Talk:Somalia/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Neutrallity

As explained in the previous heading, I think that some sections; especially the economy and energy section are overly positive by suggesting activities that are not there and by focussing on speculative forward looking statements. Solving through collaborative editing has not resulted in much more but reversions, so I am making the case here at several sub-headings. Will add more in the next few days..

The energy and natural resource industry in Somalia is growing, so the wiki-text should reflect that. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This is actually a great thing to mention... Do we have national bureau of statistics with numbers? L.tak (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a reconstituted Ministry of Mineral Resources. Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And do they have statistics? L.tak (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. Middayexpress (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Uranium mining Energy section

The proven reserves of Somalia are small, and a speculative amount is present. I think we should add the speculative amount, but focus on proven reserves, as this is the only thing we can really sure of. Such a sections should contain (if we are to maintain the 25% of the reserves in 1968) also contain a 0.1% of proven resources (which is not misleading, as it compares proven resourcesin somalia with those in other countries) L.tak (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There actually aren't just two industry tiers but rather three: reasonably assured resources (RAR), estimated additional resources (EAR), and speculative resources (SR) are standard UNFC and IAEA/NEA tiers [1]. The 0.1% figure for proven uranium reserves is ok. However, mentioning it alone gives the misimpression that industry specialists believe that there aren't many natural resources in the nation, when in reality they believe that there are abundant unexploited natural resources [2]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Uranium mining: historical find

The historical find is 0-25 of the 1968 reserves. Can someone check if this is 0-25% of the proven resources; or of the worldwide speculated resources? In other words: are we comparing apples with oranges? Futhermore, the New York times cites unidentified "experts". I think with such a speculation, we should add the specific source... L.tak (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The historical find of uranium in Somalia is actually over 25% of the then known global reserves of 800,000 tons. It was also announced by the nation's then Prime Minister [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What reserves is my question? Proven or speculative? If it is the former, we are comparing different things... The announcement from the prime minister concerns me a bit... I see the experience in Curacao where the presence/absence of mineral resources is a political issue, where it should be a purely technical one. L.tak (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It says uranium and other rare minerals were found by the UN geologists; so proven reserves. Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so we are comparing speculative reserves to proven reserves in 1 number... I'll think of a formulation for that; maybe in a note or so... L.tak (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as the >25% uranium deposits in 1968 go, those are proven reserves. However, Somalia doesn't appear to be listed in that OECD link [4]. Where in it is the 1% uranium reserves figure located? Middayexpress (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

