Talk:Somaliland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Religion

The wording doesn't make sense to me. The wording "With few exception,...entirely" is a logical contradiction and citing a source that mentions 100% Muslims only makes that worse. I added the U.S. Department of State's page on Somalia as a source because it is much more useful as a statistic. Any statistic that puts something at 100% is suspicious to me. After all, it only takes 1 person to spoil that. I therefore still suggest a wording like "Somalis are almost entirely Muslims..." citing the U.S. Department of State and dropping the "With few exceptions" and the current citation of the Middle East Policy Council. -Jsfan (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. State department's assertion that 99.99% of Somalis are Muslim is entirely consistent with what is already indicated in the text i.e. that with few exceptions, Somalis are entirely Muslims. This is especially the case when one considers the fact that there are already two other sources indicating that 100% of Somalis are Muslims. What would actually be misleading is to add the term "almost" because that could mean anything from 70% onwards, which is obviously not the case. The current wording in the text makes it clear that, while not every single Somali is Muslim, pretty darn close to all are (99.99% according to that U.S. government source). Middayexpress (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jsfan. The terms "entirely" and "with few exceptions" are mutually exclusive, and I find the sentence confusing. If something is "entire" there are no exceptions. If a country has 3 million citizens and 99.99% are estimated to be one religiion, then 300 could be something else. I disagree that the current wording in the text makes anything clear; it seems to be saying "Everyone in Somaliland is Muslim. However, not everyone in Somaliland is Muslim." Hajnalka (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the phrase does not state that "everyone in Somaliland is Muslim" or that Somaliland is "entirely" Muslim. That's a strawman. It states that, "with few exceptions, the Somalis are entirely Muslims." The term "with few exceptions" necessarily presupposes that there are exceptions, and few ones at that -- not that there are no exceptions, as you have suggested. You don't have to like it, but that is indeed the case. Middayexpress (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should say why Somaliland isn't recognised

It doesn't. It should. Why won't Ethiopa, the US, the EU, etc; why won't they recognise somaliland? -Jared Croft

Statehood?

I see that in the introduction it is stated that Somaliland is an unrecognised de facto state.
But a "state" requires recognition to become a state. Therefore, Somaliland cannot be described as a state.
Therefore, the wording is incorrect - Somaliland is not a state - also made clear by international lawyers such as Crawford and international law in general.
--Naylor182 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

no, youre wrong, Here is what the article Montevideo Convention says:

1. the first sentence of article 3 explicitly states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

2. The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood. the source is on the page, so I restore the org sentence, o.k. Pernambuco 18:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So what? The European Union does not represent international law. It is merely a body comprising of European states. The UN does not recognise Somaliland as a state. Nor does the Security Council. And as the most powerful body in the world, you'd do well to heed their views. The question of statehood is opinionated at best; some bodies feel that recognition is declaratory, others feel it is a question of fact. In reality it is a mixture of the two. However, Somaliland is NOT a state. The fact that you suggest that it is shows you know very little about the mechanics of international law. Regards, Naylor182 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

remember wiki-pedia is not just about what the law says, but also about what reality is on the ground, and when you compare Somalia and Somaliland, then de facto the later one is more of a state than the first one, in reality, but not in law. Just portray the situation correctly, nothing else. I am neutral, but facts are facts, the correct thing is to say that de facto it is an independent republic, and then the article makes it clear also that de jure it is not, thats fair and correct Pernambuco 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I concede that Somaliland is far more stable than Somalia, but as it is, Somaliland is not a state. It has no defined borders (especially to the east), and her ability to engage in foreign relations is limited if anything. With most secessions, if the parent state (Somalia) were to recognise Somaliland, it would most likely exist as a state - but that is unlikely as of now. Plus, there is no such thing as being "more of a state" - you either are or you are not. I also find it interesting that you have changed your assertions, at first you state that Somaliland is a de facto state, and now you claim it is a de facto republic, which is correct, may I add. Being a republic and being a state are not the same thing, mind. As such, I do not protest Somaliland being called a "republic", I do, however, protest her being called a "state". And may I close by saying in these circumstances, the law is reality, not a "state"'s appearance to laymen. --Naylor182 19:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

POV On the first setence

it is changed now Pernambuco 15:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Somaliland does have recognised borders. A quick fact check on world wide web , would give you evidence. That Somaliland authorities have well functioning border and naval patrol forces. Recently they arrested pirate fisher vessels from neighbouring Djibouti for offencing the marine border in the Saylac corridor. I have to agree that Somaliland fulfills the traditional demands of being recognised de facto as a state. The state conducts operations well , see the example of german kidnapped. It was a very impressive succesful operation to free the aid worker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.240.186 (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

the name Jamhuuriyadda Soomaaliland see http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/july/somali.html Ybgursey 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

SwPawel: the map looks great! However, it seems to be taken from http://www.somalilandnews.com/cap15.html with some additional text added. Do you have permission to use the map here, or did they get it from a public domain source? --Brion VIBBER, Thursday, May 23, 2002

Well, the truth is I haven't any permission. I hope that artcle in Wikipedia would be the good advertisment for Somaliland, so they won't nake any problems. swPawel

In that case, I'm removing the file until you ask them for permission. Brion VIBBER, Friday, May 24, 2002

The map from the website as mentioned above was replaced for quite some time already, and is now replaced again with one which tries to be more NPOV about the independence of Somaliland from Somalia. andy 13:14, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

SOMALILAND REVEALED ==

The Somalis are the most homogenouse people anywhere in the world. they share a common ancestory,language,religeon,and customs.

those who claim somaliland as a seprate nation on its own. with its distinct culture and people. I put these questions to them . who are the inhabitans of somaliland. are they somalian, do they follow islam, do they speak somali as their mother tongue. and finnaly are they of the same ethnicity as the rest of somalia. And the answer is most defenitly yes.

and finnaly the basis for somalilands nationhood comes down to what. that it was once ruled by Britain when it anexed part of the lands inhabited by the somali people. just us Italy,France,and Ethiopia did.

Every somalian knows the real truth behind those who advocate somaliland indipendece.its tribal pollotics.

---

Your overcomplicating things. Somaliland wants to be free, and it is a functioning stable nation. So why should it be unwillingly draged down by the rest Somalia? -Jared Croft

• I guess you are american. Don't you speak english like in England? Don't you follow christianity like in England? Are you of the ethnicity than in England? Wasn't the USA an english colony? Then why don't you swear oath to the queen of england?

Somaliland independence

There is no Independent for Somaliland, they are part of somalia , and somalia can not be divided in to a groups or a regions

That is wrong.Somaliland was forced into a union with the former Italian Somaliland in 1960 on the basis that the union would be a federal one. As this never happened, Somaliland was more than right to have seceded from Somalia. Somaliland qualifies for full recognition as an independent country, & because it was the former British Somaliland Protectorate (whose territory it covers), it should be admitted to full membership of the British Commonwealth along with the Hutt River Province Principality. - (Aidan Work 06:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

Please keep discussion on this page related to the article, not the topic. Thanks! --Wikiacc (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I do feel an injustice has been served upon Somaliland. The OAU recognises colonial boundaries - that was the basis that Eritrea got its independence from Ethiopia - therefore they should recognise Somaliland Petepetepete 01:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is similar as with Tibet and China. Someone could say Tibet is part of China etc, but, same as Somaliland, Tibet was brutally annexed by China.

Norum July 29, 2006

tibetans and chinease are two septate peoples and have nothing in common. but somalis are a different case, they are just one people. p.s somaliland was not annexed by southern somalia it was colonised by the british just like hong kong. and they only rejoined their own people of thier own free wil. i suggest you get your facts straight —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.150.125 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone has already pointed out, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Somaliland article. There are plenty of other forums where you may discuss the topic itself. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

you can't prpetuate something that is based on false claims. however much you improve them

British Somaliland were the first ones to hold the blue flag and they were the ones who united to form the somali republic. they weren't forced into anything, they had the choice and they could of stayed independent if they wanted to back then.

but too bad now

I think most of the world believes that if they don't recognize reality, it will somehow magically return to the way they wish it was. It's pathetic, yes, but that's how things are. Look at the whole Taiwan issue, Abkhazia and Transdnistria. --Ingoman 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ingoman i suggest you research your history carefully and learn to distinguish between probaganda and real facts. Somaliland is a tribal creation.In the somali civil the SNA, a clan militia of the Isaaq took control of the somaliand region.It was the most powerful militia and it quickly suppressed the militias of the 3 other clans who inhabited somaliland, none of whom wanted independence from Somalia.In the confrence that was held in which somaliland declared independence it was only the SNA that called for independence and unilatllary decalared it.--Liban80 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ART map

This ART file needs to be converted to a common image format, otherwise some people won't be able to see it. (For example I can see something in IE but not in Mozilla.) --Shallot 09:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The image has been deleted under CSD I4 (unsourced images). Wikiacc (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dead link

• UK parliament debate on recognition of Somaliland; led by Tony Worthington; 4 Feb 2004.

This link for this is now at [1] Jooler 18:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have my permission

Please ignore the people who claim you violated thier property. Visit my website and use any of the maps that you find in there. I am also willing to edit them for you, [click here to see permission given to reuse the map image]. Here are more links:

http://www.somaliland.org

map page: http://www.somaliland.org/somaliland.asp

Somaliland.org editor contact email: http://www.somaliland.org/contactus.asp

How do you say "Somaliland?"

How exactly do you say "Somaliland?" Is it "So-Malia-Land" or "Somal-il-and?" It might be good to have a IPA Phonetic guide for the word "Somaliland"... PanzerArizona 21:22, 30 May 2005 (PST)

Got it. El_C 04:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Its prenounced SO-MAA-LEE land because it is land of Somalis. The ethnic group is Somali not Somalian. Somalia just had the "ia" for land of added to their name. With an I already there A was just added. July 11 2005, Vital Component-

"The iam behind of regaining the teritories and sovergneint of somaliland is to maintain the peace through all somali regions because those people who belong to this area(somaliland) are dangerouse ones, so keeping to remain the land on their hands as well as autorizing is a way of peacefull policy".. horn of Africa political digest said: Saaray.X

politics section

The newly-added information on the politics of Somaliland is mostly very good, except for this text at the end:

Now that the TNG has been placed on the back burner, the 'building block' approach to Somali state building has again returned to prominence. Although many nascent states along the Somaliland model have been tried and have failed, renewed efforts are taking place in Puntland, Bay and Bakool, and other regions. Yet, the question remains on whether the Somaliland model can be employed in the more troubled southern regions of Somalia. The south received the brunt of the civil war in the 1990s and was also the primary area affected by UN intervention, which strengthened the hold of the warlords. In addition, in the south the conflict undermined many of the relations between the clans, and helped widen clan divisions in an already heterogeneous region. Thus, prospects for peace-building must focus on the kind of grass-roots model employed in Somaliland. These initiatives can only succeed, however, if regional polities focus on power-sharing and compromise, rather than on an ethnically hegemonic attempt to control political resources.

