Jump to content

Talk:Piracy off the coast of Somalia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aaron.qc. Peer reviewers: Aaron.qc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

Per WP:SIZESPLIT, this article "Probably should be divided." The Anti-piracy measures section is well developed and could stand as a spinoff article under a title such as Anti-piracy measures in Somalia. That the article is large enough to be split is probably not controversial, but I thought I'd give a week or so for discussion over what to split and at what title. If there are no objections, I'll proceed with my original proposal. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split It seems to me that this article should have a short, one-to-two-para section on a timeline of counter-piracy measures and efforts implemented and their effectiveness (ie: drastically reduced seizure of vessels), but that section should largely be a quick summary, and should rely on a Template:Main setup with the new article. Cdtew (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to most authorities, the piracy phenomenon off the coast of Somalia is nearing its end. This is due to the combined counter-piracy efforts of international and local navies (c.f. [1]). A spinoff page devoted solely to anti-piracy measures on the mainland is thus unnecessary. Such measures can instead be dealt with on this page in the allotted section. Middayexpress (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support splitting another section? Is the article too large, in your opinion? --BDD (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to have already been split a few times. I would, though, support a new spinoff page on the burgeoning general private maritime security industry. While piracy in the Indian Ocean is quickly approaching an end, there has been a rise in pirate incidents in other waters; specifically, in the Gulf of Guinea and the Strait of Malacca. This should keep the private contractors going for some time. Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Middayexpress --LNCSRG (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS.: to further elaborate and clarify, I think the new article should incorporate material from this one as well as from a/m Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea and Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, but also from 2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea, where a section deals about impact on anti-piracy measures due to that incident: BTW, on that article talk page there has been a discussion about moving some of those concepts elsewhere. Accordingly, I would not rename the split page Anti-piracy measures in Somalia as proposed, but something more general, like Measures against modern international piracy. --LNCSRG (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If material on the Italian-Indian shooting is included, then the article will actually be about counter-piracy in general rather than the budding private maritime security industry, since that incident involved some Italian navy marines. Middayexpress (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a part where is hinted that that incident, and the legal outcome of it, could eventually cause private guards to be preferred to military ones or viceversa, which is IMHO is both relevant and interesting. Please have a look here. --LNCSRG (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That particular section would seem relevant to the hypothetical private maritime industry page. Middayexpress (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split The sections are all overly detailed and a few of them could have their own pages. I think that it would serve Wikipedia better to pick out a few sections and add a Main article redirect at the beginning of the sections. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might push to make splitting the Legislation section a priority. The trials are unique and notable. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A split of the legislation section does not appear necessary. It's not particularly large to begin with and the Somali authorities recently instructed officials in Kenya and other foreign countries to send the pirates to Somalia for trial and imprisonment (c.f. [2]). Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think splitting that makes sense because Piracy trials in general are very unique. They are different than the older pirate trials and have started to involve pirates not directly involved in acts of piracy. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trials primarily involve individuals suspected of engaging in acts of piracy. What's new is that Somalia now has the institutional capacity to both prosecute and imprison the pirates. This is largely due to the Somali authorities' efforts, in coordination with the UNODC Counter Piracy Program, at upgrading their national court and prison facilities. Hence, why the Somali government is now in a position to request the transfer of the pirates for domestic internment. Middayexpress (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that these trials are different from the trials from before, but I still think that Somali trials should be addressed as well. Would you be opposed to adding something into a page similar to Judiciary of Somalia? What I am getting at is that the definition of "piracy" is evolving and the easiest way to illustrate that is through the trials. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not forget that pirates captured in that area has been tried (when not simply freed to avoid complications) not only in Somalia but also in other neighboring countries, such as Kenya and Yemen, as well as in some of the countries of assaulted ships, including India, USA, France, Italy and possibly other ones. BTW piracy is one of those crimes against humanity for which universal jurisdiction applies. LNCSRG (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the Indian Ocean, the current pirate trials are little different from the earlier ones. The only major difference is that they are dwindling in number due to a decreasing number of attacks, and are now being assigned toward Somali courts and jurisdiction. Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-piracy section seems to have already been split several times. There are already spinoff articles on Operation Ocean Shield, Operation Atalanta, etc.. What perhaps remains is a page on the private maritime security industry, which the section touches on. Although piracy in the Indian Ocean seems to be nearing an end, private security services are increasingly being employed in other areas like the Gulf of Guinea, where pirate attacks are conversely rising (c.f. [3]). Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split, the article meets WP:LIMIT by leaps and bounds! The History section seems the best split candidate to make into a sub-article, a paragraph or two summary can be left in its place with a main article section hatnote at the top of the summary. Additionally a subarticle template can be placed on the new article's talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: Consensus about splitting does exist ... however not so as to what to split and how. So what now? LNCSRG (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error in fourth paragraph of the introduction?

[edit]

The fourth paragraph of the introduction has this sentence:

About 25 military vessels from the EU and NATO countries, the United States, China, Russia, India and Japan patrolled approximately 8.3M km2 (3.2 million sq miles) of ocean, an area about the size of Western Europe.

It seems that the last part, giving a comparison for the area, is inaccurate.

8.3M km^2 is substantially more than the size of Western Europe - it is 80% of the size of the whole Europe (about 10M km^2). Even defining Western Europe as the European Union (which is bigger than most definitions of Western Europe), it is still less than 4.5M km^2.