How are those >25% proven reserves? They were evaluated as speculative in 1984; NYT says it "may exceed 800.000 tonnes", but nothing about its status there.... What is the source for this being 25% proven reserves? I still don't get it... As for the 0.1%, that is based on the red book... L.tak (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1968 link is titled "big uranium find announced in Somalia", speaks of a "discovery of major uranium and other rare mineral reserves", indicates that "the deposits had been discovered recently by United Nations geologists", that "industry sources believe that the uranium deposits may exceed a quarter of the world's known reserves of 800,000 tons", and that "U.S., Soviet and other foreign mineral interests are now negotiating for extraction rights." Hence, proven uranium reserves. And possibly over 25% of that period's global total; it's the latter estimate that is speculative. At any rate, I realize that you suggested the 0.1% figure is from the OECD link. I'm asking where in that compendium is this mentioned since Somalia's uranium reserves don't appear to be profiled therein. Middayexpress (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is on page 19 in the ref cited above... I think we shouldn't use a source of over 50 years old as a reference for proven reserves... The 1984 source clearly has a different assessment; and also the OECD report doesn't mention it. That gives me not enough assurances that a 1960s report is accurate (or that we are interpreting a news paper item correctly). L.tak (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, page 19 indicates that the 5,000 tons figure for the uranium reasonably assured resources (RAR) is a) a Secretariat estimate, b) that data was from the previous Red Book, c) the assessment was not made within the last five years, and d) in situ resources were adjusted by the Secretariat to estimate recoverable resources using recovery factors provided by countries or estimated by the Secretariat according to the expected prodution method. In other words, the figure is actually an estimate by the Secretariat of uranium reserves contained within the country, not an empirical observation. That explains the discrepancy with the 1968 find, the latter of which specifically pertains to actual, discovered uranium reserves. Middayexpress (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1984 is a real assessment; the 196x find is a news article with unclear status.... The red book gives the best available data; the best indication thus of what the world considers proven these days... I have the feeling we are not coming to a solution here. Would you be open to a third opinion or a different dispute resolution process? L.tak (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1984 assessment is an estimate, as the OECD itself indicates. This is not the situation with the 1968 reserves, as shown above. As such, there is no reason why both the find and the estimate cannot be indicated. Middayexpress (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So in your evaluation the 1984 people were not aware of the 1968 find? or misjudged it? L.tak (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the OECD wasn't aware of the 1968 uranium find. Kilimanjaro Capital explains that "it is all but forgotten that prior to the 1991 civil war, Somalia was one of Africa's largest suppliers of uranium with tons of proven reserves and even more undiscovered[...] then the civil war broke out in 1991, the Ministry of Mines and its records were destroyed and all traces of uranium mining disappeared" [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That does sound like a commercially driven statement and we should take it with caution... I still think that the 1984 source based its estimates on the 1968 source, and that the 1984 source and recent RS should be given more weight given that it is more recent and from a very insitute. L.tak (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "a very institute". At any rate, the 2011 OECD "Red Book" is an estimate, and one made after the destruction of the Ministry of Mines' records at that. The 1984 IUREP Orientation Phase Mission to Somalia likewise doesn't assert that it is based on the 1968 find. What it does indicate is that the country had 5,000 tons of uranium reasonably assured resources (RAR), 11,000 tons of uranium estimated additional resources (EAR) in calcrete deposits, as well as possibly up to 150,000 tons of uranium speculative resources (SR) in sandstone and calcrete deposits [6]. Altogether, that's around 20% of the world's estimated 800,000 tons of uranium reserves in 1968. Given this, I think we should mention the proven 1968 uranium find per the Somali government, the IAEA's 1984 RAR, EAR and SR reserve figures, and the fact that the Ministry of Mines' records were lost. Middayexpress (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly something we should mention (that the records were lost) and puts the value of the newspaper article much more at risk; as the primary source is not availabe anymore. What is the source for the lost records? L.tak (talk)

It's Kilimanjaro Capital, as linked to above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is unfortunately not an independent source.... L.tak (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither is any other hydrocarbon industry source, including the OECD you linked to. They are, nonetheless, the actual authorities on the industry. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the 1984 source in order to see if they had problems with the (alleged?) loss of records in somalia. They detail the UN study and explain its finds. Furthermore, they indicate the additional research in those areas in the 70ies and based on those studies they conclude that much of the find will be very hard to mine; and whence they don't consider it proven reserves (as that requires minability at low cost). I didn't check if they confirm he size of the find though... In other words: the 1984 source is a more up to date meta study taking several options into account. It should therefore be regarded much more valuable then a news item by a president (a non-expert; at a moment in time, when he was selling the blocks to foreign companies) We could mention the 1968 report if it is historically relevant (and we'd need reliable sources for that), but to see what is really there, we'd need the 1984 source, or a more recent one.... L.tak (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you highlight the relevant passages in the IUREP link that indicate this? Because Kilimanjaro Capital indicates that "Somalia was one of Africa's largest suppliers of uranium with tons of proven reserves and even more undiscovered[...] Somali uranium powered Iraq's infamous nuclear program[...] Brazilian, UAE, American, and Italian companies scrambled for concessions and had big plans for the region including US major Westinghouse" [7]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

i) It's in Chapter VIII.2.2. an dXI.3, where they refer to the UNDP program of 1964-1968...

ii) I would be very interested in reliable sources regarding the proven resources of Somalia, that re recent, but we seem not to be able to find any... Kilimanjaro may be better informed than we are, or confused, or have an agenda in issuing these numbers; I have no idea... L.tak (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

i) I asked if you could highlight the relevant passages (as in exact phrases, not chapter numbers) in the IUREP link that indicate this.

