Talk:Somalia/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Portal

I was thinking about creating a Portal for Somalia so we can organize all the Somalia releted article, and organizing everything while at the same time presenting Somalia in a good Portal fashion where information dispensing can be achieved. I wanted to know who will support such venture?--Samantar Abdirisaq 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

weird how this place was so busy and now this portal discussion went idel almost immidiately. this just proves people's intrest can only be engaged by wars and other news releated things. is anyone here genuinely intrested in improving Somalia article and giving it a more BANG to it with a Portal? --Samantar Abdirisaq 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be doing my usual monitoring of the general situation, as I've been doing for the last 7 months. My current plan is actually to flesh out the Somali history section. I've been trying to iron out the facts from various Qabiil historians. It's obscene for instance that the Ajuuraan Empire has half a paragraph on the Ajuran clan article, and a few paragraphs that I added to the Hobyo page, and not even an article of its own. --Ingoman 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If a portal is created, one subject that should be brought up is the standardization of geographic names. About half of articles on Somali places have Somali names for the title and half have English names. See Category:Cities in Somalia or Category:Somalia geography stubs for examples. There is currently a move proposal for one at Talk:Boosaaso. — AjaxSmack 07:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

THE PORTAL HAS BEEN STARTED. much work will be needed to be done before we put on stage though... I really need a lot of help in getting this together. The Talk page is also open for discussions and what to do next. I am trying to read and look at other Wiki portal examples and so forth. ANYONE IS WELCOME TO HELP. thank you. So far, I have only built the skeleton of the portal but we need more work around this week to really get it read for articles and everything else. --Samantar Abdirisaq 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Official long form name

please someone cite sources as to the official long name of Somalia Ybgursey 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: there isn't one.

Now, the long answer. Per the CIA World Factbook: Jamhuuriyada Demuqraadiga Soomaaliyeed, Somali Democratic Republic. However, that was the name under the regime of Siad Barre c. 1991. It is obsolete. The new nation does not have an official 'long form' name other than "Somalia." Not yet.

The name used in the 1995 Draft Constitition for the Republic of Somalia was, obviously, the "Republic of Somalia." Not to be confused with the "Republic of Somaliland," the self-declared independent northern area.

The name used in the 2004 Transitional Federal Charter is the "Somali Republic." Per the preample:

In the Name of Allah, the most Merciful, the Beneficent. WE, THE DELEGATES REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE SOMALI REPUBLIC have solemnly resolved to enact a Transitional Federal Charter for the Somali Republic;

So note the present form is, as official as it can be given present circumstances, "Somali Republic," not "Republic of Somalia." --Petercorless 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing Somalia's borders on the map

The TFG recognizes Somaliland as part of its borders, and so does the International Community. So ifl S/Land becomes a soverign nation and is recognized, we should leave it alone. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by FAH1223 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Well until I hear on the front page of this site that it is a UN member state It should be added in the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.59.15 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, I do not believe formalities such as international recognition are more important than reality on the ground. I think post-USSR collapse, the UN has gone too far to discredit seccessionist movements, to the point of absurdity, for instance when Somalia was a state only legally, and Somaliland was the only actual state in Somalia until 1998. Categorizing states into "legitimate" and "illegitimate" countries is absurd and dangerous. --Ingoman 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But no country recognizes SOMALILAND! Somaliland is only a region on any map you see. 69.140.20.120 01:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister Gedi earlier this month called off flights and port activity for a short while for ALL of Somalia. A reporter asked if it also meant Somaliland, and he responded "There is only 1 Somalia." The next day, Hargeysa flights were halted, Berbera saw no activity until the action was lifted.

And for some odd reason, Hargeysa has seen protests from the TFG, after Dahir Riyale visited Addis Ababa. Something is brewing and the TFG does have some sort of control over S/Land, as minimal as it may seem. FAH1223 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of countries noone or very few people recognize, and I don't agree that this is the most important prerequisite for statehood. I think domestic legitimacy should be the most important thing, not whether other countries consider them legitimate. International recognition as a prerequisite leaves too much room for the "Illegal Combatant" syndrome, and favoratism, something the UN isn't supposed to show. I'd like to see a source that Hargeisa actually had to stop flights because Baidoa issued an air traffic ban. I know from the news I was following at the time that flights to ICU-controlled Mogadishu didn't even stop during the ban, let alone flights to Hargeisa. --Ingoman 01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Charter's first Chapter establishes the Transitional Federal Government as the sovereign government of Somalia (Article 1), and gives the government supremacy of law over the nation (Article 3). It defines Somalia (in Article 3) as having the following borders:

(a) North; Gulf of Aden.

(b) North West; Djibouti.

(c) West; Ethiopia.

(d) South south-west; Kenya.

(e) East; Indian Ocean.

This puts a territorial contention with the self-declared autonomous state of the Republic of Somaliland, which has been operating as a de facto independent state, though it is not recognized internationally. It would also incorporate the autonomous state of Puntland.

FAH1223 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Domestic charters don't mean anything in international politics. Taiwan "officially" had borders encompassing mainland China, Mongolia, Tibet and Manchuria. Self-declared authority means nothing. And don't delete talk page content, it is vandalism. --Ingoman 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Atleast Taiwan is recognized by other states, even after the Chinese civil war. Somaliland is still considered Somalia to just about every country. And Somaliland's independence comes from 1 clan, and they are all Somali, while other clans protest themselves for the unity of Somalia. FAH1223 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent added info

info from this site[1] was added in the article a day ago i have removed it

second if the person that contributed it wants to add in his/her own words about the spread of Islam in Somalia he/she should add it in the main article Islam in Somalia

third about the Somali sultanates all lot was taken from the Northern Somali Sultanates article and i think it would be better if that info was added in the main article History of Somalia... RoboRanks 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

THE PROBLEM SOOL,SANAAG&BUHOODLE AND THIS MAP

mr james your map must be basis the somali clan families map because that part of somalia unlike other parts of somalia so be becarefull that is reason of the confilict and your intersection lines must be cover all harti area in sool,sanaag and cayn using tha map of somali clan families :

lib.utexas
this correct and usefull map of harti part in former british economist

there are area you excepted in your map the lines extended in the conflict area between puntland and somaliland {ceerigaabo(arigavo) district}Include :masagan,ceelaqoday,madare,ardaa,dhaxamo,biyoguduud,jiidali,fiqi fuleye,awrboogays,dhaabeeda,ceelqoxle ,xingalool,damalaxagare,yube,carmale,bir xamar,dabablehe look map of ceerigaabo:

fallingrain that mean that area is inhabitants by isaq clan or belong them but that is not true it is big mistake to refer area for one clan to other clan.reason of conflict is distribute of the tribes if you look map of somali clan families you see:
lib.utexas

the puntland need to make darod state look map of puntland: puntlandgovt include all area inhabitants by harti clan,

where somaliland need to make isaaq nation in the boundaries of the new republic are the same as those of "British Somaliland somalilandgov that is impossible because who inhabit the regions of Sool, Sanaag and Cayn (approximating over 40 percent of the geographical area of the so-called Somaliland), were separated from their fellow clan cousins in Southern Somalia (Puntalnd).here I execept here Gadabuursi,They had suffered atrocities in 1991 and occupied from the Isaaq rebel movement (Somali National Movement) and are understandably not keen for the time being to provoke any military reprisals from the Isaaqs, unless thy can count on the support of an effective and functioning Somali government in Mogadishu which can come to their aid when somalia get central govertment

mr james you must know too that the people of Sool and Sanaag, as members of major Somali clans, have recognized borders. It is a well defined border, with longitude and latitude; it is borders well recognized by Her Majesty, the British Kingdom; it is a border that recognizes where the Isaq sub-clans reside and where the Harti sub-clans are too. don't disturb those borders and the peace. (Sanaaglander 09:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC))osmanhr

