Talk:Somali Armed Forces

Manpower

Military manpower: those figures are not based on anything at all and have no date on which the numbers are established. That's why I deleted them.S710 08:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I provided a new calculation of expenditures based on more recent CIA factbook entries. However, I caveat it as a gross estimation, and put in some examples of illegal arms sales. --Petercorless 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't able to delete a countries history with out notice. And that's an offense mistake

And you will be rewarded when somalia power back to back 102.82.195.46 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Ogaden War Factcheck Needed

I saw that the numbers of troops and percentage of territory overrun listed in this section of the Ogaden War contradict the numbers listed on the Ogaden War page itself. --Petercorless 07:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean-Up

I took out periods from acronyms.

Ex:

• I.C.U --> ICU
• A.R.P.C.T. --> ARPCT
• U.S. --> US

Also made citations to the main articles on the ongoing Civil War as well as the Second Battle of Mogadishu

--Petercorless 07:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Expunged entry on ICU-ARPCT-TFG conflict

There is more information available under the Somali Civil War articles, and I did not want to see a maintenance of multiple sources. Also, the entry suffered from POV arguments and was obsolete at this time (post Battle of Baidoa). --Petercorless 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Xirsi is Xersi

I assume that militia leader Maxamed Saaiid Xersi was the same as militia leader Saiid Maxamed Xirsi. If the latter was a different person it would be an extraordinary coincidence that two people with the same background and almost the identical name exist. Especially because one of the two was never heard of before today. But truth is stranger than fiction.S710 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. At first, I too thought mention of "Said Mohamed Hirsi" was also General "Morgan" (Mohammed Said Hersi Morgan). I even had it linked at first. Then I removed the link. There are many people with similar names in the country. For instance, "Hussein Mohamed Farrah Aidid" is not the same as "Mohamed Farrah Aidid." One was the father, the other his son. If you can provide a definitive reference to whether this truly is General "Morgan," or simply someone with a similar name, that would be critical. Otherwise, I'd prefer not to make the assumption General "Morgan" is now returned and fighting with the TFG. Let's get verification before we leap to a conclusion. --Petercorless 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a followup, here's an example of a "false positive" for "Mohammed Hersi" in the news. This was a man whose relative was eaten by hyenas: Somalia: Hyenas Eat Two Women in Central Somalia Again, these names and variations on them are very common in Somalia. --Petercorless 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The names Said, Mohammed and Hirsi are very common. But the only difference here is the order of his two first names. The name Hirsi in stead of Hersi is very commonly used for this warlord. Morgan is only his nickname and is left out quite often. S710 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're completely right. It is indeed another person. It is Col. Said "Dhere" Mohamed Hersi, a government military commander and not gen. Morgan at all. [1]

S710 11:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Somali army before the civil war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXIZDCmH2Mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-6VprKVp8k —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.207.4 (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Child soldiers

I believe it is important to list the issue of child soldiers, though I agree that it is not the TFG policy. I placed it under the militia entry instead, as both the ICU and other warlords recruited child soldiers. --Petercorless 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement out of context?

In the history section is the following statement: "The best king to ever come across somalia was Abdalla who to this day still lives. Age 19". This seems to have no relevance to the article. Departso 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this an article?

Come on, it was a funny joke and you know it...--Metallurgist (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Somali Air Force : Weird number of aircrafts

Hello, I think that some funny guy tried to transform the somali airforce from non-existence to the most powerful in Africa :D . I really doubt that they have 233 AH-64 and 766 F-15. I think that it should be investigated by someone who has some good sources about the air arm of this country. I also tried to restore the NPOV of the history section. Some user added pro-Somalia and anti-soviet statements, but I think that my modifications were somewhat messy and I'm sorry for that if it's the case.(Kovlovsky (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Size of the Somali Military

There is no way that the Somali army has 200,000 men. The War in Somalia 2009- article lists the TFG's troop strength at 6,000. These articles contradict each other and the War in Somalia number is almost certainly the more correct one. --Nogburt (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Puncoaguar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Puncoaguar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:SomaliForces.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SomaliForces.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SomaliForces.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