I note that this appears directly in the source; however, the comparison given is too small by approximately a factor of 2 at a minimum, and there are better comparisons: Europe (about 10M km^2), USA (about 9M km^2), China (about 9M km^2), Australia (about 8M km^2). How does one reconcile this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.19.22 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 March 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There's no consensus for any of the specific proposed moves after four weeks of discussion. Cúchullain t/c 13:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Piracy in Somalia → Piracy in the Gulf of Aden – Body of water per standard; piracy actually took place in the Gulf of Aden (e.g. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake, Piracy in the Persian Gulf). Middayexpress (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. "Piracy in Somalia"? How does that work? It is largely a desert country. Suggest Somali based piracy. I don't personally like the idea of directly saying that the piracy is Somali but prefer the idea of saying that the piracy is Somali based. Not all Somalis arrrgh pirates. "Somali based piracy" may not be the most commonly used form of designation but it meets well the fundamental requirements of WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:AT. I could be wrong but as far as I know the piracy is not endorsed by the Somali government. GregKaye 13:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Somali-based piracy" is a non-standard, non-neutral title. We don't see any "Nigerian piracy", "Indonesian piracy", etc., so there is no reason why this title should be singled out. It is also inappropriate, since, unlike "Nigerian" or "Indonesian", "Somali" is the name of an actual ethnic group inhabiting Somalia and adjacent nations; it is not just a nationality. By the same token, not all of the pirates originating from Somalia were ethnic Somalis. Further, not all of the piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Gulf of Guinea, etc. was confined to these waters; some also took place in adjacent maritime areas. Most of the attempted hijackings, however, were in these waters, so the pages were logically named after them. Middayexpress (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counterpropose: Piracy in Somalia → Piracy in the Indian Ocean. Per the above, the Indian Ocean is where all of the hijackings have actually taken place (although most were in the Gulf of Aden). It is also the most neutral, accurate and consistent title available. Middayexpress (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Strong oppose counter proposal' clearly fails WP:CRITERIA as it does not identify the topic of the article. The counterproposal changes the scope of the article to cover piracy in the Indian Ocean, which is a much greater scope than just pirates based in Somalia, there being pirates based elsewhere, such as Indonesia and Burma, and other parts of Africa. This article is not the article about piracy in the Indian Ocean, it is solely about piracy from pirates based out of Somalia. Further, historically, there have been pirate havens from India through Southeast Asia, and the Arabian peninsula, and all along the coast of Africa, so given historical context, makes even less sense. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your rationale above for opposing Piracy in the Gulf of Aden was that "the pirates range far and wide, beyond the Gulf of Aden". Now that Piracy in the Indian Ocean has been proposed, you object on the grounds that it is apparently too broad. Yet you don't seem particularly concerned that none of the pirate attacks obviously occurred within Somalia itself, or that all of the other modern piracy pages are titled according to the actual bodies of water where the hijackings took place. At any rate, per Oceans Beyond Piracy, "Piracy in the Indian Ocean" is indeed a WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon [4]. The Indian Ocean is also certainly where all of the piracy has actually taken place. Another alternative per NATO is Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you're changing the scope of this article, not just the name. This article covers pirates based in Somalia. This article does not cover other pirates from other regions. The first proposal is wrong because the scope of this article is pirates based in Somalia, and they do not confine themselves to the Gulf of Aden. The counterproposal is wrong because the scope of this article is pirates based in Somalia, and there are other pirates in the Indian Ocean. They both fail for the same reason, they do not reflect the scope of the article -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you wish to have geographic articles based on the body of water, feel free to create new articles for the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, the Oceans Beyond Piracy and NATO links both pertain to the same piracy phenomenon that this page is on. "Piracy in the Gulf of Aden" (as well as "Piracy in the Indian Ocean" and "Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea") is also consistent with the titles of all of the other modern piracy wiki pages, which are all named after the bodies of water where the piracy actually took place. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support Somali piracy or some such per WP:COMMONNAME. Virtually every source uses 'Somali' or 'Somalia' and pirate in the same sentence; to avoid it by talking about the IO or Arabian Sea would be creating a Wiki--neologism, which is not what we're supposed to do. The vast majority of the pirates have been Somali, and saying 'it's not neutral' perverts the meaning of WP:NPOV. We're here to describe fact, and the piracy has mostly been done by Somalis. I'm surprised that the article has been at 'Piracy in Somalia' however, because this has been offshore at sea. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please comment on the actual proposed title, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, not other random titles. While "Piracy in the Indian Ocean" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this phenomenon [6] (not "Somali piracy"), note that the vessel hijackings largely took place in the Gulf of Aden specifically. "Piracy in the Gulf of Aden" is also consistent with the titles of the other modern piracy pages (e.g. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake and Piracy in the Persian Gulf). Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Piracy in Somalia" is a bit of a nonsense, if you ask me, and there doesn't seem much support for keeping that title. The problem with something like "Piracy in the Indian Ocean" is it suggests that the article will cover all such piracy, including historical piracy there. There were undoubtedly pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden before the current wave of piracy there, so I'm not sure that's appropriate either given the focus of the article. I'm not sure what the best solution to this is. One would be to specify in the title that it's Somali piracy. Another might be to specify a time period in the title. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Somali piracy" doesn't work either because "Somali" refers to both Somalia nationality and an ethnic group that traditionally inhabits Greater Somalia (not just Somalia), whereas the pirates themselves were from various groups from within Somalia. That phrase is also inconsistent with all of the other modern piracy wiki pages. The time period suggestion makes a bit more sense, but here too that title would be inconsistent with the other modern piracy pages. Bottom line, there is no reason why this page's title should be singled out. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the title should instead be worded in accordance with those of the other similar pages ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). The only titles that are consistent with the other modern piracy pages are those named after the bodies of water where the piracy actually took place (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea vs. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake, Piracy in the Persian Gulf). Middayexpress (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take an article like Piracy in the Persian Gulf though, and it discusses piracy there going back to 1800 BC, which this article doesn't. I agree that we should generally aim for consistency across articles, but they're not all discussing contemporary piracy (though some clearly are). I'm not really convinced by the ethnicity versus nationality argument, because that doesn't stop "Somali" being used to describe the Somali Civil War. Overall, I think naming it after the body of water it takes place in is probably the best of the range of options that have been discussed so far, though, even if none of them are perfect. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Somali Civil War almost entirely involves ethnic Somalis and takes place in Somalia itself. Nonetheless, I see what you're trying to say. AcidSnow (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suport move to Somali piracy. Seems to be the most succinct way to sum up the scope of what the article is about (which the titles with bodies of water clearly do not, since they imply inclusion of piracy from other sources than Somalia). Also better than the current title, as many of the attacks aren't in Somali territory or waters. Also seems to be a faily well used WP:COMMONNAME: [7][8][9][10] Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, "Somali piracy" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon [11]. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the title should instead be worded in accordance with those of the other similar pages ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). The only titles that are consistent with the other modern piracy pages are those named after the bodies of water where the piracy actually took place (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea vs. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake, Piracy in the Persian Gulf). Middayexpress (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Middayexpress, stop trying to deny obvious fact. The pirates are almost all Somali and the whole world knows them as that. Merely wanting to divert attention from their Somali origin is a perversion of WP:NPOV. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Somali piracy" is not "npov"; even "Piracy in Somalia" is more objective than that. As Gregkaye notes above: "I don't personally like the idea of directly saying that the piracy is Somali but prefer the idea of saying that the piracy is Somali based. Not all Somalis arrrgh pirates". And that's an understatement; there were only a few hundred pirates during their heyday. AcidSnow and even the ip seem to understand this basic fact as well. There's also of course the actual WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which stipulates that the title should instead be worded in accordance with those of the other similar pages ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). Since all of the other similar modern piracy pages are titled after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place, so indeed should this page. Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Personally, I don't see how "Somali pirates" suggests that all Somalis are pirates any more than the title (to pick an example at random) French nationalism suggests that all French people are nationalists (i.e., it doesn't). It does suggest that all of the pirates involved in this particular wave of piracy are Somali, however. As hinted above, I don't really think any of the options being discussed is perfect, and I still think that a body of water-based title should be disambiguated in some way to indicate that the article is only about recent piracy in the region. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Somali piracy" places undue weight on "Somali", which is both a nationality descriptor for Somalia nationals and an actual ethnic group inhabiting Greater Somalia. Somalis from Djibouti, the Ogaden and Northern Frontier District outside Somalia had little to nothing to do with the piracy, nor did the ~16 million other ethnic Somalis. A few hundred pirates based in Somalia, who may or may not have been ethnically Somali (Somalia is a multiethnic country), is not a legitimate reason to rename the page to apply to all Somalis. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the most neutral title is therefore indeed a title named after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place, as on all of the other similar modern piracy pages (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea ≈ Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake). Middayexpress (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually it does not place undue weight, rather the opposite. Because that's what the article is about. Somali pirates. i.e. Pirates who come from the country of Somalia (whose demonym is Somali). So to not mention Somalia in the title is to miss the point of the article and make it much broader than it actually is. Of course use of "Somali" does not imply that all Somalis are pirates, any more than African American implies that all Africans are American, or Islamic terrorism implies that all muslims are terrorists. I can see that the proposed title is designed to try to avoid offending people, but in doing so it fails WP:PRECISE, because it no longer describes what the article is about. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, the article is on piracy; the phenomenon itself rather than the alleged perpetrators. That's the WP:PRECISE term. African Americans all traditionally inhabit the United States and Islamic isn't an ethnic group, so inappropriate analogies there. Somalia also has two demonyms; "Somali" and "Somalian". The Somali ethnic group happens to be the largest in the present-day Somalia. Hence, the territory was named after them (the Latin suffix "ia" means "land of"). However, ethnic Somalis aren't the only inhabitants of Somalia, nor do they only traditionally inhabit that landmass. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the most neutral title therefore indeed remains a title named after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place, as on all of the other similar modern piracy pages (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea ≈ Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake). Middayexpress (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I really do think that we can treat readers as intelligent enough to understand that words have different meanings in different contexts. Cornish is an ethnicity, but we can still talk about Cornish pasties without worrying that people will think someone from Cornwall is a pasty. I find the consistency of naming argument much more convincing, but we should consider that the "piracy in..." articles aren't quite all the same in terms of time period covered. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Cornish people traditionally inhabit the same territory; the term also doesn't double as a nationality, so there's no comparable ambiguity there. The modern piracy pages are titled "Piracy in x body of water", so this page should as well per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA's title consistency clause. Middayexpress (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • What I don't know about those other "modern piracy" pages is whether modern piracy is the only piracy to have been recorded in those bodies of water. If it is, then the titles make sense. What we do know about the Indian Ocean is that there was piracy there long before the recent wave, so simply renaming the current article Piracy in the Indian Ocean would be misleading. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That applies to the Strait of Malacca too and most of the other modern piracy pages, so they'd probably have to be similarly time-disambiguated. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                          • OK, that's something I could support. It would help us achieve consistency between articles and to meet WP:PRECISE. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                            • No, it does not meet WP:PRECISE. The opposite in fact. This article is about Somali piracy, meaning piracy emanating from the nation of Somalia, which is a notable topic in and of itself, outside of any other discourse on piracy in the Indian ocean. If you change the name of this article to something not involving Somalia, then we'd be forced to simply fork a sub-article to keep coverage of the specific concept of Somali piracy, which is notable through widespread coverage in the media and published sources. If people don't like "Somali piracy" then fine, but in that case we're far better to just leave things at the current title, per WP:PRECISE and WP:ASTONISH. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                              • This page is on piracy in the Gulf of Aden and environs, not Somalia. All of the piracy actually took place there, on the high seas. "Piracy in x body of water" is therefore indeed and obviously the more WP:PRECISE title. Per the actual WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy, such a title would also be consistent with those of the other modern piracy pages. All that these "Piracy in x body of water" titles would perhaps need is some time disambiguation. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, it's illogical on the surface, but it's the way English works. The current article name Piracy in Somalia describes the topic well, in that the phrase is commonly used and well understood. No case to answer. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In terms of consistence in relation to other similar articles, I think it's appropriate that it be named after body of water, preferably Piracy in the Indian Ocean instead of the Gulf of Aden. 26oo (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That fails WP:CRITERIA as that is not the topic of this article. It would be a parent article were one needed to be created. This article is quite large already, if you rename it, you will either need to delete material, or create a subarticle then negating the effect of a move. Leaving it as is causes WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM issues after a rename, since it would predominantly be about Somalia based pirates. The Indian Ocean has quite a history of piracy, which this article does not cover. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The piracy in the Indian Ocean during the specific period at hand was largely the same Gulf of Aden and environs-based phenomenon. Time disambiguation in the title could thus fix any ambiguity. Middayexpress (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not even close. There were many incidences of piracy on the other side of the Ocean at the same time period. The perception that piracy in the Indian Ocean was almost all from Somalia based pirates is a BIAS.NPOV view. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are presumably alluding to the Piracy in the Strait of Malacca. Then surely you have no objection to Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea per NATO. Middayexpress (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it is still wrong. Pirates based in Somalia range down the coast of East Africa, beyond the Gulf of Aden and, totally outside of the Red Sea. Further, this article does not cover historical piracy in the Gulf of Aden or Red Sea, so it is a basic failure of WP:CRITERIA. The scope of this article is clear, every name you've put up fails the naming criteria for naming articles. Choose a name that conforms to the naming criteria, or write up a more general article of the names that you've proposed. NATO did not exist in the 1700s, so ofcourse it is not concerned with piracy from that era. Further NATO names only deal with the time period in which they were first started, not then entire period of NATO's existence. Yet our articles are not bound by the time period of NATO's existence. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're arguing that Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea all somehow fail the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Yet it is actually "Piracy in Somalia" that automatically fails that policy since a) it is factually inaccurate, as all of the piracy at hand actually took place on the high seas in the Indian Ocean, and b) it is not consistent with the other modern piracy pages, which are instead named after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place (Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake; "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). You also suggested that piracy in the Gulf of Aden or Indian Ocean are inappropriate as they are too broad. Yet per the US Department of State, the piracy in the Indian Ocean during the specific period at hand was indeed largely the same Gulf of Aden and environs-based phenomenon [12]. Time disambiguation in the title could therefore fix any ambiguity. Middayexpress (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, I said no such thing about the current title being correct. What I said was all your choices are bad. All your choices do not acknowledge the current scope of the article, and therefore fail CRITERIA. Consistency does not enter into the equation because the other articles do not feature the same type of coverage, since they do not focus on a single era from a regional source of far-ranging piracy, they cover expansive histories of multiple sources. There is no consistency argument, since this is a fundamentally different type of coverage. The pattern only applies to articles that have the same sort of coverage, this article does not, so the pattern is not relevant. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • WP:NAMINGCRITERIA always applies since that's the relevant title policy. It stipulates that the title should be consistent with the pattern of similar pages' titles. These other, similar modern piracy pages are titled after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place. They are also indeed overwhelmingly if not entirely on modern piracy, as their ledes note. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca has a brief passage on historical piracy in those waters, while the rest of it is on modern piracy, as on this page and Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea and Piracy on Falcon Lake. Bottom line, either this page's title should be brought in line with the other modern piracy pages' titles, or vice versa; none of these titles should be singled out per policy. Middayexpress (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. after all the others piracy activity in the world are named after the area they work in , and hearing or reading about Chinese piracy which there is ,and Philippine piracy or even in Indonesia and India i wish it to be called the Piracy in the Indian Ocean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Piracy in the Gulf of Aden in line with other such articles including Piracy in the Caribbean. That could just as easily be called "Mexican piracy" or "Cuban piracy" or any number of specific locations now part of recognised nations. "Somali piracy" is a commonly-used term but is actually rather inaccurate given that not all of the pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden are from Somalia, piracy is not a uniquely Somali phenomenon and few of the vessels targeted are Somali flagged (flipping the name itself). It should be noted that, like this article, Piracy in the Caribbean isn't geographically limited and plenty of piracy that falls under that broad banner actually took place in the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast of what is now the US. St★lwart111 01:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Caribbean article doesn't start in the modern era and doesn't only cover the modern era. This article is most definitely not about the Gulf of Aden piracy, since it only covers recent piracy incidents. This article has no historical coverage at all. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, Cordless Larry, the current article covers a particular time period, but the title should reflect the article we're working on (a comprehensive account of piracy in the Gulf of Aden) not the article we have (an article about Somali piracy). Is there a particular reason it can't be expanded to include other piracy in other eras? St★lwart111 08:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stalwart111, my understanding was that requested move discussions were supposed to focus on the current article content, not what articles might be expanded to include in future. I might be wrong about that, although I would probably want to know whether there was any commitment to expanding the scope of the article before supporting a title that presumed that such an expansion would occur. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably more just "how its done" than anything else, but I get your point. It just seems common sense to bring this into line with other articles. I don't have a particular objection to adding a chronological reference to the title - it can always be moved again if the article is expanded and the chronology no longer applies. St★lwart111 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really sensible. There are no other articles to bring this in line with, because it is the only article currently on the wiki about piracy emanating from a single country. Perhaps Somalia is the only country with a piracy base notable enough, but in any case I'm still not sure why everyone is trying to rescope this article, into something that is plainly too big a topic for the level of detail we have here, just to satisfy nonexistent naming consistency requirements, over and above the interests of our readers. If you want to write an article about piracy in the Gulf of Aden, or indeed in the Indian Ocean generally, then go ahead and do so - it would likely be a summary article, with this as one of its subtopics. But don't try to change the scope of an already existing article with a well defined and WP:GNG satisfying topic line. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is on piracy in the Gulf of Aden and environs. The piracy actually took place on the high seas, in the Indian Ocean, not in Somalia. There is no legitimate reason why this title should be singled out. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is the relevant policy here, and it is quite explicit that "the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". Since all of the other similar modern piracy pages are named after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place, so indeed should this page be named "Piracy in x body of water". Time disambiguation in the title or a brief historical paragraph as on Piracy in the Strait of Malacca could fix any temporal ambiguity. Middayexpress (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, and I don't think the argument "no other piracy came from a single place" is a particularly good one. Piracy of other eras often had a single point of origin, or at least a very narrow geographic point of origin. Arguably, piracy in the Caribbean was more accurately "English, Dutch and French piracy" and if we were to give that article a title that actually accounted for the content it would be [[Piracy in the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico (though Mexico didn't then exist), the Northern coast of the continent of South America, and the East Coast of what is now the United States but was then, loosely, the Carolina colonies and a number of independent colonies with loyalty to the English and Spanish crowns]]. It's just that Piracy in the Caribbean is far more practical. St★lwart111 23:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, Stalwart111. All of the other modern piracy phenomena similarly began in a circumscribed area, and fanned out in varying degrees from there. Their respective core area, however, remained the actual bodies of water where they first started out. Middayexpress (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Middayexpress: Your argument seems convincing. I guess I'll change my decision and support a move to Piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Epic Genius (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration Epic Genius. Middayexpress (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middayexpress ty for your kind comments above. I fully support your conclusions. It is not often that I get my WP:CRYSTALBALL out but, in this case, I think it deserves a dusting. The present situation in Yemen is less than peaceful and groups like al-Quada have considerable influence. This is a group that is reported to have financed itself by such means as the heroin trade. They are accused of terrorism and I see no reason either why piracy would be beyond them or why ports of groups like this might harbour pirates from any location. Also, as mentioned, not all Somalis are pirates. As I am also unfamiliar with the roster of all the Somalia based pirate ships I think that it is impossible to WP:ASSERT that this can be defined as a purely Somali issue as is certainly conveyed by a topic title such as Somali piracy. I also think that Somalia can be fairly accused of tolerating or perhaps abetting piracy. I am not convinced that it would help by rubbing it in and labelling it "Somali piracy".
Support as per WP:NPOV
Pinging: AcidSnow, Red Slash, AjaxSmack, Buckshot06, Cordless Larry, Amakuru, Andrewa, Stalwart111 and 65.94.43.89 for possible review. GregKaye 13:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye: thanks for the ping. Ultimately I think this depends on what people want the scope of this article to be. You could rename to Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, that would be a subject for an article, but in my view that would be a definite re-scoping of the article. It would be both an expansion in scope, in that it would (as you rightly point out) bring possible piracy emanating from Yemen, or indeed Egypt, Eritrea, Djibouti, Oman, or Saudi Arabia. It would also actually be a narrowing in scope, as a considerable amount of Somali-sourced piracy is actually not in the Gulf of Aden, but on the open Indian Ocean coast of Somalia, and even down into the areas off Kenya and Tanzania (as per the map above). So it is clear that if a move takes place, the article will have to be substantially rewritten in places. As for the idea that including Somalia in the name is POV, because it "implies that all Somalis are pirates", as I've already said above, we have plenty of examples, Cornish pasty, Islamic terrorism, British Asian, Jewish feminism, American football, where a racial, national or regional demonym is used for a concept applying to a subset of those people. Nobody would imagine that those articles apply to *everyone* in that category. So I would be fine with any title such as Piracy in Somalia, Somali piracy, Piracy off the coast of Somalia, etc. but just would like people to be clear that any other proposal is a re-scoping. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's untrue, as Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Indian Ocean and Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea are all common names for this piracy phenomenon per the US Department of State [14], NATO [[15]], Oceans Beyond Piracy [16], and other international bodies. Titling the page accordingly doesn't require much if any rescoping; certainly not anymore than do the other modern piracy pages, which are all similarly titled after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place (viz. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea and Piracy on Falcon Lake). Also, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA's clause on consistency in page titles actually applies to the titles of similar pages, not to unrelated pages with similar titles ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Amakuru for the thoughtful examples. A recent RM for Islamic terrorism → Islamist terrorism received more support than opposition. However, in the case of American football, the only thing that is fully correct here is ball - (even that isn't round). Pasties, asians, feminists and balls are not necessarily issues of crime and don't reflect negatively on the associated adjective. GregKaye 14:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not, but my point was a semantic one. Crime or negative connotation or not, I think nobody would infer from reading "Jewish feminists" that all Jews are feminists. And similarly I highly doubt that they'd assume from "Somali piracy" that all ethnic Somalis, or indeed all citizens of Somalia, are pirates. But anyway, perhaps I have talked enough on this topic now, I don't think the closer will be in doubt as to what I think :)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru "British arrogance" gets "About 5,770 results" in books. Would we start an article in the seemingly notable subject of "British arrogance"? I will perhaps arrogantly say no. What would be more likely is for there to be an article on Arrogance and, as relevant, the British amongst other cultural and ethnic groups might get mention. There might also be mention in a "Criticisms of .." type article. However to directly label the subject would be pushing POV.
"British virtues" gets "About 2,940 results". I think I will start working on that title. GregKaye 15:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: British arrogance, he he that's a good one, you made me laugh there. I'm actually British, and maybe I'm pretty arrogant as well, who knows! I'm going to say the difference is that while reliable sources may include that phrase in one guise or another, you won't get too many of them mentioning it as a given fact. Whereas with Somali pirates, the reliable sources simply call them that. They don't dress the matter up, or say that they are "alleged" Somali pirates, or attribute the term to someone else, they just straight up call them Somali pirates.[17][18][19] Because that is what they are. It's not opinion, it's indisputable fact. Anyways....  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru It is also an indisputable fact that some British people, perhaps in the very distant past, have been arrogant . It is also an indisputable fact that some Somalis are pirates. However, in both cases there are alternative titles. I haven't been able to find it again but I believe that Wikipedia has parallel talk page guidelines that say that thread headings shouldn't be written in a style such as === (X editor's) edit warring === or similar. I think, where possible, article titles should take the same approach. We can talk of piracy ... and then get to the fun bit of apportioning blame . GregKaye 16:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought it's ever indisputable that someone is arrogant... that's a purely subjective term! Most people don't self-identify as arrogant. And while some people are labelling David Cameron "arrogant" for his recent remarks on not seeking a third term in office, others think he's not arrogant. As for piracy, well a very few people might think it's a legitimate expression of freedom fighting, or Robin Hood style wealth redistribution or something, but generally speaking if you attack ships on the open seas then you're a pirate. Anyway, the bottom line for me is that it's not our place to judge. In article main space (unlike on an edit warring noticeboard), we are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. We say what others are saying, not what we think they should be saying. So even though I kind of get the logic of your argument about not wanting to cause offence by labeling ancient deities as "mythology" or saying some Somalis are pirates, the damage is already done. Reliable sources have repeatedly said that, and that is their most commonly used name for those subjects. We are just repeating what they say.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Somali piracy" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon [20], nor is it consistent with the other modern piracy pages. Per the actual WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, that would instead be Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden or Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea. Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru happy day lol. I did a trawl through articles starting British ... and found a delightful subject. You mentioned "David Cameron". I'll see your "David Cammeron", allegedly arrogant as he may be, and I will raise you with "British fascism". In this subject, I don't know, there may be a legitimate ideological difference that may set a British form of fascism apart from other forms of fascism but search results here present "Fascism in Britain" as a more widely used term. See discussion, with link raised to, Talk:British Fascism. In Category:Fascism by nation most content is in the format "Fascism in .." which avoids the national branding of the fascism. In the same way, if it can be avoided (which it can), I hope we can avoid presenting or inferring a national branding of piracy. GregKaye 18:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've really upped the stakes there, and with that poker face you've got going, I have no idea if you're bluffing or not. Fascism... well well well. But is there any argument going anywhere that British Fascism is an inappropriate location for the page? Do people think that myself (and arrogant/not arrogant) PM Dave) are fascists because of that article being where it is? Anyway, if reliable sources talk more often about "Fascism in the United Kingdom" than "British fascism", then sure, it should be moved. The other title doesn't suffer from the same issues as the "Piracy in Somalia" one because most fascism takes place on land rather than on the ocean. So we can phrase the title in any way we like to achieve neutrality, including the current title, but what I'm mainly opposed to is changing the title to refer to a body of water rather than the country. Because that removes the Somalia angle altogether, and I think many readers are interested in that specifically. It's certainly talked about a lot in the news, and seems like a notable topic. And... on with the fun games!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation GregKaye. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, this page's title should indeed be consistent with those of the other modern piracy pages ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"; Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea and Piracy on Falcon Lake). Middayexpress (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middayexpress don't forget Piracy on Lake Nicaragua, Piracy in the Atlantic World, Piracy in the Persian Gulf and, it had to have been there, Piracy in the Caribbean. GregKaye 16:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also if a Somali piracy move were to go ahead, it would then set a president for the moves:
Piracy in Indonesia → Indonesian piracy
Piracy in the Caribbean → Caribbean piracy
Piracy in the British Virgin Islands → Virgin Islander piracy
My timbers are shivering.
GregKaye 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, GregKaye. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, all the titles of the modern piracy pages should be consistent. The most parsimonious and neutral option is to simply title this page in accordance with the other modern piracy pages, which are named after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea ≈ Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake, Piracy on Lake Nicaragua, etc). Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a pound or a dollar for every time you've made this point, Middayexpress, I'd be very rich by now. But the part of that that you've consistently failed to address is that consistency doesn't come into it, except perhaps for the Piracy in Indonesia and Piracy in the British Virgin Islands articles mentioned by GregKaye above, which also talk about piracy by nationality rather than by body of water. Your proposed title fails on the "precision" criterion on the very same page you link to. This article is simply not about piracy in the Gulf of Aden, date range or otherwise. It is about piracy from Somalia. I'm happy to keep it where it is, but it should not be re-scoped, because in my view this article is already on a specific precise notable topic. If you disagree, then you should nominate it for deletion, but do not nominate it for moving to a different topic. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm repeating myself Amakuru, it's because I'm responding to your repetetive assertions. With regard to Piracy in the British Virgin Islands, that page is on the Golden Age of Piracy, not modern times. Piracy in Indonesia is the lone exception in this respect. However, per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the most parsimonious option is to title that page and this one in line with the other modern piracy pages rather than vice versa (viz. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea ≈ Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake, Piracy on Lake Nicaragua, etc). You already suggested that a "Piracy in x body of water" title was somehow not precise. The fact remains, though, that this page is on piracy in the Gulf of Aden and environs. All of the piracy actually took place there on the high seas, not in Somalia. "Piracy in x body of water" is therefore indeed and obviously the more WP:PRECISE title. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, Middayexpress. I think we're both repeating ourselves at this point. To me the need for an article on piracy, specifically as it pertains to Somalia, overrides the worries yourself and GregKaye have about semantics, offending Somalis, or consistency. But anyway, your opinions are valid too, so I'll not say too much more about it! All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to disagree. However, Gregkaye's central point below on the fundamentally sea-based nature of the phenomenon will always factually override any land-based title. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru you are also missing the point that Piracy in the Indian Ocean works. Piracy in Somalia doesn't. I do not think that we should present Wikipedia as edited by people who know not the difference between land and sea. GregKaye 18:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another critical objection is that I don't think that Somalia should be held responsible for the actions of people in the rebel held yet coastally expansive Somaliland. GregKaye 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I don't know what to support at this point as it seems "Piracy in the Gulf of Aden" (the originally proposed titling) has been scrapped? I agree with Middayexpress though that it's a bit disingenuous because "Somali" isn't so much a national term but instead in truth an ethnic term in much the same way "Jew" can encompass members of the ethno-religious entity that would be Jews whether they occupy Paris or Jerusalem. Though I agree that much of the piracy on that map was perpetrated by ethnic Somalis to my knowledge, many of us know this. "Somali based Piracy" would to me be adequate but since you've all seemingly moved on from that; out of the current titles being suggested I'm slightly with Middayexpress and Gregkaye although wouldn't naming this after a body of water then require that we showcase the history of piracy throughout that body of water rather than what this article does where it's focused on Somalian perpetrated piracy? Or have you guys decided that you can make it pertain to a certain period of time (F.e. "Modern Piracy")-> if so I support such a change/ move. Also: from reading your posts I think everyone here agrees that the title "Piracy in Somalia" makes little sense as that very map we can also see shows that piracy takes place in a lot of place outside of Somalia's seaboard. Whatever consensus you all come to I think that title needs to go. Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Somali based piracy" doesn't work either since as you note "Somali" creates ambiguity between the Somali ethnic group traditionally inhabiting territories spanning several countries in Greater Somalia and nationals in multiethnic Somalia. "Somalia based piracy" would work better in that regard but like "Piracy in Somalia", it too is ultimately factually inaccurate since all of the piracy actually took place on the high seas in the Indian Ocean. These land-based titles are also not consistent with the titles of the other similar modern piracy pages, all but one of which are instead named after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place (viz. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy on Falcon Lake, Piracy on Lake Nicaragua). WP:NAMINGCRITERIA instructs that "the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"; so either this page's title would have to be brought in line with the titles of the other modern piracy pages or vice versa. The most parsimonious naming option would therefore indeed be to simply title this page as well in a "Piracy in x body of water" format (e.g. Piracy in the Indian Ocean, Piracy in the Gulf of Aden or Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea). Time disambiguation in the title could fix any temporal ambiguity. Middayexpress (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having supported the move subject to "time disambiguation", I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion for how to word the title in such a way as to achieve that? "Contemporary" might work, but will date once the piracy is over (and indications seem to be that it already might be). Another option is to include specific dates in the title, if there is agreement in reliable sources on when the phenomenon started. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 April 2015