Yo sanaaglander why are you so into qabil give it a break.This is what is tearing Somalia apart .if you want change be part of the solution.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly-gurl1 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 16 November 2007

A reminder: article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the subject of the article. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TRIVIAL GRAGH

I deleted it because of above reason, --Sanaaglander 10:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Languages of Somalia

You guys should stop replacing what I wrote. The main language of Somali native minority second languages is Af-Maay and Swahili. Non-Native languages are Arabic and English are spoken well but Italian doesn't even deserve to be mentioned because hardly a soul speaks it in Somalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazi99 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm this. A large Somali community is growing here in Greeley, Colorado. I work with native Somalis who have come here through the JBS Swift and Company work visa program. The only latin-derived language I have ever witnessed a Somali speak is Spanish, and only from learning bits and pieces since coming here.75.71.99.169 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Map

Does the TFG claim Somaliland and Puntland? and if so would the TFG's count as Somalia? I guess what I really mean is shouldn't they have a separate page? --Merhawie 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The TFG is widely recognised by the "international community" as the only and official government representing Somalia. Puntland doesn't claim independence from Somalia, but regards itself as an autonomous state within Somalia ("Puntland State of Somalia"), which it de facto is. Somaliland has declared its independence (which it de facto maintains), but is de jure still part of Somalia, for no other country has recognised it and the TFG still claims it (see Chapter 1 of the Transitional Federal Charter which defines the borders of Somalia). Béka 12:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Link

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=29 concerning US backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Warlord names

Are the "Somali Warlord Muamar Aideed" and "Mohamed Farrah Aidid" in the '60s to '90s chapter the same person? If so, the naming convention should be unified. RandomMonitor 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing that confuses a lot of people is that Somalis all have nicknames, by which they are much better known than their real names. For instance the warlord Muhammad Omar Habeb is known as "Mohamed Dheere". "General Aideed" as he is generally known as, is a nickname as well. His real name is Mohamed Farah, and his son's real name is Hussein Mohamed Farah.

Some even sound like real names, like Yusuf Idha'adde, the security chief of the ICU, but that's a nickname too, it means "white eyed" His real name is Yusuf Mohammed Siad.

In general, Somalis are known by their nicknames, and their real names are only used for official or genealogical purposes. In response to your original question though, Muamar is incorrect, his name is Mohamed.

--Ingoman 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Scouting in Somalia

Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Somali? Thanks! Chris 06:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

New changes to economics section of Somalia, and data.

Hi

i have been on the ground and talked to many in the Mogadishu business community about the recent changes to the countries infrastructure and light construction taking place outside the city. the government released papers showing the current imports and exports of the countries growing cement industry and light machinery. The telecommunication industry in Somalia is growing at an rapid rate, with high-speed DSL and ADSL connections appearing even in the poorest homes, and seem to be the back bone of the countries recent return to Government rule.

i changed some of the sitting on the Somali page to reflect the sent increase in economic activity. i hope the people viewing the new editing of the Somali page can truly get a real picture of the return of peace and prosperity. Somalia is no longer an failed state, but one emerging from the chaos of rising to the challenge.

Hope you people can understand and see Somalia in its true light, and help change the Economic section of Somalia wikipedia. --Edd34 16:31, 27 September 2007 UTC

Poetery

Why isn't there a poetry section, am suprised it wasn't included. Poetry is one of our pastimes our people are renouned for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.150.125 (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add it (please cite sources). Alternatively, the Somali people article might be a good place to add the information. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

State

This might sound a bit stupid but can lawless Somalia even be called a state anymore? The H-Man2 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question, but where in the article is Somalia actually referenced as a "state"? 24.193.49.117 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Government

Should it be listed as 'Anarchy'? At least in brackets? I think it's a rather important thing to mention. Zazaban 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It has a partially recognised transitional government, hence anarchy is innapropriate Somaliwarrior 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Somalia is in a state of anarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufcali007 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

italian

Just a question, Italian language is still teaching in somalia today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

no, there are no official government curriculums but a substantial, especial the older generations, still speak Somalis and there is a large somali population in Italy which contributes to a lot of other people learning the language. But even without a government Arabic and Italian are taught in private schools scattered through out the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.163.190 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but why when I go to italian language page in wikipedia its write that italian is speaking in Somalia,Libya...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The only OFFICIAL language of Somalia is Somali. English is the language of science, technology and academia and Arabic is the language of religion, law and philosophy, and English and Arabic are also largely the languages of commerce and diplomacy so educated Somalis can speak all three languages, but the majority of Somalis speak only Somali and/or Maay. Italian was learned by the Somali upper class about 70 years ago as the language of administration, but then only in Italian Somaliland, British Somaliland having of course English as an administrative language. The institutions of British Somaliland were the ones that developed into modern Somalia, Italian Somaliland having been largely dismantled after 1942. --Ingoman (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

??? I never said that I just want to understand why its still put in the italian speaking countries? go in the italian language page see: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Map_Italophone_World_-_updated.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would no longer classify it as such myself. You should take it up with the author of that map and editors of such pages. They likely are making assumptions based on colonial history. --Ingoman (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a large Italian Speaking Somalis... even today. To say that its just colonial history is just false based on no solid evidence. Its really something that should be as clear as water, i am not sure why people cant research the actual fatcs before making momentous statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.163.190 (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove me that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

no Italian is not being taught in Somalia because there are no Italians left there.Some people do still speak Italian,but no,it is not being taught in Somalia at this time Coolisha (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the race of the somali people ?

im not teying 2 be wierd or rude but seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolisha (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Somalis themselves believe to be descended from Arabs (preferably the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad) who came to their area and intermarried with locals, while linguistics and genetic genealogy suggest they are closely related to Cushitic-speaking Black African peoples in the Horn of Africa, such as the Oromo. Actualy they seem to be mixed Arab and Black African. Béka (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Word of advice, Coolisha: When seeking information on the genuine racial background of a given population, do not rely on man-on-the-street assertions. They will only tell you what they want you to believe and wish were true. Turn instead to actual scientific studies from people qualified to know what they are talking about. Causteau (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Consistency of regions across Solami articles

We could do with getting the "number of regions" stories straight at Somalia#Administrative divisions (lists 18, notes there are now 27, Districts of Somalia (lists 19) and Regions of Somalia (lists 27). I appreciate the changes since circa 1990, but we should be capable of discussion the history of region changes. Currently, at best, Districts of Somalia serves to confuse. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are only 13 regions in Somalia since the regions know constituting The Republic of Somaliland have formed their own country. Hence Sool, Sanaag, Togdheer, Waqooyi Galbeed and Awdal do not consider themselves part of Somalia but rather Somaliland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufcali007 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (Yusufcali007 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Capital city

Why does the third paragraph of the lead section fail to state that Mogadishu is the capital? This is widely acknowledged, and is noted in the infobox and in the Mogadishu article. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a bit of ambiguity in this regard, as the government is still located at Baidoa and has not relocated to Mogadishu. --Ingoman (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The capital Mogadishu is not controlled by the so called "government", but it is the capital of Somalia nevertheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufcali007 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia since a Chinese dynasty passed through the nation, naming it as they passed. The Somali government relocated after Nur "Adde" became Prime Minister back in 2007 after numerous arguments and encouragement with other ministers. Since then only one or two incidences have happened near the Villa Somalia - suggesting that they are welcomed by their people. (Harun8 (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Do not erase bibliography and references. please

Please, do not erase bibliography and references. Wikipedia is based on scholar opinions and references, in every language of the world. Please, add your bibliography and/or references if you disagree with the opinions of some scholars. It is the way Wikipedia works. Thanks, J.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.20 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect J.T., it seems to me that it's you who is not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's policies, particularly the one regarding non-English sources on English Wikipedia (i.e. this site) that I already pointed out to you:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

Your Una sconfitta dell’intelligenza. Italia e Somalia source falls short in several respects because:

1)It's not in English and this, again, is English Wikipedia. Since your source is not in English, readers can't "easily verify that the source material has been used correctly".