Wikipedia shouldn't be making assertions about what "must" be done to construct stable governments in Africa (see WP:no original research). The text should probably be removed or rewritten to make fewer original claims. Neilc 21:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Somaliland is older than England ...

I'm no scholar on African history, but I do wonder if it NPOV to begin Somaliland history with it's status under British rule. The cultural roots of Somaliland as an organized and independent economic and political entity are ancient, stretching back to pre-Biblical times. For example, as referenced in : Myths of Babylonia and Assyria:

Like the early Egyptians, the early Sumerians may have been in touch with Punt (Somaliland), which some regard as the cradle of the Mediterranean race.

To be seriously considered Cradle of the Mediterranean race is a pretty important factoid for any national description, even if it turns out to be only a passing fad among archaeologists! Perhaps we just need a link to Land_of_Punt?

The article's topic is currently limited to Somaliland Protectorate and the Republic of Somaliland. Expansion (perhaps content could be added from History of Somalia?) of the History section is a good idea. --Wikiacc (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sultans of Somaliland.

It would be good if anyone was able to do some research about the Sultans & their Sultanates, which are now located within the Republic of Somaliland. - (Aidan Work 06:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

King Osman, M abdulle Hassan.

There was never any sultan in that region.

Transportation & possible copyvio

Someone added quite a bit of information in a new "Transportation" section. It was obviously pasted in from another source, with formatting that wasn't rendered by the Wikipedia. Thus far I am unable to find this source online. (It resembles other Country Studies, but I'm not sure these exist for unrecognized countries.) I have pasted the text below, so if it's OK to use we can put it back in the article, but if it does turn out to be a copyvio I guess it needs to be removed from here, as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

(begin text)

TRANSPORTATION Railroads: None.

Paved Roads: Roads of all categories totaled 17,850 kilometers: 1,245 km are paved, 3,100 km gravel and the rest are improved earth (stretches frequently impassable in rainy seasons). Main paved roads are extended from Western to the Easter regions of the country as well as the South, the frontiers of Somaliland and Ethiopian . There are also a number of road links and improvements (resurface) made over the last five years, including the Berbera Corridor, which extends from Berbera, the Somaliland’s main Red Sea port to the regions of eastern Ethiopia. The Paved roads include: Hargeisa through Berbera to Burao Hargeisa through Gabilay to Borama Berbera through Burao to Lasanod Civil Aviation: Three paved civilian airports and a number of widely-scattered gravel airfields. Main airports, include Egal International Airport at Hargeisa and Berbera International Airport, the longest runway in the continent of African. International flights operate to and from Egal and Berbera Airports, and linking domestic flights to the other major cities and towns in Somaliland. Three major and privately owned airlines (Dallo Airlines, Star Airlines and Air Afrique) are the main carriers for both the domestic as well as International flights to and from Somaliland. Ports and Shipping: Berbera on the Red Sea is the main port of Somaliland with Deepwater facilities; other ports include Maydh and Heiss. The Berbera Port modernization program launched in latter half of 2005 by the government of Somaliland with financial, technical and moral contributions made by its people in Diaspora, the private sector and the European Union EU has significantly improved cargo handling capabilities, road linkage to Ethiopia and increased number of berths and deepened harbor at Berbera.

(end text)

Religion

Is Somaliland a secular state? Its articles don't mention the state's relation to religion. Joffeloff 11:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam is the state religion Ybgursey 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

international recognition

The first sentence should be changed. If Somaliland is oficially recognized as a state by Ethiopia then it is not an unrecognized state (as the article says), but a state that is not yet recognized by many countries (all except for one...) --Blauerflummi 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Some links/sources about this Ethiopia recognition? 199.64.72.252 14:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a link about Wales recognizing Somaliland. While Wales is not a sovereign nation, perhaps it would be appropriate to add it "Independance --> Recognition" section? (with a note that Wales is part of the UK, not a separate country.)

I don't think that inviting a speaker of a legislature to the official opening of the Welsh Assembly counts as diplomatic recognition, although it is perhaps a semi-formal recognition of the legitimacy of the elected Somaliland Parliament. Because of that, I don't think it should be mentioned in the infobox. It's enought to have it in the text. Tamino 08:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That is as maybe Tamino, but the fact that the Welsh Assembly has recognised the legitimacy of the Government of Somaliland should be noted and even heralded. It is the first international act of recognition. After all from little acorns do mighty oaks grow Petepetepete 01:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wales is not a soverign state, it is only part of the UK and has NO independent foreign policy. The Welsh assembly has NO power to recognise Somaliland and did not do so in any case. If you check the small print I am sure he was invited in 'a private' capacity only. In the British system only the Prime Minister can recognise a foreign state, even Parliament cannot force him to do so.145.253.108.22 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Says no Ethiopian recognition. [2]CenozoicEra 05:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Somaliland and British Somaliland articles

Whilst there is merit in merging these articles one should remember that Gold Coast and Ghana have separate articles (Gold Coast being the colonial name), as does North Borneo and Sabah. In both cases (and other cases no doubt) there is an article on the colonial state and a separate article on the post-colonial state, even where the boundaries are contiguous. Therefore the Somailand and British Somaliland articles should remain separate - perhaps with a link - but should remain two separate articles. Petepetepete 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Somaliland and the Commonwealth

I do feel (as stated above under "Independence") that Somaliland should be recognised, and should be admitted to membership of the Commonwealth. Thus far only one Commonwealth parliament has recognised Somaliland, this is Wales; the speaker of the Somaliland Parliament was invited to the opening of the National Assembly of Wales Building, 1st March 2006. I do not understand the reluctance of the British government to recognise Somaliland Petepetepete 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somaliland is not a free standing union; Somalia currently enjoys wide support througout Europe and the International Community with nations such as China giving it a broad support both materially and diplomaticially. The European Union has also pledged money and support and they signed a memorendum of understanding recently. thats why Somaliland is unrecognized by British or any other governments. most of the users here have assumed that somalia itself is in a dead state without any political movements. this is simply wrong and although Somalia does not have any official government, it has an emerging government which most countries around the world do not want to spoil. --Samantar Abdirisaq 09:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The so-called Somalia government has more support outside Somalia than inside, as the world's nation-states are afraid of the very concept of a stateless society. Anarchist42 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, you are right Anarchist. However, there is still a significant portion of the people that do see the government as the only way out of the current situation. in that sense, the government has a huge support. when it comes to the actual people that are in the government, then it another thing. --Samantar Abdirisaq 05:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics POV

This is an interesting section, but unfortunately, it seems to be a bit of a cheerleader, e.g. "What is most remarkable about this progress ..." phrasing. That needs to be written out so the section has a neutral point of view and recites the facts. If it's that remarkable, somebody must have remarked on it, so cite a quote about it -- but preferably at the end, after it's been explained. While that's being worked on I also suggest that redundancy, overall unsober tone, and some unclear language be tightened up. The article seems to bring up the Western/Islamic hybrid point at least three separate times, for instance; the issue of the civil war should be handled comprehensively in the History section and minimally alluded to here. Also, cite more sources on the facts of the arrangements. With these changes the article will be much stronger! --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, professional lobbyists seem to have been employed to gain recognition of Somaliland as an independent state (http://www.independentdiplomat.com/html/examples.htm) - people should therefore bear in mind that this rather sophisticated section may have been written with an agenda in mind. 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

copyvio image

Hi all -- Just wanted to let you know that the image of the Laas Gaal cave paintings appears to be a copyvio. The source is listed as the world66 wiki, but in fact world66 appears to have gotten it from a bbc news site. (A bunch of the text of the Laas Gaa'l article was also plagiarized.) It would be nice if someone here had the appropriate knowledge to be able to rewrite the Laas Gaa'l from scratch.--24.52.254.62 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Culture

The culture section is about Somalia. If this is because the culture is the same, it should be moved to a separate article and this page should link to it. Piet | Talk 08:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Recognition

Why is Somaliland not recognized? This isn't addressed in the article. --myselfalso 17:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What Merger?

I have read articles and I have done a little bit of research myself. there is no actual merger between Somaliland and Somalia. in fact, prior to 1991, there was no sessetionist movement in all of Somalia. even the SNM, the group that was fighting in behalf of issaqs in Somaliland didn't say anything about sessetion even after the coalition they were part of to overthrow the Siad Barre regime won.

Facts are Facts, the people as whole did not vote for the Union with the south. Agreements made between the North and South for power sharing was never done, so this back and fourth that somaliland is part of somalia is weak. As nation we are head politically with the rest of somalia, while our cultures are the same as the south, we have different model IE Socially, Politically with the rest just like the people in the Middle East are ethinically and culturally the same they have very different social and politcal structures.

Adnan

Hopefully this will be removed under current Wikipolicy.

this is not a political debate. we need proof that there was a Somaliland government after the British declared Somaliland Independant. There was no so called merger and there are a lot of researchers who have proved that. current wikipolicy states everything should be proven and every "fact" documented. there was no merger. the so called merger between British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland happened naturally. the only agreement between both Somalilands was the constitution of Somalia... which they agreed upon not as 2 Somalilands but 1 Somalia. if there are no facts to prove this merger... it should be removed. period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiiraan (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

could you please calrify for me how somaliland is socially and politacly different form the rest of somalia.the last time i checked somalis are a Nomadic people with the same customs and traditions. and a clan based polotical system.--Liban80 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Rio de Janeiro?

The picture of the Zeila coastline looks amazingly like the pao de acucar in Rio de Janeiro complete with Corcovado in the background. Is it possible that a place somewhere else on earth so much resembles two of the most famous rock formations in the world. I doubt this is actually a picture from somaliland.

Unclear statement

Is there anybody who could translate this into readable English: "Arabic is obligatory to students to be taught the language in schools and mosques around the country." I don't quite get whether Arabic is mandatory to perspective school and mosque students, or whther schools and mosques teach it, or I would do it myself.--Complainer 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

In the past week, someone has twice placed the {{NPOV}} tag on the article without providing an explanation. As we have no way of knowing the editor's specific objection(s), I have removed the tag both times. I've asked the editor to put comments in the edit summary or here on the talk page when using the NPOV tag. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Overlooked Success

I dont understand why somoliland isn't recodnised, its a fuctioning sovrin multiparty democrecy with stability, rule of law, and a trieving growing economy, based on traditional trible struceters, while somoilia is in compleat and toatal chaos and anarchey? --J intela 04:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is off-topic for the talk page but I thinka quick comment is needed. The club of sovereign nations is very exclusive and they don't like admitting new members too easily. I suppose this is fair enough as seperatist movements might get a boost if they thought the chances of recognition were higher. The world would probably be less stable with 2000 or 20000 independent nations vs about 200. I am surprised thoughj that Somaliland gets virtually no press in the west. Robert Brockway 06:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ways for an African country to get press in the West are genocide, AIDS and oil. You can also try gorillas and famine. --Drieakko 11:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

It has a long way to go but I think this could make a great featured article. Robert Brockway 06:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Border issue

The Sool and Sanaag issue is leading up to the creation of two states in between Somaliland and Puntland, one of which has already declared autonamy within Somalia. Puntland still controls the disputed Lascanod area of what is likely to also declare autonomy as "Darwiishland" in October.