SAF structure

Hi Midnightexpress. I've reverted your revert; let me explain why. You have structured the article as if the armed forces in Somalia are a single, organised, armed forces that functions something like a Western armed forces. This is simply not the case; it's more like the Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; a bunch of loose feuding militias. For example, to add the mention of the 'Somali Air Force' officers in the seminar that was held is very misleading when you and I both know that there are no planes, units, functioning bases, or command structure within any force that might describe itself as the 'Somali Air Force.' A better description was the UN seminar in 2010 (2009?) when they listed the personnel attending as 'former' members of the pre-91 armed forces. Suggest now that I've placed this notice here that we continue this discussion at Talk:Somali Armed Forces. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, consensus must first be obtained for such large structural changes. I have therefore restored the page as none has been sought. That said, the Armed Forces were officially re-established following the formation of the Transitional Federal Government in 2004, as stipulated in Chapter 10, Article 65 of the Transitional Federal Charter (c.f. [2]). The Somali Armed Forces/SAF, moreover, is indeed a single national armed force. Previously, it was allied with the pro-government Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a militia. However, the group's members were officially integrated by agreement into the army a few days ago (c.f. [3]). As for the Somali Air Force, it has been relaunched per AMISOM ("40 officers from the Somali National Army and Somali Air Force, and officials from the Ministry of Defense are participating in the workshop" [4]). Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou MiddayExpress. Now, I'm about to reestablish the history section after 2004, which cuts off abruptly. There is every value in such a section. Also, the IISS Armed Conflict Database has no such page listing any force of 17,000 - the cite simply does not exist as cited, so I will remove that (WP:BURDEN). Now, mate, you do not appear to understand what I meant above. Anyone, including a two-bit rebel group stuck in a cave, can formally reestablish an armed forces. But this government at times has controlled less that half of Mogadischu, and the IISS in 2011 said 2,000 TFG military personnel - far less than 17,000, and specifically noted that no formal armed forces had been reestablished. There is no proper establishment, rather a bunch of feuding politicians and warlords. This needs to be reflected. Please do not blind revert my changes from now on, and if you wish to reenter the 17,000 figure, find a source, as per BURDEN. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The way the WP:BRD process works is an editor makes a bold edit; if that edit is reverted (as is the situation here), discussion for consensus then begins, not a re-revert. That said, you have jumbled the pages structure and inadvertently added some misleading material. The quotes from the International Crisis Group (ICG) are misleading since the ICG at the time was headed by Matt Bryden. Bryden is a longstanding and open supporter of the secessionist Somaliland region's claim to independence. In this capacity, he produced various largely false reports on Somalia during his tenure with the ICG and later with the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG). Bryden was eventually fired from his position as SEMG Coordinator in mid-2012, after the UN had received detailed complaints about his work and several UN Security Council members gave negative reviews of his performance as project leader (c.f. [5]). Undue weight has also been placed on the Transitional Federal Government, although the TFG is not the current government of Somalia. That interim body's mandate ended last year; Somalia is now headed by an internationally recognized Federal Government. The IISS' claims as to the military's troop strength in 2011 were outdated even then, nevermind now. See below for the Somali military's actual troop strength in 2013, per the UN Special Representative to Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Buckshot. The entry on Somalia in the 2012 edition of The Military Balance starts with "No national armed forces since 1991." and goes on to note that the government's attempts to establish a military have not been successful. Apparently the transitional government controls about 2000 soldiers (pages 451). Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Military Balance and IISS entries are obviously very outdated. The EU alone has trained over 3,000 Somalian soldiers (c.f. [6]). Somalia also no longer has a transitional government. It has had a permanent, federal government since August/September 2012, when the interim period officially ended (c.f. [7]). According to Augustine Mahiga, UN Special Envoy to Somalia, the Somali military has a troop strength of 17,731 soldiers as of January 2013 (c.f. [8]). Mahiga has been based in Mogadishu since 2010 and is the most senior representative of the various UN agencies in Somalia (they relocated there recently, owing to the improved security). Please also note that the war situation in Somalia today is very different from what it was only two years ago. Per Mahiga, 85% of Somalia was under the control of the federal authorities as of November 2012 (c.f. [9]). That figure now, several months and offensives later, is even higher. According to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson, it's specifically because of these political and military breakthroughs that the U.S. government this January exchanged diplomatic notes with the Somali central government for the first time in two decades ("Carson said the US decision to formally recognise the new government underscored the progress toward political stability that Somalia has made over the past year, including "breaking the back" of the al-Shabaab insurgency" [10]). Per Susan Rice, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, the Security Council's vote this month to ease the 21-year old arms embargo on Somalia likewise represents a "clear signal of support to the new Somali Government" (c.f. [11]). In short, the Somali Armed Forces have been quantified in size this year by a reliable source, the military has made major territorial gains, and the international community has rewarded the new federal government for this through recognition and the lifting of the arms embargo. The page should reflect this reality. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Middayexpress. I was aware that major territorial gains had been made; I was sitting in New York in early 2011 as more of Mogadishu was being retaken. The crucial point is that it takes decades to build a properly functioning cohesive armed forces. None of the scattered references to troop figures or an air force etc do anything to substantiate, in the words of the International Crisis Group, 'properly functioning government institutions.' I agree, there may be a total of 17,000 individuals that are bearing weapons in the service of the now-proclaimed Federal Republic. But that does not make them soldiers of the Somali National Army - you notice I carefully removed that term from the reports of EU training in Uganda. It probably makes them fighters that ASWG and others loosely may make available to the FR's government on the occasions that ASWG and the FR can agree to do something together. Both the UN and the US (cf Afghanistan and Iraq) will routinely put the best possible face on every development. We need to be extremely careful that we reflect exactly what the sources say. Do not, please, try to make an air force from one report of air force officers attending a seminar when no other information refers to an air force, and do not, please, overstate the solidity of the state - I think that overall was my objection to the tone of the page as I found it about five days ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Bryden-influenced ICG's criticisms were leveled at the former Transitional Federal Government, not the current Federal Government. ASWJ forces were also formally integrated into the Somali military just this week, not in January when the UN Special Envoy to Somalia Augustine Mahiga made that statement regarding troop strength. The EU likewise only trained Somali National Army soldiers, not ASWJ fighters ("The European Union Training Mission for Somalia (EUTM Somalia) this week repatriated 551 Somali soldiers trained in Uganda and began their re-integration into the Somali National Army, according to the organisation's press release Thursday (February 21st)" [12]). That said, I stand corrected about Mahiga's 17,731 soldier figure being a reference to the Somali army. He's actually talking about AMISOM's troop strength (c.f. [13]). The Somali Armed Forces, as it turns out, are actually significantly larger. As of 2013, they are made up of "six trained military brigades but only two are functional[...] in military lingo, a brigade consists of three to six battalions, each of which is made up of roughly 1,000 troops" (c.f. [14]). That's 18,000 to 36,000 trained soldiers in total, with 6,000 to 12,000 troops presently deployed. That's how and why the Somali military is expected to takeover completely from AMISOM after its mandate ends next year. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed your other section above. Are you trying to say that the TFG in Dec 2008 (a) had control of all Mogadishu? (b) controlled all the country? (c) Yusuf did not build a loyal group of retainers from his Majerteen? Let's get some clarity on some basic points here, because I can probably find about five HRW, Amnesty, UNSC, and other reports supporting the factional infighting and lack of control.... Buckshot06 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The "loyal retainers" you mention were actually Puntland government troops. It's common knowledge that Yusuf, as the former President of Puntland, drew from Puntland's army reserves during the initial push for Mogadishu in the south, back in the ICU days. It's Bryden's pov spin and the undue weight placed on it that are the problem. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Matt Bryden left ICG in 2006. I'm getting a little angry now. Stop trying to discredit very valid data from a report in December 2008 because a person whose views you disagree with left the same organisation in 2006!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's unfortunate because although Bryden left his post as director of the ICG's Horn of Africa Project in 2006, he remained on-board as a consultant. He says so himself in his byline ("Matt Bryden is an independent regional analyst with over 16 years of experience in Somali affairs. He is former director of the International Crisis Group's Horn of Africa Project and still serves as a consultant with Crisis Group" [15]). He was quite active too during that period (c.f. [16]), prior to his firing. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted your removal of the ICG materials, which in no way can be attributed to Bryden or any other staff member: they don't sign their reports. Indeed, if you checked their webpage in Dec 2008 for their Nairobi staff, and then rang them, you could have probably been connected to the staff member in their Nairobi office, who would have been listed there, who wrote them: probably not Bryden. In any event, the ICG is the epitome of a WP:V reliable source, and you would have to demonstrate some really solid evidence to have the quotes removed. I've raised your conduct on WT:MILHIST, including your bizarre removal of IISS Military Balance material from 1976-77, which is sheer vandalism given the little solid data we have on the then SAF prior to the Library of Congress Country Study of 1991-92.