[edit]
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.

Moved as proposed, per consensus, the increased accuracy (and therefore WP:PRECISE-ness) of the proposed title having been amply demonstrated in the discussion. bd2412 T 17:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy in Somalia → Piracy off the coast of Somalia – The suggested move to Piracy in the Gulf of Aden above failed to reach consensus for a variety of reasons, but there seems to be fairly widespread opposition to the current title, so I am suggesting Piracy off the coast of Somalia as an alternative that avoids the "in Somalia" wording and instead reflects the at-sea nature of piracy. This phrasing is used by the UN, the US State Department and others. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per WP:OFFICIAL. It is still maybe suggestive, perhaps fittingly, of boats moving off from Somalia but it doesn't define the piracy as Somali. GregKaye 11:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi GregKaye it looks like we're in agreement here, but I'm intrigued as to where WP:OFFICIAL comes into it? Does the Somali piracy concept even have an "official" name? Defined by whom? And that essay sort of says we shouldn't always use the official name, but sometimes we should. How does it come into play here? Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru It was actually ordained by the FSM himself, amongst other things, lord of all pirates. I was actually just going by the international interpretations. GregKaye 16:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second what Cordless Larry said. It doesn't ahve to be consistent with the other piracy pages you mention because it covers a geographical region that is not consistent with those. This article is about piracy as it pertains to the coastal waters around Somalia, which is clearly a notable topic in its own right. It is not about piracy in just the Gulf of Aden, and it is not about piracy in the whole Indian Ocean. And yes, Piracy in Indonesia may well be ripe for a similar move to Piracy off the coast of Indonesia. Start up an RM for it if that's what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Larry since you indicate that you don't object, kindly add Piracy off the coast of Indonesia, Piracy off the coast of Nigeria and Piracy off the coast of Mexico to the proposed page move links above. Alternatively, I can do it for you. Middayexpress (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm not so familiar with the subjects of those pages so I'm not confident whether those are the most appropriate names for them. I'll leave it to you to make any additional move requests as you see fit. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this at all. The Indonesia article is talking about piracy in Indonesia, which is an island chain with a lot of water, right? Red Slash 19:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rename would be for Piracy in the Strait of Malacca. Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Larry, I've added the links above. Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I meant that you could create your own discussions for those articles. The way you've done it here, makes it look like I've suggested and support those moves. Is that even allowed? Amakuru? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's better not to include those here as a multi-move. The cases aren't sufficiently similar to expect people to vote the same way on all of them (in particular, this Somalia article is currently in an illogical location, which isn't the case for any of the others). Also, there is arguably a fork or sub-article situation for Indonesia, since we have both Piracy in the Strait of Malacca and Piracy in Indonesia. That case is also unique enough to merit its own personal RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted Middayexpress's addition of other moves to my nomination, the justification for which refers to this article alone. I'd be happy to offer my comments on other moves on a case-by-case basis, having looked into the details. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Larry, suggesting other titles within an ongoing page move discussion is indeed allowed. I know because I asked if it was since, ironically, this already happened in the just concluded page move discussion above. Whatever the outcome here, a standard title format for all of the modern piracy pages will have to be decided on, including for this one. Middayexpress (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between making suggestions in the discussion and actually editing the original nomination though. Could you link me to where you asked about this, as I'd like to know what the rules are for future reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you above that I would add the links if you had no objections, so I'm not sure what there is to be surprised about. At any rate, according to Dougweller, I could just as readily have proposed the alternate title format a little lower. I don't think I'll do that, though. Your advice to instead propose one single standard title format for all of the modern piracy pages seems best after all. Middayexpress (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just assumed that you would sign the additions, rather than inserting them into my nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Middayexpress (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't myself see the need for a "single standard title format" beyond general descriptions of the scope of the articles. Yes, WP:CRITERIA talks of consistency, but that's only meant to be a general goal, not a rod for our backs, forcing us to take perfectly notable topics such as the piracy off Somalia, and shoehorn it into some more general body of water category just to be consistent. The fact is that some countries, notably Somalia, and perhaps Indonesia, have well sourced histories of piracy pertaining particularly to those countries. In other cases, piracy takes place across a wide body of water, with the pirates emanating from a wide range of individual countries, none of whom are individually noted for their piracy. Each case deserves an article, but you're not going to be able to name them both after countries, or both after water bodies. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the modern piracy phenomenon in the Gulf of Aden and environs was transient and lasted only around five years. There was also nothing like it prior to that, nor has there been since. On the other hand, piracy in pretty much all of the other maritime areas was often several centuries old, and is still going on in many of them. At any rate, WP:CRITERIA stipulates that the title should be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles, which is indeed a single standard title format either way. Middayexpress (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, that's a goal, not a strict rule. Moreover: "It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others". Your argument about this particular wave of piracy being transient actually makes the point that this article is different from others quite nicely, which is one reason why the goal of consistency of titles might not be the most important consideration here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The policy summary at the top of WP:CRITERIA supersedes that, and it notes that "this page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Also, the only way that this page would not be most similar to the other modern piracy pages is if it were not on modern piracy. It, however, is on modern piracy as well. Middayexpress (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's a policy, and the policy includes that "It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes, it's a policy, and it's within that policy that the wording in question appears. "These should be seen as goals, not as rules", it says. If a policy explicitly labels a part of itself as not a rule, then the policy is that it's not a rule. And, as I've already said multiple times, this differs from other modern piracy pages, in that it covers a more specific scope than those, for the reasons I gave above. Thanks again  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map provided in the discussion above deserves more discussion. It is not particularly NPOV, if you look at it carefully, and includes a series of concentric "waves" emanating from Somalia as if to suggest that the highest concentration of activity was off the coast of Somalia, moving away from the coast. But a quick look at the actual plotted instances of piracy suggests those concentric waves aren't anything close to indicative of the concentration depicted. In reality, there are pockets of concentrated activity off the coast of Somalia, yes, but also off the coast of Kenya and the Coast of Yemen and the highest concentration is in the Gulf of Aden, equidistant to both Somalia and Yemen. On that basis, this could just as easily be called "Piracy off the coast of Yemen". Never mind the assumption that all piracy in the area is "Somali piracy" and the use of the jolly roger. The suggestion that Piracy off the coast of Mexico is to Piracy in the Caribbean as Piracy off the coast of Somalia is to Piracy in the Gulf of Aden doesn't make much sense because Mexico didn't exist and while the Caribbean is "off the coast of [now] Mexico", most of the piracy itself took place off the coasts of what are now the Bahamas, Cuba, etc (most of which didn't exist then in their current form). The "consistent" approach (where piracy might primarily emanate from one place but take place off the coasts of several countries) is to talk about the region in collective terms, "Caribbean", "Barbary Coast". In that case, East African piracy might be more accurate. St★lwart111 01:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support certainly more sensible than the current title. Unless there are landships... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but counterpropose, as above, 'Somali piracy.' The origin, roots, and majority of the pirates are Somalis, are they not? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, that is an inappropriate title since, while the pirates were Somalia nationals, they weren't necessarily all ethnically Somali. Ethnic Somalis likewise traditionally inhabit more than just Somalia. They also reside in Djibouti and other parts of Greater Somalia, where the demonyms differ. That title also wouldn't be consistent with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which instructs that "the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". The other modern piracy pages are all instead named after the actual bodies of water where the piracy took place (viz. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea and Piracy on Falcon Lake). "Piracy off the coast of Somalia" at leasts acknowledges that, though it too is imperfect. Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out by both me and Amakuru, that point about consistency is a goal, not a rule according to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. It might not be perfect, but I think Piracy off the coast of Somalia is probably the best we're going to find agreement on. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to repeat yourself; I'm aware of that, among other things. Middayexpress (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am becoming increasingly worried, Middayexpress, by your wikilawyering to avoid the name 'Somali' being attached to unfavourable articles. 'Somali piracy' is the COMMONNAME, and worrying about the 10% where the country and the ethnic group don't coincide is simply WP:UNDUE. In this case, COMMONNAME really is more important than naming criteria. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Piracy off the coast of Somalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Piracy off the coast of Somalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Piracy off the coast of Somalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