2)You personally translated the text instead of providing a translation published by a reliable source.

3)Your assertion here that "...by 1939 nearly 10% of the Somalis were catholics" also more than qualifies as an exceptional claim per Wiki policies since all the available mainstream historical sources on the Somalis agree that they are and have always been among the most singularly Muslim populations extant. Your edit therefore necessitates a high quality source, which Una sconfitta dell’intelligenza. Italia e Somalia unfortunately does not qualify as:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I have therefore removed this portion of your edit again. The rest, however, can remain since it appears to be properly sourced, and does not make any exceptional claims (and in other languages to boot). Causteau (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, Costeau. Not your personal place to write what you like. Who are you to write that the italian scholars are NOT reliable sources? This is exactly the way of thinking of the moslems who support the fanatism of the "Taliban" in Somalia! Soon or later someone will denounce your extremism, hidden under a curtain of "wikipedia rules". I have reverted your arbitrary erase and will consider in future an arbitration on your moslem behavior.J.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.151.45 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What on Earth are you on about? I didn't qualify your sources as unreliable -- they qualified themselves as such per Wikipedia's policies, as clearly explained and quoted above. Let me cite you the reasons again since you didn't seem to get it the first time:

With all due respect J.T., it seems to me that it's you who is not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's policies, particularly the one regarding non-English sources on English Wikipedia (i.e. this site) that I already pointed out to you:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."

Your Una sconfitta dell’intelligenza. Italia e Somalia source falls short in several respects because:

1)It's not in English and this, again, is English Wikipedia. Since your source is not in English, readers can't "easily verify that the source material has been used correctly".

2)You personally translated the text instead of providing a translation published by a reliable source.

3)Your assertion here that "...by 1939 nearly 10% of the Somalis were catholics" also more than qualifies as an exceptional claim per Wiki policies since all the available mainstream historical sources on the Somalis agree that they are and have always been among the most singularly Muslim populations extant. Your edit therefore necessitates a high quality source, which Una sconfitta dell’intelligenza. Italia e Somalia unfortunately does not qualify as:

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

I have therefore removed this portion of your edit yet again. And in your future dealings with other Wiki editors, kindly refrain from indulging in personal attacks. It's a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. ---- Causteau (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a citation yesterday and it was removed. I'm wondering why this occurred. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.211.5 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the Somali people article? Your IP address added a reference to the New York Post under the "References" section. I assume it was removed because it isn't clear that any portion of the article was actually using it as a reference (i.e. there were no citations). It may have been better suited for the "External links" section. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV:Education

The education section about Quranic school is not written in NPOV style, I don't know much about this topic, but could someone who does rewrite, remove questionable words and add references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.168.131 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Raped girl, 13, stoned to death in Mogadishu

I'm not sure where (or whether) this belongs in this article, but here's a news story I just stumbled across reporting that A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death on on October 27 in Mogadishu, Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants: Raped girl, 13, stoned to death, South Africa: News24, 1 November 2008, retrieved 2008-11-02. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Search for this in the article: "Somalia(formerly British Somaliland)". There should be a space between "Somalia" and "(formerly ...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.239.53 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Clean-up

This article needs to be cleaned up, I see there is some POV. An example of POV is in the following sentence: "Though many Somali warriors were killed during the war, they still defeated the enemy and succeeded in protecting the Benadir coast." There should be no references to other groups as "the enemy".

Also, the following sentence appears out-of-place, I believe it should have been a title: " The Situation in Mogadishu in 1990."--72.140.155.2 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. What about this: "Qur'anic schools (also known as duqsis) remain the basic system of religious instruction in Somalia. They provide Islamic education for children, thereby filling a clear religious and social role in the country. Known as the most stable local and non-formal education providing basic religious and moral instruction, their strength rests on community support and in their use of locally made and widely available teaching materials."

I mean, are you kidding me? --72.184.223.147 (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} typo: Parliment should be Parliament

Typo is in the third paragraph, second sentence, between commas in the phrase, "the seat of the Parliment".

riddiminblooz (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Done, thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A first

In 1993, Abdinasir Diriye was the first man to travel from the United States to Somalia by boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.160.4 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

External links on conflict

I tried to group the links about the conflict into one section, but that section really should be moved to the specific sub-article. The only links in this article should be about the country in general. Flatterworld (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've moved the links about the conflict to the Somali Civil War page. Middayexpress (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Era Notation

Please note the era notation used in this article. Originally AD was used to denote years in the common era. User:Middayexpress changed this here to the CE notation. Such a change is against policy. I've now removed CE, but not added AD, since years outside the BC era really need no further annotation of any kind. I hope all editors will accept this completely neutral version. Unfortunately Middayexpress seems unwilling to compromise, despite having moved against policy in the first place. 86.10.27.203 (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right IP. I did change it because Somalia is an entirely Muslim country, so why should the Somalia article have to follow the specifically Christian Anno Domini (AD) usage when it could just as easily follow the neutral, non-Muslim, non-Christian Common Era (CE) usage? You claim above that this is somehow "against policy". I'd be very interested to see that famous policy where it states that articles must conform to the Christian Anno Domini (AD) usage and not have the option of following the faith-neutral Common Era (CE) usage. I think I'll be waiting a long time because you and I both know no such policy exists. And your edits were unsatisfactory because one still needs to identify for the public which exact period of history we are talking about BC/BCE or AD/CE? We can't just assume they'll know that the sultanates were CE dates. Middayexpress (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See here WP:ERA. You changed it. You should not have done so. There is no "substantive reason" for change. The religious affiliations of the population of Somalia are irrelevant. Leaving out CE and AD offends no-one and note this statement in the MoS - "The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD." A good compromise here is to abide by this guidance. Please do so. 86.10.27.203 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Further note - see also this quote from the MoS "the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." Nowhere is advice given as to whether a particular type of article shold adopt one or other of the conventions. 86.10.27.203 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. You've clearly misinterpreted WP:ERA, so I'll do what you didn't, and quote what it actually says in full right here for you:

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.

In other words, my changing AD to CE back in September was my prerogative and fully within Wiki rules, contrary to what you've written above. The absence of either CE/AD also indicates the default, which is CE/AD. So what is your point? In my previous post, I've already clearly stated my point for making the change. What is your reason for removing the CE usage and replacing it with none? Do you want readers to wonder which exact part of history the sultanates actually existed in or do you want to help them along with a simple CE/AD? Which is it? Middayexpress (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Middday, I can't see your argument standing up at all here. The key sentence is the one about it being inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason. There is no substantive reason in this article, being as it is a mainly geographic, and not religious, article. Seems like you're getting into an unnecessary dispute with an IP who is willing to compromise. WizOfOz (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WizOfOz, I appreciate your trying to help, but this is not a geographic article. It is an article about Somalia as a whole: Its history, politics, economy, demographics, health, languages, and yes, its geography and religion. There is an actual Geography of Somalia page reserved for the purpose you have specified. I have also yet to see evidence that this IP is willing to compromise. If he were, he wouldn't take exception to my making it easier for readers to know which period of history the sultanates actually existed in. Instead, he insists that they'll "just know" that it's a CE/AD date instead of simply making it easier for them by leaving the existing CE symbols in place. Apparently, the sultanates of Somalia are already known to all and sundry. Middayexpress (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the points I was making. CE usage is controversial, not well recognised, and it isn't needed in this article. It is abundantly clear that the years refer to the common era and not to the BC era. Midddayexpress, if it was your prerogative to change it from AD to CE, then equally it's mine to remove CE. 86.10.18.123 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the CE usage is not well recognized and not needed in this article, an opinion that is not supported by Wikipedia's policies. It is also, with all due respect, a slightly absurd contention since the Common Era (CE) nomenclature came about specifically because of the controversy surrounding the Christian Anno Domini (AD) usage. Believe it or not, some non-Christian communities did and do not wish to be identified solely on the basis of the Christian AD usage. Because of the sensitivity of modern scholars to these concerns, the CE usage is eventually expected to completely replace the AD usage (1, 2). So yes, it was my prerogative to change the Somalia article from AD to CE, as it was indeed yours to strip it of all identifying symbols, and after having already seen the existing CE usage in place. I've just corrected your prerogative to one that is forward-looking, secular, and that doesn't leave it up to readers to guess which period of history the relatively obscure Somali sultanates actually existed in. Middayexpress (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You just won't compromise will you! I'm offering you a half-way house, no AD and no CE. Any reasonable person would accept it, especially since your original change to remove AD went against policy. If you won't accept this compromise I'll endeavour to re-instate the AD usage. It's quite clear which period of history we're talking about here. 82.26.68.4 (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You've spouted yet another round of untruths, so I'll summarize what has transpired up until now to put things in their proper perspective:

You twice falsely claimed that I was violating Wikipedia's rules by removing the CE usage when WP:ERA actually states that "either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used".
You claimed that the CE usage is controversial and "not well recognized". I disproved this as well by pointing out that the secular CE usage actually came about specifically because of the controversy surrounding the Christian AD usage vis-a-vis non-Christian groups (i.e. the rest of the world). I then produced two links (1, 2) showing that not only is the CE usage increasingly becoming the standard, it is expected to eventually completely replace the AD usage.
You also claimed that the CE usage is "not needed" since readers will "just know" which period of history we are referring to without their presence. I disproved this by pointing out the obvious fact that the Somali sultanates are completely unknown to most people, and as such, most people have no idea which period of history they actually existed in. Instead of leaving it up to readers to guess which period of history they actually existed in, the CE usage helps them along while your removal of it does the exact opposite of that. The fact that you are now threatening to re-add the AD usage proves that even you despite your previous arguments understand that some sort of identifying symbol is necessary.
According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000, the verb to compromise refers to "a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions". In this spirit, you claim that you are just trying to reach a "compromise" by continuously removing the CE usage (i.e. repeating your same intial edit), hardly a concession. Your claim that you are simply "compromising" is also false on its face because prior to your initial edit, there was no objection raised whatsoever regarding the presence of the existing CE usage, so there was nothing to "compromise" over.

Now you finally reveal what I had suspected all along, and that is your intention to replace the CE usage with the AD usage. However, instead of simply doing it in one fell swoop, you appear to have opted for a much more canny two-step process that you figured (and correctly) would be less likely to attract attention: First remove the existing CE usage, and then replace that with the AD usage. But I interrupted the plan, so this is why you persist in raising a stink over what should logically be a non-issue. Please stop already with this nonsense. Middayexpress (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How about you just link the years? 700 should clarify it. WizOfOz (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I came here due to a request posted at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Bear in mind that Wikipedia:Third opinion is not the correct place to resolve this dispute, because it involves more than two editors. Even so, I'll weigh in with my opinion:

BCE and CE are widely recognized.
BCE and CE can be considered religion-neutral because they make no reference to one religion's way of marking epoch boundaries.
If Wikipedia has no preference between BC/AD and BCE/CE, and a decision must be made on what to do in an article, then other policies must be considered. In articles about other countries and cultures, that policy would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Consequently, BCE and CE are also preferable in articles about countries and cultures that are decidedly non-Christian.
If the date is understood to be before or after the Common Era, then no BCE/CE designation should appear.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Amatulić. It perfectly articulates the points I've been trying to make. Middayexpress (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum based on this comment left on my talk page: WP:ERA states "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason". As I indicated above, I believe that WP:NPOV and the fact that the country is non-Christian, satisfies the "substantive reason" requirement, and therefore the change to BCE/CE isn't a policy violation. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

New president and info

Useful BBC news and background piece here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthlyreason (talk • contribs) 10:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Corruption

A good bit of info for the article, but where? Economy, culture? Any suggestions?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Soomaaliyeey Toosoow

I presume a more correct translation would poetically ' Somalia Stand , Stand up '

Simplified to ' Somalia Stand up '

It is undoubtly a deeper meaning behind the word ' Toosoow ' in this correlation to independence and the poetic somali language.

Somalia ' wake up ' indicates the general five Somali Lands were somewhat sleeping during colonial times, rather than being under occupation in those dark 80 years +, My interpretation is the peninsula was being filled with joy & pride and thus ' Stood up ' when the intended five pointed star and flag was elevated during the first two Somali Lands independence and union.

My proposal will be ' Somalia Stand up '

If anyone disagrees let us discuss it further and you of course may revert it back to the ' Wake up ' if you prefer it.

If you agree with interpretation please support it and cosign with me

Redsoxbed (talk)

Actually, a correct translation of the name of the anthem would be "Somalia Wake Up" since the verb "toosi" means "wake" and not "stand". "Somalia Wake Up", for better or worse, is the standard English language translation of the Somali national anthem. Middayexpress (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Using your logic, "Somalia, Stand Up" is also inadequate in that it implies that Somalis were somewhat indolent during colonial times, rather than being under occupation in those "dark" 80 years +. It would mean that they didn't, like, stand up and stuff (about the latter, I suggest you refer to pp. 68-69 & 75-76 of David D. Laitin's Politics, Language, and Thought: The Somali Experience; it's certain to give you a whole new perspective on the colonial era in Somalia and Somali people in general). Middayexpress (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

CIA factbooks photo caption wrong?

In the demographics section, it states that a picture from the 2002 factbook is provided. And, the name of the file is 2002. But, the legend in the picture itself says that it is from 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.120.165 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture might be from 1992 but was published in the 2002 edition of the factbook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.43.55 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Krytocracy

Is there a reason I did not see why the "See Also" section mentions "krytocracy"? I did not find any reference to a ruling by judges' personal opinions in the Politics seccion and searching "judge" or "krytocracy" on the page yielded no results (appart of the very link I am referring to). Maybe this link has no reason to be there. 66.130.156.83 (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical Error (cannot edit)

In the opening paragraph, it reads that "For the third consecutive year in a row Forbes ranked Somalia as the most dangerous destination in the world, with Afghanistan trailing behind."

"Third consecutive year in a row" is redundant, and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Long.897 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dan D. Ric (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Would someone fix the apostrophe abuse? (cannot edit)

All five instances of "it's" in the first five paragraphs are the possessive form, and should be "its". 212.44.43.183 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar error: who's should be whose (cannot edit)

Flaxter (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both occurrences. Thanks for letting us know. Trafford09 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

References

New section, hopefully to avoid users getting the error message ""Cite error: <.ref> tags exist, but no <.references/> tag was found" at the end of the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trafford09 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Somali Nomad Girls Picture

The picture at the bottom of the page falsely charactarizes teenage girls in traditional clothing as 'nomad girls'. I couldn't change the caption, could someone kindly follow up on it as its misleading. Young women routinely wear these clothes at wedding after parties or social gatherings. Those aren't nomad girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.221.115 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

NOT NOMADS

I am Somali and I can definitely say they (the girls in the picture) are not Nomads. Its a photo of a themed wedding (the theme here being a traditional somali wedding) and has nothing to do with NOMADS. --24.131.188.5 (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If no one disagrees I'll change it.Fuzbaby (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Claim of ICU banning soccer

This article repeated the commonly reported view that the ICU banned soccer viewing. I left the original citation in place, but modulated the tone and cited a balancing source. The story behind the story is interesting, and sheds some light on the problem of balanced presentation of the record of the ICU while it was in power. Some reports have it that Somalis were even shot for being at theaters where World Cup broadcasts were shown. Though it appears there was a grain or two of truth in most reports, the real situation seems to have been decidedly more mixed and complex.

