Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-09/East Africa

Out until July 28

Hello folks. I am traveling and have a lot of work to do just now. Because there is tension about the actual mediation of this case and because I am not able to give fair consideration to this just now, I would rather not say anything until I am done with a real-life project which I am finishing on July 28. I appreciate everyone coming to this page and talking about things. I will be available fully next week so please give me a bit more time. This is a fantastic talk and if nothing else this mediation is going to produce an excellent summary of the problem associated with the question of what to do about Somaliland. Blue Rasberry 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As an editor that was invited and vouched for exclusively by users on the other side of the dispute, and personally appointed by the patently non-neutral former mediator, I hereby respectfully object to your participation as replacement mediator. This is nothing personal. Given the above, I just don't have confidence in your ability to neutrally mediate this case. You indicated in your opening post, among other things, that you "would like to offer to assist in mediation in any way I can if I am requested and if I am welcome". Unless you were being insincere (which I doubt), my objections shouldn't come as an offense. Just in case it's unclear, I would also like to point out that this mediation case only pertains to the East Africa article (as its title indicates). Best regardz, Middayexpress (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are behind the times, Middayexpress, as most of the editors are looking at the bigger picture of how to treat Somaliland as a whole in Wikipedia. And once a consensus is reached here (with or without your agreement, since you have actually expressed no willingness to compromise or even to move beyond your wikilawyering), you will see it applied beyond the confines of East Africa. It is in the best tradition of Wikipedia to look at how decisions can be applied beyond the narrow confines of the original dispute. This isn't the first mediation I've been involved in and that is usually what happens. --Taivo (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

While I have no doubts that this is not the first mediation case that you have been involved in, I'm afraid you don't quite understand how the Mediation Cabal process works. It works on a case by case, article by article basis. Much as I'm sure you wouldn't mind if it weren't so, this particular medcab case pertains only to the East Africa article, as its name clearly indicates. There therefore unfortunately won't be any parlaying of whatever happens here onto other articles (nor will you ever be able to claim consensus by attempting to ignore the other side's arguments). This is something Scoobycentric himself has also repeatedly made clear. By the way, you haven't even made one attempt at compromising whereas I actually have (refer to my response below dated 21:59, 22 July 2010), so you actually have no grounds to complain here either. Middayexpress (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear Scoobycentric's opinion of the new mediator. Middayexpress's "lack of confidence" in him/her is arguably unfounded and unreasonable. If need be, we can get Middayexpress to select one of the other frequent mediators to step in. Night w (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is hardly a surprise for you to champion the participation of a mediator you personally invited. This is to be expected. And as such, I don't particularly trust this mediator's ability to neutrally mediate the case (especially given the fact that he was appointed to the position by the patently non-neutral former mediator), as is my prerogative. Middayexpress (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bluerasberry has been rather absent from this discussion since it started, so i don't really have an opinion on this mediator, but i would like to stress to him/her not to mass-generalise this dispute with the prospect of setting an example for thousands of unknown phantom articles and loose sight of the actual article being discussed. There are many ways to answer the 'Somaliland' question without meddling with the mainstream geographic definition. I would also like inform the participants that i'm quite busy, and might not answer replies in a timeframe that might be considered ideal. --Scoobycentric (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy assisting in this case, but if user Middayexpress has some doubt about me then there are enough other potential mediators for me to leave with nothing being lost and credibility to the case being gained. I would prefer to quit sooner than later if there is any trouble, and I especially think this is a good idea since a much more experienced mediator has offered to organize this case. I recommend that you all allow me to step down and that parties involved in this case work with him. I say more about this under his offer. I like Middayexpress' writing and I am sure if we found each other elsewhere, we would have no trouble working together then. Blue Rasberry 19:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words BlueRasberry, and I'm glad you at least understand that this is nothing personal. Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttals to Opening Statements

Please Rebutt opening statements here

Additional solution?

I was looking at the solutions already proposed, and I thought, 'why not mesh two together to derrive something like "... Somailia (including the unrecognized state of Somaliland), ..."? Just an idea. Ronk01 talk, 06:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I will address that idea in my opening statement in the next few days. Outback the koala (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, User:Night w. I have some questions but I am going to withhold them until some other people comment. Blue Rasberry 13:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find it disturbing that the first option has been removed, what exactly is the point then of continuing this discussion, if one side of the involved parties have not even been given a chance to state why the status quo certainly adheres to NPOV? Indeed one could argue that any of the remaining points would violate NPOV and open the flood gates, see this particular comment from NPOV/N: For what it's worth, if we include "Somaliland," wouldn't that mean mentioning all the areas with secessionist tendencies? Somaliland isn't the only one. We would end up with "Sudan (including the transitional Darfur and autonomous Southern Sudan regions), Ethiopia (including the Ogaden) (etc., etc.)" We could end up with an interminable description. I am not sure this helps or not, it's hard to tell given the length of the argument/discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia makes it clear under no circumstance do we have to entertain the wishes of a minority view --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) With respect to the editor who made that comment, s/he doesn't seem to understand the situation. There is a clear difference between a region with a separatist movement, and a region where secession is already in effect. Whether its recognised or not, Somaliland's independence has been both proclaimed and established. Night w (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Indeed, many reliable sources point out that Somaliland at the present time is more of a functioning sovereign state than Somalia itself is. --Taivo (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC) The reason the first option was removed is because it adopts the POV of Somalia, which contradicts established consensus that Somaliland is a de facto sovereign state. (see list of sovereign states) Ronk01 talk, 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC) That a disingeneous statement, the issue here is the definition of East Africa and the countries that fall under this definition, not original research justified by a list of countries on wikipedia, which is ridiculous. In the first part of the article the UN Geoscheme is used and there is no mention of Somaliland, the second part references respected bodies of literature such as; Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary, the Encarta World English Dictionary, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, and the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Does Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary include Somaliland in its definition of East Africa, wether in a parenthesis/footnote/etc?: No! Does Encarta World English Dictionary include Somaliland in its definition of East Africa, wether in a parenthesis/footnote/etc?: No! Does Encyclopaedia Britannica include Somaliland in its definition of East Africa, wether in a parenthesis/footnote/etc?: No! Does Encyclopedia of Food and Culture include Somaliland in its definition of East Africa, wether in a parenthesis/footnote/etc?: No! Does Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 include Somaliland in its definition of East Africa, wether in a parenthesis/footnote/etc?: No! The above entities are not working for the Somali government, nor are they located in Somalia, its absurd to claim that this definition of East Africa held the world over both on the political scene and non-governmental scene (in terms of multiple different Atlases, geographic books etc) as a POV of Somalia. All of the irrelevant statements about Somalia's political situation, what is functioning and what is not, the questions about Taiwan etc are all red herrings to this discussion. Somalia's inclusion is not the subject of the dispute, in which case there are dozens of specific concrete reliable sources available placing Somalia in the East Africa definition, unlike Somaliland, where not a single source comparable to the current references being used on the East Africa article has been presented. Instead we are being forced to accept options because there is a list on wikipedia that includes Somaliland as a de facto state(based on shaky sources itself), which again is irrelevant to the sentence; East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan. The ten countries are sourced with respectable refs, any inclusion of Somaliland will face the same scrutiny, and the source(s) better be stating what is said in that sentence(i.e "in a wider sense" onwards). This entire discussion however is not a case of mediation but one of enforcement, starting with the time the first option was removed without a proper explanation, even before the discussion had started. The mediator's response on Middayexpress's user page simply confirmed my suspicion: Firstly, the questions were directed at all participants, to gauge their personal POV's, you just happened to be the last one to make a statement. Secondly, "we" referred to the mediation as a whole. Third, the UN has just as much as a POV as anyone else, see NPOV. The real reason we are discussing this is to set precedent for other partially recognized states, remember, Wikipedia is not the place to determine Sovereignty of a state. The material regarding Somalia 's weak (almost nonexistent) government was part of a question to gauge POV, though I personally believe that Somalia has ceased to exist as a state, as the anthropological definition of a state requires the ability to effect hard power over inhabitants, which Somalia clearly cannot do, unlike Haiti, or the Congo. However, my personal POV has no place in this mediation, so I moved all of this here. Ronk01 talk, 03:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter where this statement was made or was moved to, the highlighted part is very relevant to this discussion and is a classic example of a provable bias on the part of the mediator, the evidence is there. This discussion was never ment to be a case of mediation between different parties, but one where the so-called mediator is playing enforcer because of his personal POV vis-a-vi Somalia, which is unacceptable, not to mention against wikipedia policy: The only requirement of an informal mediator is that they be Wikipedia editors with some clear ability to foster an agreement (clearly incompetent or seriously inexperienced users should not mediate) with no prejudice with respect to the dispute in question (users who are parties to the case or who have some provable prejudice regarding the parties or the subject matter also should not mediate). I therefore request immediately that Ronk01 steps down as mediator and instead enters his name in the section of participants and compiles a opening statement, for i will not be forced to make an unreasonable choice of synthesized/unsourced options because the mediator in question is biased, has forgotten he is not a arbitrator and is in a hurry to create a precedent for thousands of unrelated articles, or partially recognised states, two ulterior motives that don't belong on a genuine mediation cabal.--Scoobycentric (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Well said. I've also requested Ronk01 step down as mediator; he/she clearly is not sufficiently neutral to assume those duties. Middayexpress (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC) You were essentially asking me to say "Somaliland is not a state of any form, so this mediation is pointless, and we keep the status quo" if I did this, I am displaying POV, if I try to keep this debate within apparent established consensus, I am POV, this puts me in a situation that I cannot win, please, answer me this, what would you have a mediator do, ignore the case? Clearly, some participants here are rejecting this mediator because he took up the case, and because he was trying to foster discussion of solutions by eliminating the status quo as an option, which would force editors to consider a positive change instead of miring themselves in a muck of discord, preposterous. (as a sidenote, I never indicated my position on Somaliland, I only applied widely recognized anthropological principles to Somalia. Ronk01 talk, 00:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) You most certainly have betrayed your POV and often (e.g. you posted on my talk page: "There is no question that Somaliland is not a de jure state, but it does fit the requirements of a de facto state, (ie. independent, can project hard power) with Somalia the opposite, essentially"). Neutrality is a prerequisite of the mediation process: "Mediation is a process that creates valid consensus with the aid of a neutral third party skilled in dispute resolution". Because you already share their view on the issue at hand, any time any of the other editors posts anything, their posts are necessarily more likely to strike a chord with you, thus informing your actions. Just look at your attempt to completely rule out one of the supposed "options" presented on this discussion page i.e. the first one, whereby Somaliland -- a region that has only ever been recognized the world over as a part of Somalia (not just by the UN as you suggest above, but by every country and international organization in the world) -- logically does not get mentioned alongside actual nations in East Africa, let alone by the very country it is legally recognized as being a part of. This is not at all neutral; this is literally taking sides. And as a mediator (not an arbitrator), a position you volunteered your services for, you don't have the authority to do that. You're only there to "facilitat[e] voluntary discussion". An actually neutral proposition would have been to point out to the users there that there are, in fact, only two possibilities: either to include Somaliland in some capacity alongside actual nations in East Africa (i.e. the supposed "options" 2-4) or not to include it at all. Instead, you opted to completely eliminate the only other real alternative there ever was. That is not neutral and will not be ignored, no matter how many of the traces of your previous POV comments you delete. Middayexpress (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have closed the above discussion, and ask that participants cast a vote below. Further commentary here will be redacted immediately. Ronk01 talk, 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid attempting to hide the passages above highlighting your biases won't work. As I've already explained to you elsewhere, those passages are forever stored in the page history and can easily be linked to and quoted from again. I don't blame you, though, for threatening to "redac[t] immediately" further commentary. That material is, after all, pretty damning. Middayexpress (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not hiding them, I simply collapsed them so editors could return to mediation. Ronk01 talk, 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure you aren't. You're only trying to "help" matters, just like you were when you deleted my comments that explained why your so-called "vote-of-confidence" below is actually yet another example of a rigged process on your part that is contrary to actual Wikipedia policy on the issue. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A review of the solutions

Feel free to add your opinions in bullet point under the respective headings.

Solutions

1.   No mention (status quo)

1a.   No mention in text, but footnote to Somalia (status quo plus Somaliland mention in footnote)

Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Djibouti...

2.   Italics

Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Somaliland, Djibouti...

3.   Parentheses

Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti...

Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (as well as disputed Somaliland), Djibouti...

4.   Footnote

Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Somaliland , Djibouti...

Example also: Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Somaliland ^a, Djibouti...

5.   Inline note

Example: also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Somaliland (unrecognised), Djibouti...

Notes

• ^a Note on status here

References

Option 1

This is the method currently being used on the page in question.

