Talk:Piracy off the coast of Somalia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Blowback?

could this be an example of blowback? the unexpected consequence of the conflict in somalia. thnx.

Illegal fishing

Why the hell was the illegal fishing removed from the article?

It's well known that foreigners go to the Somali Coast to illegally fish. The BBC even reported a couple of days ago that the pirates started to get rid of the illegal fishermen. Either you guys haven't done any research or you think it is OK to destroy the marine environment of Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.30.247 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it was unsourced. I think the article should have a neutral point of view, so if you can find a source, you can add it. I completely agree that some incidents called "piracy" are just fisherman mad that foreigners are fishing their fish. I have been meaning to add the Somali point of view, but I've been busy lately. But like I said, if you can find a source, you can add it. – Zntrip 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7358764.stm

[i]The BBC's Mohamed Olad Hassan in Somalia says many of the pirates are former fishermen, who began by attacking ships they argued were "illegally threatening or destroying" their business.

"Businessmen and former fighters for the Somali warlords moved in when they saw how lucrative it could be. The pirates and their backers tend to split the ransom money 50-50," he says. [/i]

[i]The Playa de Bakio with its crew of 13 Spaniards and 13 Africans of various nationalities was released on Saturday six days after it was seized by pirates armed with grenade launchers as it was fishing off the coast of Somalia.[/i]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=87&art_id=nw20080430112732396C894272

Europeans, especially the Spanish, have a history of illegally overfishing. I should know, I used to work with fishermen. ALL they care is about themselves. They kept being told not to over-fish, but they never listen. They go to other countries and rape the oceans. Even when the Canadians caught them illegally overfishing, they still had the audacity to protest. Now, if Spain and the EU were decent enough, like the USA and Canada, these fishermen would have been arrested immediately and sent to jail, instead of being treated like heroes. Personally, in my opinion, the Pirates should just kill a fishermen or two, then blow up their ship. It's sick, but greedy animals will only learn when their lives are threatened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.59.218 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Zntrip, if you noticed it wasn't cited, then why didn't you go looking for the source and add it to the "References" section of the article. Instead, you decided to be lazy and just delete the whole section, and get rid of someone's work, when the information was obviously factual and had a source that can be cited. So, I hope it's now obvious to you that you're in the wrong, and the writer of the "Illegal Fishing" section of the article is in the right, and had merely forgotten to cite the source of the information he added to the article. So, why don't we just keep this section of the discussion page for "Piracy in Somalia" a discussion, like the page is supposed to be. I hate arguments, especially when they're on a talk page that is labeled as a discussion page, not an argument page. I reckon y'all should try to see my point, because I'm done with this section. I got me some better things to do than to solve your arguments. mast3rlinkx (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, your edit is the one that doesn’t belong here because you have nothing to contribute to the actual topic. Also, you fail to notice that the discussion is from six months ago and the topic has been incorporated into the article and the discussion is resolved. Additionally, it is not my responsibility to look for sources, and deleted information can be retrieved in archived versions via the history page, so I don’t appreciate the accusation that I lazily deleted a whole section of someone’s work. – Zntrip 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I wrote that comment, I didn't know that; I only figured it out fairly recently, so considering that now, I apologize for getting onto you for that. I only recently started taking Wikipedia seriously enough to create an account and actually use all of its features. The "History" page of the articles is something I only just recently discovered. I am very sorry for my last edit. Oh, and just so you know, I was focusing on actually reading the edits, not when they were posted. I hope you can forgive me for being such an idiot, but I don't focus on things outside of what I'm doing. Since I was reading the discussion page, I only focused on the edits and who wrote them, because with the way my brain works, I only pay attention to what interests me, so I guess only the edits and who wrote them are what interests me on the discussion page. I know I've already said this twice, but I'm sorry, Zntrip; very sorry. 69.134.13.97 (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Militants