Somaliland is therefore claiming territory they not only do not control, but is directly administered by another state. As Somaliland itself is unrecognized, it has just as much claim to the territories of Maakhir and Puntland (and a future Darwiishland state) as Somaliland.

Until Somaliland is internationally recognized, Somaliland is functionally a Somali autonomous state that isn't participating in the state government. They aren't even unique in this anymore, as Maakhir is also not participating in the state government, though it hasn't declared independence.

This is why I switched to a more accurate representation of the actual status of Somaliland. --Ingoman 19:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox comment

I came across this comment in the infobox:

STOP -- Thinking about changing this map to something else? Please do not. Many articles concerning countries use this Wikipedia map for infoboxes-- It looks more professional, independently achieved map and a kind user has spent a considerable amount of time making this map therefore please appreciate other people's work and have some respect articles and not changing it according to Wikipedia policies.

While I can't say I'm an expert on Wikipedia map policy the meaning of this statement is unsettling. Simply because a kind user has spent time making the map does not make Wikipedia policy null and void in that regard. Wikipedia conventions are integral to the project and allow Wikipedia to maintain consistency approaching that of mainstream encyclopedias and reference works. If the map is against conventions, it should be removed; if it does not contravene them, it should stay, this decision being made on the basis of policy and policy alone.Wikiacc (?) 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall the specifics, but I think the comment might be a remnant of an earlier revert war. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That does sound plausible, as if I think about it the page used to have a different map. I like the current one, though, the comment notwithstanding. :-) --Wikiacc (?) 23:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Economics

Where did the GDP per captia figure come from? That seems way too low to me, Somaliland is supposidly doing quite well by African standards.--Him and a dog 12:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN quick-failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article at this time for the following reasons. The article is currently undersourced, with most of the information presented lacking inline citations (the article does a good job for the first half but lacks citations for the second). I'd recommend going through the articles and adding sources for all statements that may be questioned over the verifiability by the reader. There are some single sentences that should either be incorporated into another paragraph or expanded on, as single sentences shouldn't stand alone. Also, in the infobox, there appears to be an image that is not formatted correctly. The lead should be expanded as well to better summarize the different sections within the article (see WP:LEAD for guidelines). Image:Somaliland 100 shillings.jpg also needs a detailed fair use rationale to allow the image to be included on the article. Once you have corrected these issues, have an outside editor look it over for a copyedit and check the rest of the GA criteria. When this is completed, please consider nominating the article again at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good work so far, but keep working at it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maakhir

Does Somaliland's government still claim the land now claimed by autonomous Maakhir? --NEMT (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Somaliland claims all of Sool and Sanaag, and does not recognize either Puntland or Maakhir's presence in either Sool or Sanaag. In fact, I do not believe Somaliland even recognizes Puntland or Maakhir's existance. --Ingoman (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, do they recognize the historic border between British and Italian Somaliland, or do they mark their boundary elsewhere? Also, has there been any military engagement between these northern Somali states? --NEMT (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Puntland and Somaliland have skirmishes every three months or so along the border, and are at war at this very moment actually ever since a pro-Somaliland militia invaded Las Anod and ousted the pro-Puntland militia that had split off from Somaliland in 2003. In 2005 there was fighting as Somaliland tried to take back Dhahar. Somaliland bases its claims on being the direct successor state of British Somaliland, and actually declared their "re-independence", since Somaliland was briefly independent in 1960 prior to merging with Somalia. Maakhir is a relatively new state, having declared autonomy in August 2007, so their role in the regional dynamic is still being worked out. Maakhir has already had two standoffs with Puntland since then but none with Somaliland. --Ingoman (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. --NEMT (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

English Official Language?

It says on the official Somaliland Republic website that English and Arabic are 'the other official languages' whilst Somali is 'the official language'. I assume that this is a bad translation, but it says English is an official language so maybe this should be added to the article? The link is here: [3] --W2ch00 (talk) 22:27, 08 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename Republic of Somaliland, have another article for Somaliland as a region

Somaliland article should be split up into one article for the region and one for the claimant state. Somalia still has legal claims to the territory which are recognized by the UN.--R-41 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the move. It definitely makes things a bit clearer regarding the purpose of the article, and helps keep a NPOV. -Wikiacc (°) 01:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to clean up after yourself by checking "What links here". When you did the page move followed by this you left behind 797 links to a disambiguation page, including four double redirects. Not a good thing for the readers. To fix the problem I changed the four double redirects to point directly to this article, I changed Somaliland to redirect here and added a disambiguation template to the top of this article. Of course the remaining 793 links going into Somaliland should all be updated to point here and then Somaliland (disambiguation) could be moved over to Somaliland but I really don't feel like doing that. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Great to see some serious effort to improve the article. I'm trying to get up to speed on some of the latest changes and discussion. First, concerning the title of this discussion section, does "Somaliland as a region" exist?, since Somaliland appears to be a geographic term applied by the European colonial powers to their Somali-populated possessions, (and of course, the name of the current de facto State). Second, Wikiacc deleted the bulk of the History section, saying,"Since the scope of this article is now limited to the Republic only, I have removed the pre-1991 parts of the History section, about Somaliland the region or protectorate." Since most of this info replicates the linked "history of Somalialand" article (which refers to the Repulbic of Somalia), on balance it was a good edit, however, I disagree with the only post-1991 material criteria. The History section should allow inclusion of formative material, just as any History of the USA mentions the pre-cursor colonies. The current history is rather abrupt. Mirboj (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Law

Why does this article omit any discussion of Somaliland law? What kind of legal system do they use? How is the court system arranged? Are there any particularly unusual laws that should be noted? Etc. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Claim to previous Independence

Deleted (also previoulsy deleted by Wikiacc) and moved here for discussion changes by JBondll to the history section:

"The claim that "Somaliland" was briefly independent country is not accurate. The British protectorates signed with Somali clans were withdrawn on June 26th 1960 with the understanding these protectorates to join their sisters and brothers in the Italian trusteeship in the South and declare the Somali Independence and the Union on July 1st, 1960; and not to become a stand alone entity. Hence, there was no "Independent" country called Somaliland before joining the Somalis in the South. Furthermore, some clans in the north, such as Dulbahante clan, never recognized the British rule and actively fought against British Colonization (http://www.somaliunity.org/publications/The_Illusory_Somaliland__Satting_the_Record_Straight.pdf ) Furthermore, the Harti clans of the North never agreed to the session from Somalia. There was no Somaliland elections that took place in the Dulbahante and Warsangeli clans’ territories (http://www.wardheernews.com/articles_07/october/21_Somaliland_Faisal_Roble.html"

An investigation of Somaliland's one-time claim to brief independence is important and would be a good improvement to the article, but JBondll's addition needs work to achieve NPOV; the first reference cited has a very biased viewpoint. Mirboj (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that State of Somaliland be expanded to include a section addressing these issues, in a NPOV fashion of course, referenced using more primary sources than biased secondary sources. A quick Google search yielded a few sources that could be used: for instance, can anyone access this gated journal article, or have physical access to the Somaliland Protectorate gazette (the issues we're looking for would be in the Los Angeles County Law Library and the University of Michigan Law Library)? Wikiacc (¶) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Objective status of Ingoman and his editing

Ingoman has been very active in almost ' campaigning ' for virtual non existing entities such as galmudug , maakhir now his newest project the socalled Northland.

Wikipedia must look closer at this users stand of view. Most of the sources he use is from heavily biased amateure Somali private owned websites which I believe is not appropriate for Wikipedia standard.

What should we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor akb80 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference that wasn't Garowe Online (assuming Garowe Online is the one you find problematic) http://allafrica.com/stories/200806271202.html -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The source you found is not objective- you post it as it was written by AllAfrica when in reality its a paste article from a small biased southern somalia website. You cannot deny facts on ground Somaliland is no a autonom part of Somalia its an independent de facto of Somalia. Mogadishu has no power or influence what so ever in Hargeisa. I recommend to change introduction in Somaliland topic and remove the biased political commercial secton about " maakhir " and " northland " both non existing entities solely created here on Wikipedia by Ingoman user. Wikipedia will lose its integrity on this issue. Many readers are probably wondering about how user Ingoman can get away with this nonsense. He is solely responsible for the misconception of "maakhir" and "northland" the latter being completely non Somalia subject for a region name. Further to use south somalia private websites as sources when some of them clearly are advocating their own agenda in these very talkpages against Somaliland I find it a bad idea. Somaliland has many enemies.. the worst being South Somalis in here masquerading under objective agendas trying to ' remove ' Somaliland identity. From Las Geel caves and other cultural aspects certain wikipedia users here are fronting an edit war trying to remove Somaliland, which is very silly. Middayexpress being one.. just use the history lists and you will see the same names again and again in different Somali articles.

Igor akb80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Igor you talk of non existing states in somalia like maakhir and galmudug. but there was recently a peace talk held by the somali president sheik sharief. he was mediating between two claimants for the presidency of Galmudug state.--Liban80 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland did not declare a local government in 1991 as stated in introduction

It was the Somali National Movement that declared the region to be independent 18 may 1991 after Ali Mahdi declared himself interimpresident unilaterlly. not a local autonom goverment as stated in the introduction. This is quite wrong there are no evidences showing TFG considers Somaliland as an autonom region it controls indirectly hence the autonom status. A region cannot be defined as autonom if not the central government has any decentralised de jure or de facto influence / control. This is the major difference between Somaliland and other ' mini states ' The correct therm would be do classify Somaliland as indepedent de facto. Since De jure recognition is missing. Somaliland is with Taiwan today the worlds only de facto independent countries.

The keyword is de facto to be in control of its territory, the unrecognised independence of Somaliland is not synonymous with autonom status. Here are som evidences to support my view.

http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8418/236/ http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCIS,,SOM,456d621e2,3ae6a6b5f,0.html

I will therefor correct the introduction

Xetra80 (talk)

Protection

The recent edit history for this article is almost exclusively reversion of one editor by another. For this reason I have fully protected this page. Please discuss your disagreements on this talk page and come to a consensus rather than continually reverting each other. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi great to see its being protected. A specific user named Middayexpress have been in edit war against all contributors to Somaliland article, I personally believe he is a Southern Somali with political motives, of displaying the break away state Somaliland as an autonomous region part of Somalia here in Wikipedia. If you see his talkprofile the user has been in former " editing wars ". I have provided sources and can provide plenty more, from well acknowledged sources identifying Somaliland as a break away unrecognised country not as part of TFGs Somalia.