• Unacceptable, for reasons mentioned. It implies the idea that Somaliland is a state separate from Somalia does not exist or is invalid, and therefore takes the Somalian government's position on the dispute, without representing the other. A neutral statement should effectively portray both sides to a dispute. Night w (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• This is not an option. It takes the opinion of the Somali government and that of the larger community of states with an opinion in the conflict, whilst completely ignoring the Somaliland position of statehood. Outback the koala (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This option is again open to discussion in the effort to build consensus. Ronk01 talk, 00:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unacceptable. It implies that Somaliland does not exist in any form. Somaliland is a de facto sovereign state. While not de jure, it exists and to ignore it is to wear the blinders of Somalia. --Taivo (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Midnightexpress and Scoobycentric make the argument that nonrecognition is a World view, not only a Somalian one, how would you respond to that? Ronk01 talk, 01:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"World view" is impossible to define and irrelevant to the question of whether Somaliland exists as a sovereign state or not. I could wish that my neighbor's house was painted yellow all I want, but if my neighbor's house is blue, that's just simple fact and my "world view" doesn't matter. Somaliland is a de facto sovereign state independent of Somalia and outside the control of Somalia. Whether the international community wants that to be so or not doesn't matter, it's a simple fact. --Taivo (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that re-opening this option will help mediation continue. However, I won't support its selection in the outcome. On the options below, I am willing to compromise. Night w (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is not what is recognised and what is not, the dispute is about which countries are commonly included in the East Africa definition, the following NPOV sources make it clear Somaliland is not part of this definition:

• Encyclopedia of the developing world
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary
• Encarta World English Dictionary
• Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000
• Encyclopedia of Food and Culture
• World geography of travel and tourism: a regional approach
• Encyclopaedia Of Human Geography
• Food culture in sub-Saharan Africa
• World Atlas

Therefore the other options are direct examples of UNDUE weight towards a minority view that clearly uses POV sources, which are easily eclipsed by the NPOV sources that have no ties or connection to Somalia, nor are they campaigning for its unity, they are simply highlighting which countries are commonly known (collectively) as East Africa. In their initial definition they do not discuss Somali issues/politics, or what is or isn't functioning, nor are they discussing what is considered a de facto state and what is not. These are subjects some of the sources touch upon in the relevant sections about those countries, which in the case of the East Africa article would be the Conflict section or a future detailed politics section. The assertion that this mainstream definition equals Somaliland doesn't exist is absurd, most wikipedia readers don't just read the intro, they browse the entire article, and the mentioning of Somaliland in the conflict section or a future politics section is far more appropriate than twisting and meddling with the mainstream geographic definition.

To claim that this mainstream definition is a POV of Somalia is tantamount to claiming that Somalia has the world's most powerful propaganda machine, each year churning out millions of atlases, encyclopedias and books disseminating to the masses this so-called definition of East Africa. We all know that this is a laughable suggestion, and i'm pretty sure with the previous comments made about Somalia by some of the participants, none actually believe this. If it was the other way around and the above sources actually included Somaliland - in whatever shape or form - in their definition of East Africa, i will would personally add Somaliland to the East Africa article, as i am a fair man willing to concede when i'm confronted with a mountain of literature arguing for inclusion, but this has not been the case, therefore POV sources clearly siding with one group or the other cannot be used to alter the common definition of East Africa, neither can a specific wikipedia list created by fellow wikipedians.

Before stepping down as mediator, Ronk01 proposed an interesting solution on the userpage of Middayexpress (see here: One editor I spoke to outside of the mediation suggested giving Somalia a footnote, and mentioning Somaliland in the footnotes. What is your opinion of that? -- Ronk01 talk, 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)), which if had been proposed earlier as a substitute for the then locked option 1, would have made the mediation alot more balanced, this proposed option adds to Somalia a footnote, example:

East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia , Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan.

This an option i would be willing to back, it does not compromise the mainstream definition of East Africa, yet at the same time singles out Somalia amongst the other nine countries for its political situation, giving the reader the incentive to investigate and click on the footnote, which could contain the following:

"Somaliland is a de facto state with limited recognition which is claimed in whole by Somalia as its de jure sovereign territory."

Evendo being knowledgable of the situation on the ground and personally disagreeing with the use of de facto or limited recognition, i would be willing to compromise and have this sentence constructed by Outbackkoala in the footnote, and would also add the link of the States and regions of Somalia article to get an even bigger picture and understanding of the Somali political landscape. Anything more than this is UNDUE weight towards a minority view, that is easily outweighted on a scale, when put next to the mountain of NPOV sources about the definition of East Africa. --Scoobycentric (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your post above, especially the footnote part. However, I disagree with your suggestion that the footnote should read "Somaliland is a de facto state with limited recognition which is claimed in whole by Somalia as its de jure sovereign territory", primarily because it contains factual errors. For one thing, Somaliland does not have limited recognition as a state; it has no recognition at all as such, neither de jure nor de facto -- the international community as a whole recognizes the region as a part of Somalia. The phrase would therefore at the very least have to be amended to read "Somaliland is a self-declared republic with no recognition, which is claimed in whole by Somalia as its sovereign territory and internationally recognized as a part of Somalia." Middayexpress (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I find your assumption that any source that doesn't mention Somaliland is NPOV, but any source that does mention Somaliland is POV, to be invalid and unhelpful for this discussion. There are NPOV sources (a few of which I have listed below) that include Somaliland in a discussion of East Africa. Your measurement of "undue weight" is also biased. I found four reliable sources below that list Somaliland as part of East Africa in the first few pages of a limited Google Books search, including the Lonely Planet guidebook to Africa, hardly a source subject to fringe theories or POV. If it is relatively easy to find sources that include Somaliland in lists or discussions of East Africa, then WP:UNDUE does not apply. --Taivo (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, a few carefully chosen sources which even so much as in passing mention Somaliland (and, in that Lonely Planet source's case, Puntland as well) as being sovereign or a part of East Africa in no way changes the basic fact that Somaliland has no recognition at all as an independent nation (neither de jure nor de facto) and that it is not included as part a part of just about all mainstream definitions of what countries constitute East Africa. WP:ASSERT, a sub-policy of WP:NPOV, is clear that one must actually quantify the extent of support for an existing view; it is not enough to just claim a significant minority believe it:

"It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is."

The onus is thus on you to produce a reliable source indicating that Somaliland -- a region that is internationally recognized as a part of Somalia -- is commonly included among the countries in East Africa in mainstream definitions of the region. Middayexpress (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You continually confuse de facto (which does not rely on international recognition, but on its functioning as a sovereign state) and de jure (which we both agree Somaliland does not enjoy). International recognition lies in the realm of de jure determination, not de facto. You continually make clear de jure arguments (which are uncontested), but try to call them de facto. You also claim that my sources were "carefully chosen" which is clearly not what I did. I did a Google Book search for books that contained "Somaliland" and "East Africa" published in English after 2000 and simply cited the first four that put Somaliland in East Africa. They were all within the first 50 results (the vast majority of the returns were books that dealt with WWII and colonialism, so I didn't count "British Somaliland", "Italian Somaliland", and "French Somaliland"). Scoobycentric's claim was that sources that named Somaliland and placed it regionally in East Africa did not exist. I simply proved that they do indeed exist and that they are not particularly hard to find. Thus the charge of WP:UNDUE is unfounded. Since there is a de facto sovereign state of Somaliland (we agree that it's not de jure sovereign), and works that place it in the region of East Africa are not hard to find, then it should be mentioned in some way and not ignored. --Taivo (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. I state that Somaliland has no de facto recognition as a nation of its own because it doesn't:

"Independence does not rely solely on whether it is deserved, but on the existing realpolitik. Sadly for Somaliland, they fall between the cracks in international law and cannot win the argument for de jure recognition while Somalia remains without a viable government, so they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer."

As for your references, Scoobycentric is right; they still in no way indicate that the Somaliland region is commonly included among the mainstream definitions of the actual countries that constitute East Africa. One or two references which merely indicate that Somaliland (and in one case, even Puntland) is a "nation" in East Africa or something to that effect does not change this or make this any less of a tiny-minority view. Per WP:ASSERT, you actually have to quantify the extent of people holding that view to prove it isn't. That means a passage or quote from a mainstream, reliable source unambiguously indicating that it is commonly included among the nations in East Africa, not a Google search. Easier said than done, of course, for a region that's internationally recognized as a part of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You still misunderstand what is meant by de facto. De facto means that it functions in all ways as an independent, sovereign state. It is not based on any outside recognition. That is the de jure part of the equation. Recognition isn't part of the de facto equation. Your continued attempts to subvert the plain meaning of that term is not going to move this issue forward. And you don't understand the relevance of the sources. All that is necessary to prove that a position is not WP:FRINGE or a violation of WP:UNDUE is to show that reliable sources (all four of my cited sources below are considered reliable secondary sources by Wikipedia standards) are not hard to come by in mainstream venues. (Google Books is mainstream and I didn't spend more than 15 minutes accumulating the sources I did and was by no means exhaustive in my search.) Do the majority of sources list Somaliland as a part of East Africa? No. But enough sources do mention it and include it in East Africa to make this first option not reflective of the facts. Scooby has shown a willingness to compromise, but I haven't seen any willingness on your part. Your stated position continues to be Option 1 and no other. --Taivo (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand and consistently mistake autonomy and state-like institutions for actual nationhood. No one disputes that the Somaliland region has state-like institutions and is autonomous, just like the adjacent Puntland region has and is. It's the notion that this de facto autonomy is equated with "nationhood" by the world that is patently false. As my quote above makes clear, the notion of Somaliland's "de facto" nationhood itself has no prominence either. That's why the quote indicates that since Somaliland "cannot win the argument for de jure recognition... they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer." It is also inaccurate to state that "all that is necessary to prove that a position is not WP:FRINGE or a violation of WP:UNDUE is to show that reliable sources... are not hard to come by in mainstream venues"; that only applies to views that are in the majority ("If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"). For one thing, as I've already pointed out, Google hits aren't proof of anything; they therefore can't be used as a way to determine the prominence of a view. Search engines in general cannot:

• Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false).
• Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance.
• Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses. (Eg, a search for a specific John Smith may pick up many "John Smiths" who aren't the one meant, many pages containing "John" and "Smith" separately, and also miss out all the useful references indexed under "John M. Smith" or "John Michael Smith")

You also claim that I am unwilling to compromise while Scoobycentric is. Well, if you had read my reply above to his post, you would already know that I didn't dismiss his latest proposition outright, whereas you have yet to accept the basic fact that Somaliland is recognized the world over as a part of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Middayexpress, though I am no longer Mediator, I must say, you have become exceedingly antagonistic which is not conducive to mediation. Ronk01 talk, 01:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you are no longer mediator (and for excellent reason), your opinion -- which is and has always been the same as the parties on the other side of the dispute, just as it is now -- does not matter much. Middayexpress (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You still confuse a de jure determination with the de facto situation. No one at all is disputing that Somaliland is not de jure sovereign. That means that no country has recognized it as a separate state, it has no standing in the U.N., its passports are not accepted internationally, etc. No one disputes that and you don't need to continually repeat yourself. What is at issue is that Somaliland functions as a sovereign state even without international political recognition. That makes it de facto sovereign. You are continually ignoring the distinction and trying to call your de jure arguments de facto. You need to keep the two issues straight. And your statement, "I didn't dismiss...outright" is not demonstrative of a willingness to compromise. Are you willing to compromise? A simple yes or no answer is quite sufficient to answer the question, but silence is not an answer. Everyone else here has stated a willingness to compromise. Compromise will mean that neither option 1 (ignoring Somaliland) nor treating Somaliland as de jure sovereign will be the answer. A compromise will list Somaliland in some way, as a footnote, a template, italics, parenthetical comment, etc. that marks it as different from the other U.N. member states in the region. Option 1 is a non-starter as it has been rejected already by three of the involved editors here. While deleting it as an option probably wasn't the best of decisions on the former mediator's part, from the practical standpoint, that will not be the final result of this mediation. --Taivo (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, no confusion here. It's the source I quoted from itself that makes it clear that Somaliland has neither de facto nor de jure recognition as a nation of its own; that's who explicitly draws the distinction, not me:

"Independence does not rely solely on whether it is deserved, but on the existing realpolitik. Sadly for Somaliland, they fall between the cracks in international law and cannot win the argument for de jure recognition while Somalia remains without a viable government, so they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer."