Can it be stated that the pirates taken by "Islamic militants" have, more than likely, been executed? 65.173.105.197 (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't without a clear referenced article, which I can't seem to find at this point. The Islamic Courts Union was, prior to the Ethiopian-backed counterattack, easily the best source of law and order that Somalia had since the country fell apart, apart from some exceptions when hotheads who went around beating up people for watching soccer games and such. It's possible that the pressure from the TFG and Ethiopian troops, as well as American air strikes on their leadership, have resulted in the organization collapsing so that it's nothing but remnant extremist fighters in the Al-Shabaab, but I wouldn't assume anything about how the pirates were treated. - BanyanTree 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The ICU collapsed in January 2007. But they are back now and stronger. The hotheads were Al-Shababs militants who moved from shutting down and beating up people watching porn into innocent pursuits like football. The organisation have now split but Al-Shabab is now has powerful has the ICU. How ever due to their actions the pirates have moved away from Central Somalia to Puntland where the police force there and the so called government are being paid money to keep them happy. Furious Stormrage (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

FV?

I see that MV stands for merchant vessel, but is FV Fishing Vessel (referring to 'FV Playa de Bakio' in the article) or is it an error? I found MV on the disambiguation list, but not FV. --MartinezMD (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FV does stand for fishing vessel, see ship prefix. – Zntrip 21:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed it on the disambiguation list, but I made a correction there anyway.--MartinezMD (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No USN ships?

I thought there were at least a couple of United States Navy ships in the region right now, but none are listed. Any thoughts? --RobNS 20:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There are, but the names aren't listed anywhere. – Zntrip 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of the Military presence section? It only lists some ships who have deployed at one point. It'll inevitably become out of date and mixed up. Tried that on the CTF-150 and Afghanistan Order of Battle articles and they became an out-of-date mess. Even if someone did keep it up to date, all historical focus would be lost. HMS Cumberland will be replaced soon. The Dutch ship De Zeven Provinciën is on anti-piracy duty and is not listed, nor is any US Navy vessel. It is already out of date. If there has to be a list, better to limit it to a list of nations/navies that have deployed. Chwyatt (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support removal. It's hard enough keeping track of hijacks and attacks. Switzpaw (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Infringement of sovereignty

Surely it isn't that unusual for UN Security Council resolutions to infringe a country's sovereignty. It's a last resort, yes, but then taking matters to the UN usually is a last resort… Physchim62 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Skimmed the source -- sentence appeared to be original research and it is now removed from the article. Switzpaw (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of Attacks

Shouldn't this be split off...its getting sort of long. Perhaps to Timeline of modern piracy in Somalia, or to something like that. Spencer^T♦C 21:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think attacks that did not result in a capture should be removed from the list unless they are in themselves notable. As far as creating a new page, I'm not sure. There's an article called 2008 in piracy which goes beyond Horn of Africa hijackings. It is in need of maintenance. Switzpaw (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just found List of ships captured by Somali pirates. Spencer^T♦C 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that all of the successful hijackings have been removed from the list. Surely they should remain as they are an important part of the timeline, but reduced to a very short description, for example name of ship, type of ship, successfully hijacked. --121.127.209.126 (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And I look again and the other article holds ships that have and ships that haven't been hijacked. Not particularly consistant. --121.127.209.126 (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all the successful hijackings in the "Chronology of Attacks" should have been removed. In my opinion, knowing all the most important and/or successful hijackings will help if one needs to research the Somali pirates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.13.97 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

location of pirate attacks

Looking at this map [1] of recent pirate attacks by the ICC Commercial Crime Services [2] the majority of pirate attacks don't happen next to Somaila (to be more exact: next to Puntland) but much closer to Yemen.

WHY?

Is it because most ships try to keep as far away from Somalia because it is even more dangerous there? (Therefore not many ships are attacked closer to the Somali coastline because they don't go there) or is it because foreign navies prowl the waters closer to Somalia (but not close to Yemen) for protection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soylentyellow (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As the international naval forces continue to patrol the Somalian coast, it becomes harder for pirates to operate close to home. So they have been steadily moving outwards, as the naval patrols increase their area. Rwflammang (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

POV issues

A couple of sentences in this article sound as if the author is lobbying for the continuation of piracy:

• "Despite their criminal acts, Somalia has actually benefited from the pirates economically, as several small villages in Somalia have become boomtowns." Emphasis in original. Very POV, this, with the emphasis and the "despite". And dicey logic ... criminal activity in underdeveloped countries should be allowed because it helps alleviate poverty?