As a matter of fact it was about time a protection came up.

Please use ~~ to identify yourself

Xetra80 (talk)

It was me that protected the page, I just used too many tildes when signing this page (now corrected). I'm not interested in the content of this dispute, but I would caution everybody to be aware of the no personal attacks policy. The only way to arrive at a consensus version is for all parties to discuss the issue calmly and rationally. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A consensus version cannot be reached so long as Xetra80 keeps creating different single purpose accounts to push his/her Somaliland secessionist POV. The fact remains that he keeps continuously removing reliable sources such as this Somalia profile from the CIA World Factbook, and Somalia's Transitional Federal Government's official Charter simply because the latter two affirm the established fact that the Somaliland region is and has always been a part of Somalia. Please also note that I'm not the only editor that has reverted these POV edits; many other editors including several administrators have as well and for good reason (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Further, I don't see how any compromise can be reached when every single international organization and country recognizes Somaliland as simply a region in Somalia -- just like the sources in the article version he reverted repeatedly affirm (e.g. this UN paper) -- and not as the independent "country" Xetra80's current POV version absurdly asserts. Just how exactly does one compromise on reality? Middayexpress (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Also note that in this edit, Xetra80 explains his umpteenth removal of the reliable sources (including the CIA source) as due to the fact that "Somaliland is not part of Somalias TFG charter ( the countrys legal government ) nor is it in autonomy rather juridical secession". The trouble is that Somaliland most certainly is a part of Somalia per the Transitional Federal Government's (TFG's) official Charter (as this edit of mine very clearly explains) since the charter identifies Somalia's geographical boundaries as follows:

"The Somali Republic shall have the following boundaries. (a) North; Gulf of Aden. (b) North West; Djibouti. (c) West; Ethiopia. (d) South south-west; Kenya. (e) East; Indian Ocean."

Now, how exactly is "Somaliland not a part of Somalias TFG charter" if the TFG Charter states outright that Somalia is bordered by Djibouti to the Northwest? Right. I think this charade has gone on long enough. Middayexpress (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What's more, the current blatantly untrue POV version of the article states that "this former British colony merged into a union with Italian Somaliland to create the Somali Republic, eventually forming Greater Somalia with Djibouti, Ogaden and the Northern Frontier District of Kenya." The trouble is that the dream of a Greater Somalia was never realized, and this dream never included or even needed to include the Somaliland province of Somalia because Somaliland was and is already a part of Somalia. The dishonest lengths to which the pathetic Somaliland secessionist brigade (read: one guy and his many WP:SPAs) will go to deceive the reading public is truly staggering. Middayexpress (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't have a big problem with the introduction in the currently protected version (i.e. Nov. 27). However I would suggest both changing "unrecognized country" to "disputed territory" (or "disputed area" etc.), but we should also include something to the effect that the TFG considers Somaliland to be an integral part of Somalia. The declared independence (regardless of the de facto or de jure scenarios) should be mentioned up front. The CIA World Factbook is pretty clear about the declared independence (link). In fact I don't think you can separate the name "Somaliland", in its present-day sense, from the local secessionist ambitions (again, regardless of its legitimacy or success etc.): to put it another way, does "Somaliland" really have any status, as such, in the rest of Somalia? Wouldn't the area actually be known by the individual gobolka names (at least according to the TFG)? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Redux

I would like to draw the attention of those involved (or anyone else with an interest) to my preceding comment from December 1, in hopes of reaching some kind of compromise. Given the lengthy proceedings I figure it might have gone unnoticed (though I also realize it's entirely possible that it was simply ignored). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks

But thank you for displaying for your hatred for Somaliland as it now seems very clear for me, why you are pursuing agenda. Somaliland never ratified the Somali Republic constitution from 1960s because of the coup. Somaliland did not declare a "local" government as you claim and its certainly not an autonomous region by TFG charther. Somaliland is 68 000 square miles this means 176 210 km2 not 137 500 km2 I have provided sources as said many times , Somaliland IS a break away state and unrecognised country.

Please do not be angry and for gods sake stop imposting your personal political agenda on the article.

Thank you

Xetra80 (talk)

lol Please. You've attacked not only me (calling me "a Southern Somali with political motives" when you don't even know my nationality let alone my ethnicity), but also User:Ingoman and the administrator User:CambridgeBayWeather (and under different sockpuppet accounts to boot). And just what exactly is a "Southern Somali", and what political motives, pray tell? Those espoused by the big bad CIA? The United Nations, perhaps? That you have the gall to talk about personal attacks is beyond ironic. See, that's your stock and trade buddy cause the facts certainly aren't on your side, or you would've produced links to them instead of more empty banter, wouldn't you? Your revisionist history is most amusing. Every single international organization and country recognizes and has always recognized Somaliland as a part of Somalia including the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), as my links and quotes above very clearly prove (e.g. 1, 23, 4) -- not as a "country" of its own. This is why the Somaliland secessionist movement of which you are obviously a part even exists: because nobody but the delusional inhabitants of certain portions of the Somaliland region of Somalia recognizes its self-declared "independence". You also quibble above about the size of Somaliland, a complaint that reflects your belief that the Sool and Sanaag regions of Somalia are a part of the larger Somaliland macro-region when they've likewise declared their automony via the Maakhir and Northland State regions (as Ingoman has already quite clearly explained to your Igor akb80 sockpuppet account here -- isn't it funny how Igor and you both "happen" to have the suffix 80 attached to your usernames? Birthday, perhaps?). That said, I'm only going to tell you this once; Wikipedia is no venue for the dissemination of propaganda:

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not::

# Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Now that you are aware of all of this and of the fact that sockpuppet accounts are not allowed, you will kindly desist this instant from using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your movement. Middayexpress (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wiki cocontributor Middayexpress

I find it very difficult to discuss the matter , when you are being so emotional. Please clear up your post and please write it into maximum five sentences paragraphs.

To answer your questions Nobody here has ever argued Somaliland is an independent recognised country apart from Somalia. However I hold these fact to be clear.

1) Somaliland is a break away state indeed, and not part of TFG , diplomatic nor in autonomy. Somaliland does not recognise TFG and vice verca, the charter only proclaims the former boundaries everything else would have been a recognition of Somaliland.

2) Somaliland remains unrecognised by the world, but enjoys low profiled diplomatic communication. By many states like UK , France , Germany , UAE , Ghana , Senegal , Ethiopia, Scandinavia ,United States. And even got a regional recognition by Wales of United Kingdom, a kind gesture indeed. But still Somaliland is a unrecognised country.

3) However Somaliland is de facto independent of Somalia The country never declared a local government as you portray it, but a fully independent restoration of the former Somaliland state from 1960 before the merger. Now this the most serious crime of disinformation, you have forced on the article with your constant reverting back to your version.

4) Somaliland covers 68 000 squaremiles , which is not 137500 km2 Simple math shows it to be 170 000 km2 , from verified source the area covers 176 210 km2. This is not known to many people. But from various geological reviews from 50s you'll find this number. And to confirm for you, yes Somaliland covers from Awdal to Sool.

5) You can check anywhere from BBC to State department of US recognising Somaliland as break away state with its own vision, not part of the troublesome South with its chronic tribal wars.

Now regarding tribal nonsense, no thanks I am not interested in discussing that with you. As this evil destroyed Somalia in the past.

Thank you

Xetra80 (talk)

I find it very difficult to discuss the matter , when you are being so emotional. Please clear up your post and please write it into maximum five sentences paragraphs.

Translation: "Please stop linking to actual bits of evidence so that you don't show my empty claims up for the preposterous distortions and fabrications they are." Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer your questions Nobody here has ever argued Somaliland is an independent recognised country apart from Somalia.

Yeah... you've really "answered my questions" there! lol (like you could ever prove that Somaliland isn't a part of Somalia). You indeed haven't stated that Somaliland is an "independent recognized country", and I haven't stated that you did either (great strawman there, by the way). What you have done, however, is state in no uncertain terms and with great emphasis in your previous post above that "Somaliland IS a break away state and unrecognised country." You've also repeated this same lie in very first line of the Somaliland article: "Somaliland ([Soomaaliland] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help), Arabic: أرض الصومال Arḍ aṣ-Ṣūmāl) is an unrecognised country located in the Horn of Africa. The region declared itself independent 18 May 1991 from Somalia." Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

However I hold these fact to be clear.

That's right. You personally hold these "facts" to be clear cause the world certainly does not. Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

1) Somaliland is a break away state indeed, and not part of TFG , diplomatic nor in autonomy.

Your strawman arguments are really lame; please stop them. I did not state anywhere that Somaliland is a "part of the TFG" (talk about an understatement). I stated and repeatedly that Somaliland is a part of Somalia, as the CIA, the United Nations, the Transitional Federal Government, the United States government, and the African Union, among others, all know -- capiche?

Somaliland does not recognise TFG and vice verca, the charter only proclaims the former boundaries everything else would have been a recognition of Somaliland.

Are you really that delusional? The Transitional Federal Government's (TFG's) Charter, drafted in February 2004, under Article 2 identifies the Territory of Somalia -- not the TFG. And that territory, again, is defined by the following boundaries:

"The Somali Republic shall have the following boundaries. (a) North; Gulf of Aden. (b) North West; Djibouti. (c) West; Ethiopia. (d) South south-west; Kenya. (e) East; Indian Ocean."

Somalia's northwesternmost boundary, as can quite clearly be seen in the quote above, is what it has always been: Djibouti -- not Somaliland because Somaliland is already a part of Somalia. The Charter also adds that:

• The Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty of the Somali Republic shall be inviolable and indivisible.
• The territorial sovereignty of the Somali Republic shall extend to the land, the islands, territorial sea, the subsoil, the air space and the continental shelf. Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

2) Somaliland remains unrecognised by the world, but enjoys low profiled diplomatic communication. By many states like UK , France , Germany , UAE , Ghana , Senegal , Ethiopia, Scandinavia ,United States.

The local government in the Somaliland region has been campaigning desperately and in vain for seventeen years now to be recognized as an independent nation rather than the northwestermost province of Somalia that every single country and international organization know and have always known it to be. That's what this "diplomatic communication" has attempted to establish; but of course, for naught. Here's what a very amusing New York Times article on Somaliland (aptly-titled "The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia") had to say about how the "President" of Somaliland is received when abroad:

"The Somaliland president, Dahir Rayale Kahin, is regarded more as a governor by other nations, even though he considers himself to be as much a president as, say, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya or Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, three prominent presidents on this continent."