I've also remove two other things: firstly, your continued insistence in the first line of the article that the 'Somali Armed Forces are the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Somalia' which is not stated in the constitution. We have to be really careful here; using the term 'SAF' is a handy distinguisher between the up to 1991 period, and afterwards, and you're muddying the waters by anarchronistically copying it forward. Secondly, for the love of God, stop reinserting the strength figure for 2004-5 you try to cite to the IISS armed conflict database. There *is no cite there*. Find one, or stop removing it. Regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just added some material from Human Rights Watch and remove a misleading quote from you regarding Yusuf's Puntland troops. Don't distort material by literally saying things that aren't in the source. I've also removed uncited sentences on the police and air force, as well as a bunch of other uncited things. Please make sure, as per WP:CITE, that things you add are well referenced, as per WP:BURDEN. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your condemnation of Bryden, at least as expressed in your cite [16] on Talk:Somali Armed Forces, is bizarre. You link in cite [16] an article which expressly identifies, while Bryden you say was on the Monitoring Group, aircraft movements of arms which violated the arms embargo. You say Bryden is biasing reports towards Somaliland, but in that report, he expressly notes that a movement through Hargeisa violated the arms embargo. This would indicate that he's reporting honestly on violations made via Somaliland. Separate from your thoughts on the SAF, and person-to-person, here if you like, can you explain this? Don't understand why you say he's biased towards them if he's reporting on their violations of international law? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be named after the most common name for the subject (the military of Somalia). In this case, that common name is the "Somali Armed Forces" or "Armed Forces of Somalia". You have instead replaced this common name in the infobox with an absurd "no formal name cited in Provisional Constitution". In actuality, both the Provisional Constitution [17] and the preceding Transitional Federal Charter [18] repeatedly refer to the military in capital letters as the Armed Forces. You have also claimed in the infobox that "no formal branches currently exist", when in fact an official press release from AMISOM discusses a workshop for "senior officials of the Somali Armed Forces", including "40 officers from the Somali National Army and Somali Air Force" ([19]). The Somali Navy page (which you edited) likewise contains a link rather descriptively titled "Somalia gets new navy force after years of absence" [20]. Really pointless antics.

You also removed a lot of material for no legitimate reason, including a passage on the Ogaden War and its Greater Somalia/Pan-Somali catalyst. I have restored it, as well as the subtopic link-through to the Somali Police Force page. I have likewise restored the phrase you removed asserting that Somali military officials met with Kenyan military officials on the weekend prior to the Linda Nchi operation in order to coordinate their activities, as well as the modern military ranks.

As for Matt Bryden, his bias is well-documented; it's also something he has been rather open about (e.g. [21]). So was his continued association as a consultant with the ICG, as he himself readily admitted. At any rate, it's clear that this and other issues cannot be resolved through simple discussion since you evidently have no interest in the consensus process. I shall seek administrative advice on how to proceed, as the article in its current pov state is unacceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Got no objection whatsoever to WP:COMMONNAME, but you simply HAVE to cite things, if a topic is so contentious. The actual wording in the constitution is 'armed forces of the Federal Republic of Somalia', but I did not insert that because I anticipated you would immediately want to capitalise it, without a citation. Again, I removed the branches because they were not cited. I'll reinsert the AMISOM press release, though it's not a formal Federal Republic of Somalia government document, and as soon as you find a citation with the words 'Somali navy' capitalised post 2004, I'll stop removing the navy branch as well.

Again, as you will have seen, the Ogaden War material was NOT CITED. This article has been sitting in a horrible state for years, allowing ridiculous lack of citations and imaginary citations (the IISS Armed Conflict one). Now, I checked the page history, and if I read it right, you inserted that paragraph some time ago. Cited, it's fine - and it covers an important period. We disagree substantially on the proper description of the Somali forces involved in Linda Nchi, but I would ask you to WP:Assume Good Faith, because you actually inserted a double copy of that paragraph. You obviously like to tweak my wording; that's fine, but I should remind you that you do not WP:OWN this article, despite being the major contributor to it for years.

Please STOP distorting citations. Reading that there had been a military coup in 1960, I corrected the description by inserting the relevant (PD) section from the Library of Congress. The exact word used to describe the junior army officers' actions was 'rebelled'. You changed it to 'protested', following by 'protested and proposed a dissolution of the union'. This is simply not what the source says and I changed it back [22]. Now, this is the third time you have distorted a cite to say something different from the original - [23] and [24]. While you have described my actions as 'npov', this raises questions about your own motives.

While both of us may be getting annoyed, we are actually in the middle of the process of building consensus; you've accepted some of my new material, as I have of yours. If you had taken the trouble to check, you would have found not one but two administrators are already involved: myself, and User:Nick-D. As I said previously, I have opened a discussion at WT:MILHIST regarding this article. By all means, raise this issue at another forum, because I would like to raise the issue of you distorting citations as per the previous paragraph. However, please if you do so, add a note linking existing discussions. Regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is stated several places elsewhere in the Provisional Constitution that the security forces are officially the Armed Forces. Per Article 90, the President is thus "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces" [25]. It's also pointless to request a source for the infobox parameter on branches of the army when it's already sourced in the body. Further, I didn't "distort" any text. I rewrote text you added because a good part of it was copied verbatim from the Library of Congress link [26]. That's a WP:COPYVIO, and it's not the first one I've had to rewrite either. I notice you also changed the present military ranks sub-header to read "1991", with the explanation that this is "clearly stated on the page". Apparently, you missed the heading in the same link where it describes those ranks as dating from the "current" era [27]. Note that these are also the ranks that are indicated elsewhere for Somalia's armed forces (c.f. [28]). Lastly, per WP:INVOLVED, you're actually an involved editor i.e. just another user in this situation. What I obviously meant was that I would seek uninvolved administrative advice. Your assertion that we are in the middle of the consensus building process is, however, welcome, though it remains to be seen if this pans out. Middayexpress (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't fully understand. My principal problem with your edits to this article is that you are distorting citations. The first citation, regarding the 1961 revolt, was 'rebelled'. You changed that to 'protested' and later used the text 'proposed a dissolution of the union'. This simply is not WP:V or WP:NPOV - it's distorting what the text originally was. Secondly, the text you added to wikipedia was 'to form the nucleus of a new national army.' The source text was 'in order to support Abdullahi Yusuf’s fight for power in Mogadishu and environs'. Again, not verifiable by reference to the source, and changing material to support a WP:POV. Thirdly, you appear to have a problem distinguishing between the words 'military' and 'security'. The text you added was 'The military of Somalia received..' while the original mentioned police and a 6,000 strong security force. Again, changing material to support a WP:POV. Now, the rule per WP:CITE, which you have repeatedly ignored, is that any information that has a cite tag added must have a citation added to it, or it can be removed. If in a contentious article that means every sentence or other data point needs citing, that's what the rules endorse. Your distortion of the word 'current' is also noticeable. To give a comparison, I frequently have to remove from around wikipedia mentions of the 20th Century as 'modern'. Historians date the modern era to the 15th Century onwards. Until you specifically find a source that says these ranks are used by a organisation that is cited as part of the Somali armed forces in 2012-2013, I will continue to change the wording back to 1991 because the word '1991' is prominently displayed in the title over the rank chart. This makes me wonder whether you understand WP:V. Look, I can see from the pattern of your edits that you want Somalia to have a fully functioning army that one could proudly compare to any civilised, peaceful country. But wishing doesn't make it so, and Wikipedia works not on truth, but WP:Verifiability. Please stop distorting citations to suit your particular WP:POV.