• "The high profits of piracy is what attracts young men into pirate gangs, and in a country where many people are short of food, they lead a very lavish lifestyle with cars and big houses." See above. You mean they actually do this for the money? I would never have thought ... And ungrammatical to boot, unless "profits" is a singular noun in Commonwealth English.

• "Despite the bloody fighting between clans in the country the pirates rarely fight amongst themselves, united by the common aim of profit. In a way they have become part of the local social elite, making so much money they can hand out loans to businessmen." Here, in addition to "despite", we have "In a way", which seems not only biased but a huge red flag that an improper synthesis is taking place.

OK, that statement is sourced but still will be reworded. In addition, I find more evidence for editing with an agenda in that the article doesn't include negative impact of the pirates on ordinary Somalians from its source, such as this: :

But not everyone is smitten by Somalia's new elite.
"This piracy has a negative impact on several aspects of our life in Garowe," resident Mohamed Hassan laments.
He cites an escalating lack of security because "hundreds of armed men" are coming to join the pirates.
They have made life more expensive for ordinary people because they "pump huge amounts of US dollars" into the local economy which results in fluctuations in the exchange rate, he says.
Their lifestyle also makes some unhappy.
"They promote the use of drugs - chewing khat [a stimulant which keeps one alert] and smoking hashish - and alcohol," Mr Hassan says.

Since the underlying facts in these statements are encyclopedic enough to be in the article, I am just tagging inline where appropriate (the first one should be cited as well), and leaving it to the editors of this article to rewrite in line with Wikipedia policy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That first sentence seems particularly preposterous and I've removed it. Besides, it has no place in the lede since the article's limited content on the economical impact of piracy in Somalia is based on a fairly shallow BBC report. In fact, as far as I know, credible data on that question is relatively limited. I'll try to rephrase the other two so that we stick to verified facts. Note that, WP:RS be damned, not all of the BBC's assertions truly qualify as verified facts. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at fixing the above problems. I think part of the problem lies with a somewhat romanticized view of the whole thing. Once you look at the data, any statement along the lines of "piracy is driving the Somali economy" becomes, at best, dubious. Pirates may show off a lot of bling but in the grand scheme of things, it's worth keeping in mind that the most generous estimates place the total ransom amount at 30mil$ per year. That seems like a lot but it's 30 times less than the estimated 1 billion sent annually to Somalia by its diaspora, less than the estimated revenue from drug trafficking, way less than direct foreign aid, etc. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Where the word profits is used in the article is not a grammatical error, one profit is only one event where you gain more money than when you started something, so if it said "The high profit of piracy is what attracts young men to do it," then it would be saying that every pirate only receives one ransom payment. On the contrary, the article says, "The high profits of piracy are what attract young men to do it," (or something with the same idea) so this is saying they receive more than one profit, because they receive ransom for hostages, cargo, and ships more than once. Do you understand what I just posted, Daniel Case? If you did, let me know in another edit. Have a good day!mast3rlinkx (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Page modification

I removed the link to 'anarchy in somalia' as the linked article is not actually about anarchy in somalia. If you disagree please falsify my claim with a concise definition of anarchism and how that relates to 'anarchy in somalia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.187.190 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

i wonder what the swedish navy do in Somalia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.94.126.68 (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The same as other navies, trying to maintain international law. Chwyatt (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Methods

I think that the most interesting question is how the pirates get away with it. I would think that it would not be so hard to track them and capture them. I would appreciate anyone knowledgeable about this to comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.70.93 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder when someone will try to combat pirates by bringing back the Q-ship idea. Have some boats that look and behave like defenseless merchant or pleasure vessels, but are equipped with hidden weapons such as a few Miniguns. When the pirates move in to sieze the vessels, blow them out of the water. --Teratornis (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

no bloodshed

i read an article in a newsrag swooning about the romantic pirates, and in it they claimed that there have been no deaths involving the "somalian pirates". This can't be true, can it? Would it be of interest to have a tally of lost lives in conjunction with this article.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poposhka (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That is defiantly not true. Just read some of the entries on list of ships attacked by Somali pirates and at least a dozen people have been killed. Most of the time the pirates just want their ransom, but there have been incidents in which they have killed hostages. Most of the deaths resulted from military intervention. – Zntrip 18:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