So much for "independence", eh? Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And even got a regional recognition by Wales of United Kingdom, a kind gesture indeed. But still Somaliland is a unrecognised country.

Wales is a region in the United Kingdom, not a country of its own. As such, it lacks the authority to recognize any given territory's nationhood since it isn't even a nation itself. Only the Britain that it is but a part of has that authority; and Britain, like every other country and international organization in the world, recognizes Somaliland as a part of Somalia:

"The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community. The UK has signed up to a common EU position and to many UN Security Council Presidential Statements, which refer to the territorial integrity and unity of Somalia."

Furthermore, the only reason why a couple of guys in the local administration of the Wales region of the UK decided to "recognize" the Somaliland region of Somalia's self-declared "independence" is to:

• assert their own autonomy from the Britain they are a part of and which governs over them
• placate the Somali whiners in Wales, 90% of whom are from the Somaliland region and all from the Isaaq clan Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

3) However Somaliland is de facto independent of Somalia

De facto, schmacto. That's but a fancy way of saying that the region operates autonomously, but still isn't considered a country of its own. Heck, the Somaliland secessionists have even produced a passport to assert their so-called "independence", but that hasn't exactly done much good since no country in the world recognizes it either! lol The latter do, however, recognize the passport of Somalia, an actual country which they recognize and have always recognized Somaliland to be but a part of. Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The country never declared a local government as you portray it, but a fully independent restoration of the former Somaliland state from 1960 before the merger.

This is the same tired line the Somaliland secessionists like to put forth: That Somaliland, in declaring its "independence" from Somalia, is merely returning to the way it was before. Thing is, the editor Mirboj has already fully addressed this bogus claim:

The claim that "Somaliland" was briefly independent country is not accurate. The British protectorates signed with Somali clans were withdrawn on June 26th 1960 with the understanding these protectorates to join their sisters and brothers in the Italian trusteeship in the South and declare the Somali Independence and the Union on July 1st, 1960; and not to become a stand alone entity. Hence, there was no "Independent" country called Somaliland before joining the Somalis in the South. Furthermore, some clans in the north, such as Dulbahante clan, never recognized the British rule and actively fought against British Colonization (http://www.somaliunity.org/publications/The_Illusory_Somaliland__Satting_the_Record_Straight.pdf) Furthermore, the Harti clans of the North never agreed to the session from Somalia. There was no Somaliland elections that took place in the Dulbahante and Warsangeli clans’ territories (http://www.wardheernews.com/articles_07/october/21_Somaliland_Faisal_Roble.html"

Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Now this the most serious crime of disinformation, you have forced on the article with your constant reverting back to your version.

Tell that to the CIA, the United Nations, the African Union, and every other international organization and country in the world. Let them know that they are putting forth 'disinformation' in asserting that Somaliland is a part of Somalia. And don't even bother talking about constant reverting when you've not only done so under your current WP:SPA, but under several other sockpuppet accounts as well. Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

4) Somaliland covers 68 000 squaremiles , which is not 137500 km2 Simple math shows it to be 170 000 km2 , from verified source the area covers 176 210 km2. This is not known to many people. But from various geological reviews from 50s you'll find this number. And to confirm for you, yes Somaliland covers from Awdal to Sool.

Yes, like I wrote earlier:

You also quibble above about the size of Somaliland, a complaint that reflects your belief that the Sool and Sanaag regions of Somalia are a part of the larger Somaliland macro-region when they've likewise declared their automony via the Maakhir and Northland State regions (as Ingoman has already quite clearly explained to your Igor akb80 sockpuppet account here.

Thank you for confirming this. Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

5) You can check anywhere from BBC to State department of US recognising Somaliland as break away state with its own vision, not part of the troublesome South with its chronic tribal wars.

I can also check anywhere to see the Puntland (e.g. 1), Maakhir (e.g. 2), etc. regions of Somalia referred to as "states" by all sorts of people, but at the end of the day, the CIA, the United Nations, the Transitional Federal Government, the United States government, the African Union, and every other international organization and country recognizes Somaliland as just another part of Somalia (albeit one that's desperately trying to break away). Here's the US government's position on the issue:

At the State Department, spokesman Joe Mellott of the Office of War Crimes Issues said the United States does not formally recognize Somaliland but engages with representatives there as ``a regional administration.

And:

"While the United States does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, we continue regularly to engage with Somaliland as a regional administration and to support programs that encourage democratization and economic development in the Somaliland region. We have consistently voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of Somalia."

Now, for the UN's position:

"10 October: Mr. Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, (President of "Puntland") is elected President of the TFG with 189 votes. The runner up, Mr. Abdullahi Ahmed Addow receives 79 votes. Before the vote, all 25 Presidential candidates promise to support the elected president and demobilize their militia. Somaliland however, warns against any violation of its "borders". (Note: Somaliland declared itself to be an independent republic in 1991. It has a regional authority in the northwestern town of Hargeisa , presided over by a President, Vice-President, Parliament and Cabinet officials. The international community however does not recognize its self-declared status. Puntland in the northeast, has declared autonomy but not independence. A strong rivalry continues between these northern regions.)"

Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Now regarding tribal nonsense, no thanks I am not interested in discussing that with you. As this evil destroyed Somalia in the past.

lol The whole Somaliland movement is a clan-based one (nice try though). It's exclusively spear-headed by one little Somali clan (the Isaaq), which is why the other Somali clans in the northwestern Sool and Sanaag regions of Somalia -- like the "South" you keep maligning -- likewise reject Somaliland's self-declared "independence" and want no part of it. The editor Ingoman has already quite clearly explained this to your Igor akb80 sockpuppet account:

What's an unbiased source for you Igor? Maakhir and Northland are largely euphemisms for the Warsangeli and Dulbahante clan administrations, which decided to formalize their autonomous status in 2007 in opposition to Majerteen incursions into their territory (which the Majerteen ostensibly claim as part of Puntland).

Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

You're welcome. ;-D Middayexpress (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

New section

I'd first like to know wy you take this issue so personally. Second, I'd like to point out the definition of an unrecognized state - a state which has de facto control over a piece of territory but has no international recognition. My edits do not say Somaliland is recognized. My edits say that Somaliland has de facto control over its territory, which it does. In fact, it is listed on the List of unrecognized states here.

I redirect you to Transnistria again, as it bears similar resemblances to Somaliland. Both of them have a government of their own. Both impose laws upon their population. And both are de facto beyond the control of the nations which they are internationally recognized as being part of - that is, no countries recognize them, but they still exist as a country.

Transistria is described in its article as being a de facto' unrecognized independent state, so why shouldn't Somaliland be? The New York Times article does in fact go into how they have a government, and de facto control over their territory. If they didn't, there wuldn't be signs saying Somaliland, as referenced in the title.

Furthermore, the infobox used, if you notice, is Template:Infobox Country, and the title of that infobox is Republic of Somaliland. This is because it is a de facto, if not de jure, independent state.

Moreover, your edit summaries say that recognization by other countries is what makes a country. But international law specifically says otherwise. One of the clauses of the Montevideo Convention, which was later adopted as a principle of United Nations law, was that "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." That is, a country has the right to exist regardless of whether other countries recognize its existence.

I'd appreciate if you gave me some insight into why you don't want the fact that a government has de facto control over Somaliland to be apparant to the readers: my wording isn't even that much different, it just emphasises the fact that Somaliland has a government that operates independently of Somalia. Mnmazur (talk)

Somaliland does not control all the territories it 'claims' (hello Maakhir?), which contradicts your argument of 'de facto control'. There are also several other regions currently part of a dispute between Puntland & Somaliland, and which could in the future easily exchange hands back and forth as they have done in the past so the situation here is alot more fluid than the situation in Transistria. Secondly Somaliland is not a special case in the current political landscape of Somalia there are several other states that have parliaments and regional armies that operate independently of Somalia all but in name because of the stalemate in the capital. --Scoobycentric (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I was unaware of some of that (especially regarding the Puntland dispute). Is there no way to compromise some how to pay equal space to both the "part of Somalia" view and the "independent state" view? Because I'll grant mine was perhaps too much focussing on the statehood view, but the current way is definately too biased towards the "part of Somalia" view. Mnmazur (talk)

No, I'm afraid there can be no compromising between reality (Somaliland as a part of Somalia) and desire (Somaliland as an independent country). This is because:

• Contrary to what you've claimed, the Somaliland government in fact does not have de facto control of the territory nor does it enjoy support from all of the territory's inhabitants. Scoobycentric made this clear by pointing to the existence of Maakhir & the Puntland–Somaliland disputes. To that I'd add the Awdal movement, and point out that the constitutional referendum of 2001 that the Somaliland government held to determine whether the region's inhabitants wished to secede never even reached the non-Isaaq Somali clans such as the Warsangali and Dhulbahante who inhabit the Sool and Sanaag regions. And together those areas constitute approximately 40% of the landmass of the former British Somaliland protectorate. In other words, it represents a false consensus. In fact, even within the Isaaq, there isn't unanimity, with people such as the great poet Hadrawi opposing Somaliland's secessionist ambitions.

• Transnistria bears absoluely no resemblance to Somaliland. This is first and foremost because the people in Transnistria constitute different ethnic groups that are indeed ethnically and culturally distinct from their neighbors. The inhabitants of Somaliland, on the other hand, are not and never have been distinct from the people in the rest of Somalia. Instead, they represent a few clans within the Somali ethnic group who have simply found themselves on the northern side of the artificial borders that were arbitrarily drawn up by the former colonial powers (most but not all of Somaliland territorially overlaps with the former British Somaliland), with others of the same clan finding themselves to the south, east or west. These Somalis practice the exact same culture & religion as their fellow Somalis to the east, west & south of them. They also speak the exact same language. Most of this, however, cannot be said of the peoples of Transnistria who really are different from the inhabitants of the territory they wish to secede from.

• You bring up the Montevideo Convention, but forgot to mention its most well-known clause, article 1 which actually sets out the criteria for statehood: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. While Somaliland may indeed have a government, it has already been demonstrated that it has neither a defined territory nor consequently a permanent population. Somaliland also does not have any political relations with other states because actual countries just consider it a region in Somalia, not an independent state; they thus deal with its government as a regional administration. You also forget why the international community has consistently refused to recognize Somaliland as anything other than a region in Somalia: because of United Nations Security Council resolutions on the territorial integrity of nations, including Somalia (1, 2). Middayexpress (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Somaliland status

The union of Somaliland and Somalia did not have any legal validity by the approval in principle of the Atto de Unione in the south. What Somaliland primarily did was to reassert its separate existance it had as British Somaliland and later Somaliland State of 1960 26 june.

The Member States affirm : The respect for each state and its inalienable right to independent existance. Charter of Organization of African Unity, article III, § 3. Review of African Political Economy vol.21 No.59 pp 21 - 38

Somaliland was indeed a separate country.