In case you still don't understand what that means, it means that not only does no country or international organization officially recognize Somaliland as a separate country (no de jure recognition), the world at large also views the territory's de facto autonomy -- which you've been good enough to point out time and again -- as that of an autonomous region within Somalia (like Puntland, for instance) and not that of an actual independent country. It's you and a handful of other supporters of an independent Somaliland nation that equate the region's autonomy specifically with actual nationhood. And that, unfortunately, is also a tiny-minority, fringe view. Furthermore, as both I and Scoobycentric have already pointed out before, there are and have only ever been two real options: either to include Somaliland in some capacity alongside actual nations in East Africa (i.e. the so-called "options" 2-5, which are in reality only one option dressed up to look like multiple options) or not to include it at all (option 1). The non-neutral mediator attempted to delete this only other option there was, but reversed his decision when it was pointed out to him that, as a voluntary informal mediator, he had no authority to do so. As for the whole compromise issue, as I've already pointed out, different propositions have already been presented by both Scoobycentric and I (see my reply to him above from 21:59, 22 July 2010). It's you that for whatever reason refuses to address or, indeed, even acknowledge them. Middayexpress (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So if you are, indeed, willing to compromise, which of options 2-5 would you be most likely to compromise on given the best wording? If you say "none of them", then you aren't willing to compromise. --Taivo (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained several times before (and will keep doing so if need be), both Scoobycentric and I have already pointed out the fact that we are fully aware that there are only two real options (see the posts above from 20:38, 21 July 2010 and 01:00, 22 July 2010, respectively): either to include the Somaliland region of Somalia in some capacity amongst the list of actual nations that are commonly understood to constitute East Africa (the so-called "options" 2-5 -- which, in reality, are only one option dressed up to look like multiple options) or to not include it at all (option 1). In his post above from 20:02, 22 July 2010, Scoobycentric already offered a genuine compromise to this dichotomy: namely, to include Somaliland in the article, but in footnotes that fully explain its actual legal status. Since this proposition is much closer to WP:UNDUE's repeated instruction to cite views in direct proportion to their prominence, I did not dismiss it out-of-hand in my reply to his post. However, there were a few glaring factual errors in his proposed draft of the footnote that first needed correcting, which is what I tried to present in my reply from 21:59, 22 July 2010. It's this compromise that I was referring to in my posts above and which you still have yet to address. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taivo not a single one of your sources support the inclusion of Somaliland in whatever form(option 2-5) in what is commonly (collectively) known as East Africa. Your sources are either blatantly pushing the POV of the Somaliland government (A. Rabassa - recognition?), discussing Somali politics (and therefore could only belong in the relevant sections of the East Africa article), or have added alongside Somaliland places like Puntland and Zanzibar, that's hardly evidence of a shift in new literature about the mainstream definition of East Africa. I on the other hand have intentionally picked 12 sources published after the year 2000 by well known and established institutions and respected bodies of literature, none of which are arguing for the unity of Somalia, nor are they fighting the seccession of Somaliland. They have no connection to the Somali government, they are simply highlighting what is commonly known in the wider sense as East Africa. It's irrelevant that I don't consider Somaliland a sovereign state, it's irrelevant that you don't consider Somalia a functioning state, neither of us have the power to change what is in mass circulation across the world by institutions who have no horse in the matter of Somali politics. --Scoobycentric (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Scoobycentric, the sources I listed are not intended to "disprove" your sources. Your sources are reliable sources and I have no quibble with them. What my sources demonstrate, however, is that listing Somaliland as a part of East Africa is not WP:FRINGE and that mentioning it in some way on the list of countries for East Africa does not violate WP:UNDUE. Whether you "agree" with the POV of one of the sources doesn't invalidate the fact that these sources are all reliable sources and they all link Somaliland with the term "East Africa", either in the text or in the title of the article/chapter/book. There is a big difference between a fringe position (hardly worthy of mention except in an article on fringe views (see Masonic conspiracy theories for example)) and a minority position, which is worthy of mention as a minority position. Fringe positions are typically advocated by one person, usually a non-academic, and copied by web sites, self-published volumes, etc. They radically differ in quality from minority positions as minority positions usually have many reliable sources published by academic presses. I have not advocated listing Somaliland without some sort of marking that its inclusion is special--footnote, parenthetical remark, italics, or a combination--and I don't think anyone else is advocating unmarked inclusion either. An unmarked reference to Somaliland would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, but the listing of a valid minority view found in reliable sources is not a violation of WP:UNDUE. --Taivo (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The notion that the Somaliland region of Somalia is a nation of its own is indeed a fringe view, as is the idea that it is commonly included among the mainstream definitions of what actual nations constitute East Africa. Per WP:FRINGE, a fringe view is as follows:

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."

For the purposes of the East Africa article, the field of study in question is geography. And as Scoobycentric has already pointed out with the many mainstream definitions of East Africa that he has cited from prominent geographical sources (not to mention the U.N. geoscheme on which the article is based), the Somaliland region of Somalia is not by any stretch of the imagination commonly included among the mainstream definitions of what nations constitute East Africa; that is a textbook fringe view. Middayexpress (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but you don't understand the notion of "depart significantly". WP:FRINGE is primarily an issue of science and ideas, not of political reality. Fringe theories are those such as "The Earth is Flat", "Atlantis is on the bottom of the Mediterranean near Cyprus", "Aliens interbred with apes to create humans", etc. They are easily recognized and their authors are those that we might label "kooks" in less polite contexts. Your use of that quote from WP:FRINGE here just shows that you don't understand what it is saying. "Minority" opinions, on the other hand, are those opinions that are held by respected members of the specialist community whose views are not held by the majority of specialists in the field. The minority view is certainly not "kooky", nor does it "depart significantly". The view that Somaliland is de facto independent and a part of East Africa does not "depart significantly" from the prevailing view. "Departing significantly" is saying something like "Somaliland's independence is a CIA myth to take control of the Horn of Africa for Exxon". That's a "fringe" theory. You need to get the difference between "fringe" and "minority" straight. --Taivo (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand WP:FRINGE just fine, thanks. You claim that "WP:FRINGE is primarily an issue of science and ideas, not of political reality". However, nowhere on that actual policy page is this indicated. In fact, the policy explains that the notion of fringe views applies to all ideas that significantly depart from mainstream views in any field of study (not just science):

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

For the purposes of the East Africa article, the field of study in question is geography. And as Scoobycentric has already pointed out with the many mainstream definitions of East Africa that he has cited from prominent geographical sources (not to mention the U.N. geoscheme on which the article is based), the Somaliland region of Somalia is not by any stretch of the imagination commonly included among the mainstream definitions of what nations constitute East Africa. That indeed makes the proposal to mention the region in the article's introduction alongside actual nations that are commonly considered to constitute the East Africa region (Somalia, in particular) a fringe view. It's time to abandon this fringe view and start addressing the only actual compromise that has been presented thus far i.e. Option 1a below. Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

With every post you stretch your personal interpretation of "fringe" further and further from what it actually is. Did you actually read the quote you posted? Notice that last sentence--"conspiracy theories, esoteric claims about medicine, novel reinterpretations of history, etc." There is a country named "Somaliland". It doesn't exist as a "fringe" theory--it exists. It is a de facto independent country. There's no "fringe" about it. Ask any editor at Encyclopedia Britannica whether or not the government in Hargeisa reports to the government in Mogadishu and they will say, "No". There's no "reinterpretation" going on at all. That's not a "fringe theory". The question here is whether we include that separate country in a list of East African countries. That's not a question of "fringe" at all. Somaliland exists in reality whether the international community recognizes that reality or not. "Fringe" is for pipe dreams (aliens breeding with apes), bad science (flat earth), revisionist history (no Holocaust), not for facts on the ground (you can stand on the soil of Somaliland in Hargeisa and see the Somaliland flag flying and shake hands with its head of state). We are talking about the relevance of international recognition to Wikipedia's usage. That's all. That's not a question of "fringe", but a question of how much reliance Wikipedia places on international political POV. --Taivo (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read your remarks (not actual policy), whereas I actually cite the relevant policy itself when responding (not a "personal interpretation"). The policy itself, WP:FRINGE, clearly indicates that if a view significantly departs from the mainstream one held in the field of study in question (which, in the case of the East Africa article, is geography), then it's a fringe view, plain and simple. As Scoobycentric in particular has already pointed out, Somaliland is not at all commonly included among the definitions of what actual nations constitute the East Africa region that are cited in mainstream geographical sources. Furthermore, as has also already explained before, you consistently mistake autonomy and state-like institutions for actual nationhood. No one disputes that the Somaliland region has state-like institutions and is autonomous, just like the adjacent Puntland region has and is. It's the notion that this de facto autonomy is equated with "nationhood" by the world that is patently false. The notion of Somaliland's "de facto" nationhood itself has no prominence either. That's why that quote I produced earlier indicates that since Somaliland "cannot win the argument for de jure recognition... they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer." And that too is based on actual fact, not "personal interpretation". Middayexpress (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You also consistently confuse de jure and de facto. International recognition is not a de facto determination, but a de jure determination. De facto is based on practical independence from another nation, which Somaliland has. You can't have "de facto recognition"; recognition is strictly de jure. The United States cannot say, "We don't recognize you, therefore you don't factually exist." It can only say, "We don't recognize you, so we won't deal with you and we'll pretend for legal purposes that you don't exist." Sometimes I want to pretend that you don't exist, Middayexpress. But my recognition of your existence or my refusal to recognize you doesn't change the fact that you do, indeed, actually exist. I can pretend that you don't exist, but that doesn't change your existence. That's the difference between de jure (which we all agree Somaliland does not enjoy) and de facto, which you continually confuse with de jure. Recognition has absolutely nothing to do with actual existence as a state. (We're not talking about whatever you seem to mean by "nationhood", but its existence as a "state", see List of sovereign states for clarification. "Nation" is tied up with language, ethnicity, common history, etc. and is beyond the reach of our discussion.) So get your terminology straight--de jure is international, de facto is national. --Taivo (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I've repeated many times, I understand just fine what you are trying to say, but I nevertheless appreciate your lessons in international law. You are saying that Somaliland is a de facto independent state because it is autonomous and has state-like institutions and has declared independence. Understood. However, what you still fail to realize is that independence does not necessarily imply nationhood (which is what I presume you are really referring to when you indicated a little earlier that Somaliland "is a de facto independent country"). The neighboring Puntland region, for instance, also has pretty much all of the state-link attributes Somaliland has. Like Somaliland, Puntland has its own Ministry of Planning and International Relations, as well as its own Ministry of Health, Education, etc.. It also has its own army and flag, no different than the Somaliland region. It even has its own welfare agency {[1]), the first of its kind in Somali history. Like Somaliland, moreover, Puntland's residents also don't pay taxes to the federal government of Somalia, but to the Puntland administration. Similarly, Somaliland's "relations" with foreign governments are no different to those of Puntland. Somaliland government officials are regarded and dealt with as regional representatives by actual federal governments such as the U.S. government. The passports the Somaliland government prints are likewise unrecognized, which is why Somalis from the region, whether they want to or not, must use the official passport of Somalia or other actually recognized foreign passports just to travel abroad ([2]). So the only really meaningful difference between Puntland (an autonomous region in Somalia whose official name is actually the Puntland State of Somalia) and Somaliland (a region that is likewise internationally recognized as an autonomous region in Somalia) is that the government of the latter Somali region has unilaterally declared secession from the rest of the country -- a declaration of independence which the international community as a whole has not recognized despite almost 20 years of campaigning on the part of the region's government. And that's why it always does indeed come back down to recognition. While you are correct that, strictly speaking, a state and a nation are not the same thing, in common parlance, they are often used interchangeably, which is precisely why we cannot try and imply that the Somaliland region is in any way a "nation" of its own by using the term "state" in place of its colloquial synonym "country". The list of territories cited in the East Africa article that are commonly included in mainstream definitions of the region are also all countries (not just governing institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory i.e. states, in the strict sense of the term), which only serves to make the juxtaposing of the Somaliland region of Somalia next to these actual countries even more out-of-place, placing undue weight on what is essentially an autonomous region. Middayexpress (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You neglect to mention that while Puntland is autonomous, it works for the reunification of Somalia and does not claim to be independent. That is the key difference between the two entities. I admit, I do not know much about the relations between the TFG and Puntland, but if they exist at all, tehn they're a leg up from Somaliland's relation. Also we should be specific in differentiating between the use of 'state', 'nation' and 'country'. And when we use 'state', we should distinguish between the federated and the sovereign. It would really make our discussion more clear. Outback the koala (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not neglect to mention that while Puntland, like Somaliland, is an autonomous region, it does not claim independence; viz: "So the only really meaningful difference between Puntland (an autonomous region in Somalia whose official name is actually the Puntland State of Somalia) and Somaliland (a region that is likewise internationally recognized as an autonomous region in Somalia) is that the government of the latter Somali region has unilaterally declared secession from the rest of the country -- a declaration of independence which the international community as a whole has not recognized despite almost 20 years of campaigning on the part of the region's government." I agree that we should be specific in the terminology we use; however, that doesn't just apply to this discussion page, but to the East Africa article as well. Middayexpress (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad we agree on the terms. Yes, that Somaliland is de facto independent and claims to be so as a state, I think, is significant and key to this whole discussion. If tomorrow they sought reunification with the rest of Somalia and achieved that, then I would not be arguing for inclusion. But the fact remains that this little state exists as an unrecognized sovereign entity. The only argument I can think of against this is the micronation argument, and we know that would be absurd. I don't know where this is going, this seems very repetitive. Also, I dont see you commenting on options 2-5 at all. Thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So-called "options" 2-5 have been repeatedly addressed by both myself and Scoobycentric; e.g.:

"There are indeed two extremes here. However, you have so far only expressed support for very slight variations of exclusively one of these extremes: namely, to fully mention Somaliland in the article's intro alongside actual nations in East Africa, including, most importantly, Somalia itself. This is not by any stretch of the imagination a compromise and never has been. It is minor formatting variations on the same theme (an actual compromise has already been presented by Scoobycentric and refined by me). It is also indeed undue weight on what is a fringe view (see my latest post in the "options" section above)."