ii) I've already supplied two such pieces: one from the Somali government, and the other from Kilimanjaro Capital, the main mineral company currently engaged in uranium exploration in the country. There are no greater authorities on the local hydrocarbon industry. Middayexpress (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

i)The point I wanted to make is that the 1984 report takes the results from the UNDP results into account, as they are a secondary source looking at historical research. The reasons why I think the 10964-1968 report is taken into account is: i) the title of VIII.2.2. is "United Nations Development Programme. The first sentence is "During Phase I (1964-1968), which indicates it is the same research program. A bit further "between 1966-1969 further work by UNDP (...) to issue an invitation to bids form international mincing companies", which indicates that it was the UNDP that the government based its bids and its enthusiasm on. Despite all this. The proven resources of the overall study of 1984 don't indicate as much uranium as the 1968 newspaper article indicates that the prime minister has said the research have found (and which you assert are proven). That's why I don't think the scientific world thought of those resources as proven (possibly not at any point in time; certainly not in 1984) and we should rely on the best resources we have (1984 as a secondary source; recent sources to see the state of the art)...

ii)And we have discussed at length that those sources are not reliable for the purposes we need them for: the 1968 source is too old and to unclear if it represent the current state f the art (probably not; see above); the recent one is a company statements about which I have much doubts and which is not a reliable source... We need more.... L.tak (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a chance to peruse the 1984 IAEA geological survey. It does appear to discuss the earlier 1968 uranium exploration. As it turns out, the UN geologists were as enthusiatic about Somalia's uranium potential as in the government link; they qualified it overall as "excellent" ("the Mission recommends an exploration programme of about US $ 22 000 000 to test the uranium potential of the country which is thought to be excellent" [8]). This is also entirely consistent with what Kilimanjaro Capital indicates about the local uranium industry, including the material on the dearth of/lost official geological records (page 47). This will all have to be made clear in the wiki-text. Middayexpress (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Good that you could have a look at it and good that we have the source for Kilimanjaro's optimism. I have no problems adding it, and adding their estimates for proven resources. I think with this we can close the chapter regarding the "proven" reserves of 1968 and conclude that they were estimates... L.tak (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We can conclude what the in-situ geologists from the IAEA and Kilimanjaro Capital actually do. That is, that 1) Somalia's uranium potential is "excellent" (which was not indicated in the wiki-text); 2) as of 1984, the nation had 5,000 tons of uranium reasonably assured resources (RAR), 11,000 tons of uranium estimated additional resources (EAR) in calcrete deposits, in addition to possibly up to 150,000 tons of uranium speculative resources (SR) in sandstone and calcrete deposits; 3) there is a dearth of/lost official geological records, including documentation on previous uranium discoveries; 4) Kilimanjaro Capital is currently leading uranium exploration activities in Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yttrium

Yttrium more abundant than silver, and the fact that we have only a 1968 report mentioning how special it is makes me wonder if this was a mistake or something that is not true anymore... I suggest to remove it...L.tak (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The yttrium deposits in Somalia have since been estimated at 205 tons; perhaps even more. It's not the only rare mineral either [9]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

So would you agree that it is undue weight here? A mining company is always also a water company and has tens of products, which is normally not mentioned.. I don't see why yttrium should be especially mentioned in a general article on Somalia... L.tak (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I guess. The CIA doesn't mention it, so perhaps it's indeed not a major mineral resource. Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Energy section

I suggest the name to be "Energy and Natural Resources" to cover the content. L.tak (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

commitment to invest in gas

Another forward looking statement is about the investors in oil and gas. Is this really important enough (and still relevant enough) to keep it in? It sounds also like people having their marketing well in order... L.tak (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What exact wiki-passage are you referring to? Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The one beginning with "In 2010, Somalia's business community pledged to"..