You may not be fully aware, though you seemed to be quite happy to use it in the past, that the Library of Congress is a Wikipedia:Public Domain source, and because all works of the U.S. government published are specifically not copyrighted, we can use it. But if you were not aware of this, why did you not change the wordings (substantially) when you previously used LOC material?

Yes, of course I'm involved, which is why I have not applied my admin powers. But if I weren't involved, on the basis of your distortion of citations, I would definitely be asking you to explain !! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There's really no point in arguing that the text wasn't a word-for-word copy of the Library of Congress material because it was and this is easily demonstrable. As an example, you wrote that "The revolt was sparked by the posting of higher ranking southern officers (who had been trained by the Italians for police duties) to command their units. The ringleaders urged a separation of north and south. Northern noncommissioned officers arrested the rebels, but discontent in the north persisted." The entire italicized part is a word-for-word copy of the Library of Congress material (c.f. [29]). I agree that the material is in the public domain, but WP:Public domain still recommends that user's rewrite the material in their own words, though the policy also allows limited copy-and-pasting of such material. This is why, for example, I changed your verbatim "the ringleaders urged a separation of north and south" to "the rebels proposed a dissolution of the union". Those two phrases obviously mean the same thing since an earlier sentence in my edit explained that "merging the British Somaliland protectorate and Italian Somaliland colony was rendered more difficult by the fact that the two former territories had hitherto been institutionally managed as separate states." If you are having trouble understanding this (something tells me you aren't), then I'm not sure I can help you. As for the Abdullahi Yusuf phrase, that too is taken out of context. The full passage reads: "This situation in Puntland is strongly linked with Garoowe’s continued support for Abdullahi Yusuf and his Transitional Federal Government (TFG). Abdullahi Yusuf, who belongs to the Majeerteen clan of the Darood clan-family, was President of Puntland between 1998 and 2004. After his election as head of the TFG in October 2004, many soldiers of the Puntland army were sent to the south in order to support Abdullahi Yusuf’s fight for power in Mogadishu and environs." [30] That's what Puntland soldiers forming the nucleus of a new national army is a reference to. But of course, taken out of context like the above, this isn't obvious. Anyway, this petty back and forth is getting really old. Time for that (uninvolved) admin advice. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your accusation of 'out of context' is entirely invalid: you remove the key word 'revolt' from the 1961 section, making it seems like some sort of peaceful, maybe bureaucratic, process, and, secondly, the words 'national army' is nowhere in the source section. How do you get 'national army' from the longer quote you just cited? That's the essence of why I'm trying to decide whether this is an RFC issue: you add entire fabrications and distortions. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I clearly labeled the rebels as such, so I'm afraid you're grasping at straws again. As for Yusuf, the passage clearly describes the dispatching of Puntland army soldiers to the south as an example of "Garoowe's continued support for Abdullahi Yusuf and his Transitional Federal Government (TFG)". That's a national level initiative it's describing. You also need to lay off the WP:SHOUTing. Middayexpress (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If I accused you injustly on the 1961 issue, I apologise. But do you realise what the second issue actually reflects? You have to be really careful how you word things to convey meaning (in this case, the word 'national'). This article at the moment is a mass of hodge-podge bits and pieces imported from all over the place without proper context. I'm not necessarily associating you with that sad state of affairs, but what it means when it jumps straight from naming UNSCR 733 (that was my work, admittedly) to 2004 is a significant lack of context, and we only managed to push that date back a little to 2002 because of you naming the TNG military chief. How legimate is the claim of the TFG (and worse, the TNG) to be a 'national' government when they were a group of internationally supported exiles living in luxury in Nairobi while the ordinary Somalis scrabbled, fought and died across the different regions of southcentral Somalia, the Ogaden, Puntland, and Somaliland?

I suppose what I was getting into with this semi-digression is that we need to contextualise things much more. The story from 1960 to 1991 is relatively simple, though there are books and books worth of details we will eventually add. But from 1991 onwards, it gets really confusing. You're the real Somalia expert - as my contribs history will show, I do armed forces worldwide, trying to specifically focus on stuff not well covered by our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Could you dig up some material that explains what happen to the splintered fragments of Siad Barre's armed forces, and any sketch of what happened from 1991 to 2000 (2002 even)? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The military disbanded in the early 1990s; the ensuing few years were thus a quiet period for the national Armed Forces. Also note that the TFG was only formed in exile. It not long afterwards moved its headquarters to Baidoa, and at one point, prior to the advent of Al-Shabaab, even managed to secure Mogadishu. The territory it controlled also varied depending on the timeframe. Middayexpress (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Military Balance in question here was released on March 7 2012 before the federal government came into existence in August. The Somali Armed Forces were one of several armed institutions and was on the level of other regional forces. We come to this conclusion because of the Garowe Principles where all the parties were equal. The Somali Armed Forces came under the TFG at that point. However, since the federal government was established on 2012, it is the sole armed forces of Somalia.

As for the institution itself, it is made up of militias as well as new troops trained in Uganda. The militias have been disarmed by AMISOM and were inducted into the Armed Forces. They are now part of the establishment which is where their orders and salary come from.

The structure of the Armed Forces is naturally different than pre-1991. The reason being areas of combat are outside these divisions. For example 54th Division was located in Garowe but there is not fighting occurring there because Al-Shabaab, the militant group mainly operates in southern Somalia. The same includes 21st Division in Dhuusamareeb. The command structure however is the same as before.