We also do not agree on the terms nor did I ever say we did; I merely indicated that we should be specific in terminology. The fact is, the term "state" cannot be used to describe Somaliland since it is not a sovereign state, and that is usually what the term is taken to mean. In fact, as I write this, there is a debate going on elsewhere on Wikipedia regarding the proposed merger of the State (polity) article with the Sovereign state article specifically because, in common parlance, the term "state" is just a synonym for "country", as is "nation". And Wikipedia is ultimately directed at a general audience. Further, the Somaliland region by definition cannot seek "reunification" with the rest of Somalia since it is still legally a part of the country. This is a fact that is acknowledged by the international community as a whole, protected by international instruments (e.g. the UN charter; [3]), and established by the Act of Union -- a Union that can only be legally dissolved via a four-fifths majority of all Somali voters ([4]), not by a unilateral declaration of independence that the world at large does not recognize ([5]). Somaliland is thus literally just another autonomous region of Somalia, like Puntland. The only thing left to discuss is therefore the actual contents/phrasing of the sole compromise that has been tabled i.e. Scoobycentric's proposal (Option 1a) to indeed cite Somaliland in the article, albeit via a footnote -- thus bringing the edit much closer in proportion to the prominence of the view that the region constitutes an independent nation of its own. Middayexpress (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You still have no concept of de facto sovereign, Middayexpress, and everything you say concerns de jure status only. No one disputes that Somaliland does not have de jure sovereignty. But to claim that just because some paper says so, Somaliland is not de facto sovereign is to put on blinders to the reality and to ignore the fact of the matter that Somalia exercises absolutely no sovereignty over Somaliland nor does Somaliland accept Somalia's paper-only de jure sovereignty. Let's see, by your arguments, Middayexpress, the United States was not independent until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed and England relinquished its claim of sovereignty over the colonies. Remember that throughout the Revolution only two other states recognized the sovereignty of the U.S. --Taivo (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For the millionth time, I understand you just fine. You are saying that Somaliland is a de facto independent state because it is autonomous and has state-like institutions and has declared independence. Got it. I don't believe you understand me, though. What I am trying to explain to you is two simple things: 1) Somaliland is not any more an "independent country" than Puntland is; the only thing that differentiates these two autonomous regions of Somalia is that the former declared an independence no one in the world recognizes and the latter hasn't. 2) no country recognizes Somaliland on both a de jure or a de facto basis. The source I supplied does not state that Somaliland is not de facto sovereign, as you have suggested above. It does something much more powerful than that: it indicates that because no one recognizes Somaliland on a de jure (i.e. legal) basis, the region's secessionist government has no choice but to try and get the international community to at least on an informal basis equate the territory's autonomous status with nationhood rather than as merely an autonomous region of Somalia. But no one recognizes Somaliland as a separate country on that de facto basis either, and that's the point; only the secessionists themselves and their few sympathizers do (which is a fringe view). Furthermore, Somaliland is indeed ultimately and legally subject to Somalia, whether its secessionist government wants it to be or not. This is why, for example, it can't even access development funding ([6]), and why the region's residents must travel with a Somali passport every time they just want to journey abroad ([7]). That, I'm afraid, most certainly does not a "sovereign country" make, nor is it on "paper-only", but rather is all too real. It also doesn't exactly help the argument that Somaliland is a "de facto sovereign country" when, ironically, its own secessionist government doesn't even control almost half of its claimed territory -- territory it didn't even have de jure/legal possession of to begin with. But all of this doesn't really matter since the Somaliland region of Somalia isn't even included anyway among the mainstream geographical definitions of which actual countries commonly constitute the East Africa region. It is therefore high time to start discussing the actual contents of the footnote, the only real compromise that has been tabled and the only option that actually brings the edit much closer in proportion to the prominence of the view that the region constitutes an independent nation of its own. Middayexpress (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you talk about international recognition, you move from de facto to de jure and talking about de facto at that point is pointless. You've made it plain that you don't want to accept the well-researched and well-sourced definition of de facto that we are using in Wikipedia in other places (List of sovereign states, for example). It's clear that you are unwilling to move out of your "international recognition is all that matters" mindset. --Taivo (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There are two distinct types of recognition of a territory: de jure and de facto. Somaliland has neither, as I've explained above. It doesn't even control almost half of its claimed territory. Were the region legally recognized as a country of its own (like Somalia is), this inability of its local government to extend control over large parts of its claimed territory wouldn't matter from a sovereignty perspective; it would still be recognized as an actual country like other actual countries with rebel movements are (Somalia, for example). The only hope Somaliland really had of being acknowledged as a nation of its own is, of course, on a de facto basis. But even on that tenuous, non-legal basis, its lack of control over almost half its own claimed territory disqualifies it as such. That makes the notion that the region's autonomous status (which is analogous to Puntland's de facto autonomy) is synonymous with independent nationhood a fringe view, limited to the secessionists themselves and a few sympathizers. I also disagree that the source used to cite the material on that article linked to above (an article other users involved in this dispute regularly edit) supports what's indicated there. In fact, the BBC profile of the Somaliland region is classed under the 'Regions and territories' section of the website's drop down menu on the right, as is Puntland. Only Somalia itself, of which both autonomous regions are internationally recognized as being a part, is classified under the actual 'Country' section. But like I wrote earlier, none of this really matters since the Somaliland region of Somalia isn't even included anyway among the mainstream geographical definitions of which actual countries commonly constitute the East Africa region. It therefore cannot be cited alongside actual countries -- Somalia in particular -- without breaching WP:UNDUE. The next best thing is therefore to footnote it and its legal status. We must now decide on what material that actual footnote should contain. Middayexpress (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are once again inventing your own definition of de facto statehood. The criteria used is the Declarative theory of statehood, to which the Wikipedia community has agreed (for quite a while now) Somaliland fulfills. Until consensus changes, and Somaliland is effectively disqualified under this category, there remains the requirement (as per WP:NPOV) to list it as a country in the objective sense, with caveats and disclaimers pointing out its unrecognised status. Somaliland is not normally listed as a "country" in mainstream lists of any space (East Africa, Africa, Earth), but we include it because there is a dispute, and because the legal stuff doesn't matter when you look at things objectively.

If you want to challenge the consensus and discuss whether Somaliland meets the criteria, say so, and we'll set up a different thread. But don't expect to apply your own interpretations as you're doing above, since the last time you tried, you were unable to verify them, and were refuted with sources explicitly stating the opposite. Night w (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A week has passed, and I see that some of the participants are accepting the fact that no respected body of literature includes Somaliland under the East Africa definition, and none are under the delusion that the dozen concrete sources in the form of encyclopedias, books, studies etc are in the service of the Somali government (i.e pushing the latter's POV), nor are they fighting the seccession of Somaliland, that is a good sign of progress. I would advise Nightw to stop referencing wikipedia itself as a stick to measure what is legitimate, or not:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. -- WP:UNDUE

With no sources to back inclusion we are actually under no obligation to include it in whatever shape or form, it doesn't matter that there is a new concensus amongst a group of editors to add it in wikipedian invented lists, this does not automatically equal inclusion on articles that are defined by academic sources. A dispute involving one single wiki-editor with an academic mainstream source detailing the sky is blue versus a hundred sourceless wiki-editors who agree the sky has many colors, would ultimately always end in the single wiki-editor's favor, if the rules were applied. Therefore meddling with a mainstream definition just to serve a minority view is definitely UNDUE. If you want to mention it, then either do it through a footnote accompanying the sourced country, or mention this minority view in a proper context, as i earlier highlighted this would be in the conflict section or a politics section. --Scoobycentric (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Scoobycentric, you have ignored the fact that there are reliable sources that do list Somaliland as a part of East Africa. They are not the sources you've listed, of course, but reliable sources that list Somaliland are not difficult to find. I've demonstrated that. So for you to state categorically that no reliable sources list Somaliland is false. And you have mistaken our relative silence for the past few days as acquiessence. You are wrong in that assumption. We are waiting to see if our mediator has any thoughts or suggestions. Option 1 and 1a are still unacceptable to me. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I must concur with Scoobycentric and request that you stop referencing non-policy Wikipedia pages, as if whatever happens on them has any sort of binding power (much less with regard to this specific medcab case). And even if it were otherwise, the Somaliland region would still abysmally fail the permanent population and defined territory criteria of that definition of de facto statehood that you cite above since it doesn't even control almost half of its claimed territory, nevermind the people on it ([8]):

Somaliland is situated in Somalia’s northwest. It declared unilateral independence from the rest of the Somali state in 1991 and has since been campaigning for international recognition. Somaliland’s functional administration is limited principally to the Western part of the former British protectorate as the Eastern part has been a disputed area between Puntland and Somaliland regional states for a good time. It is also worth to mention that a third group under the name of HBM-SSC (Hoggaanka Badbaadada iyo Mideynta SSC) that is campaigning from a unionist platform and whose goal is the creation of their own regional adminstration (Sool, Sanaag & Cayn) in their own land to counterbalance what they see as a domination of their homeland by alien clans- Somaliland and Puntland- has further mudded up the already murky politics of the region. HBM-SSC and Puntland state share among other things the unionist platform and to some degree clan affiliations. The possibility of them ironing their difference in a short time appears to be within reach as the point of contention is limited only to the establishment of SSC (Sool, Sanaag and Cayn regions) administrative region. HBM and Somaliland have no common ground to negotiate about because of the obsession of the latter on a secessionist agenda that has a minority audience in the Somali political circles.

The fact remains that the Somaliland region of Somalia isn't included anyway among the mainstream geographical definitions of which actual countries commonly constitute the East Africa region, nor has any reliable source yet been produced suggesting that it is. There is no obscuring this basic fact. The region therefore cannot be cited alongside actual countries -- Somalia in particular -- without breaching WP:UNDUE's proportionality clause. WP:FRINGE likewise clearly indicates that if a view significantly departs from the mainstream one held in the field of study in question (which, in the case of the East Africa article, is geography), then it's actually a fringe view:

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."

The footnote proposal is still thus the only real compromise that has been tabled, especially since it's the only option that actually brings the edit much closer in proportion to the prominence of the view that the region constitutes an independent nation of its own. Citing the Somaliland region of Somalia alongside other actual nations (albeit in italics or some other minor formatting variation) does not even come close to doing this, but quite the opposite. Middayexpress (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're missing what I think is Scoobycentric's larger point, and that is that it is not difficult to find any old source to support one's claims, no matter how preposterous. For instance, that same Lonely Planet publisher you referenced earlier refers to Puntland as a "separate country" ([9]), although this territory too, like Somaliland, is actually just an autonomous region of Somalia. If a determined individual wanted to include Puntland as a separate "nation" in the East Africa article in question, all he or she would then ostensibly have to do is to produce that source or a few like it and invoke WP:RS. However, while reliable sources are indeed important, they're not nearly the end of the story. WP:NPOV adds the key additional caveat that significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources must be cited "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"" and that "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." And as we've already seen, the notion that the Somaliland region of Somalia is a nation of its own is indeed a fringe view, as is the idea that it is commonly included among the mainstream definitions of what actual nations constitute East Africa. If you disagree with the Scoobycentric's footnote proposal, you must at least present an explanation as to why exactly citing the Somaliland region alongside Somalia and other actual nations -- as every other supposed "option" proposes to do -- isn't, in fact, giving undue weight to a tiny minority viewpoint. You must also, in turn, explain why the footnote proposal likewise doesn't come closer to presenting the Somaliland region in actual proportion to the prominence of the view that it constitutes a country of its own. This takes some doing. Middayexpress (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Any old source". You focus on the Lonely Planet volume, but choose to ignore the other volumes I listed which were all academic sources and all described Somaliland as part of East Africa. You are working under WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Taivo (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not focused on the Lonely Planet source. I merely cited it to illustrate the fact that it is not difficult to find any old source to support one's claims, no matter how absurd or out-of-step with reality. However, the fact remains that, while reliable sources are indeed important, they're not nearly the end of the story. WP:NPOV still specifies that significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources must be cited "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"" and that "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." And as we've already seen, the notion that the Somaliland region of Somalia is a nation of its own is still very much indeed a fringe view, as is the idea that it is commonly included among the mainstream definitions of what actual nations constitute East Africa. None of the sources you cited are even definitions of the East Africa region, much less ones from mainstream geographical sources; they are carefully selected sources that aren't even in the field of study in question (i.e. geography). Since you disagree with Scoobycentric's footnote proposal, you must still at least present an explanation as to why exactly citing the Somaliland region alongside Somalia and other actual nations -- as every other supposed "option" proposes to do -- isn't, in fact, giving undue weight to a tiny minority viewpoint. You must also, in turn, explain why the footnote proposal likewise doesn't come closer to presenting the Somaliland region in actual proportion to the prominence of the view that it constitutes a country of its own. I'm all ears. Middayexpress (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Option 1a

(I have copied these comments from above since they relate to this option.) --Taivo (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Before stepping down as mediator, Ronk01 proposed an interesting solution on the userpage of Middayexpress (see here: One editor I spoke to outside of the mediation suggested giving Somalia a footnote, and mentioning Somaliland in the footnotes. What is your opinion of that? -- Ronk01 talk, 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)), which if had been proposed earlier as a substitute for the then locked option 1, would have made the mediation alot more balanced, this proposed option adds to Somalia a footnote, example:

East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia , Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan.