EUNAVFOR Atalanta

Does someone want to start an article for EUNAVFOR Atalanta? I haven't seen much info about it other than this. – Zntrip 06:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the Somali pirates? I'm kinda confused... mast3rlinkx (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

An article was already started (Operation Atlanta). It's an EU anti-piracy mission. – Zntrip 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Independent Commentary

You are being lied to about pirates 193.212.95.249 (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cause of Piracy

The article does not mention that the largest cause of the recent upsurge in piracy was the deaths of 300 people as a result of toxic waste appearing on Somali shores from the 2005 Tsunami there. Italian organizations give waste to the Italian Mafia to dump it in Somali waters on the cheap. This has enraged the Somali fishermen (the pirates being almost entirely former fishermen), whose Transitional Government has no power to stop European ships from doing as such. The UN envoy to Somalia even admitted that nothing is being done to respect the health of the Somali waters (or people). After the UN Resolution 1816 passed, allowing the use of "any means necessary" to dissuade piracy, violence increased dramitically in 2008: 120 attacks as opposed to 320 from 1984-2007! Policy makers need to be aware that the Somalis are doing this in reaction to European infringement of their property.Laneb2005 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Sources: [3], [4].

I agree that this is a problem and I think that maybe we should add a tag that the neutrality of this article is disputed. The article largely has an anti-Somalian tone, and rarely mentions toxic waste dumping. Devahn58 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On 15 January 2009 the article was remiss as described by Laneb2005.

Since then a section was added on Piracy in Somalia#Sovereignty and Environmental Protection that addresses the issue mentioned above as a factor. This section is based on reliable sources with inline citations.

So I do not think a POV tag is currently justified. --Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC Sourced Bunk Deleted

I have deleted the following:

These factors and the lucrative success of many hijacking operations have drawn a number of young men toward gangs of pirates whose wealth and strength often make them part of the local social and economic elite. A resident of Garoowe quoted by the BBC said "They have money; they have power and they are getting stronger by the day. [...] They wed the most beautiful girls; they are building big houses; they have new cars; new guns.""<ref name="Pirates high life" />

Garoowe is about 100 miles from the sea. So the comments by a resident of Garoowe on pirates aren't worth a lot.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the second time I revert the removal of sourced information by an anon. The removed material was sourced. Please don't remove it again without further discussion. The appreciation about the comment being "worth a lot" or not is entirely subjective, the important thing is that is sourced reliably.--Legion fi (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A resident of a town 100 miles from the sea is unlikely to be a reliable source on the social lives of pirates as he is unlikely to have any contact with them. A quote from him is not a reliable source. It is at best his opinion. Unless reliable sources can be given to back up the statements, they should be deleted from the article in accordance with wikipedia policies.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion of material is verifiability, not truth. The quote from the resident of Garoowe and preceding sentence is paraphrased from a reliable secondary source: the BBC article. If you know of material that contests the analysis or quote from the BBC, or puts forth an alternative point of view from another reliable secondary source that describes "pirate culture" in Somalia, then you should include it. The WP:RS argument, however, is bogus. Switzpaw (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion with statements of opinion it is important to directly attribute the material to its author. I have therefore attributed the statements to Abdi Farah Juha. BBC article that reported the statements.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Military presence & Op Atalanta

Not all European ships have operated under Operation Atalanta. Operation Atalanta is a relatively new mission and prior to that, European ships operated either independently or as part of CTF-150. And some will continue to operate as part of CTF-150 or 151. As this is not a news article but a general article, it should reflect the past as well as the current. And it gives the incorrect impression that most European navies only operate as part of Op Atalanta. Individual nations should be restored. Chwyatt (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Op Atalanta should be removed as a flag and individual nations restored. Because if CTFs don’t have flags, why should Op Atalanta? Chwyatt (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Toxic waste