The Somali Armed Forces exists as an establishment as much as the federal government does whether it be the Air Force or Army. In the case of the Air Force, it exists as an institution but has no operational capability. 26oo (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 26oo. You exactly reflect my concerns about the careless quoting of newspaper articles in a very complex situation which changed frequently from 2002 (and continues to change). This is why we need to stick rigourously to WP:V as we try to collaboratively edit a contentious article. I have tried to reflect your point about different armed forces in the country up to 2012, in line with the Garowe Principles, in the 'Federal' section. As I said above to User:Middayexpress, I have again removed the second rank list, masquerading as a 2012 or something list, because it is clearly marked on the source page as 1991. The attached list of 'generals' I have also removed, because the section I've just removed appeared to say that they were all listed as Major Generals on the source page, which would have been difficult given the ranks were as of 1991, and they were probably bandits, or at the very least, majors, in 1991 !! An additional compromise which I tried to institute was marking the second list as 1991 ranks, but Middayexpress continues to want to try and portray them as 'current' [implying 2012-2013], possibly armed forces of the Federal Republic of Somalia, without any WP:V evidence whatsoever. Would you like to kindly please give a third opinion? Regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

On the Air Force and Navy, again, we need to rigorously reflect WP:V. I will continue to remove any branches listed in the infobox until, as I said above, until a 2012 or 2013 source is given with their names in capitalised form. Any mention of the Air Force is laughable, in my strong opinion, but because for diplomatic reasons AMISOM had to avoid offence by recognising probably bandits and patronage appointees without an hour in a plane or a maintenance hanger as 'Air Force' officers, I will not remove that ridiculous reference to an 'Air Force'. When anyone gets some reliable sources that says anything meaningful about an air force in the last five years, we can add it. Until then, don't make me laugh !!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, 26oo clearly indicates that Somalia has a federal government with a military, complete with actual branches and a formal command structure (much like AMISOM does [31]). That is the exact opposite of what you have been stating. Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The section I was trying to reflect, to quote 26oo, was: '...before the federal government came into existence in August. The Somali Armed Forces were one of several armed institutions and was on the level of other regional forces. We come to this conclusion because of the Garowe Principles where all the parties were equal.' Buckshot06 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think what 26oo means is that the TFG and the autonomous regional administrations were on equal footing during the Garoowe Principles negotiations. Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What's laughable about a country rebuilding its armed forces after state collapse and subsequent steady recovery? Are you aware that there are hundreds of former Somali Air Force pilots inside the country and in the diaspora who have both the knowledge and capability to revive that institution? The Federal government is known to make use of veterans and those with expertise, the new top commander being a good example. The arms embargo was recently lifted and this will allow the government to import military aircraft for its armed forces, this wasn't possible since 1991. Therefore the institution currently only being represented by officers is not a laughing matter at all, its logical. I really don't see how either Middayexpress or 26oo can come to a concensus with someone that harbours such blatant schadenfreude at the current state of affairs, which thankfully will be rectified by the end of the year. This is not the case of a landlocked country claiming to have a "navy", no this is a rebirth of a republic and all its institutions from scratch, and if the airforce is currently only represented by officers until the arrival of military aircraft, then so be it, but please spare us your interpretations for they add nothing to the discussion or article --2.222.194.217 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments 2.222.194.217. It's good to have further people commenting on the subject. You may not be entirely aware that I deliberately used the inflammatory wording I did precisely to goad any potential person with knowledge to reveal some further details. You will note that I have done nothing of the sort in the text of the actual article, rigorously insisting on WP:V. Yes, of course, since AMISOM did use the capitalised wording of the term 'Air Force,' there must indeed be some sort of organisation. Please, cite the sources that indicate that there remain hundreds of former SAF pilots (plus hopefully maintenance personnel) in the country and in the disapora; it's a relevant fact, and really, if we can cite it, it should be in the article. What particular change is to happen by the end of the year - would be very interested to hear? By the way, are you a Somali? Maybe you can help us with some online Somali-language sources; be much much better than this so far ridiculous reliance on English. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:GOAT. Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have commented on the discussion with or without you stereotyping every Somali officer as "probably a bandit", this reflects badly on you as an editor rather than benefiting the article, which is the purpose of the talk page. Organisation is the most important component of any institution, all else can't operate without that being in place first. The prewar Somali Air force was a large organisation, and many of its members defected and landed their aircraft in neighbouring countries and beyond during the dictatorship. There is no current up to date source on how many are still alive, competent or even interested in returning to such a position, but its highly unlikely that these representatives of - at one point - one of the most potent air forces on the continent all died or lost their knowledge. Hence why I objected to your use of "laughable" when we know the government has a history of attracting veterans to fill positions in the other branches of the new armed forces, not to forget the government also recently announced it would reclaim all of its overseas assets, and this includes ships and planes, whether these are military or civilian (or both) remains to be seen, historical sources hint at both. Nothing I mentioned however needs to be added to the article, I only highlighted several aspects that hopefully give you a better persepective of the situation. As for Somali sources, in this one you have the Minister of Defense revealing his intention to make the new airforce into a real functioning force (i.e trained and equipped), and the lifting of the arms embargo was one massive step in the right direction. --2.222.194.217 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments again. I appreciate your willingness to assist. I was not trying to imply that 'every Somali officer' was probably a bandit; merely that the President probably faces significant pressure to arrange jobs for people with claims on him, and with the former officers scattered to the four winds, it is likely that he has had to place some semi-imposters into the force for the time being. Did you perhaps serve in the Somali Armed Forces at one time or another? Additionally, thankyou for the article. Please, if you would, keep listing the Somali language sources as much as possible. I'll run the one you've linked through Google Translate, assuming they've got Somali, and see if I can add it to the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to say, neither GTranslate nor Babalyon seems to have a Somali function. I'm going to have to try and figure out some offline solution, or buy a translator or something. Might you consider giving me some sort of expanded gist of the article? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Former Somali Prime Minister Abdiweli Mohamed Ali and Italian Defence Minister Gianpaolo Di Paola in February 2012 "agreed they will closely work together and that Italy will help the Somali army militarily including training of soldiers, energise and enliven the Somali Air Force, rebuild the Somali army and national security plan" (c.f.[32]). The Somali Aviation Resource Center also has info on the Somali Air Force ([33]). Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Largest army in Africa

I've now located my copy of Ramsbotham and Woodhouse and no citation is given for the claim on page 222 that 'first with Soviet and later with U.S. assistance, Barre was able to build Africa's largest army.' I believe this to be incorrect (my guess is that somewhere there was a typo and they actually meant to mean second largest or something of the sort). The figures below from the IISS Military Balance state the estimates from the early 1980s, when U.S. assistance began:

• 1979-80: Ethiopia: 215,000 ; Somalia: 45,000 + 20,000 militia
• 1981-82: Ethiopia: 225,000 inc 150,000 militia ; Somalia: 60,000
• 1982-83: Ethiopia: 244,500 inc 150,000 militia ; Somalia: 60,000

The trend continues, and on the basis of this, and the unlikelihood of Somalia having an army larger than Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Nigeria, I intend to remove this sentence within two weeks, unless anyone objects. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR

In accordance with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Citation guidance, I would like to ask you, again, to stop reinserting the leaders section in Somali Armed Forces without citations. Other editors at WT:MILHIST have described this as 'disruptive editing'. Please desist, or, in according with WP:Disruptive editing, my next move will be to WP:ANI. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Independent cites for the leaders/commanders are already in the link-thrus (not wiki text or mirrors). That's where Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue comes in. At any rate, I'm not going to waste any further time over this nonsense. The leaders have been restored, with citations. Middayexpress (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, as I myself have been advised, take the time to read WP:CIRCULAR. Your argument is procedurally invalid. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

SM-1019

Per the U.S. government, the Somali Armed Forces in 1981 had six SM-1019 single-engine training, observation, and light attack aircraft on order or being delivered from their country of manufacture in Italy [34]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

SNA brigades

The 5th Brigade and 6th Brigade SNA units that were alluded to in the Garowe Online piece on a skirmish in Lower Shabelle turned out not to be SNA troops. Raxanreeb later clarified that the fighters were in fact militiamen dressed in military uniforms, as Al-Shabaab et al. are sometimes known to do [35]. Chief of Army Dahir Adan Elmi discusses the uniform issue in a recent interview ("Military uniforms are sold [illegally] in the markets[...] If any person who is dressed like a soldier causes problems, it cannot be blamed on the military" [36]). The 2012 Otago piece on the SNA units is also outdated and does not reflect the current reality in 2014. As Elmi explains, he and other SNA leaders have since their appointment focused on organizing and professionalizing the military's structure, including creating new numbered units and implementing a biometric registration system for each actual soldier ("We have created numbered [units] for the army. Now we are working to make sure that the soldiers' name and unit are placed on all uniforms. Some of the other things we have succeeded in doing include taking a picture of and fingerprinting each soldier who recently finished training and was given weapons so that we can track them if a soldier deserts with the weapon.") [37]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

2007/2008 Mogadishu insurgency

I've removed the redundant and undue weight material on the 2007/2008 insurgency. For starters, the TFG material is off-topic and easily refutable; this article is on the Armed Forces. The rest was material that I had replaced earlier with more neutral and balanced text explaining in context when and why Puntland forces were recruited into the TFG army, and the exact chain of events in the ensuing Mogadishu insurgency of 2007/2008 per HRW. Additionally, the claim attributed to one Hansen that "in 2010, the Ugandan and Burundian AMISOM forces were the only barrier to Al-Shabaab's total victory in the south of Somalia" and that the "TFG forces simply did not function, most of the units that were trained defected" is not fact but rather one fellow's opinion. It's also belied by EUTM Somalia, which indictates that "the EUTM-trained units were included in the core of SNSF's combat units (the fifth and sixth brigades), which played a key role in the fight against Al Shabaab, for example in Mogadishu and Afgoye", and that "the vast majority of the soldiers trained by EUTM continued to serve with their units after returning to Somalia[...] the EU reported an approximately 10 per cent post-training drop-out rate" [38].Middayexpress (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Commandos and Special Forces

I've restored the Commandos and Special Forces material that was removed for no apparent reason. Unlike the Mogadishu insurgency allegations, it is not non-neutral nor does it duplicate out of context anything already in the text. These units are also important parts of the SNA and its rebuilding process. Middayexpress (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Strength and units

I've neutralized the material on the SNA's current size/strength and units. Part of it was sourced to the same Monitoring Group report that alleged that SNA equipment was missing and illegally sold in underground markets, a paper which the Chief of Army Dahir Adan Elmi himself indicated was both largely fabricated and politically motivated [39]. It's now attributed to EUTM Somalia, a more neutral source. Middayexpress (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to read and comprehend WP:THIRDPARTY more clearly. Involved officials are not reliable sources for adverse material that relates to their institutions directly. However, in this case, the details about the six brigades are non-controversial (locations, clan compositions, etc) and I will readd this. If you continue to remove relevant, sourced material from reliable international, independent sources, eventually you will face administrator and/or community action. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a policy. The Somali Chief of Army is also just as much an authority on the Somali military as U.S. army officials are on the U.S. military. In fact, the Monitoring Group itself requested data on the SNA's unit structure from the Somali military because it is not privy to all this info whereas SNA officials are. Middayexpress (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Both your points are strictly true. However, THIRDPARTY covers what is expressed by WP:BIASED in WP:RS, including the statement that personnel may be biased for political reasons - to protect the image of their organisations. But this is not actually the point; there's no controversy whatsoever about the existence of the six brigades, and your removing the data is simply obstructionist! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is a disagreement between RS could not both be included? Anotherclown (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What Middayexpress has finally (or at least not yet) removed again is uncontroversial material about the clan composition of the six brigades in the Mogadishu area. There's no other source, and I continue to be baffled at why he removed it multiple times before.

If he has a problem with the source, the answer is not to do WP:IDONTLIKEIT repeated removals here, which might leave material in other articles, if the community decides it is problematic. The answer is to question the validity of the entire source at the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they appear to be reliable sources; however, could an inline citation be added to the end of the para on the 3rd Bde? Anotherclown (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Inline citation 114 appears to be exactly what you were asking about. When I inserted the original citation, I added the exact page and paragraph number so that people could find it should they have wished. When User:Middayexpress removed the paragraph (twice), my exact page and para number went with it. I have now reinserted the para number, and will reinsert the page number tomorrow (it's late here). Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep sorry, I missed that. That looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Anotherclown, I'm not sure what the user above is referring to there since I had by then actually retained the material, after getting a hold of the pdf and reading through it in its full context (he didn't link to it, as is often the situation). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't really care who did what or when, but the implication from your comment above is that you removed it originally because you couldn't / hadn't check it, is that right? That seems a fairly thin reason to remove something, so I'd be concerned if that is the case. By all means the bold, revert, discuss cycle applies, but all parties also need to assume good faith rather than the opposite. Anotherclown (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. However, I removed the material for both the reasons explained above and because it wasn't sourced at all (not just because it wasn't linked to). It was just a mass of wiki-text and nothing more [40]. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. From that diff it would seem that Buckshot's version did have an in-text reference (i.e. "the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea noted in its report S/2013/440") although I agree an inline citation (like it has now) is more accessible. As such perhaps just requesting the citation be added might have been another way of approaching this issue rather than removing the information? Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No prob. Had it not been on living persons, that would've worked too I suppose. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken the original text did not mention any individuals (by name or otherwise) so I really do not see how WP:BLP is relevant. It is a moot point now of course though at any rate. Anotherclown (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It mentioned the alleged clan backgrounds of soldiers within certain brigages i.e. living persons per BLP ("Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."). It is indeed a moot point now, though. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP" - at the risk of pointing out the obvious "BLP" stands for "Biographies of living persons", which this is not. Regardless, there was nothing "sensationalist" or "titillating" in what was written, not a single individual was mentioned and what was written was referenced to a high quality source. Really I'm starting to doubt your sincerity from posts like this. You and I have been around for more than long enough to know that WP:BLP relates to specifically named individuals and might at a stretch to small groups with easily identifiable members, but not to large groups or collectives like clans (see WP:BLPGROUP). Your cmts are starting look to me like a rather disingenuous attempt to disguise potentially disruptive editing through quoting unrelated policy and seemingly polite discussion. I might as well say that any article about unidentified people from a town / state / country / hemisphere / religion relates to "living persons" by this argument or that our article on the US 173rd Airborne Brigade is a BLP because the soldiers that have served in it were / are "living persons". Are we then not allowed to discuss the fact that many of them come from the United States, or that some might be Catholic or Jewish or atheists or any other notable demographic? Of course not as long as its relevant and is referenced to a reliable source. Anyway I'm not going to bother discussing this issue further with you because it is clear to me that there is no point (been here long enough to know that too). Feel free to change my mind though by engaging in collaborative editing and constructive discussion with other editors active on this article. That would certainly be a refreshing and unexpected change. Anotherclown (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As it notes, the WP:BLP policy doesn't just apply to BLPs. It instead applies to all Wikipedia articles, including talk pages ("this policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages"). That material suggesting that certain clans constituted the majority of certain military units was also not properly sourced [41]. It was just a mass of text, to which I personally later added an actual inline citation per WP:BLP ("All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