This an option i would be willing to back, it does not compromise the mainstream definition of East Africa, yet at the same time singles out Somalia amongst the other nine countries for its political situation, giving the reader the incentive to investigate and click on the footnote, which could contain the following:

"Somaliland is a de facto state with limited recognition which is claimed in whole by Somalia as its de jure sovereign territory."

Evendo being knowledgable of the situation on the ground and personally disagreeing with the use of de facto or limited recognition, i would be willing to compromise and have this sentence constructed by Outbackkoala in the footnote, and would also add the link of the States and regions of Somalia article to get an even bigger picture and understanding of the Somali political landscape. Anything more than this is UNDUE weight towards a minority view, that is easily outweighted on a scale, when put next to the mountain of NPOV sources about the definition of East Africa. --Scoobycentric (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your post above, especially the footnote part. However, I disagree with your suggestion that the footnote should read "Somaliland is a de facto state with limited recognition which is claimed in whole by Somalia as its de jure sovereign territory", primarily because it contains factual errors. For one thing, Somaliland does not have limited recognition as a state; it has no recognition at all as such, neither de jure nor de facto -- the international community as a whole recognizes the region as a part of Somalia. The phrase would therefore at the very least have to be amended to read "Somaliland is a self-declared republic with no recognition, which is claimed in whole by Somalia as its sovereign territory and internationally recognized as a part of Somalia." Middayexpress (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Option 2

• In my opinion, italics are practical in a table format, but maybe not so in a body of text, where it would be difficult to designate their meaning. Parentheses would be simpler and more effective. Night w (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• For use within an article this does not make sense. As night w states, it does work for tables (and indeed is in use in this way on pages such as List of countries and territories by continent for example). I would exclude this option for widespread use. Outback the koala (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• This doesn't make sense within an article, but is useful in templates, such as at Ossetic language and Abkhaz language, especially when combined with a brief note in small type. It is also commonly used for Palestine. --Taivo (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Option 3

This is the method adopted on the Caucasus page. Alternatives to wording, such as that suggested by the mediator above, are a good way to explore the merits of this option.

• Both simple and practical, but as mentioned in Outback's statement, may perhaps imply the wrong thing unless the wording is as effective as can be. Perhaps the word "including" should be replaced with "as well as", or something similar. This demonstrates the reality of its separate existence, and the opinion (as held by the international community) that this existence is invalid is demonstrated through the parentheses. The Caucasus page uses "including disputed" to denote its breakaway states. If we can agree on the wording, my vote remains with this option. Night w (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• I disagree with the use of this option because of the wording involved, and the display of a state in parenthesis with another state makes the first state appear to be a dependent or special territory. Except in some cases of Free Association, this should not be allowed anywhere in the project. We would not list the People's Republic of China (including the breakaway island of Chinese Taipei) because that would not be NPOV; I see a parallel to this example. It implies that the entity is non-sovereign thus excluding the Somaliland position from the equation. The use of the word state is also muddled as it is made hard to distinguish between a Federated state and a Sovereign state. Outback the koala (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• I also disagree with this option unless the "as well as" wording is used. "Including" contradicts the "de facto sovereign" status that has been established at List of sovereign states. --Taivo (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've modified the wording on this option, as nobody supported the previous. Night w (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I still disagree with putting Somaliland in parenthesis as it makes it appear non-sovereign/non-independent, which it de facto is, as we all know. I still see this option as not NPOV. Outback the koala (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Option 4

This is the method adopted for articles related to Kosovo.

• In my opinion, I think the template is a good solution for related articles (e.g. Zeila, instead of needing to clarify the situation, a footnote would be more efficient). However, on a page where Somaliland may be listed alongside other states, this may perhaps be a bit too minimal, especially when another ref will be sitting alongside for the source. It should be noted that the Balkans page currently uses a combination of methods when it comes to Kosovo, which is listed there in italics, and attached with both an inline note "(partially recognized)" and the template footnote. Night w (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Night w, I've added a slightly modified version of Option 4, which uses a note that would be listed separately from the references. PhilKnight (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• This would be the best solution. A fixing it with a clear n-1 note would distinguish the note from a citation and would allow for a full blurb explaining the situation further. In listing the note I would put the following "Somaliland is a de facto state with limited recognition which is claimed in whole by Somalia as its de jure sovereign territory." I think this would be a full and neutral explanation. It also links away to where the reader can get a better explanation, if they so choose. Likely the best solution. Outback the koala (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Once a good neutral wording is agreed to, this is the best solution. --Taivo (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Option 5

• An inline note, whether in parentheses or not (i.e. "Somaliland (unrecognised)" or "unrecognised Somaliland") is effective and practical, but would probably need additional clarification with a footnote. Night w (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with this form, but not with the wording. A better form would be "Somaliland (a state with limited recognition)". This form is clear, concise and also links away to where the reader can get a better explanation, if they so choose. This is an acceptable solution if the correct political diction is used. Outback the koala (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Option 6

• Table format, taken from the Middle East page. Needs filling in, obviously. A simpler alternative is on the East Asia page. Night w (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

State, with flag	Area		Population	Density		Capital	GDP		Currency	Government	Official languages
	km2	sq mi		/km2	/sq mi		Per capita	Total
United Nations subregion:
Burundi
... others ...
Geographical additions:
Egypt
Somaliland 1
Sudan
Notes: 1 Insert note on status... May also use parentheses instead of footnote.

• The advantage of such a table is that it could be used in the article on every region and could be fairly easily standardized. The italicizing convention is one that is already in use for Palestine, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc. in other contexts, and, as I recall, for Palestine on the Middle East table. --Taivo (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of the question. For starters, invoking whatever happens on other editable, non-policy Wikipedia pages has no binding power of any sort. Further, this is still more juxtaposing of Somaliland -- a territory that (like adjacent Puntland) is internationally recognized as an autonomous region in Somalia -- alongside actual countries that are, by contrast, commonly understood to constitute the East Africa region. The 'Geographical additions' section is completely original research. It also still fails to get around the basic fact that Somaliland is not even uncommonly (nevermind commonly) included among mainstream geographical definitions of what actual countries constitute the East Africa region, though both Egypt and Sudan both obviously are. Middayexpress (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about the "not even uncommonly" part and I've listed several reliable sources below that treat Somaliland as part of East Africa. --Taivo (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources you cited are not in any way definitions of the East Africa region, much less mainstream ones from the field of study in question (i.e. geography). As I already alluded to in earlier comments, WP:RS does not only insist that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It also indicates that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available" but that "some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field", so it is therefore important to "cite scholarly consensus when available". As it so happens, scholarly consensus is indeed available, has been repeatedly cited by me, and certainly does not include the fringe notion that Somallland (a territory internationally recognized as a part of Somalia) is commonly considered one of the actual countries that constitute the East Africa region. Middayexpress (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions elsewhere

At Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Somaliland another mirror conversation has sprung up regarding the same topic that is being discussed here. I have commented there, as has another editor involved here, but I'm not sure if we should syntheses the conversations. Other editors thoughts? Mediators? Outback the koala (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

With the mediators' permission, I would invite them to comment in this discussion, providing (oh please) that they review what has already been said. Outback and I, I think, are already of the idea that the outcome of this case will be used as a governing precedent for these kinds of debates to come. Inviting users whom may interested would officially broaden the scope of this case to all areas of the encyclopaedia. Mediators? Night w (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As i noted in my opening statement I will question the inclusion of a seccessionist entity whose de facto status is refuted by reliable scholarly sources, the following uninvolved editor Itsmejudith made an even better point on the NPOV/N board:

A straightforward guiding principle will be to mention Somaliland and other disputed areas when they are relevant. And not when they are not. The original question related to the definition of East Africa. East Africa is a top-level article that will be accessed by many general readers with little knowledge of the area. The definition of the area in the lead paragraph needs to fulfil its purpose, which is to let people know what is and what isn't usually included in the area. You don't even have to do that by a list of all the countries, you can do it by only mentioning the ones in the north, south and west that are on the boundaries. Which is why my original answer was: you could go either way, mention Somaliland or leave it out, it doesn't matter very much. I don't think it would be right to have a general rule. Somaliland is a notable topic that must be included somewhere in the encyclopedia, but it doesn't have to be mentioned at every point -- Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a clear case of UNDUE weight being forced into multiple articles without reliable sources. This is unacceptable, and i fear if this mass push of UNDUE weight towards a minority view was in any topic not related to Somalia, this would not be allowed at all.--Scoobycentric (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Judith's suggestion was to list the frontier countries, and leave out the rest. Are you supporting that idea? because it seems as though you are simply using it to argue in favour of Somaliland's exclusion alone. Let's make our intentions here clear: If you are (once again) going to attempt to argue against Somaliland's de facto independence, then please do say so, because that's a different matter entirely. The idea that it is has been the consensus for years; it was added to the List of sovereign states in 2004. If you are going to argue that it does not fulfill the criteria set out on that page (i.e. that of the declarative theory), then this would instead be a discussion regarding its inclusion on that list, which should take place in a separate thread. As long as it remains on that list, it should be treated in the same way that the other 9 are. Night w (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A review of the sources

Here a some to start with:

• Allan, Pam (10 May 2006). "Republic of Somaliland Sovereignty". Private Members Statements. New South Wales Parliament.
• Lonely Planet. "History of Somaliland, Puntland & Somalia". Lonely Planet.
• BBC News (9 July 2003). "Somaliland's baby-delivering minister". British Broadcasting Corporation.
• "Chronology of Somalia's Oil and Gas Exploration Agreements: Part II (1990s)". Zooming into the Past. BiyoKulule Online. 29 January 1991.

The idea that we need exceptional sources to demonstrate Somaliland is geographically located in East Africa is absurd, considering that a) Somalia as a whole is already mentioned, and b) the map indicates that the territory of Somaliland is indeed included. If we are to exclude the territory of Somaliland from the definition of East Africa, then the map needs to be altered. Night w (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I had mentioned this source in my opening statements I wanted it to be here for all involved to read. It is a good scholarly article on the debate regarding Somaliland's de facto statehood. Again; http://yalejournal.org/article/de-facto-statehood-strange-case-somaliland[10]. Outback the koala (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent link, Outback. Proves fairly conclusively that de facto sovereignty is a valid characterization of Somaliland's status. Very reliable source. --Taivo (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland in East Africa

Here are four books which clearly and unambiguously discuss Somaliland as being part of East Africa:

• Angel Rabasa, Radical Islam in East Africa, (2009, Rand Corporation) discusses Somaliland starting on page xiii where it recommends giving Somaliland diplomatic recognition.
  
• Deborah L. West, Combating Terrorism in the Horn of Africa and Yemen, (2004, Cambridge) has the statement: "After 9/11, renewed focus was brought to bear on East Africa. US intelligence developed information that training, equipment, ... It is now thought that al Qaeda has footholds in southern Somalia, Somaliland, east Kenya, and Zanzibar" in a chapter entitled, "Terrorism in East Africa."
  
• The Lonely Planet Guide to Africa lists a chapter "Somaliland, Puntland, and Somalia" (in that order) under the section "East Africa".
  
• Louise Andersen, Bjørn Møller, Finn Stepputat, Fragile states and insecure people?: violence, security, and statehood in the twenty-first century (2007, Dansk institut for internationale studier) includes a chapter by Ken Menkhaus called "Local Security Systems in Somali East Africa" (pp. 67-97) where he discusses Somaliland extensively as part of "Somali East Africa".