Even in an International Sports Press Association report [2] with some anti-ICU POV slant, you can see a little more complexity. In one case, some children were arrested for playing soccer, and forbidden to ever play the game again, which is distinctly draconian. However, their sin seems to have been in playing soccer during Ramadan, not in playing soccer at all. The BBC reported [3] that the gunmen who shot some World Cup broadcast spectators were arrested, "could face the death penalty", and that there was no official ICU blanket ban on viewing soccer matches, though there may have been some variation from court to court. The blog "The Global Game: Soccer as a Second Language" [4] rounds up some reporting from the time, including a proposed ICU ban on sports reporting, although even the most detailed reporting I've found on this proposed censorship [5] doesn't make it clear whether it was fully enacted, and in that same report we find that the ICU has, besides its clear ban on playing or watching during Ramadan, gone no further than sex-segregated seating, enforcing prayer times, playing Koranic verses over the stadium PAs, and generally trying to Islamicize the events rather than outright banning them. Some of the concern about viewing international broadcasts of soccer games appears to have been related to a desire to censor alcohol advertising more than soccer itself. There's almost the makings of an entire article here, but for now, I think it might be enough to briefly clarify here (and more broadly amplify in other ICU-related articles) that ICU policy about soccer was mixed, inconclusive, not uniform, and generally not some draconian Taleban-like treatment of the sport. Yakushima (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear is much less draconian.Fuzbaby (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion: Entirely Sunni???

Because this page is a bit of a battleground, I am reluctant to simply make the change:

It was: Somalis are entirely Sunni Muslims. That is no more true that the statement: The Vatican is entirely Catholic. Now it reads: To a first approximation, the Somalis are entirely Sunni Muslims. This is an awkward way of putting it. Can we settle on something like: The people of Somalia are almost entirely Sunni Muslim? ...or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Every source I see states approx. 99%+ Sunni, various others.^[1]^[2]--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a handful of Catholic Somalis, but we're talking a few hundred maybe out of millions. Also, most of them have emigrated to other countries. --Ingoman (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What Ingoman said. Plus, the literal handful of Christian Somalis in Somalia are orphans who were raised by missionaries (or rather, were orphans, since they've long since left the country). Middayexpress (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for Jewish Somalis and some mystics, went elsewhere.Fuzbaby (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, how come I can read the whole (long) intro without finding a single mention that Somolia has several self administered quasi independent regions? Fuzbaby (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction: Somalia has been colonized or not?

The statement that Somalia has never been formally made into a colony seems contradicting with what is written only few lines below: "After a quarter of a century holding the British at bay, the Dervishes were finally defeated in 1920 when Britain for the first time in Africa used aeroplanes when it bombed the Dervish capital of Taleex. As a result of this bombardment, former Dervish territories were turned into a protectorate of Britain. Italy similarly faced the same opposition from Somali Sultans and armies and did not acquire full control of parts of modern Somalia until the Fascist era in late 1927. This occupation lasted till 1941 and was replaced by a British military administration. Northern Somalia would remain a protectorate while southern Somalia became a trusteeship. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.203.197 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction at all. A protectorate is not the same thing as a colony. Middayexpress (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

the name of this country

NPR and other news organizations are starting to refer to this country as Solmaliland. What's the scoop?Vermontdude (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

When was the last time anything the MSM said made sense? I've also read several "news" reports saying MPs from Somaliland have quit. Utter tripe.

Somiland is a self-declared republic in the North of Somalia. Somalia itself (as determined by lines on maps per UN) has no functioning government. Then there's Puntland and the Republic of Awdal (with Somliland) to make the situation just a bit too confusing for the journalists to understand. They really should stick to reporting on Britney.A is A (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeer

I've slowly started work on an article covering the Xeer. Still waiting for a book [6] though so the article's a bit shoddy at the moment. Xeer is Somalias customary law system [7]. Which section in this article would be appropriate for mentioning it? Politics? Culture? A separate "law" section as with other countries? A is A (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've been able to make some edits. Discussion, corrections etc. welcome. --A is A (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

@Middayexpress: Thanks for your helpful edits in the law section! I'm new to wikipedia so I'm not sure what all the policies are. What I'd like to know is how much weight we should give to the actual situation in Somalia in comparison to what it supposedly should be. From what I've read the TNG and TFG have been nothing more then 'paper' governments, in the sense that they only existed on paper and have never done any considerable amount of governing. Of course most media and other official sources refer to the TFG as the government of Somalia, though in reality this is rather absurd (at least in my opinion). How should this be represented on the wiki?

For instance the statuary laws and judiciary of the current TFG are all rather pointless and have no real effect on the ground situation. Even the laws in Somaliland are very often ignored. From articles (not exactly sure about credibility) I've read if you don't want to pay taxes in Somaliland you just need an elder with you when the tax collectors come by. Even rulings in official courts will be ignored if they are settled with customary law. How should this be portrayed and what type of sources can we consider as credible in this case? --A is A (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey A is A, not B or C. Welcome to Wikipedia. The Transitional Federal Government is Somalia's official government, and is recognized as such the world over. Its current "roster", if you will, of lawmakers is considerably more popular with the common people than the one that preceded it, and this largely has to do with clan issues that I won't get into. However, this government, just like the one before it, is relentlessly targeted by various Islamist groups (most notably Al Shabaab) that are working hard to frustrate its efforts at reconstruction and looking instead to supplant it as the nation's sole governing authority. This resistance has thus destabilized the southern half of the nation, and obviously challenged the government's authority, as any potent rebel movement will. But these travails don't change the fact that the TFG is indeed the country's main governing authority & that civil law (now shari'a law) is the nation's principal judicial system. While I commend you for your work on expanding the Xeer article, it is inaccurate to portray customary law as the Law of Somalia since there are, in fact, two other contemporaneous systems of law (civil law & religious law), with xeer actually being mainly practiced in nomadic areas, not by either the TFG or the Islamist powers that be. There's no question that each system has its strengths and weaknesses. However, the Somalia article, lengthy as it already is, is not the place to delve into this. That is what the link-throughs to the Xeer and other articles are for. Middayexpress (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Middayexpress. I'd agree that this article is not the place to discuss the situation of law in Somalia. Though for the Law of Somalia article I'd like your input regarding this. I'm assuming you're a Somali. Are you living there at the moment? The only info I can get is through news sources and published reports, so I'm not sure what the situation on the ground really is. From what I gather Shari'a is most strictly enforced at the moment in areas surrounding the capital and a handful of other cities in the South. I think objectively the TFG might as well be the official internationally recognized government of the Moon; it has no influence as a governing authority. I agree Xeer is mainly practised in rural areas, though still has some minor influence on urban communities (reports vary though); especially in Somaliland and Puntland. Of course one shouldn't forget that about 60% of Somalis are still nomadic or live in smaller rural communities. What's your take on this? Which news sources do you consider to be reliable? The BBC and other western news agencies are mostly useless (at least regarding Somalia, I don't think their reporters leave Mogadishu very often). Unfortunately I can't really judge the local Somali news sites on the web for objectivity (I tend to get the impression that there's always some propaganda involved) . --A is A (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fix See also (can not edit)

Krytocracy should be kritarchy. Since xeer forms a kritarchy... please fix. --A is A (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add a law section to explain Xeer and kritarchy and maybe some law history during colonial times... As soon as I'm allowed too (semilocked) --A is A (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Somali govt web link is advertising

I have looked forthe official Somali government website but the best I can find is this : http://www.somaligovernment.org/

the current link to the "official" Somali government website is http://www.somali-gov.info/ whihc eads to advertising links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexus2019 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the official site of the TFG: http://tfgsomalia.net/