SAF equipment, SNA strength, EASF

I've structured the SAF's 1981 equipment per the LOC's Table 21, including the footnotes [42]. Fitzgerald likewise indicates that the SAF had disbanded. The SNA's total strength should be noted first, then its constituent units. Additionally, the March 2013 brigade enumeration was provided by an AMISOM official. EUTM Somalia also indicates that coordination with AMISOM has ammeliorated. Per the EASF, it was established in April 2005 as a constituent organization of the African Standby Force, following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the Eastern Africa Standby Force (MOU) [43]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. & France training

The United States and France governments just announced that they will start training the Somali National Army [44]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Somali Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Somalia%20Study_3.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shabelle.net/news/ne2279.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Somalia_Jubaland_gains_recognition_after_intense_bilateral_talks_in_Ethiopia_printer.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sabahionline.com/en_GB/articles/hoa/articles/newsbriefs/2013/06/05/newsbrief-06
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sabahionline.com/en_GB/articles/hoa/articles/newsbriefs/2013/04/05/newsbrief-02

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedians,

Could yall please review the budget appropriation citation as I am unable to correct the error its flaging as per attached PDF that is the correct figureBoonDogleHero (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Transitional

In Mogadishu, Hawiye residents resented the Islamic Courts Union's defeat.(dead link)?,They distrusted the TFG, which was at the time dominated by individuals from the Darod clan, believing that it was dedicated to the advancement of Darod interests in lieu of the Hawiye. Additionally, they feared reprisals for massacres committed in 1991 in Mogadishu by Hawiye militants against Darod civilians, and were dismayed by Ethiopian involvement. Critics of the TFG likewise charged that its federalist platform was part of a plot by the Ethiopian government to keep Somalia weak and divided.[79] During its first few months in the capital, the TFG was initially restricted to key strategic points, with the large northwestern and western suburbs controlled by Hawiye rebels.[80] In March 2007, President Ahmed announced plans to forcibly disarm militias in the city.@ ‎user:Buckshot06" as you are major contributor of this article isn't this broader context is more suitable on [Transitional Federal Government] as its do more about politics than army and if may i suggest the page looks long and boring for average reader if i you could improve by summarizing with all these little details on transitional and federal (it's like news on Oct 2007 on Nov 2008) will be good, thank you. Somajeeste (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Do not suggest to me or anyone else that 'long and boring' pages need to be improved by summarising 'all these little details.' Wikipedia is about detailed descriptions of what actually went on, well referenced. You do not need to read or edit these pages if you do not wish to read about the history. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

forget about my suggestion, if the '"well referenced history'" moved to military history would've been good. but I still think much of these details have more to do with politics than army, cheers.Somajeeste (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect years, 1976 talking about 1986

The U.S. Army Area Handbook wrote in 1976:[27]

_beginquote_In mid-1976 the military command...in the field, and by 1986 combat units had been...changed significantly since the coup._endquote_

So yeah, the quote from 1976 talking about 1986 in the past can't be right...(or maybe it's a typo made in 1976 in which case it should be explained as such) --User:ebyrob 12:39pm, 16 June 2017 (EST)

Commander SNA 1963

"Sept 06.1963 the Commander of Somali National Army Major Gen. Da'ud Abdulle Hersi (Feynuus) was traveling to Moscow to set up Military Cooparetion between soviet union & Somali Republic, Gen. Da'ud also visit Somali Embassy in Moscow with Ambassador Dr. Ahmed (Qaybe)" https://twitter.com/najiib_ismail/status/1107679523640872960 Buckshot06 (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Add this section into the Somali Armed Forces wikipedia page

Uniform

Since its inception in 1960, the Somali Army has been consistent in its formal wear and its summer wear. For its formal wear, the army deploys a khaki service uniform which consists of a blazer with gold buttons, a shirt, a gold/khaki tie (which can be opted out for the Somali blue for significant events such as Independence Day or the two Eids), shoulder boards which has the rank insignia shown on them, black formal shoes and a coloured beret which indicates the purpose of their division (ie. Maroon/Red for Presidential Guard, Black for Logistics etc.) and for new graduates and officers alike, they may opt for a peaked cap with the armed forces insignia on it (pictured).

File:Somali Major meets with Turkish Naval Officer.png

The Somali Major (right) in formal uniform (note the red collar patch, this identifies that he is a commissioned officer but not a flag officer)

The summer wear is the more common variant of the standard Somali Army uniform, as Somalia is on the equator and the nation can reach extremely high temperatures. The uniform itself is also a khaki uniform and consists of a khaki shirt with gold buttons and trousers but has combat boots instead of more formal footwear, often, there is no traditional shoulderboard so servicemen and women attach the insignia pins to the epaulette, due to this, they can strap their berets under the epaulette when not in use.

File:Somali Officer summer wear.png

A colonel of the army in summer wear (a better view of the collar patch, it has a circular Somali flag)

Iamveryshy22 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also note that the pictures you uploaded to Commons are in danger of being deleted because they do not have copyright information attached. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

Under the heading ===== Strength and units ===== add the following due to lack of images of the DANAB commandos and the section on the commandos is brief and should be accompanied by images to let the article viewer have a better understanding of the DANAB commandos.

File:3 Somali Commandos.jpg

Somali DANAB commandos in Somalia in 2019.