An IP editor has added a section to the article claiming that the piracy is in retaliation to toxic waste being dumped off Somalia. The references are from Al-Jazeera, an organisation which is well know as being pro-Muslim and anti-West. As such, I'm not sure that it meets WP:RS. What do other editors think? Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is a mainstream news organization. WP:RS#News organizations says Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed. In the UK it it is included as a mainstream news on Sky [on Channel 514], alongside BBC News [Channel 503] , CNN [Channel 506] and Russia Today [Channel 512]. No news organisation is completely trustworthy - certainly not BBC or CNN.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the {{verify credibility}} tags on Al-Jazeera and substituted a reference to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) site, which corroborates Al-Jazeera.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't fault the UN as a reliable source, even if Al-Jazeera are not exactly a high quality news organisation. That said, I'll not argue against the section being included in the article. Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The dumping of toxic waste is attributed to "an Italian waste broker, Progresso"--and that is linked to the page on Progresso Foods. Is the waste broker really the same company as Progresso Foods, whose foods are found in every supermarket? Or is it a different company that just happens to have the same name "Progresso"? We don't want to charge Progresso Foods with this waste dumping unless we know it for sure. And if we know it for sure, then the page on Progresso Foods should note it too--it's a serious charge against this company.Steve (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would someone care to explain why ships carrying toxic and radioactive wastes would need to go all the way to the shores of Somalia to dump their cargo? Wouldn't it be cheaper and less risky to simply have it all in drums heavy enough to sink, and dump it all in the high seas? The explanation/justification given in the article is very fishy, to say the least AtomAnt (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomAnt (talk • contribs)

tangled UNEP references pointing to hearsay

the UNEP report claiming nuclear and toxic dumping is a regular media summary of other news[5]. the original source is a 2005 Geeska Afrika Online newspiece (quoted in full therein, probably violating some copyright law). it refers back to UNEP (thus its inclusion in the summary). the UNEP report, referred back to, is the Tsunami Report from 2004[6]. in that UNEP report, allegations of nuclear and toxic dumping, and various sicknesses, are reported as hearsay - with no external verification. the direct quote is "reportedly...". thus, the root source, for the allegations currently quoted in the article, is hearsay from Somali locals. without hearsay qualification, the report does mention burning toxic asbestos in Somalia during tsunami cleanup; salinity and sewage in water supplies were the common toxic problems. there is a statement by a UNEP official, in the Geeska Afrika Online newspiece, that the allegations of dumping should be investigated.

It is urgent that an investigation is carried out. Nobody knows how much waste was sunk off the coast of Somalia, how poisonous it is and what long term consequences there could be.

— Nick Nutall, spokesman for the United Nations Environment Programme in Nairobi, as reported by Geeska Afrika Online, 2005

i did not find any actual investigation at the UNEP website. - Rgrant (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Question on JMSDF task force

Should I put in the article regarding the JMSDF task force's components? Ominae (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2004 tsunami

I deleted the part of the sentence that refered to 300 people dying after the 2004 Tsunami because it was phrased to make it sound as though it was as a result of the toxic chemicals washed ashore. The Times article given as a reference talked of 300 people being killed by the tsunami, not the chemicals. Koekemakranka (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Statements of fact based on opinion pieces and some original research

I have removed some statements of fact based on opinion pieces. This is because the Wikipedia guideline for reliable sources states that: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text". As such the opinion pieces from The Huffington Post and The Independent could only be used as an opinion from the author of the opinion piece and only if that opinion is attributed to the author.

I have also removed some original research including statements that "European ships began dumping millions of barrels of toxic waste", "though without quoting any evidence of a link to al-Qaeda", and "illegal trawlers began fishing Somalia's seas with an estimated $300 million tuna, shrimp, and lobster being taken each year" when I could not find these statements in the given reference. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again have removed some original research which stated that "Mostly, pirates say their attacks are payback for the world's abuse of Somalia's territory and resources and surprisingly some piracy experts agree." Besides issues of objectivity the statement that "some piracy experts agree" is a weasel term. I have also removed statements made about nuclear waste since the news source only mentioned toxic waste. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement you're referring to said nothing about "nuclear waste". It talks about radiation sickness, which the source it came from fully supports. It's also not original research to state that "mostly, pirates say their attacks are payback for the world's abuse of Somalia's territory and resources and surprisingly some piracy experts agree" because that is almost verbatim what the article that phrase was taken from states:

"Mostly, they say their attacks are tough payback for the world community's abuse of prostrate Somalia's territory and resources. And, surprisingly, some experts admit that these arguments, while never forgiving the terrors of piracy, may hold a grain of truth."