I support the existing version of the article. The latter above me has provided with biased south somali websites like wardher, markacaday ect. user Middayexpress seems very personal about this article.

I recommend everybody here to focus on the best for Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.240.165 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 December 2008

For Middayexpress: Im not Xetra80 sockpuppet, although it may seems like it. If you think you can ask CheckUser, or look at my profile. My edits seemed a sufficiently neutral to me. But I will not argue about it. Have a nice day:).--Ganimoth (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have recently created a new article about a hospital in Hargeisa, Edna Adan Maternity Hospital and I have done some work on the article about its founder Edna Adan. I was oblivious of walking into a mine field until Middayexpress declared all-out war upon me in the Hospital's discussion page. I was naive. Edna is the former first lady of Somaliland (as well as of Somalia) and she is Somaliland's former foreign minister. And she is a friend of mine. Will somebody please review these two pages to make sure that I have not committed any heinous crimes against the people of Somalia? Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Chuck, you are a great deal more than a "friend" to Edna Adan. You are also, by your own admission, the creator of that very website for her hospital. This would make your writing an article about said hospital and another on the woman in question's life very much a conflict of interest. This has also already clearly and repeatedly been explained to you. So much for full disclosure. Middayexpress (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You would prove my lack of full disclosure by... pointing to my own statements of full disclosure??? That really does not make any kind of sense at all. I was hoping that after these few days you might have calmed down a little. Especially after your wild and self-contradictory accusations against me concerning those two photos on the hospital page were summarily dismissed. Somaliland enjoys de facto independence and you would seem to stop at nothing to hide this fact. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the fact that you conveniently neglected to mention in your rather clumsy and transparent attempt above to gather support for your cause (see canvassing) that you are not only "friends" with the woman in question, but even created her hospital's very website for her (you know, the one where she actively promotes the Somaliland secessionist movement, a movement which you have also repeatedly betrayed yourself as supporting both here and on her hospital article's talk page). None of the above of course changes the fact that you are still very much in conflict of interest, and that you keep adding Somaliland secessionist propaganda to articles (e.g. "As the wife of Prime Minister Egal, she was first lady of the briefly-independent Somaliland before that country merged five days later with Somalia, in 1960.") that I keep having to remove. Middayexpress (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never reversed any edit of yours. There is no edit of mine that you have "kept having to remove." You are slandering me here, yet again. Is that your plan to defeat your many opponents here, by exhausting them with a flurry of specious accusations? I can hardly count all those you've hurled at me these past few days.

If it's true that the wives of prime ministers are not called first ladies, then it's news to me but the rest of that edit is fully supported. Sign me, Exhausted. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

lol Whatever man. The evidence above speaks for itself. Middayexpress (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit to protected page

{{editprotected}} In the section "Politics and government", there is a missing space in the penultimate paragraph between the words "formula," and "although" - "...according to a predetermined formula,although ...". 88.107.61.119 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing & POV

You are misrepresenting sources to push a very obvious POV. I've seen it many times before on this article. For starters, you source the following statement to this Afrolnews article:

"Somaliland ([Soomaaliland] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help), Arabic: أرض الصومال Arḍ aṣ-Ṣūmāl) is an unrecognized de facto independent state located in the Horn of Africa."

In the footnotes, you indicate that the following statement from the Afrol article specifically supports your edit:

"The Somaliland political parties have signed an agreement with the Electoral Commission to fix an election date in the Horn of Africa state."

Had you actually read that post I directed you to, you'd know that being labeled a "State" (and particularly within the Somali context) does not a country make:

"I can also check anywhere to see the Puntland (e.g. 1), Maakhir (e.g. 2), etc. regions of Somalia referred to as "states" by all sorts of people, but at the end of the day, the CIA, the United Nations, the Transitional Federal Government, the United States government, the African Union, and every other international organization and country recognizes Somaliland as just another part of Somalia (albeit one that's desperately trying to break away)."

Had you read that post of mine, you would also already know that it makes no difference what some random journalist describes Somaliland as because:

• Only actual countries and international organizations have the power to determine whether or not a territory is, in fact, an "independent" or "sovereign" country in its own right -- not the territory in question's own representatives or their hired stooges. And of course, Somaliland is recognized by every country and international organanization as a part of Somalia.

• The Somaliland government routinely recruits writers and other stooges to push forth official-sounding propaganda asserting an "independent" and "sovereign" Somaliland, contrary to how the region is, in fact, legally and officially recognized.

You have also included a link to the Somaliland secessionist government's own website to support your edit asserting an "independent" Somaliland. I'm afraid that is the very definition of a questionable source:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties."

Note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the dissemination of propaganda.

Lastly, you have cited the following passage from this New York Times article as supporting your statement that "although unrecognized, a government with de facto control over the territory claims it as the Republic of Somaliland":

"Ms. Ismail, the foreign minister of the breakaway republic of Somaliland, considers this an independent land. But even a decade and a half after the area's so-called independence, no country in the world recognizes it as such."

In reality, the NYT article makes it painfully clear that Somaliland is a region in Somalia that's attempting to secede, not a country of its own (the article is called "The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia"). The passage you cite above was only a snippet of a larger argument, taken out of context. Here it is in its full and original context:

"She will go on at length about the unique history of this region in the northwestern part of a place that she says used to be called Somalia but no longer is. She will describe the declaration 15 years ago making this an independent land and the referendum a decade later affirming it. She will emphatically say that this is not Somalia. It is Somaliland. Got it?

But she may be a bit premature in making that claim. Sure, Ms. Ismail, the foreign minister of the breakaway republic of Somaliland, considers this an independent land. But even a decade and a half after the area's so-called independence, no country in the world recognizes it as such. The African Union, which is made up of all the countries on the continent, does not acknowledge a Somaliland nation, nor does the United Nations."

Besides the bolded phrases above, also note that the article is signed "Hargeisa, Somalia". That should tell you something about what perspective the writer is actually writing from.

Kindly do not again misrepresent sources as you have done or attempt to use isolated and/or biased articles/websites to define a territory's legal status when only other legal entities can and have done that. Middayexpress (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

While I see your point, I am not using it to push a point of view, as the government of Somalia does not have effective control over the area, and the existence of an indepenent state does not depend on recognition. Please respond to my criticisms of your argument above. Mnmazur (talk)

I beg to differ. Middayexpress (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Somaliland clearly enjoys de facto independence. It is peaceful, democratic, orderly and stable. It bears little resemblance to Somalia. Just because there also happens to be a border dispute with Puntland has no bearing upon the larger question at hand. The opening sentence ought to emphasize the de facto independent status of Somaliland over the wishful thinking on the part of some outsiders who hope that by pretending Somalia is a normal country with its old borders intact this may somehow, some day, contribute to making it so.

I, too, wonder what makes Middayexpress so unreasonable on this topic. It's clear she does not represent the Somalia government, whose prerogatives she defends with such passion, because no such entity exists. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the article should present a more neutral point of view, given that Wikipedia is supposed to present all views in a balanced manner, I see that so long as Middayexpress keeps his mouse over the "undo" button 24 hours a day, this is imposible. I considered filing a dispute resolution application, but the bureaucracy and paperwork involved takes up more time than I am willing to dedicate to this.

I think, however, the current version may be acceptable to Middayexpress, and is certainly more acceptable to me. The order of the first paragraph is rearranged lightly, but the "autonomous region" point of view is still placed first. Rather than bolding the Republic of Somaliland bit, it is simply italicized after a notice that a self-proclaimed government declared independence in 1991. Nothing really has been changed from Middayexpress' seemingly Somali-approved version of the article, just some minor formatting.

I also think it's rather funny that Middayexpress continues to press this seemingly-mundane point, given that "Republic of Somaliland" is proclaimed in the "Country Infobox" alongside the article. And while I admit that Somaliland may not have full control over its territory, I also think by that standard the Republic of China, who claims all of mainland China and part of what is now Russia and Mongolia, doesn't exist as a country either, even though it clearly does. Similar arguments could be made for both North and South Korea, both of which claim the entire Korean peninsula.

I also think it's funny that Middayexpress told me off for referencing the Somalilandgov.com website, when it is used as a reference several other places in the article and in related articles.

However, I am happy, at least for the time being, with the version here, and I hope that Chuck and Middayexpress will agree. Mnmazur (talk)

While I have no doubt you are happy with your edits, that is not what the cited sources state. For one thing, it's not just the Somaliland government which is unrecognized, as you have indicated, but the so-called "Republic of Somaliland" itself => (1, 2). This argument of yours that Somaliland is an independent country has already been thoroughly dismantled in this earlier section by both Scoobycentric and I, and your initial misrepresentation of sources has likewise been dissected here. Your suggestion that because "The Republic of Somaliland" is written in the country infobox, then by golly, Somaliland must be a republic is absurd. The latter is just how the secessionist government labels the region, much like how the secessionists in Cabinda, Angola refer to their territory as "The Republic of Cabinda" as opposed to simply "Cabinda". Just because they call it a republic, I'm afraid, doesn't make it so. Incidentally, the other Puntland and Galmudug macro regions of Somalia also have country infoboxes on their articles, so that's hardly an argument. Also, the Somalilandgov source you mention worked its way into the Somaliland article because someone added it there; it didn't just miraculously appear. Nevertheless, I thank you for pointing that out to me; it's good to know in all cases where such obvious questionable sources are to be found (though looking at the article before your edit, I see that it was only used to source some banal info on agriculture & language; nothing secessionist-related). Furthermore, unlike Somaliland, the People's Republic of China does have clearly defined boundaries with a permanent population as well as a government. Most importantly, it is recognized by all countries as an actual nation (this is what your argument has come to? comparing Somaliland of all places to China?). The actual territory of China is all its own & recognized as such, irrespective of any irredentist claims it may have. That is in stark contrast to the Somaliland region, where, as I've already pointed out, over 40% of its own landmass (Sool and Sanaag) is disputed, and the inhabitants of those areas do not recognize the Somaliland government's authority there. Instead, they recognize neighboring Puntland's authority. The reason for this is because the inhabitants of those two regions belong to sub-clans of the Darod clan family (specifically the Warsangali and Dhulbahante), and the Darod dominate Puntland. The inhabitants of the rest of the Somaliland region, on the other hand, mainly belong to the Isaaq clan. The exception to this is the Awdal region, where the Dir dominate. And of course, there is now the Awdal movement afoot there, which seeks autonomy within a united Somalia, not an independent Somaliland. This is because the Dir in that region, just like the Warsangali and Dhulbahante in Sanaag & Sool, do not wish to be minorities in an Isaaq-dominated land and consequently be subject to majority rule and all of its potential tyrannies. You do realize what all this means, don't you? Besides demonstrating a distinct lack of support for secession and an inability to define much less control almost half of its claimed territory, it means that Somaliland, despite its government's assertions to the contrary, is not, in fact, the heir to the British Somaliland protectorate since British Somaliland did include the territories now comprising Sool and Sanaag (the latter of which largely overlaps with the former Maakhir, a defunct autonomous region that recently rejoined Puntland). As for Chuckupd, his involvement with Edna Adan Ismail -- Somaliland's former foreign minister and one of its most vocal advocates for secession (she's quoted and pictured in that New York Times article) -- as both a personal acquaintance of hers and the creator of her own hospital's website as well as his pushing of POV on said hospital's Wikipedia article (which he also created, btw), has already been exposed for the blatant conflict of interest it is. The fact that he is now voicing support for your edits, as though Wikipedia operates according to popular vote (it doesn't), is actually very telling, though in a way, it's also rather fitting and predictable. The allegedly "peaceful, democratic, orderly and stable" situation he ascribes to Somaliland is also something of a cruel joke, when even people within the Somaliland secessionist movement readily admit to the territory's corruption, human and civil rights abuses, and political instability => 1, 2, 3, 4 (not that peace is even a prerequisite for statehood; see red herring). That, of course, is in addition to the bogus "constitutional referendum" and other travesties mentioned earlier. Middayexpress (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits say that they declared independence, which they did. Even your edits say that. My most recent edit does not state that they are recognized as independent, it specifically says that they are not. Furthermore, your edits are clearly biased against even the existence of a government, which does exist (regardless of whether it has control or not). Mnmazur (talk)