Somaliland

Why there is no mention of the independence declaration and de facto self rule of Somaliland ?? That s weird. Since Somaliland hasn t been recognized by any country, it is still formaly part of Somalia, so its history should be mentioned in this article. Than, do you think a 0C average december minimum is alright for Mugadisho ? Is somebody insane or what ?? That temperature table is 100% cr.ap... It is all wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.204.54 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

PIRATES

Why is there nothing about the pirates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.183.241 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the piracy actually takes place in the waters off of the coast of Somalia and not in Somalia itself. Also, next time you have something to say 99.241.183.241, please sign your posts. Middayexpress (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the pictures of these pirates, they're all Somalian. So where they take place is irrelevant, seeing how they all come from Somalia. I' m also not signing for your pleasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.154.199 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, not all the pirates are "Somalian" (Somali is the name, btw), as has already very clearly been indicated to you (1, 2, 3, 4). And yes, it most certainly is relevant where the piracy actually takes place because this is the Somalia article, not the Gulf of Aden or Indian Ocean articles i.e. where the piracy actually takes place. Furthermore, not all Somalis hail from Somalia (ever heard of Djibouti or the Ogaden?). Lastly, whether or not you sign your posts for "my pleasure" is also inconsequential. It's a matter of respecting WP:TALK, which instructs that editors should sign their posts. Middayexpress (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There still should be some reference to the rise of piracy in the region. If not in this article, where else? Obviously piracy has to occur off the coast, it can't occur on the land can it? There should be also be reference to the fact that the pirates spawned from militias formed by fishermen, to stop all the nuclear waste being dumped off the Somali coast (as discussed about in the "Environment" section)--99.249.149.134 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, there shouldn't because, again, the piracy doesn't happen in Somalia (the topic of this article) and "the region" you're referring to is actually the waters off of the coast of Somalia. It isn't Somalia itself. This information is also already covered in the Piracy in Somalia article where it belongs. And the difference between mentioning the fact that toxic waste washed up on shore in Somalia following the tsunami of 2004 versus the activity of pirates in the Indian Ocean (many of whom aren't even Somali, by the way -> 1, 2) is that the toxic waste actually washed up in Somalia whereas the pirating occurs and has always occurred in the waters off of the coast of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was talking about the dumping of nuclear waste in the waters off Somalia by European companies which started in the 80s, which has nothing do with the tsunami. How are people supposed to know about the Piracy in Somalia article if there's no mention of it here? The title of that article itself has the words "in Somalia" in it, so that defeats your argument that anything occuring in the waters off the coast has no relation to the country.--99.249.149.134 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is what I was talking about too. It's that same waste the tsunami washed up onto the shores of Somalia, and that's already mentioned in the article. Further, what goes on in the Indian Ocean is just as much of a concern to Yemen or Djibouti, which also face the Gulf of Aden, as it is with regard to Somalia. And the fact still remains that the piracy occurs in said Ocean, not in the country of Somalia, the actual subject of this article. For the rest, a link to Piracy in Somalia is also already included in the See also section of the article. Middayexpress (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I came to this page as I was interested in finding out about the political and social situation behind the piracy which has been recently heavily covered in the international news. I think there should be at least a brief mention of this in this article and then a link to any more relevant pages. (sorry I don't know how to sign - I'm new to wiki). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.113.53 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, since the majority of the pirates are based in Somalia, and piracy is a large component of the de facto Somali economy. Perhaps a line or two in the Economy section?Lowellt (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Again, the piracy does not take place in Somalia. How many different ways must this be explained? It takes place and has always taken place in the Indian Ocean, as have the toxic waste dumping and overfishing that spurred on the piracy in the first place. The money acquired from the piracy has also only had an effect on a few towns in north-central Somalia; it's not "a large component of the de facto Somali economy". And the pirates are not by an stretch exclusively Somali, as I've already demonstrated above (1, 2, 3, 4). Middayexpress (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that piracy does not take place in Somalia and I am pretty sure the other people on this discussion know that as well. However, I would like to add that they do have a point. You noted that piracy in the Indian Ocean concerns other countries like Yemen or Djibouti, but it is not on their wiki-pages, however they are not called Yemen or Djiboui Pirates but Somali pirates. Jesse0684 (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No Jesse. The "other" people in this discussion are not aware that the piracy does not take place in Somalia, which is why "they" are on this page rather than, say, on the Gulf of Aden article. Have a look at this map: it shows the areas where piracy has actually taken place over the past few years. Notice how Somalia isn't highlighted but the waters off of it as well as those off of neighboring Djibouti and Yemen, among other places, are. That's because those are the areas where the piracy actually happens. You write that the pirates aren't called Yemen or Djibouti pirates, but Somali pirates. Wrong. Only the Somali pirates are called Somali pirates. The Yemeni pirates, including the ones involved in the exact same raids with the Somali pirates (1, 2, 3), are obviously referred to as Yemeni pirates. This, of course, does not in the least bit change the fact that the piracy actually happens on the waters off of Somalia, Yemen & Djibouti; that it involves people from all three areas, not just Somalia; that no anonymous IPs, single purpose accounts and such have ever bothered pushing for the inclusion of this piracy info on the Yemen and Djibouti articles they way they are here, although those nations also have pirates in the Indian Ocean; & that there already exists an article on Wikipedia which already thoroughly covers the piracy issue. I also find it interesting that, out of all the millions of pages on Wikipedia to possibly edit, you too, like the other IPs and single purpose accounts before you, should choose this particular little post tucked away mid-way down some infrequently visited article's talk page for your very first edits. Middayexpress (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I chose this particular article because you are wrong Midday. You are missing what the IPs were saying. They were arguing that a simple link or reference to the Somali Pirates would be appropiate. It's okay to be wrong. Jesse0684 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure you did, Jesse; sure you did. And a "simple link" is already provided in the See also section, a fact which the IP(s) and single purpose account(s) are/is already aware of too. Middayexpress (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop acting so hostile Middayexpress. As long as the piracy article is called "Piracy in Somalia," your argument really makes no sense. I also came to this article looking for information on the Piracy issue, as I'm sure many others do, and not including some mention of it is, at the very least, foolish, and makes the editors of this article seem like they don't really know what's going on in the region. Piracy is largely a concern because of the current political situation of Somalia, so to claim it is unrelated to the country is nonsensical and wrong. Speaking of which, you're currently in the extreme minority on this issue, I'd at least like to hear from others who share your view, rather than having you single-handedly shoot down everyone else. 71.199.83.135 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing IP that you should come to an article titled "Somalia" for discussion of the piracy issue when there is already an article exclusively devoted to that very subject. Now, if your excuse for not being aware of this is that you didn't know of the article in question's existence, my answer to you is that you did, in fact, know of the article's existence since I repeatedly linked to it in the discussion above which you surely have already read (how can you sense "hostility" without having read any prior comments to attribute that to?). So what exactly is the point of your post? Is the War On Drugs that so affects the United States and actually takes place within that country covered in the US article? No, of course it isn't nor are there any "concerned" anonymous IPs pushing for its inclusion on that article's talk page. What about the Mafia's activities in both the US & Italy? Are they covered in either country's article? No, here too they are not, nevermind the fact that they, just like the infamous Hells Angels in Canada, actually commit their crimes within their respective countries' borders. Those are just some obvious examples of the utter inanity of your argument. You write that I am "an extreme minority on this issue". What exact "issue" are you talking about, pray tell? That the Somalia article should feature information regarding what goes on in the waters off of its shores, whereas other nearby countries such as Yemen who also have pirates in the Indian Ocean (and that are oftentimes involved in the same raids => 1, 2, 3, 4) do not? I don't think so. All I see is a series (?) of anonymous IPs all with an uncanny familiarity of how to edit on Wikipedia taking "exception" to this but whom are all incapable of effectively articulating let alone defending their position. Until you form a cogent argument proving that the piracy actually takes place in Somalia itself (the actual subject of this article) rather than the Indian Ocean, you and all the other anonymous IPs I'm afraid don't have a leg to stand on. Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice analogies midday, matter fact we could stay on the piracy subject itself and use the examples of Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia and their piracy issues, which were and are as severe as Somalia piracy situation, but none of the articles about those countries feature anything on pirates, atleast in the Somalia article there is a link redirecting - those interested in that particular issue - back to the Piracy in Somalia article, that should be sufficient. --Scoobycentric (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; there should at least be a link in the article for those that want to read up on current events off Somolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzbaby (talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone is being outnumbered :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.172 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was nice (ahem). Knock it off, 86.147.190.172. Airplaneman ^talk 01:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Like many others, I came here to find information about the piracy that emanates from people based in Somalia and was not only surprised to see that it was relegated to a separate article (referenced in only a one-line link) but also disappointed to see that the page in general contains a lot of references written in a questionable style for Wikipedia. I made two small edits to return a couple of lines to neutrality, but a neutral expert on Somalia needs to go through this whole page and do a tidy-up. One of the most incomprehensible areas relates to the current government. BBC News, for example, says "war-torn Somalia has had no functioning government since 1991". If true (and I don't normally need to question the neutrality of BBC news reports), this aspect of Somalia is NOT reflected on this page. 621PWC (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, if users are genuinely looking for Piracy information, there is already an entire article exclusively devoted to the topic (an article for which a link already exists in the See also section of this article). That article is therefore obviously the place to go to read up on this information on Wikipedia. In fact, that's the very article both Wikipedia's search engine and Google turn up right away, so that's the place one will in all likelihood first wind up anyway when one is searching for information on the topic (unless of course one for some odd reason prefers not to visit that article despite ostensibly seeking piracy info). Secondly, the piracy does not exclusively "emanate from people based in Somalia", but also involves many non-Somalis and often-times in the exact same raids (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). Thirdly, the piracy issue was not "relegated" to a separate article. It was always a separate article because the piracy does not actually take place in Somalia but in the Indian Ocean, as indicated many times over above by myself and others. Fourthly, this article does not have any particular "neutrality" issues, nor do your two copy edits reflect this. In fact, it's easily one of the better country articles on Wikipedia (and I suspect that just might be what's the problem). Fourthly, the BBC makes that claim in reference to the embattled Transitional Federal Government's struggle to enforce civil law in the face of opposition from religious insurgents in the southern part of the country. It does not pertain to either the autonomous Puntland or Somaliland regions in the north where there are no religious insurgents present, nor does it apply to Xeer, the Somali customary law, which has always been in effect whether or not civil law is all it could be. This too is all very clearly explained in a section of the article exclusively devoted to and named Law, with link-throughs to detailed articles on each respective legal system for further reading -- and in much more detail, nuance and insight than that BBC one-liner could ever begin capture. Middayexpress (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Like, apparently, a number of others I came to this article initially looking for information on piracy in Somali. While Piracy in Somalia is excellent and extremely thorough, given the ongoing international attention focused on this aspect of Somalia, it should certainly be addressed, even if only briefly, in the main article. The argument that no mention of piracy should be included because it occurs outside of Somalia proper is absurd. By the same logic no mention of the Iraq war should be in the US article because it is taking place outside of US borders and involves other nations as well. Your argument does suggest however that we should address banditry and other issues that do take place within Somalia. Perhaps a section discussing ongoing civil discord is called for; one in which piracy could be briefly touched on while directing readers to Piracy in Somalia? Black Platypus (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the piracy issue in the Indian Ocean is nothing like the War in Iraq because the War in Iraq involves the actual United States Military, not some, as you say, "bandits" that happen to have U.S. passports who commit crimes in some distant location. A better analogy would have been to compare the pirates to other outlaws (like, say, Indonesian pirates) who also commit their crimes in some distant location, and then ask yourself if these activities are then cited on these other outlaws' respective country's Wikipedia article (Indonesia, for example) despite the fact that these activities don't actually take place there; the answer is invariably "no". For better or worse, the piracy also does indeed involve many other participants besides Somalis & often-times in the exact same raids (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). And of course, the piracy itself takes place in the Indian Ocean, not in Somalia (the actual topic of this article), as this map of the areas where piracy has actually taken place over the past few years shows. This is why the piracy issue is already addressed on the Gulf of Aden article besides the main article devoted to the subject. As for your apparent desire to "address banditry and other issues within Somalia", "banditry" isn't an issue in the country and hasn't been for quite some time since the rise and fall of the Islamic Courts Union in 2006 and its successful campaign to first disarm and then ultimately seize power away from the warlords that then controlled the southern half of the country. The civil war is now between religious insurgents on the one hand, and government forces on the other. And all of this is indeed already thoroughly discussed in the article in not one but two sections, with link-throughs included to more detailed articles for further reading. Middayexpress (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