Middayexpress (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The times article you link to only mentions that it "believed to have stirred up tonnes of nuclear and toxic waste " while the UNEP spokesman only mentions toxic waste. Also the statement "diseases consistent with radiation sickness" is original research unless you can add a reliable reference for that. Also once again there is a Wikipedia policy against the use of weasel words. Now if you want to add that statement to the article you can quote it from the article and attribute that statement to the Chicago Tribune article. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not original research and that is not all the Times article states. Actually, the Times article also pretty much repeats verbatim that phrase above:

"...several Somalis in the northern areas were ill with diseases consistent with radiation sickness."

Kindly stop removing sourced material. Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I now see that radiation sickness is mentioned in the times article but why do you keep removing the statement about the collapse of the Somali government in the background to piracy section? --GrandDrake (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it is already alluded to in the very first paragraph of the article, and is thus redundant. Middayexpress (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reason to remove the sentence on the collapse of the Somali government since it is very relevant to the background in piracy section and the lead section is supposed to be a "summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". Also why do you keep saying that the report is from UNEP when the article says it is from a UN assessment mission? The times article says that the report was made by a UN assessment mission which is requesting a UNEP mission: "Mr Nuttall said that a UN assessment mission that recently returned from the lawless African country, which has had no government since 1991, reported that several Somalis in the northern areas were ill with diseases consistent with radiation sickness. “We need more information. We need to find out what has been going on there, but there is real cause for concern,” he added. “We now need to urgently send in a multi-agency expert mission, led by Unep, for a full investigation.”" --GrandDrake (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very valid reason because unless your goal is to spam the article with text on how Somalia has had no central government following the civil war when this has already been mentioned, then that statement is redundant and therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, the "UN assessment mission" Mr. Nuttall above is talking about is for UNEP since Nuttall himself is a spokesperson for UNEP ("Nick Nuttal, the Unep spokesman"). This is also why he states that "We now need to urgently send in a multi-agency expert mission, led by Unep, for a full investigation." Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to be a "summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article" and you can not use the mention of the collapse of the Somali government in the lead section of the article as a reason to delete it from the rest of the article. Considering that the section is called "background to piracy" the collapse of the Somali government should be mentioned in it. Also where in the article does UN assessment report state that the illness is caused by toxic waste? Also why do you call it "reports" when the article calls it a "report"? --GrandDrake (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that the collapse of the central government is again mentioned in the History section which reviews the events leading up to the piracy. This is what I mean by spamming information; if this is not your goal, then kindly refrain from doing so. Furthermore, your questions asking "Also where in the article does UN assessment report state that the illness is caused by toxic waste?" and "Also why do you call it "reports" when the article calls it a "report"?" are unnecessary and a little odd since Nick Nuttall -- the UNEP spokesman -- himself indicates that:

"Initial reports indicate that the tsunami waves broke open containers full of toxic waste and scattered the contents. We are talking about everything from medical waste to chemical waste products"

That's the toxic waste in question causing the diseases. The real question is, why are you fighting this? Do you think those "far higher than normal cases of respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding, abdominal haemorrhages and unusual skin infections" occurred all by their lonesome? I don't think so. Also, I've removed one user's first hand interpretation of a UNEP source for the following reasons:

• UNEP's pronouncements were based on more than one report, not just one, as its spokesman Nick Nuttall himself has indicated.
• WP:PRIMARY forbids editors interpreting primary sources for readers. Instead, editors must rely on secondary sources, such as the Times article that's already referenced:

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again the collapse of the Somali government is an important factor in the background to piracy section and it should be mentioned. Also you did not show me any evidence in the times article that states that the illness is caused by toxic waste. Note that the report about the illness was seperate from the reports on the toxic waste and please read the times article carefully. This is what I was referring to:

"Mr Nuttall said that a UN assessment mission that recently returned from the lawless African country, which has had no government since 1991, reported that several Somalis in the northern areas were ill with diseases consistent with radiation sickness"...."An initial UN report says that many people in the areas around the northeastern towns of Hobbio and Benadir, on the Indian Ocean coast, are suffering from far higher than normal cases of respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding, abdominal haemorrhages and unusual skin infections."