So the contention mentioned previously that Somaliland is never mentioned in the context of "East Africa" in reliable sources is clearly false. --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask here, is the Angel Rabasa book a NPOV source? Ronk01 talk

All sources are POV in the end, whether adopting the POV of the U.N., the POV of the author's government, the POV of Somalia, or the POV of Somaliland. I don't know the author's personal POV as I don't own a copy of the book. I conducted a restricted Google Books search for "Somaliland" & "East Africa" published after 2000 and this was on the first page of results. --Taivo (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No one claimed that Somaliland is not geographically located in East Africa. That is a strawman argument. Somalia itself is, after all, located in the region. The contention is that the Somaliland region is not commonly considered a nation in East Africa by mainstream definitions. And those links above in no way disprove or even address this basic fact (especially not that weird Lonely Planet juxtaposition of not only Somaliland with Somalia, but Puntland as well). Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is exactly what you are claiming--that Somaliland doesn't exist and it has been specifically stated here that no reliable source lists it as a nation of a region called "East Africa". --Taivo (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the East Africa article specifically, where this dispute originated. As I've stated above, the contention on that page is that the Somaliland region is not commonly considered a nation in East Africa by mainstream definitions. Middayexpress (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, "mainstream" to you means any source that you agree with and excludes those that you don't agree with. --Taivo (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, refer to strawman argument. Middayexpress (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We've already had that debate a thousand times before. The consensus was that, per WP:NPOV, we allow for both the objective and the subjective (and both sides of the subjective at that) to be represented. Night w (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You never had consensus, though you certainly tried to force it. And that was on that template page, not on the East Africa page over which this medcab case is about. Middayexpress (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" doesn't mean that you have to agree with it, Middayexpress. Consensuses are rarely unanimous. --Taivo (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." Middayexpress (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any effort on your part to compromise. Are you going to make a good faith effort to work together or are you going to continue pushing for Option 1? So far your efforts here have consisted of pushing the mediator out, implying that the alternate mediator is POV as well, and pushing for Option 1 without compromise. --Taivo (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You weren't even a part of that previous discussion (at least as far as I know), so you aren't in a position to tell me what I have or haven't done. Your attempts to try and strong-arm me into seeing things your way by depicting my objecting to a patently biased mediator and his hand-picked assistant as "unreasonable" is also an epic failure. I won't ever agree to your undue weight on a fringe, tiny-minority view, no matter how much you mischaracterize things or attack me. And FYI: there are and have only ever been two real options; either to include Somaliland in some capacity alongside actual nations in East Africa (i.e. the so-called "options" 2-5) or not to include it at all (option 1). And my position has been clear from the start, just as yours has. The difference is that I don't need to personally attack you to try and get you to change your position; I've got actual arguments and policies I can cite since Somaliland is, after all, internationally recognized as a part of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) And no one has ever denied that Somaliland is not recognized internationally in political circles. It is not de jure sovereign. It is, however, de facto sovereign and that is the part of the issue where you are wearing blinders and calling that fact "fringe/minority", etc. Your characterization of the acceptance of its de facto status as fringe is POV. As I have pointed out repeatedly, it was not hard at all to find reliable sources that treat Somaliland as a de facto sovereign state separate from Somalia. I didn't have to dig very deep at all. Fringe theories are not found in scholarly, academically-published works, but the treatment of Somaliland as a separate unit from Somalia is. Fringe theories are written by non-specialists, but Somaliland is treated as a de facto sovereign state by many specialists and academics. You don't understand what a "fringe" theory is if you think otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the notion that the Somaliland region of Somalia is a nation of its own is indeed a fringe view, as is the idea that it is commonly included among the mainstream definitions of what actual nations constitute East Africa. Let me define for you just what exactly a fringe view actually is per WP:FRINGE:

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."

For the purposes of the East Africa article, the field of study in question is geography. And as Scoobycentric has already pointed out with the many mainstream definitions of East Africa that he has cited from prominent geographical sources (not to mention the U.N. geoscheme on which the article is based), the Somaliland region of Somalia is not by any stretch of the imagination commonly included among the mainstream definitions of what nations constitute East Africa; that is a textbook fringe view. It also makes no difference at all as to how easy or difficult it was for you personally to find some random source that cites the territory as being located there, nor is there any Wikipedia policy that claims it does. As for the rest, refer to my latest post above for your reponse. Middayexpress (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Midwayexpress's response to question 3

I am rather interested in your answer to question three, could you please elaborate, if at all possible, as this may affect the course of this mediation. Ronk01 talk,

Not that it even matters, but I have already responded and pointed to a previous post of mine for elaboration. What is really affecting the course of mediation is your biased participation. And the sooner that that is out of the way, the better. Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an attempt to hear out and discuss your concerns, so please, I am very interested in what you (and all other editors) have to say regarding this issue, but I would remind all editors that overt hostility to participants is not acceptable. Ronk01 talk, 00:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is. Middayexpress (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify your above statement. Ronk01 talk, 01:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear that Middayexpress is completely unwilling to compromise or to accept any mediator who doesn't automatically toe his line. His comments to Ronk01 have been disrespectful and belligerent from the very beginnning. --Taivo (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it is nice to hear a reasonable voice on the topic, I am still waiting to hear back from Scoobycentric as to his opinion of me, but until we work this out, the mediation is in the hands of Blueraspberry. Ronk01 talk, 05:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

One can't very well respect a mediator that is anything but that. I can't say I'm surprised, though, that you should ignore this fact since he does, after all, share the exact same views as you and has also attempted to act on them too. As for any supposedly "rude" comment you claim I made, I can point to at least twice as many from you alone directed at me personally. Middayexpress (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your hand-picked assistant? I think not. Middayexpress (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry entered as an uninvolved editor on the NPOV/N discussion, before the current mediator became involved. What evidence do you have to suggest that s/he was "hand-picked", or that s/he mightn't be an able judge? Night w (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He has none, I've seem tactics like this in other mediations, the party in favor of the status quo will often attempt to stall at all costs. Ronk01 talk, 05:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. The user above was asked by you if he might be interested in following this mediation case. He then indicated that he "would like to offer to assist in mediation in any way I can if I am requested and if I am welcome because I think that mediation could be part of the resolution to this debate". After which point the biased mediator himself saw fit to ask the user above if he would be interested in acting as co-mediator or assistant mediator. That's exactly how it transpired per that assistant mediator's own words, so there's no point in denying it. Middayexpress (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

After all you've done here (and which I've logged point-by-point on my talk page), you should be the last person to talk about "tactics". Middayexpress (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have to suggest that Bluerasberry mightn't be an able judge? Night w (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the knowledge that all the parties that personally invited him, vouched for him, and appointed him, share opinions that are squarely and exclusively on the other side of the dispute. That, unfortunately, does not inspire confidence. And if Blueraspberry was being sincere in his opening remarks, then there shouldn't even be an issue with my taking exception to his taking over from the other mediator. Middayexpress (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Confidence Vote

Please Vote either "Confidence", or "No Confidence" to indicate your position on the current mediator, simple majority wins. If no confidence is demonstrated, I will leave this case to Blue Raspberry and reactor all of my comments. If confidence is voted, I will accept suggestions as to how my actions could be considered more NOPV during this mediation Ronk01 talk, 01:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment deleted as above stated.

Confidence

• Confidence. --Taivo (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Confidence. -- I don't understand fully why the mediator was called into question, but I find him to be fairly neutral. I can only assume discussion took place elsewhere that I am not aware of. Outback the koala (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No Confidence

• No Confidence. -- I have nothing against Ronk01 as a person, however this MedCab was undermined the moment the first option was deleted, that was a significant mistake. For example, you are currently engaged in another Medcab on a naming issue of a drug, where you are a participant. I'm certain of the fact that, had the current mediator of that discussion completely ruled out the option of naming it Epinephrine (your stand), and then revealed his personal bias for the option of adrenaline, you would have objected, and rightly so. Similarly in this case, the deletion of that first option undermined and ignored the immense weight of NPOV mainstream literature that has a clear definition of East Africa(that have no ties with Somalia or its government), which is the only thing we should be discussing, not potential precedents for thousands of unrelated articles or Taiwan. This takes the focus out of the dispute on what is commonly included in East Africa, which cannot be altered based on a wikipedia list of states. I commend the fact that you have stepped down, and my advise for you - in the role of mediator - of future discussions is to give each side a chance (to prevent undermining a particular side of the dispute), and before volunteering ask yourself if your biased to a particular side, if not, then make sure the focus stays on the dispute, with no additional elements of red herring. Take care. --Scoobycentric (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• No Confidence Per the post and my own earlier comments on this discussion page. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Abstaining

• Abstaining. To be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with the process of mediation used by Ronk01. The mediator is human, not a robot, and will inherently possess his or her own opinions about certain things. Disclosing such views or beliefs to the parties involved is arguably the more honest and respectable way to approach a case; it allows us to assess the mediator's decisions with that information in mind. What has not been proven is Ronk01's inability to mediate impartially, so I would argue that there is no grounds for accusations of bias. Having said that, both members of one party have asked for a replacement, so the mediation process will likely suffer if this does not take place. I'm declining to vote because I don't believe that a poll should decide; I feel the mediator needs to make their own decision regarding this issue. Night w (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Time for Arbitration