While piracy itself may be taking place in the Indian Ocean, it seems there are a fair number of sources discussing the Somali origins of the piracy problems and the impact of the piracy on Somalia. It seems to be a major component in the current economy of Puntland, from what I have been reading. While a detailed discussion of the piracy itself would be beyond the scope of this article, piracy in the area -- its causes and effects -- are relevant. I have added a brief mention, with a link to the more detailed article, to assist Wikipedia users seeking more information on the subject. Corlyon (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree - it is clearly called Somalian piracy in everyday discussions, and this is made abundantly clear by the existence of Piracy in Somalia. As the Somalia article should serve as a summary page on Somalia with links off to other content, what you've put in seems appropriate. This page is clearly (from all the entries above) expected by most wikipedians to mention the issue and then provide further information (via the Piracy in Somalia article). I might even suggest that the weight of numbers asking about the issue constitutes a consensus that something like this was clearly needed. Random name (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that when referring to the people of Somalia it's not "Somalian" but rather "Somali". Secondly, this entire issue about Piracy in Somalia belongs within the Somali Civil War section because it is an event that has came into being as a direct result of the civil war, therefore it would be misleading to the public if it is placed in the main Somalia article as the issue of piracy is not an endemic trait of the Somali people. lamochila (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is why the brief reference to the piracy issue in this article has been placed in the subsection dealing with the civil war. I don't think anyone is stating that piracy is an endemic trait of the Somali people. The fact that piracy has arisen relatively recently as a response to certain specific circumstances of recent occurrence ought to dispel any notion that this has been an endemic issue. Corlyon (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction of article

It is too long. After going one page down I started to think it is actual article, without cleanup. Only on the third page there is Contents box and following usual sections for country. I think it should be trimmed to about half of current size. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the manual of style WP:MOS, the introduction (or lead) of the article should summurise the entire article, and should not be longer than 4 short paragraphs. Currently, the lead does not summarize the whole article, and is far too long. Most of the current lead should be incorporated in to the history section, and a few new sentences written to summarise the other parts of the article. LK (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, i think the intro is fine as it is. It provides an excellent overview of the article; the most important chapters of Somalia's history are covered, such as the empires and kingdoms that contributed the most to Somali heritage, in terms of culture, literature, architecture, religion, and the political movements that formed modern Somalia. Somalia's location and neighbours are mentioned. The most important organisations Somalia is part of are mentioned, the civil strife and the reason behind it is mentioned, the unique economical progress is mentioned, all of these are very notable facts and have there own sections in the article, and therefore they cannot be mashed into four small paragraphs, WP:MOS is to be taken as a rough guideline for writing a good article, it even characterizes itself as an advisory article, rather than a actual wiki-policy rule. --Scoobycentric (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the intro is too long. It is more of a canned history than a summary of the article - it doesn't include the basic information you see in the intros to other countries (land mass, population size). It also barely mentions the fact that there is significant internal conflict in the country. Random name (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The intro is manifestly too long and contains details of a type not typically found in an intro. Examples: that the Ajuuran State excelled in fortress building, or that Admiral Gurey was the first commander in Africa to use cannon. I think that detail belongs either later in the history section. The intro in this article is slightly longer than the intro in the Italy article, and significantly longer than the intros for China, Persia or Egypt.Corlyon (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the intro is long, however, I believe it to be a minor issue. Other countries such as South Africa with approx. 633 words, Italy with approx. 610 words and Ethiopia with approx. 686 words have similar long intros while others such as Japan with approx. 363 words, India with approx. 295 words and Brazil with approx. 284 words have shorter ones. The Somalia intro has approximately 768 words, if the contributors insist on shortening the intro then I would suggest by no more than 100 words to make it at level with the above mentioned countries with long intros. lamochila (talk) 09:50, 02 March 2010 (UTC)