The Trans-National Industrial Electricity and Gas Company in question has already been established. Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That's what I read... The question is: do we need all those sentences regarding commitments of business communities; or doe we just plainly describe the verifiable result (xxx company was established)? I suggest to do the latter.... L.tak (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Middayexpress (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Good; I like it... L.tak (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

current activities

Current mining activities should be mentioned... And if there are none, we should mention that. At this moment we are stating "Somalia concurrently evolved into a major world supplier of uranium, with American, UAE, Italian and Brazilian mineral companies vying for extraction rights." I am not sure hat "concurrently evolved" means, but if it means it hopes/plans to turn into a world supplier, then we should state that. And the " vying for extraction rights" is way too newsy... Great that people are interested in extraction rights, but I think that shouldn't be mentioned in the Somalia page in such detail if it is only that they wish to have contracts... That is not substantial enough for the country article. L.tak (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Those foreign energy companies are mentioned to show when the competition for extraction rights began and by which firms. The current concession holders are likewise noted; Range Resources for oil/natural gas and Kilimanjaro Capital for uranium. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Shall we note that then: i) there is currently no mining, ii) there are several concession holders, iii) with others being interested? Then we build it up from the beginning. Details are to changeable for a "somalia" article and can fit in a "natural resources of somalia" article... L.tak (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This is already partly covered on Mineral industry of Somalia. Kilimanjaro Capital is actually excavating; it has geologists in situ. Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree with the content as I suggested? With the mining of Kilimanjaro added if it is really production mining (not exploration, or testing)? L.tak (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You suggested that there is currently no mining; however, there in fact is. Kilimanjaro Capital has launched a uranium exploration initiative in the Amsas-Coriole-Afgoi (ACA) Block, which it has a stake in [10]. It is also exploring oil in the same block, where oil had already been found in the 1960s [11]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wondered if there was any production going on or just starting up and exploration.... From the press release you quote it seems to be the latter. Would you agree to my suggestion about how to structure this (slightly amended)? ( i) there is currently no mining for gain, ii) there are several concession holders, iii) with others being interested?)L.tak (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed several natural resource concession holders. However, those stakeholders are apparently mainly interested in oil exploration, as Kilimanjaro Capital explains [12]. Kilimanjaro Capital seems to be the only major company at the moment that is actively exploring uranium. I think what needs clarifying is the assertion that there are no proven oil reserves. This appears to be incorrect since, according to Kilimanjaro Capital, the ACA Block was drilled by Sinclair Oil and then ARCO, with oil found there as early as 1960 [13]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we'd need an independent reliable source for such a statement... Untill then we can say: ( i) there is currently no mineral mining for gain, ii) there are several concession holders, iii) with others being interested?). As for oil, we could add that the "CIA factbook states there are no proven resources; so people can judge for themselves if they see that as a reliable source... L.tak (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We can't indicate that there are no proven oil reserves because it is apparently not true. According to Strategic Intelligence, "Somalia's Puntland province has 10 billion barrels of oil reserves, making it one of the top 20 countries holding oil." The Managing Director of the Somali Petroleum Corporation likewise asserts that "Somalia is one of the countries in Africa's eastern region with large, untapped oil deposits." Additionally, he has indicated that various major oil firms such as Conoco, Shell and Total have approached the central government for exploration rights. British Petroleum has also been contracted to explore for oil along Somalia's seaboard [14]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We can, because those are thus working with exploration rights (also note the article you cite has the term "likely" in the title, which can be done with assumed and proven resources... We have ample reliable sources there are no proven resources... So either we leave the whole oil story out; or we state that... We could also ask for a third opinion on the matter; would you be open to that?

L.tak: Somalia's oil is largely unexploited, and most of it is said to be concentrated in Puntland and in off-shore deposits. However, according to UNCTAD, there are indeed also some proven oil reserves in the northwestern Somaliland region [15]: "There has been some exploration of Somalia's mineral resources. A British firm, Rovagold, was given permission to prospect for oil off the Somaliland coast in collaboration with two Chinese firms in 2001. A technical evaluation agreement was also signed by the Transitional National Assembly and a French oil company, TotalFinaElf, for the company to determine total reserves. Most of Somalia's proven reserves lie off the Somaliland coast, and an agreement on drilling and extraction exist between the Seminal Copenhagen Group and the Somaliland Government in 2002." Given this, how do you propose we present the oil reserves? Middayexpress (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's state both sources (UNCTAD reports proven oil reserves off the coast of Somalia), while the CIA fact book puts the proven reserves at nil). Something like that? We could say something about the lack of exploitation until now as well. 17:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)L.tak (talk)