After reading through the page(I had been away due to RL commitments) all I can think is what a mess. I didn't know that Mediation requires voluntary compromise from those involved and is non-binding. With at least one editor here explicitly stating they will not compromise, we need to look at other options; namely Wikipedia:Arbitration. I believe here we would be able to finally get some action within the project on this matter. How to incorporate states with limited recognition into the project in an objective and neutral manner is an important that I believe is important enough to justify the attention of the committee. Before opening a case there I wanted to get some feedback from those involved here to whether this step is needed; is a viable solution; is a proportional next step in the resolution of this issue. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I do not seek to end discussion on this page. I will myself in continue in the discussion above and I hope others continue also. Outback the koala (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ArbCom rarely takes content disputes. Ronk01 talk, 05:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think this qualifies as it has such a vast range of effects across many pages in the project, as I have alluded to in the past. Outback the koala (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's clear to me as well that there is one editor who will not accept any mediator who disagrees with his position and who is unwilling to even discuss compromise. Ronk01 is right, that ArbCom doesn't like to take content disputes, but they can set up a more binding mediation format and provide an enforcement mechanism. WP:MOSMAC was the result of WP:ARBMAC2 and provided a mechanism for the resolution of the issue of what to call Macedonia within Wikipedia. I was involved in that process and the policy that was finally put into place has proven to be rather stable. --Taivo (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I disagreed with the outcome of that case. Not relevant, I know. I think that if we approach this in the right way, say for example, where and how to mention Somaliland across the encyclopaedia, they might consider it. Although, I'd prefer that to be the last resort. Does anyone have any objections to having Midday select one of the mediators involved in the Cabal, and request that he or she step in? Night w (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a policy like MOSMAC is exactly what is needed on this issue. Outback the koala (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If we wish to continue here, that is probably the only option--to let Middayexpress arrange for the next mediator. --Taivo (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unless Midday handpicks a mediator himself, we won't be able to move forward. Outback the koala (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, you are perhaps projecting your own requirements onto me. I don't need to preselect any mediator to ensure that the case is tipped in my favor (it already is by virtue of the fact that the entire world only recognizes Somaliland as a region of Somalia). What will happen is that the replacement mediator will return, learn of my objection to his participation, and if he is a sincere editor whose word actually means something, will then dutifully step aside and allow the case to be relisted under the relevant 'Cases needing mediators' field of the Mediation Cabal for another uninvolved, actually neutral mediator to take up. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Middayexpress has become deliberately disruptive, I have ceased to Assume Good Faith with his posts. I would recommend that the other involved parties request the he leave the case, at which time a new mediator could be selected. Ronk01 talk, 00:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the replacement voluntary mediator himself indicated in his opening remarks that he "would like to offer to assist in mediation in any way I can if I am requested and if I am welcome". Unless he was being insincere (which I highly doubt), then there shouldn't even be an issue with my taking exception to his taking over the mediation duties. I'm afraid your "neutral" attempts to constrain the other half of the dispute -- who don't, incidentally, share the same views as you -- have therefore yet again failed. Middayexpress (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in no way attempting to constrain either side here, and if I were, that would be outside of my prerogative as an outside observer. I am simply suggesting that since you are refusing to accept mediation in any form, that you should leave, so that the other parties can begin to achieve some measure of reasonable civil discourse, instead of having to defend each other from an editor who's sole intent appears to be the disruption of the mediation process. Ronk01 talk, 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've failed once again to cast aspersions on my edits since I clearly do support mediation in my latest comment above (from 23:28, 25 July 2010), and I even indicate how to organically achieve it without any party having to 'pre-select' any editor whom he or she personally approves of to fulfill those duties. You also describe yourself as an "outside observer", but this is utterly absurd given the fact that you are no longer mediator specifically because one side of the present dispute unanimously called for your resignation on the grounds that you are not at all neutral. So it's therefore actually you and your continuous attempts to act as an unofficial additional disputant for the other side of this medcab case that is what's disruptive. Middayexpress (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't need to preselect any mediator to ensure that the case is tipped in my favor (it already is by virtue of the fact that the entire world only recognizes Somaliland as a region of Somalia)." This tells me that the only "neutral" mediation in your eyes is one with your particular point of view. Accepting mediation requires a willingness to compromise, by stating that you will accept nothing other than the complete and total omission of Somaliland, you clearly state that you are not willing to compromise. Remember, me3diation is not arbitration, no mediator will make final decisions regarding content, though it is common practice to eliminate certain options temporary to encourage discussion and compromise, The ultimate goal of mediation is to enable disputing parties to compromise, not to decide for them, which means that sometimes, policy must be swept under the carpet. Ronk01 talk, 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit surreal to read you lecturing me on what mediation actually is when not too long ago on my own talk page, I had to remind you that you yourself had no authority to remove options presented by editors on one side of the dispute (but tellingly, never one's on the other side of the dispute that share your own views). Furthermore, your rather absurd attempt to insinuate that "the only "neutral" mediation in [my] eyes is one with your particular point of view" is probably one of your biggest mishits yet, since that entire paragraph you quoted that passage from and out-of-context is me explicitly rejecting the "offer" to preselect for myself a replacement mediator. You now talk about "compromise" by attempting to insinuate that one of the three actual options that are available is the only one I am interested in (as if that's a crime). However, in doing so, you only betray your own well-established non-neutrality since the third option was actually tabled by Scoobycentric and I. It's the other disputants that are the ones who are reluctant to consider other options (but of course, that doesn't bother you since your views are perfectly in line with theirs). Middayexpress (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how surreal, my comments are valid. It dosen't particularly matter that you declines, it matters what you said when you did, and what you said clearly established the fact that you will accept nothing less than absolute non-inclusion. (As a side note, Scoobycentric, to whom I have no objection, brought up the footnote idea, check the diffs.) Ronk01 talk, 02:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are not in the least bit valid. You quoted me out-of-context to try and suggest that I'm against mediation when, in fact, that entire post of mine (namely, the one above from 23:28, 25 July 2010) which you took that passage from and out-of-context is me explicitly rejecting the "offer" to preselect for myself a replacement mediator. Instead, I outlined specific steps as to how mediation can be organically achieved without any party having to 'pre-select' any editor whom he or she personally approves of to fulfill those duties. I'm also fully aware that Scoobycentric originally presented the only real compromise there is (and not any of the other editors whose exact views you share), and that I am the only editor to have even acknowledged that compromise to begin with & even suggested specific modifications to it to correct for basic factual errors. There is therefore no point here either in attempting to insinuate that I'm somehow trying to "appropriate" his compromise. A compromise is not contingent on who dreamt it up, but rather who supports it; if I agree with it in principle, then it obviously becomes my compromise too. Middayexpress (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this dispute should have stayed on the East Africa talk page, with each side presenting their arguments and sources, instead this was pushed to different noticeboards and eventually a medcab because there is the underlying issue of mass-generalising a state with no recognition in a multitude of articles, including this one, evendo inclusion in these phantom articles will each time have to satisfy wiki-policies such as verifiability and withstand the scrutiny that is UNDUE. While i have no problems at all with ARBCOM entering the scene, since our position in the form of NPOV mainstream sources for the definition of East Africa has been illuminated on this talkpage thoroughly, and hence i'm confident in the results of their deliberations, if any. I do have to add, that the way this dispute is continuesly diverted from it's original subject(East Africa) and into new forums of communication is unhelpful, and seems more like campaigning for a specific subject and hoping to achieve casus belli to mass-generalise the aforementioned subject. Also there is a difference between compromise(option 1a) and capitulation(option 2-5) when your case is rock solid; on the Milk article, the liquid's color is described as white, there is no mention of a multitude of different colors that exist on this planet(artificial or not), does that mean the Milk article's intro is denying these varieties? Of course not!, they are discussed in the relevant section of the article, but fact is; in mainstream literature, the conventional color of milk is White, none of the editors have to compromise this mainstream fact in whatever shape or form, same goes for the mainstream definition of East Africa. --Scoobycentric (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you on the fact of where it should be, and I do agree that the only real compromise is option 1a, but in order for mediation to be successful, it is vital that both sides do not view it as something that is "won" or "lost." Unfortunately, many participants here have that very misconception. Additionally, it is often good to have at least two possible compromises. In relation to Middayexpress, remember, I brought the compromise to his attention, and you proposed it, he only wanted to change it to better fit his POV, this along with his deliberate antagonism, does not paint the picture of an apt mediation participant. Ronk01 talk, 15:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems you have a rather short memory, so let me jog it a little for you: Scoobycentric, like me, has repeatedly expressed no confidence in your ability to neutrally mediate this case. That's who your incredulous talk of "neutrality" above is directed at. Attempting to paint me as a non-neutral party is likewise a futile and pointless exercise since all editors in this dispute by definition have viewpoints (and conflicting ones at that), which is why there is even a mediation case to begin with. Per WP:MEDIATION, it's actually mediators that are expected to be completely neutral so as to help resolve the dispute. Needless to say, you abysmally failed in that endeavor. Yet here you still are, insisting on continuing to take part, albeit as neither a mediator nor a participant but rather as an unofficial additional disputant on the other side of the case. This is very disruptive and in no way helps move the case forward. Lastly, you again betray your bias when you suggest that my suggestion to amend Scoobycentric's proposed footnote is a demonstration of POV since the original draft indicated that the region has limited recognition as a state, when in reality, it has no recognition at all as such. This doesn't help matters either. Middayexpress (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Scoobycentric, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a "fringe" position ("the earth is flat") and a "minority" position ("string theory explains gravity"). You seem to think that dealing with Somaliland is like dealing with a fringe position rather than a minority position. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Minority positions are supported by a portion of the specialist community that is non-trivial and can be verified in reliable sources, including multiple academically-published works. The sources I posted are sufficient to show that treating Somaliland as a part of East Africa is a valid minority position. Fringe positions on the other hand are usually from a single (often non-academic) source at their core and are most often found on web sites and self-publications and almost never in academically-published sources. Greenberg's classification of Native American languages is a minority position, not a fringe view. The notion that the languages of California are related to Hungarian is a fringe position. Fringe positions can generally be ignored in Wikipedia, minority positions should be recognized as valid alternatives. The position of Somaliland in a list of East African countries is a valid minority view, not a fringe position. Listing it as a non-footnoted, full member of East Africa would be WP:UNDUE. Listing it with a valid notation of its minority status in some way is not. There are two extremes here--ignore Somaliland and list Somaliland without note. Both are incorrect approaches. All the other options are compromises from the extremes. The question is which of the continuum of options is the most appropriate way to 1) list the minority view, and 2) mark the minority view as a minority view. --Taivo (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with much of Taivo's statement. It had not occurred to me previously that there could be a misinterpretation of the difference between a fringe position and a minority position, but now I see this could be a clear possibility. It is important to keep in mind one's POV in these situations so they don't influence one's perception of other view points; it can be easy to see a minority position that one's disagrees with as a fringe position. I'm glad this was brought up because it is worth remembering. In the case we are discussing here, I do not view anyone's position as "fringe", including those I disagree with. I hope all editors here share my view for the above stated reasons. However some positions here are not minority at all; such as the fact that Somaliland exists de facto independently from Somalia currently. That fact, for example, is something all sides I think can agree upon as being not minority or fringe. Outback the koala (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are indeed two extremes here. However, you have so far only expressed support for very slight variations of exclusively one of these extremes: namely, to fully mention Somaliland in the article's intro alongside actual nations in East Africa, including, most importantly, Somalia itself. This is not by any stretch of the imagination a compromise and never has been. It is minor formatting variations on the same theme (an actual compromise has already been presented by Scoobycentric and refined by me). It is also indeed undue weight on what is a fringe view (see my latest post in the "options" section above). Middayexpress (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't change the numbering

Middayexpress, you have now twice tried to disrupt the discussion by renumbering the options above. The discussion below the options is based on the original numbers. I will continue to revert this change as disruptive of the flow of the discussion. You've made your point, now move on to productive discussion. If you have other (new) comments to make, then make them, but don't disrupt the numbering. --Taivo (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I cannot say that I'm surprised that you would revert. Unfortunately, that won't make the issue any more about "numbering" than it originally was, nor will it make so-called "options 2-5" any less minor changes in formatting dressed up to look like "compromises". It is good to see, however, that you at least had the common sense to try and restore my several posts that you conveniently deleted in your knee-jerk revert. Middayexpress (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no "knee-jerk" about it. Since the discussion was all tied to the numbers 1-5, your WP:POINTy edit was simply disruptive. I could have just left your edits in the trash, but even though they add nothing to the discussion, they were not tied to the numbering issue. --Taivo (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you wish to keep pretending that so-called "options" 2-5 are "compromises" when all of them are really just formatting variations on the same theme: citing the Somaliland region in the article's introduction alongside actual nations that are commonly considered to constitute East Africa -- Somalia included. My formatting changes reflect this, while yours predictably do not. By the way, your mass revert was most certainly a knee-jerk revert, since it completely removed all of my latest posts. I also see from your comments above that you have no regard for WP:TALK's specific instruction not to mess around with other users' posts. But I honestly can't say that surprises me either. By the way, I have restored the last remaining post of mine that you conveniently left out in your 'restorations'. Don't ever delete or in any way modify my comments again. Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for missing one of your repetitions while restoring your comments. I didn't notice it and I certainly didn't intentionally "forget" it. In the future, rather than combining disruptive edits with comments, I suggest that you separate the two so that the latter is not lost when the former is reverted. And if you don't want your edits reverted, then don't be continually disruptive. I reverted your renumbering once, so you should not have been surprised to have it reverted again. --Taivo (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As WP:TALK makes clear, you had no business removing another editor's talk page comments or in any way messing around with them in the first place. If the "numbering" were all you were concerned about, then that is all you should have restored. There was never any need for you to remove my comments, nor do you even have the authority to do so. Just be thankful I'm an understanding editor and have chosen this time to give you the benefit of the (huge) doubt. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

When you combine multiple comments into one posting as you are in the habit of doing, it becomes impossible to revert one piece of disruptive editing without removing all the other edits as well. Good editing practice is to make separate comments to separate sections in separate edits rather than combining an edit that you know is going to be reverted with edits that you wish to keep in place. Renumbering options when the following paragraphs clearly rely on the older numbering system was a disruptive edit since, in essence, it made you the editor that was changing the content of someone else's edit. Wikipedia's Talk pages are not sacred cows where you can just do whatever you want. If you post something disruptive (like renumbering) then it is every other editor's right to revert your edit so that their content is not disrupted. If you post a meaningless rant, then it can be removed. The renumbering was absolutely disruptive to the content of comments on this page and deserved to be reverted. --Taivo (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Absurd. The fact remains that if you had an issue with "numbering" -- a red-herring which has been debunked ad infinitum on this page -- then all you had to do was copy & paste the original formatting into the article. No one forced you to remove a succession of my posts; that was your own decision. And although you seemingly tried to redress what you belatedly realized was a grave error on your part by restoring my talk page comments -- posts that you had no business messing around with in the first place let alone removing -- you still rather conveniently neglected to restore one remaining post (a post which was actually a response to one of your own comments). I personally had to do that. I have repeatedly given you the benefit of the doubt (though I'm not sure why at this point), and simply pointed out that what you did was against WP:TALK so you would at least acknowledge your mistakes and not repeat them in the future. Instead of simply admitting that this is the case and moving on, you keep belaboring the point i.e. trying to WP:WIN. Let it go already. If anyone should be upset, it's me, not you; it's my talk page posts that were removed, not yours. Middayexpress (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There can truly be no more argument that you are here now to cause disruption to the mediation. Aside from almost never assuming good faith and attempting to provoke editors, you do not consider any option other than option one. You are obviously here not to participate in this mediation in any kind of a meaningful way. Please feel free to leave or if you wish to stay then at the very least start to be civil and constructive to the discussion. I am not the only editor here, I am sure, that would like you to act in a civil and mature manner. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you would like me to leave. Unfortunately, I'm not going anywhere nor can your misrepresentations above obscure the fact that no one on the other side of the dispute has yet made any sort of attempt at compromising at all. Only Scoobycentric has (and I endorse his proposal, with a few modifications). Instead, they (yourself included) have clung onto those four slightly altered versions of Option 2 masquerading as several different "compromises" (something which, incidentally, Scoobycentric has also pointed out): citing the Somaliland region in the article's introduction alongside actual nations that are commonly considered to constitute East Africa -- Somalia included. You have done your utmost to avoid even so much as addressing Scoobycentric's footnote proposal. But I can't say that this comes as a surprise either since it doesn't, after all, mention Somaliland alongside the actual country the entire world recognizes it as being a part of. You can keep trying the ad hominem, personal attack route all you want, but it won't intimidate me one bit or lend your arguments anymore credibility than they deserve. Middayexpress (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Now see here, I have not addressed Scooby's footnote proposal because I don't see how that and option 3 are much different - the only difference is that one uses parenthesis and the other, a footnote. I especially disagree with not having both states on the page, and I think that having it inside of a footnote hides the issue completely. I don't believe I attacked you, I only stated facts. Outback the koala (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Middayexpress to pick the next mediator--that way he can't waste our time with his accusations of bias. --Taivo (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that is what you were hoping for. Unfortunately, as I already explained in an earlier post, I have no interest (or need, for that matter) in pre-selecting a mediator that might be more likely to see things my way. Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Option 3" (i.e. "Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (as well as disputed Somaliland), Djibouti...") is massively different from the complete misnomer, "Option 1a", since the former still cites the Somaliland region in the article's introduction alongside actual nations in East Africa that are commonly considered to constitute the region, Somalia itself being the most conspicuous example. Option 3 just does this in parentheses, which is but a slight, cosmetic formatting change from the edits proposed in Options 2,4 & 5, as I've already pointed out. Somaliland's status as a part of Somalia is also not disputed: it is internationally recognized as being a part of Somalia and has no recognition at all as a nation of its own. It therefore is obviously applying undue weight to cite this unrecognized entity alongside the very country the international community as a whole recognizes it as being a part of. This is why Scoobycentric's proposal is clearly the fairest one that has yet been tabled in that, as he has explained, Somaliland is indeed cited in the article, albeit via a footnote -- thus bringing the edit much closer in proportion to the prominence of the view that the region constitutes an independent nation of its own. Just to make his proposal more palatable, it seems he has also chosen one of your own proposed phrasings for the footnote. However, that proposed phrasing is in spots factually inaccurate, which is why I suggested modifactions to it in my reply to his post. Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Look noone disputes that Somaliland has no recognition at all as a state of its own, it is de facto independent only. As a de facto state, it is in dispute. We(Wikipedia) cannot take sides in a dispute, especially not one between two states. Hence my position. Outback the koala (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand and consistently mistake autonomy and state-like institutions for actual nationhood. No one disputes that the Somaliland region has state-like institutions and is autonomous, just like the adjacent Puntland region has and is. It's the notion that this de facto autonomy is equated with "nationhood" by the world that is patently false. The notion of Somaliland's "de facto" nationhood itself has no prominence either. That's why that quote I produced earlier indicates that since Somaliland "cannot win the argument for de jure recognition... they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer." But all of this is beside the point since the Somaliland region of Somalia is not at all commonly included in mainstream geographical definitions of what nations constitute the East Africa region to begin with, thereby making it a fringe view to include it alongside actual nations in the region. Scoobycentric's proposal acknowledges this, which is why the region and its legal status are cited, but in footnotes. Middayexpress (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