[edit]

"there are far higher than normal cases of respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding, abdominal hemorrhages and unusual skin infections among many inhabitants of the areas around the northeastern towns of Hobbio and Benadir on the Indian Ocean coast—diseases consistent with radiation sickness."

The symptoms may well be consistent with radiation sickness, but if they were really caused by radiation sickness the would also be extremely high radiation levels that would be very easy to confirm. This is clearly misleading.--2001:708:110:1820:7646:A0FF:FEA0:4B5B (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed claim with source from lede

[edit]

I have removed the last sentence of the lede as of July 2017:

The decline in pirate activity has allowed foreign fishing corporations to renew their illegal extraction from Somali fisheries.

This is the cited article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/somalia-fishing-flotillas-pirates-comeback

After carefully going through the article twice, it's clear that the above sensationalist interpretation is somewhere between misleading and outright fraudulent.

1. no causal claim is suggested between piracy and illegal fishing. It suggests that the maritime police force that tackled piracy is not doing enough to simultaneously tackle illegal fishing.

2. the article makes no mention of "corporations". It mentions "unlicensed fishing vessels".

3. the word "fisheries" in the context of this sentence is nonsensical; fisheries are organizations that engage in fishing, or commercial fish farms that are being managed, not natural sources of fish.

I have removed both the claim and the source for now, because the illegal fishing issue was already covered in the body of the article, and I don't clearly see how the Guardian article's content adds to it. Feel free to re-add the source with an accurate summary if you wish. 73.61.20.33 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New lede 10/8/17

[edit]

As requested in your tag, I have supplied a much-shortened lede, which seems to me to summarise the main points adequately. I have not included the cites, as I don’t believe these belong in the lede. Another editor may want to re-insert these at suitable points in the main article. Valetude (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Solutions Tab

[edit]

I would like to include a solutions tab. I have three views for a solution, 1. Piracy should be dealt with forcibly and tribunals should be held, 2. Distant countries should reimburse and pay for their "fishing piracy, also enforce maritime law, and lastly 3. Somalia should be rebuilt and reconstructed to repair their fishing economy and state. I have 2 sources for each view, so 6 total. This is for a college grade. :) Aaron.qc (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also after reviewing the Collapse of piracy tab, I remembered an article about how Pirates of the coast of Somalia are now escorting ships for money almost like random. They would protect ships In transit from other pirates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron.qc (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I've had to revert your recent additions, Aaron.qc. I should have responded to your proposal above earlier, but what I was going to say was that if you have reliable sources that propose solutions to the problem of piracy off the coast of Somalia, then you can base a new section on summarising what those sources say. However what you added largely seems to have been your own thoughts on possible solutions, which is not allowed as it is original research. Your additions were also written like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article (see WP:NOTESSAY). Please do ask if you have any questions, or you can always make use of the Teahouse, which is a good source of help for new editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for your feed back! I will rewrite it and take bias out, I'll post it around Wednesday night. Aaron.qc (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding, Aaron.qc. I wouldn't call your edits biased - it's just that our own opinions as editors should not be included in articles. Instead, articles should simply summarise what reliable, published sources say about a particular topic. Since you appear to be editing as part of an English course, I would also encourage you to check that your additions are grammatical. For example, you added the passage "Which gives birth to a new way of life, spreading their occupation", which is an incomplete sentence ("which" generally follows a comma). Similarly, "Seeking legal committees to hold tribunals that will actually be able to jail pirates" and "Keeping funding high for private security and having escorts to protect their assets while illegal fishing continues" are incomplete sentences. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Aaron.qc, but I've reverted your second attempt. You started by offering a definition of piracy, but this section isn't the place for that. It should either be defined at the start of the article, or left to the main piracy article. The rest of the material is written too much like an essay rather than in the style of an encyclopedia. It also contains lots of grammar mistakes, such as "Then those who seek reconstruction for the third world country" (an incomplete sentence). You also use "This article..." several times, without making it clear whether you mean the Wikipedia article (in which case, this is the wrong writing style) or the article you subsequently reference. Overall, your addition read more like a literature review essay than an encyclopedic treatment of material on solutions to Somali piracy. If you require further assistance with this, please post here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Material copied to another Wikipedia page

[edit]

Material from this article has been copied to the Wikipedia page 2010s political history.Michael E Nolan (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Added link to Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) page. TOTM123 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I finally remembered which article I found china helped

[edit]

Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023-2024 revival

[edit]

I came across a news article that mentions a new increase in Somalian pirate activity: https://24.sapo.pt/atualidade/artigos/tres-meses-depois-marinha-indiana-anuncia-recaptura-do-navio-ruen-a-piratas-somalis?utm_source=SAPO_HP&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=destaques However I consider the source too weak and obscure to use in our article; the more that the actions were quite far from the Somalian coast. Quid? Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piracy_off_the_coast_of_Somalia&oldid=1214165223"