Alright. Something like the following could perhaps work: "The presence or extent of proven oil reserves in Somalia is uncertain. The CIA asserts that as of 2011 there are no proven reserves of oil in the nation, while UNCTAD suggests that most proven oil reserves in Somalia lie off its northwestern coast, in the Somaliland region." Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Middayexpress (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds quite right! tnx

Oops, I was a bit too fast. I assumed all the speculation would be removed. Anyway, I have rephrased it a bit so we first have the proven parts, then the likelyness, then the speculation and then the exploration.... L.tak (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph's structure should show the geological reasons for the presence of oil and the total estimated oil reserves first. Focusing on the proven oil reserves alone serves to understate that total estimated figure, and thereby misrepresents the industry's actual belief as to how much oil Somalia really has. The same goes for the oil exploration in Puntland. That's where most of Somalia's onshore reserves are actually believed to be found and where most of the exploration is currently happening, not in the Somaliland region (though there are some proven reserves there per UNCTAD). Middayexpress (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is good to start with the proven reserves, because expectations and speculations are of less value than teh value that is actually proven. Hence the proposed change. Did you (apart from the organization) agree with the changed wording that I introduced and that you removed again? L.tak (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you removed the Puntland oil exploration briefing. As I explained above, that is unacceptable because that's where most of Somalia's onshore reserves are actually believed to be found and where most of the exploration is currently happening, not in the Somaliland region (which you retained). As also explained, the proven reserves constitute only one tier of the total oil reserves in Somalia. The paragraph's structure should thus show the geological reasons for the presence of oil and the total estimated oil reserves first, followed by the proven reserves and the untapped reserves. Middayexpress (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are right I missed out the puntland and off shore; as I assumed that the off shore part would be close to puntland; sorry about htat... But you still seem to assume that the "untapped reserves" are somehow sure... They are not. So the only thing we knwo for sure is the proven part. And is possible that that's all there is. There is also a part which may or may not be there and this is inherently unclear. I have no problems indicating that there are some geological indications first, but that should be followed immediately by the proven parts, possibly followed after that by the speculative parts. So I don't agree with Would you agree to that "the proven reserves constitute only one tier of the total oil reserves in Somalia". The total oil reserves are the proven part plus potentially something more, which we don't know...L.tak (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

By geology, I was referring there to the actual land formations. Also, the offshore oil reserves are believed to be found all along Somalia's seaboard, from the south to Puntland to Somaliland. According to Africa Oil, Puntland proper has actual oil shows [16]: "The most clearly defined basins in Puntland are the Nogal and Darin basins. These large depressions are visible on satellite imagery. The two basins are analogous to the prolific Yemen rift system found across the Gulf of Aden. The exploration concept is that the oil reserves found in the Cretaceous and Jurassic sedimentary sequence in Yemen could also be present in similar formations in the northern portion of Somalia, since these two areas were joined approximately 18 million years ago, before the movement of the Indian plate away from the African plate[...] The limited historical information indicates that reservoir quality rocks are present within the Nogal Basin. Two wells drilled in the centre of the basin and the drilling reports for these two wells indicated that the Jurassic sandstone targets were not reached but that oil shows were found in some of the shallower Cretaceous sandstones. Surface seeps of oil, as well as oil shows reported in the exploration wells drilled by previous operators, indicate that the source rocks have generated hydrocarbons and that they have migrated through the system. There is not enough data yet to determine if trap formation predates hydrocarbon migration, however. The indications from the limited number of wells drilled in the basin are that the basin appears to be oil-prone." Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That is also what I would consider geology. So we could say that based on the geophraphy an geology there are expectations that there is oil, while there are not proven resources (ref reuters, ref CIA, ref 3 I mentioned)... L.tak (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The geology here is the similarity of the two Puntland basins with the Yemen rift system since they once formed a single landmass. An oil show is actual physical evidence of the presence of oil [17]. And as demonstrated, "the source rocks have generated hydrocarbons". These Puntland basin oil shows should thus probably be indicated alongside UNCTAD's assertion that there are proven reserves off of Somalia's northwestern coast, in the Somaliland region. Middayexpress (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can add the UNCTAD assertion, and the CIA etc sources in combination with the information here that oil was found and that the basin "appears to be oil-prone", so we have the statements complete... Let's start with CIA (which is explicit), then add UNCTAD (which is a "statement in passing") and end with the "appears to be oil prone" as it still an assumption (they have seen oil, but not where they wanted it and where it could be produced; and it is a company info site, which is not really a reliable source)... L.tak (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As explained above, the paragraph's structure should first show the geological reasons for the presence of oil (i.e. the geological similarity with the Yemen rift system), followed by the total estimated oil reserves. Focusing on the proven oil reserves alone serves to understate that total estimated figure, and thereby misrepresents the industry's actual belief as to how much oil Somalia really has. Also note from the Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library link above that proven reserves are not the same thing as found hydrocarbons since an oil show is "a well classed as exploratory or development in which oil has been encountered but has not been proven or judged to be productive." The Somaliland proven oil reserves and the Puntland oil shows and source rocks that have generated hydrocarbons thus logically come second sequentially. Middayexpress (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Minorities