Also, my argumenst, if you'd actually read them, refer to the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China. And I just don't get why you are so militant about the wording of the first paragraph when you are fine with the infobox being used. If you are so much against it, why not rail against the infobox as well? Mnmazur (talk)

I don't appreciate dishonesty, and you are being dishonest. Your edit is an attempt to conceal the fact that it is specifically the self-declared so-called "Republic of Somaliland" which is not recognized by replacing it with a statement suggesting that it is just Somaliland's government that is not recognized. In doing so, you are attempting to create ambiguity as to whether or not Somaliland itself is recognized as an independent state, when in reality there is no ambiguity: it is not recognized. Here's your edit:

"A self-proclaimed government declared independence in 1991 as the Republic of Somaliland, and considers itself to be the successor state of the former British Somaliland protectorate. This government remains unrecognized by any country or international organization."

That is why I reverted you (nothing to do with "bias", I'm afraid; that was already exposed here). Middayexpress (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Middayexpress would make a poor poker player. Because whenever she says she's 'afraid' of something, then it's always a "tell" that she is bluffing, stepping out into an area where her arguments are even more specious than usual.

And, why is Middayexpress forever "exposing" things? Half the time, they were "exposed" only in her fevered imagination. Much of the rest of the time, what is claimed to have been "exposed" is impossibly inconsistent with her own previously "exposed" information, so that one or both of the shocking revelations must, of necessity, be false. And when none of those apply, well, then the thing was probably never any kind of secret in the first place. It is just so very tiring trying to keep up with all of her antics here.

I have been accused of being a secret agent for Nicolas Kristof's publisher because Middayexpress had "exposed" absolute proof (in the form of a Google search) that I had insider information concerning the title and subject matter of his next book. Turns out, the title is stated on Kristof's own Wiki page and he wrote that Edna Adan is profiled in the new book right in his NY Times blog, the very blog entry that is cited as a source in the same Wikipedia article we were discussing. Middayexpress hurled a hysterical accusation solely on the basis of her own extremely careless research. Middayexpress never apologized to me for being so grossly irresponsible.

I was accused of stealing two photos from Edna Adan Ismail. Middayexpress "exposed" these photos as clearly qualified for speedy deletion. She maintained this argument even while simultaneously "exposing" me as also being a secret agent for Edna Ismail, herself. Clearly, these two arguments are mutually exclusive but that never slows down our fearless "exposer." (The complaint alleging stolen photos was dismissed as specious.) Middayexpress never apologized for accusing me of being a thief and a liar.

That I made the web page for Edna's charity maternity hospital (how monstrous of me!) is in plain view right on my own page here. It was never a secret. That mention has been in place continuously for about a year. But that doesn't stop Middayexpress from "exposing" it anew at every opportunity.

Middayexpress is impossible to deal with. I surrender. I feel ill just looking back through these, and countless many more, vicious personal attacks that she has made against me. I'm not making any more edits to any Somalia-related article. Middayexpress' vile tactics have won the day by making me nauseous. Congratulations.

P.S. A warning to others. If she calls you "my friend," then look out because she is about to accuse you of being somebody's secret agent, or much worse. Farewell. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To correct Chuckupd's predictable distortions of the situation at hand, I did not accuse him of "being a secret agent for Nicolas Kristof's publisher". What really happened was that Chuckupd stated with regard to a new book by Kristof that has yet to be published that "both Edna Adan and her hospital feature prominently in the new book". I then logically pointed out that Chuckupd could not be aware of this information unless he were somehow intimately connected with the persons involved in producing the book, intimate enough "to be convinced (and, especially, aware) that an as-yet-to-be-published book by an author sympathetic to the Somaliland secessionist movement (and one who has already written on & produced a video on Edna Adan) will contain information that has something to do with this article." Chuckupd writes that Kristof "wrote that Edna Adan is profiled in the new book right in his NY Times blog" and that this putative blog entry is supposedly "the very blog entry that is cited as a source in the same Wikipedia article we were discussing." This is a lie. Kristof did not mention that Edna Adan is profiled in his upcoming book anywhere on his blog nor did Chuckupd cite any article in either the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital or Edna Adan pages from said blog. Such articles first have to exist for in order him to do that! Google searches of Nicolas Kristof's title plus the terms "Somaliland" and "Edna" also turn up zero hits relating Kristof's upcoming book to either the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital or Edna Adan or the Somaliland secessionist movement, which indicates that there is absolutely no way Chuckupd could presume a link between any of the aforementioned things and Kristof's upcoming book unless of course he himself was, again, somehow privy to information that only someone who is intimately involved with the hospital and/or the Somaliland secessionist movement would know. This only further supports the notion that he was attempting to use Wikipedia to promote some sort of extraneous campaign, one most likely having something to do with said "movement". I also didn't accuse Chuckupd of "stealing two photos from Edna Adan Ismail". That too is a strawman argument. I pointed out that two images (1, 2) which he had uploaded to Wiki Commons and indicated were his "own work" were, in fact, identical to two other ones (1, 2) featured on the website of Edna Adan's hospital. I then logically pointed out that unless Chuckupd was guilty of copyright infringement on not one but two counts, then he was indeed somehow very intimately connected with the hospital. And as it turned out, I was of course right because after having visited Chuckupd's user page, I found out that he himself had actually created the aforementioned website for Edna Adan's hospital! However, he never so much as once even bothered to bring this keep information up in my conversation with him; I had to dig it up for myself! Chuckupd also mentions that the "complaint alleging stolen photos was dismissed as specious". That too is not what it appears to be. The truth is, Chuckupd posted a very dishonest and self-serving summary of the situation at hand on that image's talk page on Wiki Commons. An administrator then read that post and assumed it to be factual since it was not accompanied by any rebuttal on my part, as I was nowhere near a computer at the time. When I finally got wind of that dishonest talk page summary & posted a reply at 09:44, 28 May 2009, it was too late as the image deletion case had already been closed as keep at 09:11, 28 May 2009. That's the ridiculous situation the "honest" Chuckupd takes so much pride in pointing out. As for the second photo, it's deletion case was not dismissed as Chuckupd has claimed. The truth is, I myself removed the deletion template after having found out that Chuckupd himself created Edna Adan's hospital's website where those images were originally featured (remember, he never even bothered revealing this to me even so much as once in my conversation with him on that hospital article's talk page; I had to find that out for myself). In doing this, I was actually giving him the benefit of the doubt, though it's clear with him no good deed goes unpunished. And that's a brief summary of the situation folks. The rest can be found here, a discussion which Chuckupd understandably never bothers linking to. Middayexpress (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just apologize, will you? The Article in Question by Nicolas Kristof

Today I received an email from Edna Adan, a woman whom I hugely admire, who runs a maternity hospital in Somaliland. Naka Nathaniel and I did a video about her a couple of years ago, and she also figures into a book that my wife and I are writing about women in the developing world.

And I can't even follow whatever is your convoluted argument concerning the photos you accused me of stealing. They're not stolen. And it's hardly a secret that I made Edna's web site since my every signature includes a link to my page here where it's very prominent. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That link above says nothing about the book "Half the Sky: From Oppression to Opportunity for Women Worldwide" or about Edna being featured prominently in it (how would you know that?) or about Edna's hospital, as you have indicated:

"I will try to get some more verifiable details to be incorporated into the article. My goal is for it to be good and solid by the time Nicolas Kristof's new book, "Half the Sky: From Oppression to Opportunity for Women Worldwide," is published in September. Both Edna Adan and her hospital feature prominently in the new book."

The blog entry just says that Kristof is writing a book with his wife where Edna is featured; nothing more. Your distortions about the photos have also already been exposed, so there actually isn't much you can say about that either. Middayexpress (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Somaliland: What Somalia Could Be"

Somebody braver than me, brave enough to risk vicious personal attacks from Middayexpress, may wish to cite this article Somaliland: What Somalia Could Be in the main article here. The author, Dr. J. Peter Pham, has written quite a thorough history of Somaliland and how it's very different from the wreckage that is Somalia. He's also got extensive quotes from the African Union and Human Rights Watch. Whatever its de jure status, Somaliland really is not Somalia... which, once again, has topped the list of the World's Most Failed States Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite what exactly? You do realize that Somaliland is still a part of Somalia, don't you (see my posts above in case you forgot => 1, 2)? No article writer can change that; that can only change through legal channels, as already explained to you. Your reference to the African Union is highly amusing since, as I already pointed out to you, the African Union -- just like the CIA, the United Nations, the Somali government, the United States government, the British government and every country in the world -- recognizes Somaliland as just another part of Somalia. The Human Rights Watch (which, need I remind you, is a UN organization) "extensive quotes" you express glee over also come from this paper entitled "Hostages to Peace: Threats to Human Rights and Democracy in Somaliland", which, as its name indicates, actually laments the deplorable state of Human rights and democracy in that particular separatist enclave. I realize this pains you, but like it or not, these are the facts. I don't want to have to tell you again to stop pushing POV on the Somaliland articles. You are anything but a neutral editor, as your own comments and personal involvement with Edna Adan Ismail -- Somaliland's former foreign minister and one of its most vocal advocates for secession (who is, again, quoted and pictured in this New York Times article on the separatist movement) -- as both an acquaintance of hers & the creator of her hospital's website (where she actively promotes her secessionist movement) more than show. Your editing Somaliland-related articles therefore constitutes a direct conflict of interest:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted.