Iamveryshy22 (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done --MrClog (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2019

To the section headed ===== Army Weaponry And Equipment c. 2017 ===== could you guys add AK-74 (Assault Rifle) and PM Makarov (Pistol) as those firearms are still in the SNA's inventory and are being actively used Iamveryshy22 (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 15:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 3 Somali Commandos.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy of the uniforms, also missing combat fatigues and camoflage

Yo guys, i've studied the somali armed forces and i can't really find accurate battle dress and combat fatigues they deploy, could someone add them? much thanks, iamveryshy22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamveryshy22 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Danab Commando Armpatch.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Army Somali Uniform.png
• Army Somali Uniform2.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Only tanks in Somalia owned by clan militias, 2015

For example, the SNA does not own a single tank, whereas several clan militias possess multiple tanks, mostly acquired after the collapse of Siad Barre's militia in 1991. Author correspondence with FGS official, 2 November 2015. - Paul D. Williams, "AMISOM Under Review", RUSI Journal, Vol 161 Issue 1 February 2016, p.49. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Galmudug security or military forces

Ayanl3 you have attempted to revert my removal of Galmudug in the states' military listings. I have previously warned you about remaining with data backed by WP:RELIABLE sources. Galmudug may have maintained unified military or security forces in the past, though that is not certain; but the problem is your addition of the present tense. After a struggle of months, the Federal Government, led by Faarmajo and especially PM Kheyre ("N&N") have successfully squashed ASWJ, and Qoor Qoor is in relatively undisputed control. But the situation is still very uncertain and fighting has recently occurred between NISA bodyguards of Qoor Qoor and remnants of ASWJ (about 11 March). So if you wish to retain any mention of Galmudug forces on this page, you will need to bring solid, reliable sources that at the present moment, such Galmudug forces *exist*. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Galmudug Security Force existed long before AWSJ and its got nothing to do with ASWJ and Its ousted leaders. Feuds between ASWJ and FGS the past few months had nothing to do with Galmudug Security Force And it clearly, shows you can’t distinguish between the two. The “remnants” (Sheikh Shakir and Malin Mohamud and their bodyguards) of ASWJ were ousted a month ago and just few days ago, Galmudug’s former leader, Haaf, met with President Qoor Qoor in the state capital to finalize the transition of power. Which means, Qoor Qoor, will get control of the state force who have been Garrisoned outside of Galkacyo since haaf’s departure of the capital in 2019. And heres a source In one of the pictures from this article you will see Galmudug Security Force Commander Hasan Farah Karshe behind the outgoing president.

Galmudug Security Force haven’t operated in the Districts and towns that were previously under the control of ASWJ since Former Galmudug president, “Haaf” left the state capital and called off the power sharing deal between ASWJ and Galmudug last year.

Ayanl3 09:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A citation that deals with the political transfer of power between Presidents of Galmudug, past or current, does not provide a WP:RELIABLE source that any such entity known as the 'Galmudug Security Force' (or other such name) exists at this moment. The only thing the story mentions is 'a local militia', referring to ASWJ. Neither does having a man who is claimed to be the former commander pictured behind the former President. If you wish to justify claiming any Galmudug security force currently exists under that name or any other, you need to provide a reliable source about the security/military force - not the president. Otherwise I will remove any such mentions. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would it not exist? Honestly, It seems you still can’t distinguish between ASWJ and GSF, they are different from one another and the skirmishes that occurred between ASWJ and FGS had no effect on GSF because it simply didn’t concern them and they were no party to it. The ‘political transfer of power’ also includes the senior commanders of the security force who still hold their position until new commanders are named by the new president. And Speaking of proving reliable sources, I would like to see you provide any for these so called states you’ve added to the list yourself.

You have not provided a reliable source for the force's existence in 2020, "Why would it not exist", referring to Galmudug forces, from Ayanl3 simply doesn't serve as such a source for WP:Verifiability purposes, and thus I will remove the mention at this article. Just to be clear, I mentioned the fighting between ASWJ and FGS because it probably involved or affected the various clan militias in the area, and definitely would have had some effect on 'Galmudug security forces' if they existed. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Galmudug Security Force existence is already confirmed and verified, what gives you the need to question its existence now? The Fighting between ASWJ and FGS was fought between by remnants of ASWJ who stayed loyal to the ASWJ leaders and FGS Security Forces from Mogadishu led by former ASWJ officers. And no, the fighting had no affect on GSF because the soldiers stationed on The capital and its surrounding areas withdrew when president haaf left the capital few months prior to the fighting.

References

Recent copied content

One editor added copied content to this article from other articles, so now there is two things, many things seems useful in that added content (Civil war and Isaaq Genocide) but 1. There is article structure with different sections, "History" (and some part of content added overlap with that) and "Somali National Army from 2008" for current events. So if content is copied it needs to fit in the article well. And 2. This is general overview article where other stand alone articles about events or so can be linked etc. Nubia86 (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried to fix sections and only what I don't know is about the Isaaq Genocide. Would that need own subsection in "History" section or just as I did with link under History section subsection "Decline and collapse 1978 - 1991" as that event happened in 1987 and 1989. Maybe link can stay as enough. Nubia86 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nubia86,

Thank you for your edit. I do think the history section needs restructuring. As the Isaaq Genocide played a large role in the history of the Somali :Armed Forces and subsequently its collapse, I think it would be beneficial for it to have its own subsection under history. Many thanks Jacob300 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Hmmm maybe under that History section, "Decline and collapse 1978 - 1991" subsection, as per that event happened in the 80s? All what happened goes into History, and well there is no subsections of let's say the Ogaden war, it is under 1960 to 1978 subsection under History section and I linked it. We have to keep on mind this is one general article and there is no need to put everything inside about some event if there is article for that event, so usually it goes with link or short summary and link to that main event article. So if we put something, it is important that fits well into body of the article and structure. Nubia86 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Commanders in the 1970s

Barre became Chief of Staff, and then SAF commander; General Mohammad Ali Samatar became Chair, Peace and Security Committee, in December 1974 while remaining commandant of the Army and Secretary of State for Defence, while Brigadier General Abdalla Mohamed Fail was Samatar's deputy, and First Vice-Commandant of the Army (U.S. Embassy Mogadishu, 0rg/plusd/cables/1974MOGADI01791_b.html 'Somali Government Changes,', 1974MOGADI01791, 7 December 1974). (Note imported from article). Buckshot06 (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Somalias army size isn't 15.000

Its closee to 250 000 then 15 00. 2A02:AA1:1008:F317:1:1:5EB3:C94D (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Waxaa cod Sanaa kamid noqoshada ciidanka xooga dalka

waxaa difaacayaa dalka 41.114.168.241 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)