(As the dabate starter) I have checked your examples and I find both South Africa and Ethiopia intros too long as well. Too many details that might well find a place inside appropriate sections. The other countries mentioned by you seem to offer good guidance on the degree of shortening and content of introduction. --Ruziklan (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good observations. I completely missed the South Africa and Italy articles. WP:MOS is just a guideline page anyway, not a policy page, so 100 words make sense. Middayexpress (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As a first shot I have trimmed the introduction to the following:

"Somalia (pronounced /soʊˈmɑːliə/ soh-MAH-lee-ə; Somali: Soomaaliya; Arabic: الصومال‎ aṣ-Ṣūmāl), officially the Republic of Somalia (Somali: Jamhuuriyadda Soomaaliya, Arabic: جمهورية الصومال‎ Jumhūriyyat aṣ-Ṣūmāl) and formerly known as the Somali Democratic Republic under communist rule, is a country located in the Horn of Africa. It is bordered by Djibouti to the northwest, Kenya to the southwest, the Gulf of Aden with Yemen to the north, the Indian Ocean to the east, and Ethiopia to the west.

In antiquity, the area that is today Somalia, identified by most scholars as the ancient Kingdom of Punt, was an important center for commerce with the rest of the ancient world, and a source of frankincense, myrrh and spices to the Ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians, Mycenaeans and Babylonians,[6][7][8] In the classical era, several ancient city-states such as Opone, Mosyllon and Malao competed with the Sabaeans, Parthians and Axumites for the wealthy Indo-Greco-Roman trade.[13]

Islam was brought to what is today Somalia by merchants, sailors and expatriates living in the Arabian Peninsula, the migration of fleeing Muslim families from the Islamic world to Somalia in the early centuries of Islam and conversion by Somali Muslim scholars in the following centuries. The ancient city-states eventually transformed into Islamic Mogadishu, Berbera, Zeila, Barawa and Merca, which were part of the Berberi civilization. Mogadishu, known as the City of Islam,[14] controlled the East African gold trade for several centuries.[15]

In the Middle Ages, several powerful Somali empires dominated the regional trade including the Ajuuraan State, the Sultanate of Adal, and the Gobroon Dynasty, whose military dominance forced governors of the Omani empire north of the city of Lamu to pay tribute to the Somali Sultan Ahmed Yusuf.[18] In the late 19th century, in response to the threat of European Imperialism the Dervish leader Muhammad Abdullah Hassan gathered Somali soldiers from across the Horn of Africa and began one of the longest colonial resistance wars ever. While Somalia was never formally colonized.[19][20][21] the Dervishes were finally defeated by the British in 1920 and former Dervish territories were turned into a protectorate of Britain. Italy similarly faced the same opposition from Somali Sultans and armies and did not acquire full control of parts of modern Somalia until the Fascist era in late 1927. Italian occupation lasted till 1941 and was replaced by a British military administration. Northern Somalia would remain a protectorate while southern Somalia became a trusteeship. The two regions united in 1960 to form the Somali Democratic Republic.

Somalia is a member of the Arab League, the African Union, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference as well the UN and NAM. Despite suffering from civil strife and instability in recent years, Somalia has also managed to sustain a free market economy which, according to the UN, outperforms those of many other countries in Africa.[27]"

Obviously references and links would need to be fixed. Is it still too lengthy? Corlyon (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As Scoobycentric has pointed out above, WP:MOS is not a policy page. It is simply there to provide advice. And even if it were, that draft above wouldn't do since it completely omits the important fact that Somalia was never formally colonized, as explained in the current intro. I guess I'll have to take matters into my own hands. Middayexpress (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I will assume that you read my proposed wording in good faith and simply missed the following in my proposed wording: "While Somalia was never formally colonized[19][20][21] the Dervishes were finally defeated by the British in 1920..." We should be looking at improving the introduction so that it reads like an encyclopedic introduction that provides the reader with a concise and obviously neutral overview of the subject. I see that you did 'take matters into your own hands' with the introduction. Perhaps you would explain the significance reason for omitting the references to the conversion of Somalia to Islam from the introduction, which strikes me as being a very important piece of information, or the importance of Mogadishu during the 'middle ages', while retaining the following references or formulations which I have trouble seeing as being of greater importance than some of the basic information omitted:

- "which excelled in hydraulic engineering and fortress building," (in reference to the Ajuuran State)

- "whose general Ahmed Gurey was the first African commander in history to use cannon warfare on the continent during Adal's conquest of the Ethiopian Empire,..." (in reference to the Adal sultanate)

- "when Britain for the first time in Africa used aeroplanes when it bombed the Dervish capital of Taleex. As a result of this bombardment,..." (in reference to Britain's conquest in 1920--if the fall of Somalia to the British is important enough to include in the into, isn't it enough to cut to the chase and leave the details to other appropriate parts of this article?)

These are the types of details that don't appear in well-written introductions to the Wikipedia articles on other nations. I am also somewhat concerned about the statement regarding the economy at the end of the introduction as it gives the reader the impression that the economy of Somalia isn't doing all that badly, but the limited amount of reading I have started to undertake suggests that there are in fact some serious economic challenges in this country. Perhaps the challenges are actually more relevant than the fact that Somalia's gross domestic product is still higher than certain other (some smaller) countries in Africa. Corlyon (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of 'never formally colonized' please refer also to my comments below. I don't understand what 'never formally colonized' means if there were in fact Italian colonization efforts made. Corlyon (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you included the phrase "While Somalia was never formally colonized[19][20][21]...". However, you then went on to disqualify that statement/tie it to arguments the sources themselves never make or employ. If you don't understand how it's possible that Somalia was never formally colonized, you might want to refer to the talk page section below where the situation is already explained. Somalia's relationship with Islam is also well-covered in the Birth of Islam & the Middle Ages section of the article and then again in the Religion section, so we're not actually missing anything here. Moreover, the assertion that Somalia sustains a free market economy which outperforms those of many other countries in Africa is also sourced, and to the UN no less. This point is likewise further explained in the Economy & Telecommunications sections of the article. I'm sorry if your inexperience with Somalia and Somali Studies causes you to not better appreciate the importance of the Ajuuraan State (the single most powerful political entity in East Africa next to the Axumite Empire) or Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi/Ahmed Gurey (easily the most significant military figure in East African history) or the fact that the two decade long anti-imperialist campaign waged by the Dervish State of Muhammad Abdullah Hassan (aka the "Mad Mullah", the founding father of Somali nationalism) forced the British Empire to employ aerial bombardments for the first time ever on African soil. Calls were made for the intro to be trimmed, and WP:MOS was invoked. It now is, and within the four paragraph limit recommended by WP:MOS too. Middayexpress (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.nationmaster.com/country/so-somalia/rel-religion
^ http://www.populstat.info/Africa/somaliag.htm

[1] ttp://www.nationmaster.com/country/so-somalia/rel-religion

[2] ttp://www.populstat.info/Africa/somaliag.htm

[1]

[2]