Are we really sure that 15% of Somalia is minorites let alone mostly Bantus? If I remember clearly, in 1936 less 5% of Italian Somaliland was "Negriod"/Bantu. It should be noted that it does not include British Somaliland which during this period held over 500,000 Somalis. So once you combine the whole country you have over 1,500,000 million people. So if there's less than 50,000 Bantus in Italian Somaliland then they only account for for less than 3.3%. In fact, in the late 1970 there were less than 80,000 Bantus out of 3,000,000 people, so less than 2.66%. As you can see, the population trend was stable and very consistent. We should also not forget the hundereds of thousands of Somalis coming from Ethiopoa and Kenya later on. So how on earth could the their be 15% minorities let alone mostly Bantus. It's even more odd since that it's the CIA that's claiming this since on their map of Somalia it's states that only 6% are ethnic minorities? AcidSnow (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The estimated number of Bantus varies depending on whether the figure includes Bantus who are attached to a Somali clan (what's called "shegad" or client adoption). The CIA figure is low because it doesn't; it only counts the unassimilated Bantu. However, there are a number of assimilated Bantu individuals within certain clans, particularly in the south among the Rahanweyn. There are also other Bantu ethnic minorities such as the Bajuni, as well as non-Bantu minorities like the Eyle. Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

CIA factbook

I tried to find the natural resources info in the CIA factbook, but couldn't. Can someone link to the section that was referred to? L.tak (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's strange. It's in the same energy tab where you presumably gathered that there are no proven local natural resource reserves. While this may be true (so far) for crude oil, it is not for natural gas (of which there are an estimated 5.663 billion cu m of proved reserves [18]). Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the "economy" tab, for "uranium", maybe that's where it went wrong... Good that it is settled for gas etc! L.tak (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Very little information from the CIA factbook at all in this article. Probably because Somalia finishes nearly dead last by most measures as the failed state it is. The rose colored glass on this article are breathtaking.198.175.253.81 (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The CIA factbook is linked to above. This also is WP:NOTAFORUM. Middayexpress (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2015

118.101.200.185 (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Religion =Islam

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Adal Sultanate

In the establishment section it lists the "Adal Sultanate" as dating back to the 9th Century CE, that's incorrect. Not even its predecessor the Ifat Sultanate existed that far back and instead as even wikipedia's own pages and sources on them posit-> it all dates to at most the 12th-13th Centuries CE. I'm leaving this note to point out why I'm going to be rectifying that mistake. Awale-Abdi (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the Adal Sultanate's first capital was at Zeila in the 12th-13th centuries. According to Al-Yaqubi, there was an earlier kingdom or sultanate also based there in the late 800s. Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mirror

I think a some of this article was cp'd from here. Mr.Magik-Pants (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a WP:MIRROR of this page. Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2015

"In August 2014, the Somali government-led Operation Indian Ocean was also launched to cleanup the remaining insurgent-held pockets in the countryside."