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest. An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing. Where an editor does not disclose an existing affiliation or other conflict of interest, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing."

It's also funny how you keep waxing authoritative over Somali issues and gloating over the struggles of the rest of Somalia, yet apparently don't seem to be aware that the folks in the northwestern part of the country are Somalis too, with relatives and friends in the south to boot. By the way, asking others to perform your POV edits on your behalf as you've just done above doesn't make your edits any less POV. It too is a violation of Wiki policies (see WP:MEAT). Middayexpress (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch is not a U.N. organization (there is yet another example of careless research on your part). I have never seen anybody more hysterically unhinged in pursuit of their own private agenda here; and you have yet to apologize for calling me a liar and a thief, among assorted other unfounded vicious personal attacks. Somaliland does enjoy de facto independence. It's a fact. Chuckupd (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Private agenda"... lol Coming from someone with a very public agenda, that means precious little. And no, I don't "apologize" to POV pushers; I expose them, as just demonstrated. Middayexpress (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, I've already gone over a sampling of your nonsensical exposings at the bottom of the preceding section. You have never exposed anything. And your ever-more hysterical arguments in support of your private agenda are either laughable or depressing. All the same, I surrender to you and I will edit nothing related to Somaliland or Somalia because it's far too exhausting trying to reason with you.

You have lied about me in a public forum solely because I see things a little differently from you. And now you make the claim, startling even from you, that it's all right to lie about me. It is never all right to lie about people. Your behavior is pathological. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep whining about personal attacks when that is all you ever seem to engage in (it's you that called me out, remember?) and telling yourself that you haven't been exposed if it makes you feel any better. It certainly won't change reality. You talk about "lying" when you've amply demonstrated that you don't even know the meaning of the word "truth" to begin with. This is not a case of you and I "see[ing] things a little differently". Talk about an understatement. This is a case of me taking exception to your relentless, dishonest and very transparent soapboxing. You've already sworn that you were "through" with Somali-related topics only to return with more of that lame, predictable POV-pushing; so I'll be sure to file this latest claim under "more untruths". Middayexpress (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have quit editing any Somalia-related articles, just exactly as I have said I would do. You are lying about me. Again. (I never said anything about using the discussion pages.) You lie about me now just as you lied when you "exposed" me for stealing photos; lied when you gleefully exposed your laughable "proof" that I had secret inside information about Nicolas Kristof's new book; lied when you exposed me as a "secret agent" for Edna Adan; lied when you claimed that I had reversed your edits. There were many more lies but I'm too tired of you to go look and remind myself of the rest. You do lie frequently. I'm not even sure what you mean by "call you out," unless you expect that I ought to just let you pile up the lies about me without ever remarking on them. I don't know that you mean to lie, exactly, I think mostly you just get hysterically unhinged in pursuit of your private agenda here and you lose your grip on reality. It's a part of your sad pathology. Mental health issues aside, you do still owe me apologies and retractions for your lies. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A talk page is a Wikipedia page, genius. And not only have you indeed edited those pages, you've also attempted to use them as a platform to get others to perform POV edits on your behalf on articles proper, like I've just demonstrated above in my initial post in this section & in my post from 23:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC). And you've done this because you now realize that your position as the Somaliland separatist leader Edna Adan Ismail's personal acquaintance and employee (not "secret agent", I'm afraid) brings you in direct conflict of interest, which makes it impossible for you to edit any Somali-related pages without imparting your already demonstrated political agenda. You have again misrepresented the Nicolas Kristof affair & all of the other issues that have transpired before, but predictably never bothered linking to any of those old conversations so that those claims may be read in their proper context. I wonder why that is? lol Actually, I don't. You talk about mental health, when it's you who can't seem to stop bringing up my name in just about every post of yours (see your initial post in this section, for just one example). You've even now resorted to pathologically wikistalking me around, butting your head into conversations that don't in the least bit concern you like you've just done on my talk page. It's truly astounding how many Wiki policies you've contravened in my brief dealings with you. And now you have the audacity to ask me to apologize to you for some non-existent "wrongs"? Keep dreaming, buddy. Like I already told you: I don't "apologize" to POV pushers; I expose them. Middayexpress (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Must I repeat myself? Just see the bottom of the preceding section: Your lies about me are both self-evident and relentless. You owe me retractions and apologies. You are a proven liar. I have no idea what issue you had with Sherurcij but I can't help being tremendously amused at your horror at being accused as a liar. You have called me a liar any number of times, without foundation, and I resent it. Maybe what goes around comes around. Stop lying. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the bottom of the preceding section, and indeed, it's predictably more of your customary distortions and misrepresentations as exposed ad nauseam in that same section and elsewhere on this and other talk pages. I've already indicated that I don't "apologize" to POV pushers because POV pushing is not something to "apologize" for but to expose. I should add that your wikistalking, canvassing and consistent ad hominem don't exactly inspire confidence either. Middayexpress (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Middayexpress, you are hopelessly insane and you are going to make me insane, too, if I hang around here anymore. I quit all involvement with Wikipedia. Good luck to the rest of you trying to deal with this shrill freak. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Move this thing!

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Somaliland → Republic of Somaliland —

• I have (partially) read the discussions above and suggest a move. Here's why:

• As long as this article is called Somaliland, people will never agree on whether it is or should be about the self-declared country or the region in Somalia proper.

• More importantly, the current title leaves un-informed and un-involved readers confused:

Currently, whoever enters "Somaliland" in wikipedia's searchbox is led straight to this article. It gives the impression that there is only one answer to what "Somaliland" is. Obviously, that is not the case. The current set-up clearly supports those who support the self-declared country. That is not NPOV.

• For most self-declared entities such as "de facto states," micronations, and secessionist movements, it is the custom (though not rule) on wikipedia to give the full name as declared by the (insert any word you like, choose from "rebels," "heroes," "quacks," I don't care). Only entities that are recognized by at least one member of the UN get their "short name" as an article-entry.

This article should be called "Republic of Somaliland" (because that's what it's about) and a disambiguation-page should be the only way to get there.

"Somaliland" should lead to the disambiguation-page, which gives people an option to choose which article they want to look at.

Seb az86556 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Like it or not, Somaliland is recognized as a region of Somalia (albeit, one that's desperately trying to secede) by every country and international organization in the world, including the United Nations, the African Union, the CIA, the Somali government, the United States government, and the British government. Suggesting otherwise is what is actually POV, and in breach of WP:SOAP. I've also searched Wikipedia's rulebook, and I cannot for the life of me find that passage you've quoted above that was ostensibly taken from it and which you believe supports your edit (but yet did not bother to link back to). Whatever the case, kindly do not again remove reliable sources. Middayexpress (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Middayexpress: I know your argument, and hear what you are saying. However, there are people who disagree with you (and I would tell them the same, that there are people who disagree with them). My goal is this: I want this article to be unambiguous, and I don't care which side you pick.

The fact is that this article, right now, does describe the self-declared country; otherwise, what's the infobox for? Why the flag? Why does the infobox say "Republic"? Why the presentation of the currency? Why mention a "president" (or whatever)? Why GDP and all that? "Foreign relations"? WTF?

You see, if you really want to make your point, I would seriously ask you (from a neutral point of view) to be BOLD:

• cut out the infobox
• get rid of the flag
• ex the "president-GDP"-stuff
• delete the map
• ditch the banknote-picture
• trash the "foreign relations"-section
• (think of more)

...and write an article about the province/region of Somaliland. Then, and only then, does this article make sense. Right now, you are not going all the way, and by that, you are undermining your own point. As I say in the intro above: anyone who looks up Somaliland on wikipedia will be directed straight to this article; they'll see a flag, they'll see a map, they'll see the layout -- and they'll walk away saying "Somaliland is an independent country." If you don't want that, if you don't want the average person to think that this entity is an independent country, then don't mess around with minor nit-picking and bickering over phrases and words. Go over the list I typed up and do something. As it stands, your minor fixes only dig a hole for your point of view. No matter what minor words you change here and there, most people won't read any of of that stuff. Most people don't give a d*mn about UN-declarations and legalistic details.

As it stands, the article looks like an article for any independent country. To most users, "looks like" means the same as "is." And that means, in the eyes of most users, you lose. So get busy (see above).

Seb az86556 (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Calm down dude. lol I hear what you're saying. However, it's actually you that is mistaken. The situation regarding Somaliland is exactly as I've described above. It unfortunately is not my "POV" that Somaliland is a part of Somalia any more than it is the world's POV. I understand you claim not to care about the issue, which is all well and good. But your suggestions/commands to "get busy" working on the article are a bit simplistic. It makes no difference whether the article has a "country" infobox or not. The Puntland and Galmudug macro regions also have country infoboxes in their respective Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't make them any less a part of Somalia than Somaliland. The reason why "Republic" is even mentioned in the article is because that is what the secessionists refer to the region as i.e. the "Republic of Somaliland". The flag is included for the same reason one is included on the Puntland, Makhir, etc. articles. And so forth. The point is, your argument that people will think Somaliland is an independent country does not hold water since we clearly state in the opening paragraph and throughout the article that it is a region in Somalia. An autonomous, separatist region, no doubt. But a region all the same. Middayexpress (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S.:The infobox you're looking for is here Template:Infobox subdivision type (right now the article uses the infobox for independent country) Seb az86556 (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll have a look at it. Middayexpress (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And here's your map

That looks like a province to me. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

• In history before WWII, "Somaliland" meant British Somaliland and/or French Somaliland and/or Italian Somaliland. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. In history, prior to 1991, the "Somaliland" region did not even exist. Only British Somaliland, French Somaliland, and Italian Somaliland did, which are basically just Somalia (British Somaliland + Italian Somaliland) and Djibouti (French Somaliland). Middayexpress (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose a move to Republic of Somaliland. This is currently the primary topic and the other Somalilands are not (nor were not) referred to solely as "Somaliland" but rather with their respective colonial power's adjective (British Somaliland, &c.). No ambiguity, no need for a move. (I don't even feel like addressing the convoluted reasoning above about legitimising independence since, to me, "Republic of Somaliland" sounds far more like a recognized state than simply "Somaliland".) — AjaxSmack 14:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, agree with AjaxSmack. Without getting into the independence/sovereignty debate, articles about countries/states/etc. generally aren't named this way. For example, there's an article called Ethiopia, not "Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia"; Australia, not "Commonwealth of Australia"; or Kentucky, not "Commonwealth of Kentucky" etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sure that Ethiopia, Australia etc are good examples, as this is a self-declared state rather than one enjoying full international recognition. However, looking at other entities in a similar situation, the articles are titled Kosovo, Abkhazia, Transnistria and South Ossetia. On that basis the article should remain at Somaliland. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.