New Mediator

Could I offer to mediate this case? PhilKnight (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my recommendation that the parties involved in this dispute consider user:PhilKnight as a mediator for this case and, unrelated to that decision, also allow me to step down as a candidate for mediator. I have no affiliation with PhilKnight and have never communicated with him. User:Middayexpress has expressed concern in a polite way which I appreciate that I may not be able to be neutral in my mediation. I see no reason for me to comment on this because nothing is lost by my stepping down, and because Middayexpress' concern would be best addressed by my deferring control, and because if PhilKnight's offer is accepted, then there is a lot to gain beyond the best which I am able to provide. I have seen this user's contributions in other medcab cases and I think he is among the most consistent, organized, and thoughtful mediators Wikipedia has to offer. Also he is heavily invested in a project related to Sri Lanka's civil war, which, while having many differences with this case, is still a case involving an unrecognized political entity's articles on Wikipedia. I see also that he has been interested in Israel and Palestine, which also may have commonalities to this case. Since I have limited experience as a mediator, it would be personally beneficial to me to watch how he handles a case which I have studied before. Please, will you all consider PhilKnight as mediator? If anyone objects, please state why. Blue Rasberry 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your equally polite response BlueRasberry. I have no experience with User:PhilKnight, so I cannot say whether or not he would make an adequate mediator. However, like you, I was sincere in my comments when I indicated that I have no desire to preselect a mediator that might be more likely to see things my way. I therefore have no objection at this time to PhilKnight's participation as replacement editor. Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to PhilKnight mediating. Never met him, have had no contact in the past with him. He seems swell from his offer. I object to what I see as Blue Rasberry being bullied out of this mediation for what appears to me to be no reason. I hope that at the very least he stays as an observer or an assist to PhilKnight, which was his original role here. We all know it is rare to find a user who invests time into this topic, and we should not throw that away. In addition, I see no neutrality issues and his civility has been stabilizing. Blue wants to watch, let's let him, as an assist in the case. Outback the koala (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to PhilKnight. Reading his Talk Page I can see that he has a lot of experience at mediating. Welcome. I am also saddened at the way that Bluerasberry was bullied out. It was completely uncalled for and baseless. I also hope that he stays around and thank him for his willingness to step in as mediator. --Taivo (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one can't "bully" out another editor who literally offers to leave, which is precisely what Blue Rasberry has indicated both in his post above and in his own opening remarks. Had Blue Rasberry felt that he was being bullied out, he also wouldn't have have indicated that "nothing is lost by my stepping down" or that "Middayexpress' concern would be best addressed by my deferring control" to the apparently more experienced PhilKnight or, earlier, that he "like[s] Middayexpress' writing and I am sure if we found each other elsewhere, we would have no trouble working together then". Much of this has also already been explained in detail, so there's no point in going over it again or attempting to re-open what is essentially a closed chapter. Middayexpress (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You are all very nice to me, including Middayexpress. This has been a touchy issue but here we are on the mediation page, and we have a mediator who has been reviewed repeatedly and ought to at the least be entirely competent to handle this. I do not feel bullied; I have had previous contact with certain participants in this matter and my prior participation could arguably make me a non-neutral party to this case. I stated upfront that I would not mediate if even there was any doubt about me, but of course I will be here watching you all. PhilKnight has got this one by himself. Please do not talk about me or anything other than the case at this point. It is not part of every mediation experience that a group of sane people capable of expressing themselves all converge in the forum at once, but that is the present situation, so enjoy this case as the kind of good debate that we all came to Wikipedia to find. I would be happy to work with any of you if any of you need input on some other matter at some other time. Blue Rasberry 00:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. Given your post, I did not understand the situation or the issues involved in this. Go, be free from this quagmire. I redact my earlier statement. I still have no objection to PhilKnight mediating. Thank you for your time Blue. Outback the koala (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Philknight!. --Scoobycentric (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by new mediator

Thank you all for your patience - it's taken me a while to get up to speed. Could I suggest that we explore the individual options further? Perhaps we could start with option 4, which seems to be reasonably promising.

Scoobycentric suggested the following wording:

“ Somaliland is a de facto state with limited recognition which is claimed in whole by Somalia as its de jure sovereign territory. ”

While Middayexpress suggested:

“ Somaliland is a self-declared republic with no recognition, which is claimed in whole by Somalia as its sovereign territory and internationally recognized as a part of Somalia. ”

Would it be possible to discuss these and other alternatives, to see if a compromise can be achieved? PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I like Scooby's wording better since Somaliland does function as a de facto state. And despite its lack of formal international recognition, there are areas where Somaliland does function internationally and has relations with its neighbors just as a formally recognized state would. The wording "self-declared" in the Kosovo template was part of a compromise that seems to have some stability--it was recently nominated for deletion, but only the proposer voted for deletion, every other vote was for "Keep". The template has proven to be a stable NPOV solution. Perhaps we could incorporate both "self-declared" and "de facto" with wording such as "Somaliland is a de facto republic, which unilaterally declared its independence on X. It is claimed..." --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As they are presented currently above, I favour Scooby's proposed wording as it would be used within the altered version of option 4. Outback the koala (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on Taivo's suggestion above, and using some of Middayexpress's wording:

“ Somaliland is a de facto republic which unilaterally declared independence on 18 May 1991. It is claimed in whole by Somalia as its de jure sovereign territory and is internationally recognized as a part of Somalia. ”

PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"De facto republic" is true, but the issue is that it's a "de facto sovereign state". Its government is actually and legally a republic, no matter what your opinion of its sovereignty is. So I would change "republic" to "sovereign state". --Taivo (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would concur with use of "sovereign state", however this would be unacceptable to others. Using just "state" muddles the appearance, to make it seem as if it is a federated state, which Somalia claims Somaliland is. We could always make the word state link to the sovereign state page while simply leaving "state". This is an acceptable solution to me. Outback the koala (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This has stalled

What are our options now? We have to move on to whatever is next. Is anyone still around? Outback the koala (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Still here! Nightw 09:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am, too. The last movement was developing the text of a footnote to be added with Somaliland, but the opponent(s) of any mention disappeared from the discussion. If the opponents disappear... --Taivo (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe normal editing should resume. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's the only direction this can go now with the specific content related to the East Africa page. It's a shame though, since the underlying problem here has still yet to be dealt with across the project, or at all for that matter. Outback the koala (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Scoobycentric has not edited since the beginning of August, but Middayexpress remains active. If he does not comment here within the week, I shall attempt to edit the article once more. It is, as Outback said, a less than ideal outcome, but I suppose it's something. Nightw 14:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects and it would not be undue trouble, could I ask that the people involved who are still here write a summary in this mediation of what will be done in this instance as a result of this mediation? I presume that the result of this is what was called option 4. I think a shorter summary would be better.

I disagree that the underlying problem has not been addressed. I know of no good way to disseminate the outcome of good conversations, but what I have seen here are good arguments for defining a basis for inclusion and good discussion about how Wikipedia articles should be presented once that basis has been established. I do not find the arguments repetitive and what is here will - for me at least - be something to which I would direct others who were serious about starting a discussion about what to do in these cases.

Solving the underlying problem would mean hundreds of edits in as many articles. I would propose making edits on prominent pages, making a section in the talk page using standard language (maybe even a template) linking to this discussion, and inviting new contrary views to be sure that no one else has a novel objection. After checking for a reaction to that, I would support talking more with any of you on further action.

I am stating this based on my interpretation of the result of this mediation, which is that there have not been any objections to editing which stand without a reasonable, unacknowledged counter response. Blue Rasberry 18:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I used this working consensus at Somali language. Within the language template "Somaliland" is italicized with a note on its limited recognition. This is common at other language articles such as Abkhaz language and Turkish language. In the text of the article, "Somaliland" is still italicized, but there is the footnote that we listed above. --Taivo (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of guideline/policy proposal would be helpful? Ronk01 talk 20:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps it can include all the "Other states"? It seems a bit fragmented to have one policy for Somaliland and one for Western Sahara and one for Kosovo and one for Taiwan, etc. But that may be the only way to get consensus--by fragmenting the discussion. --Taivo (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. That would be absolutely stellar! We've all seen anon users erase a state from a list saying only "not a state" or add content to that effect of various pages, it would be great to point to a guideline/policy that deals with the "Other States". It's definitely a long term problem. Outback the koala (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is what you want to do, you will need to make a proposal, and be prepared to defend it with facts and statistics. Having a well-respected user back your proposal helps too. Ronk01 talk 01:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a very good step in the right direction. I would make one request before any kind of action take place: Considering that all arguments and statements have been made, it would be helpful for future discussions, I think, if the mediator were to make a statement of conclusion, summing up the main points dealt with here, and whether and which points he feels need further discussion or referencing. Please? Nightw 05:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. It would be nice to have a neutral voice to outline where compromise was made and where solutions are still needed. Outback the koala (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note on the talk pages of those that helped with the mediation asking them to come and give us the afore mentioned statement that would be so helpful. Outback the koala (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This, for me, is getting a little ridiculous. Why does PhilKnight refuse to cooperate or even engage in conversation on this page? Am I really the only one watching this page anymore. No reply in 7 days means I will stop posting on here. Outback the koala (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working on your summary, but that could take another week or so, since I'm pretty busy in real life. Ronk01 talk 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still watching this page. The issue hasn't come up again on any of the language pages I watch. Somali language still shows Somaliland and no one has changed it. --Taivo (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I haven't seen any issues arise on any of the related pages in the last while. Given this, do you think we should just let it slide until it comes up again; we all have real life commitments, as Ronk says and I can identify with that. Outback the koala (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still here aswell. I was waiting for User:PhilKnight to make some kind of statement of closure, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I think we should wait for User:Ronk01 to make a statement, and then act on his advice about where to go from there. Nightw 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to get a statement of approval for a proposed closure than a statement of closure from a mediator, as I do not think a mediator should involve themselves by writing a judgment. I may be misunderstanding the mediator role, though.

If I understand correctly, though, the people involved ought to write a proposal of what should be done and the mediator would only state whether the proposal was reasonable. If the mediator writes a proposal, then those involved would still need consensus, possibly a rewording, etc. so that would force the group back into proposal writing anyway. I say someone involved write out or copy/paste a proposal. Blue Rasberry 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Lane, it would be best of they wrote their proposal, and one of the mediators endorsed it. Ronk01 talk 15:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We were waiting on a statement, and after that move into making a proposal for this "Other States Guideline". Having a statement that outlines where there is agreement and still disagreement would make this much easier, and a mediator is in a unique and neutral position to make that determination in a non-biased way. If you still are not amenable to making a statement, just post here and we can simply move ahead with our own statement. Outback the koala (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

NightW writes:

It appears that Scoobycentric has not edited since the beginning of August,

Indeed, with a newborn having arrived into my life, I shut off all real life & cyber distractions to focus on my new responsibility, this includes Wikipedia. While i'm still quite busy, I expected to return to a lively discussion where the other side actually had some new information to support their case, or atleast a discussion that resulted in some sort of compromise. Granted my disappearance and Midday's possible lack of interest in continuing this Medcab might have a thing to do with it, but why is the other side now suddenly pushing all kinds of new things onto this specific article, when the only area in this article that would be part of any possible compromise was the second paragraph and not the sourced UN Geoscheme definition? This tactic of "using strength numbers" and then dubbing it "concensus" to push a certain edit version simply won't cut it. --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When opposing parties disappear from a mediation without any comment or request for pause and the remaining parties come to an agreement, the two opposing parties cannot simply show up six months later and think that the mediation patiently waited. --Taivo (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Other States" Proposed Guideline

Clearly, this will be an interesting process.

In the section Comments by new mediator that Phil Knight started, I felt that the wording was acceptable to me and that would be a good place to start. This policy needs to rooted in neutrality and does not lend itself to one side or the other. However it will need to be applicable to all 10 states which are in vastly different situations(For me, Taiwan and Palestine seem to be the most troublesome). First step, defining the scope; Outback the koala (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope

Proposed scope 1

I proposed we exclude from this policy, non-states(SMOM included), non-sovereign states, constituent countries, and mirconations. Should we bother to include uncontacted peoples?

Including, to start at least, the 10 states in question, open to expansion and if a state becomes vastly recognised then removal from the scope of the guideline/policy. Outback the koala (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on scope

We could try discussing a standard like this at WP:NCGN. I think you might be trying to do too much, though. It might be best to instead limit our effort to proposing a guideline with the editors at WP:SOMALIA, and develop better ways of presenting information (like with the Kosovo footnote template). What do you think? Nightw 12:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)