Please correct "cleanup" to "clean up". Thanks.

109.157.11.144 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Altamel (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of material from introduction

Middayexpress, can you explain how removing material from the introduction of the article constitutes contextualisation? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase is still there but contextualized. The Fragile State Index was first published in 2005, not right after the collapse of the central government in the early 1990s. Middayexpress (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I somehow missed that you'd moved it to the next paragraph. Of course, people were characterising Somalia as a failed state before the index came into being. The discussion of this in the intro is fine though. I'm not so sure about "ensuing process of decentralization", however. That suggests that the central state decided to decentralise power, rather than it collapsing. There's also no subsequent mention of this process in the main body of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

While there were some intermittent assertions to that effect, the failed state concept didn't really take off globally until the establishment of the FSI in 2005. Somalia is now instead generally regarded as a progressing fragile state. At any rate, the decentralized regional states are noted under regions and districts. Middayexpress (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not true about the emergence of the failed state concept. It was already the subject of considerable academic debate prior to 2005 (see, for example, this or this). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "decentralisation", my point wasn't that the regions aren't discussed in the article but that this supposed process of decentralisation isn't. The actual word "decentralization" only appears in the introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the mid-1990s rather than a few years before the index's establishment in 2005. The decentralization process was different for each regional state and is discussed on their respective pages. Middayexpress (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources from the 1990s, too. See this, for example. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but the concept wasn't really popularized until later, in the 2000s [19]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I wonder how this constitutes contextualisation of Bobrayner's edit, Middayexpress? You removed the mention that Somalia is second on the FSI from the introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I adjusted that a minute later to read that Somalia was displaced atop the FSI (the index's wording) [20], attributed that to the FSI, and moved the phrase down to the appropriate period after the establishment of the federal government. It's now also noted in the intro. Middayexpress (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Somalia remains second in the index though, which was what Bob's edit noted, and that's not now mentioned. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It was implied by dislodged from atop the FSI, which is the index's phrasing. At any rate, I've noted that second placing. Middayexpress (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph should be condensed. AcidSnow (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I trimmed the decentralization bit. Middayexpress (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Whom

Um Buckshot, the source actually states: "Kenyan and Somali forces had pushed deep into the city". It also goes on to state that: "The Kenyan army has also been supported in its campaign by Ras Kamboni, a local militia". AcidSnow (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and the word "Kenyan", while appearing in the source, you've managed to remove twice from the text. The KDF have paid in blood for the advances and efforts they've made, and you are misrepresenting the sources by removing their country's name from the text. It's WP:UNDUE to do so. I'm going to reinsert the word "Kenyan". Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Kenya part of AMISOM? AcidSnow (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "They joined Amisom in June". AcidSnow (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure whether Kenya was part of AMISOM at the time or not, but AMISOM is a *very* loose organisation, as can be seen by the incorporation of Ethiopia within it. There's a very good argument to say that each of Ethiopia and Kenya are primarily doing their things in Somalia, rather than anything for any imagined higher regional purpose. Finally and most importantly for WP purposes, the source - in its headline - says Kenyan, not AMISOM. We are going to run from now on with NPOV and THIRDPARTY. If the WP:THIRDPARTY source says Kenyan, we will write Kenyan. Saying 'allied AU' overemphasises the importance of the AU (quite low), and deemphasises the Kenyan part in this war. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, in the end neither were wrong. AcidSnow (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

But the text as it started was UNDUE, not mentioning the Kenyans at all. Anyway thankyou AcidSnow. Alphabeticising the participants is unimportant, but from what I've seen of the sources (this was many months ago now, so bear with me) you've got the order of importance right. The Kenyan Army's contribution was most important, the Ras Kamboni forces were very important, but virtually everything says there was also 'Somali' participation. It is very unclear what exactly the Somali participation was, and my thought is that it was probably the militias that had accompanied the Kenyan campaign throughout. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow, I saw this edit and didn't respond because I'm not that knowledgeable on this precise topic, but it did set off alarm bells for me because the Guardian source title is "Kenyan troops launch beach assault on Somali city of Kismayo", your edit summary was "Corrected sentences to fit with the sources already provided", and yet you removed the mention of Kenya. Now, perhaps the Guardian headline is misleading, but in that case perhaps you need to explain that when making an edit in the name of "fitting with the sources already provided"? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Aromatherapy book source

