entirely agree with your assessment of the situation, let us examine the facts: You have made an edit where you have replaced existing sourced material with the explanation that "if this is the actual source, this is what Lewis actually writes". As it so happens and I have already explained, the source you availed yourself of (namely, A modern history of the Somali by I.M. Lewis, 4 edition, Ohio University Press, 2003) to change the phrase that was already in place is actually not the same one as the book that you are referring to (The modern history of Somaliland from nation to state by I.M. Lewis, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1965). The latter is 134 pages shorter than the former and was published under a different title by a different publisher almost 40 years prior, not long after the imperial struggles discussed therein. There is also a second source you removed which covers parts of the cited material. This is why I reverted your edit. That said, after closer inspection, your Lewis source appears to be a later edition of the other Lewis source already cited in the text. The relevant passages, though, seem to be identical. In your edit, you state that "as a result of its success against the British, the Dervish State received some support from the Ottoman and German empires, although one authority considers its extent "rather nominal"." However, while Lewis does describe the extent of the support as seemingly being "rather nominal", he goes on to more or less dismiss that statement in the next sentence by mentioning an actual document that was found confirming Turkish support for Hassan's Dervishes:

"Apart from Kirsch's services, the extent of Turko-German support received by the Dervishes has not yet been fully elucidated although it seems to have been rather nominal. However, in 1917, the Italian Administration of Somalia intercepted a document from the Turkish government which assured the Sayyid of support and named him Emir of the Somali nation."

The other cited source, The Historical dictionary of Ethiopia‎, further explains that "Germany promised to recognize any territorial conquests made by Ethiopia or the Mad Mullah", which I think is likewise more descriptive than the vague assertions of "nominal" support allow. I have therefore re-factored the edit to now read as follows:

"As a result of its successes against the British, the Dervish State received support from the Ottoman and German empires. The Turks also named Hassan Emir of the Somali nation, and the Germans promised to officially recognize any territories the Dervishes were to acquire."

Middayexpress (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my suggestion. I am not questioning the content, nor your knowledge on the subject; I believe you know more about the Somali peole than I do. What I was trying to say is that instead of simply reverting my attempts to source information, that you correct them instead with the proper source. If you examine the article in question, Somali people, even now there are citations which consist of only the title of the work, & some of them are useless for verifying the material cited. (For example, one citation merely states "Sudan Notes and Records" -- which is a periodical in numerous volumes, published since 1918; this appears to be a partial collection of its publication run. How can anyone simply confirm the statement cited without either a tedious search in a research library or being provided with a better citation?) That was my goal in my edit, to make the citations more useful. If you can improve on this, please do so. But reverting my edit to the original, unhelpful citation benefits no one. -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have explained the situation above in some detail; in particular why I reverted your edit, so there's no point in my going over it again. I have also improved the phrase in question so that there is no possibility of confusion or vagueness in that respect either. I see now what you're trying to say, but this wasn't at all clear in your statement above. If you are dissatisfied with the formatting style in certain areas of the text or wish further clarification on that issue, I suggest you contact Scoobycentric since those are actually his edits, not mine. I tend to format my sources quite similarly to the way you do. Middayexpress (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)