Based on what the times article says I see no evidence that the the UN assessment report stated that the illnesses were due to toxic waste and unless you can provide a reliable reference stating that it looks to me like you assumed that they were related. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. The entire Times article is about the toxic waste:

*"Apart from killing about 300 people and destroying thousands of homes, the waves broke up rusting barrels and other containers and hazardous waste dumped along the long, remote shoreline, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) said. "Initial reports indicate that the tsunami waves broke open containers full of toxic waste and scattered the contents. We are talking about everything from medical waste to chemical waste products," Nick Nuttal, the Unep spokesman, told The Times."

*"a UN assessment mission that recently returned... reported that several Somalis in the northern areas were ill with diseases consistent with radiation sickness."

And so is the Al Jazeera article:

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) reported the tsunami had washed up rusting containers of toxic waste on the shores of Puntland. Nick Nuttall, a UNEP spokesman, told Al Jazeera that when the barrels were smashed open by the force of the waves, the containers exposed a "frightening activity" that has been going on for more than decade. "Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there," he said... "And the waste is many different kinds. There is uranium radioactive waste. There is lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes – you name it." Nuttall also said that since the containers came ashore, hundreds of residents have fallen ill, suffering from mouth and abdominal bleeding, skin infections and other ailments.

Again I ask you, did the Somalis get sick by themselves? Is the UNEP's spokesman Nick Nuttal lying? Right. I've restored the material; don't remove reliable sources again. Middayexpress (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again where exactly does UNEP say that toxic waste dumping cause the illness among the several Somalis? You are posting original research when you claim that UNEP stated that because even in the Al Jazeera article the UNEP spokesman that the waste was "potentially killing Somalis". In other words someone who cares greatly about this issue could not state that as a fact so please do not add original research to the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you persist in denying any connection between the Somalis just so happening to fall sick and the concurrent dumping of toxic waste in both Somali waters and on land when evidence in that direction has been presented right before your eyes. I also notice that you've added a quote from Ould-Abdallah, the UN spokesman, citing him out-of-context ostensibly to give the impression that he does not believe that the pirates are anything but pirates. That's not very honest. Here's the passage in full:

"Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping. "The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said. "What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs.""

Yet you have only chosen to quote one part of it, conveniently omitting the entire purpose of the quote, which is to highlight the fact that he believes piracy will not prevent waste dumping -- not that there is no waste dumping going on or that pirates were never fighting it. In fact, Ould-Abdallah has stated outright that there is both toxic waste dumping and illegal fishing going on, and he links them not just to European and Asian firms, but to European and Asian countries as well:

"Because there is no effective government, there is so much irregular ie illegal fishing from European and Asian countries... The UN has reliable information that European and Asian companies are dumping toxic waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coastline".

Middayexpress (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

UNEP has not said in any of the reference given that there was a connection between the toxic waste and the illnesses. Because of this I followed Wikipedia guidelines and removed some original research. As for the Ould-Abdallah quote I did not add that to the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is hypocritical to allow opinions of unnamed BBC correspondents, or of people they interview (whom they may have invented), but not to allow the kinds of opinions were recently deleted. It is not original research to point out that the BBC article did not quote any evidence for its assertion.

Let us either delete all the opinion-based stuff, which includes virtually everything with a BBC source, or allow a fair representation of opinions about piracy, its nature, and the motivations of those involved (on both sides). All the opinions should have citations, and it is OK to make purely factual brief comments about the sources. What is not OK is deleting all the opinions an editor does not like, but keep all the ones he/she does like.

Actually the assertion of al-Qaeda controlling lots of Somalia and is linked to piracy is crazy (and made for propaganda reasons). The US government got the Ethiopians to invade southern Somalia when the Union of Islamic Courts had mostly gained control. They did this because the Union of Islamic Courts were perceived as Islamic fundamentalists, and the US feared that they were linked to al-Qaeda since al-Qaeda were also Islamic fundamentalists. The Union of Islamic Courts suppressed piracy. Assuming that the US Government were correct in their thinking, then if al-Qaeda really were controlling lots of Somalia, you would expect piracy to be suppressed by them.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is original research to state that the BBC correspondent did not provide evidence. It should be clearly noted who made that comment and I will edit the page to do that but considering we have statements from Somalia pirates on this page I do not see why you consider a BBC correspondent talking about al-Qaeda to be unacceptable. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The same reason I would not regard Der Stürmer or Soviet newspapers to be all that reliable.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would consider the BBC to be a reliable source and once again I would point out that we have quotes from Somali pirates in this article. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The link to al-Qaeda, to quote several experts "is, if not ridiculous, then clearly an unlikely one". Some Pirates are involved in arms smuggling to anyone willing to buy and not specifically to al-Qaeda. That some media make the leap from this to involvement with al-Qaeda is not reliable. This quote is relevant:

"I do not have any evidence that the pirates have links with Al-Qaeda. We may speculate and think about it, but I personally do not have any evidence"
-Head of US military operations in Africa, General William Ward[7]

The US media connects the fact that Somalias al-Shabab militia is linked and that as the pirates are also Somalian.........it follows that...and so on. Wayne (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So because of an article from Russia Today in the Art & Fun section that was released in November of last year you consider a report from a BBC correspondent released less than two weeks ago to be unreliable? Unless you can find a more recent and reliable reference against what he said I see no reason why the BBC correspondent can't be quoted. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You can mention the BBC report in the article body but it is inappropriate for the lead. If mentioned it must also be mentioned that there is no evidence of a connection which is the consensus of experts. If you don't like Russia Today as a source then use CNN which says the same thing as they both used AP as their source. I used the Russian newspaper as it had more detail and U.S. newspapers are not nuetral on the subject of al Qaeda. Wayne (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite your statement that it is a "consensus of experts" you post another 5 month old article which even comes from the same AP source when trying to disprove a report from a BBC correspondent released less than two weeks ago. Do you not see the inherent problem in doing that? A recent source is needed if you are going to argue against a statement that was made less than 2 weeks ago. As for your accusation against all U.S. newspapers that looks to be very biased and I don't understand why you would even make an accusation against all the newspapers of an entire country. Also I would point out that the discussion is about a quote from a BBC correspondent. --GrandDrake (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you maintain that the pirates have linked with al Qaeda only in the last few months? The majority of sources say there is no connection. My statement in regards to U.S. media was in regards to many of them linking the al-Shabab militia with the pirates to get an al Qaeda connection despite the U.S. government admitting no link. Wayne (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The 5 month old statement from General William Ward that "I do not have any evidence that the pirates have links with Al-Qaeda" is not the same thing as saying that "there is no connection". As for your comment about some U.S. newspapers reporting that there was a connection are you referring to this reuters story? Note that reuters is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia and I believe they are used by newspapers across the world. Also I agree with you that it does not belong in the lead section but I believe that the quote from BBC correspondent Peter Greste is relevant to this article. --GrandDrake (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Al-Shabab unlike the Taliban actually follow Islamic laws. They were the ones who cleared the Pirates out of Southern Somalia. The idea that they have links with pirates is stupid considering the fact that they control two big ports that haven't seen any pirate activity. They've also banned Khat a very profitable drug. They were the ones who attacked the pirates in 2006. At that time they were part of the ICU. This is just an another case of the media jumping to points. Anyone remember America/Ethiopia and the TFG considering the Islamic Courts to be an Al-Qaeda group? Now they've all meet the current President who was leader of the Islamic Courts and support him.

Edit: I just wanted to add. The one group who is involved in dealing with most of the pirates are the Kenyan group "Seafarers' Assistance Programme". One of them said that the Islamists are in cahoots with the Pirates. One of his fellow colleagues retracted that statement a few days later. There is to much hyperbole here. Furious Stormrage (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)