The introduction of the article states: "In antiquity, Somalia was an important commercial centre". One of the sources used for this is this book on aromatherapy (which is an odd source for such a claim, to begin with). All the source actually says is that the ancient Egyptians used frankincense from what is now Somalia. Surely we can find a better source to use here? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow, you're good at finding sources on Somali history. Do you think you could help find something on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. AcidSnow (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, Midday has already done so. AcidSnow (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The new source, from what I can see of it, mentions cassia exports from what is now Somalia. The Kenrick source discusses frankincense and spices. While these are nice examples, I'm not sure that's quite enough to support the "Somalia was an important commercial centre" wording. I'm sure we can find something that establishes unambiguously that Somalia was an important trading centre, rather than sources that just say that certain goods were exported from there. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

To save face

Buckshot06, stop tampering and inserting your opinions into referenced text. 1 Look at the edit. 26oo (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference used there actually just redirects to the Kenyan High Commission in Tanzania's homepage. Can I suggest using the Guardian source mentioned in the thread above instead? It has the benefit of being third party. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Or rather, this one. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, the link has been fixed. 26oo (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think we should cite a source such as the Guardian as well, to give a third-party perspective. Somali forces may have officially been in the lead, but third-party sources seem to suggest that Kenyan forces led the intervention in practice. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Even better, we could cite this academic source and this by the ICG. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a joint communique by both Kenya and Somalia saying Somali forces were officially leading in the source. There's no need for a third party source. The text is about the official leadership, not the tactical. Buckshot06 didn't even remove the source because it's credible but tampered with the text. 26oo (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should remove the source or the claim that Somali forces officially led the operation. What I'm saying is that we should also note that this was not the case in practice, as the third-party sources make clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's officially led by Somali forces, which is what the text says. If you mean to speak of practically it can be discussed in Operation Linda Nchi. It's a relatively insignificant part of the article. If you have a third party sentence to include about practicality, please post it but I'm afraid we'd keep expanding about who controls what. 26oo (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to reflect the fact that the situation on the ground and the official position were slightly different, without adding too much to the text, with this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed the wording slightly, if you agree then we are done. 26oo (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, changed 2 words not the sentence as I intended, we are Done. 26oo (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Demonym of the people of Somalia

Somali people usually don't call them selfs 'Somalian' it is a more western thing being imposed I believe, and it sounds weired too. My opinion is to remove that demonym. This is my view on the subject, enlighten me with yours. — comment added by Redomar (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Somalia

Somalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.160.133 (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://kenyahighcomtz.org/?action=event-read-more.html&id=1

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511205333/http://www.threcorder.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=REConline&category=newsTowerHam&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstower&itemid=WeED13%20Apr%202010%2010%3A02%3A08%3A730 to http://www.threcorder.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=REConline&category=newsTowerHam&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstower&itemid=WeED13%20Apr%202010%2010%3A02%3A08%3A730

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

diseases consistent with radiation sickness

If there were levels of radiation capable of causing radiation sickness, the radiation would be clearly measurable in an extremely wide area, probably even in Europe. So it is extremely clear that there is no radiation sickness and 'consistent with radiation sickness' is a clear case of weasel words. --2001:708:110:1820:7646:A0FF:FEA0:4B5B (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Refugees

Many thanks for adding more information on Somali refugees. However the information is quite hidden within the section on Somali civil war. Would it at all be possible to have a subsection on refugees within the section on demographics? Then it could be more easily found and would appear in the content box. Just a thought. Michtrich (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It is in its appropriate context. Per WP:WPC, such sections aren't standard on country pages (nor are refugees the same thing as internally displaced persons). Things like geography are. Soupforone (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Barbara

According to the Periplus, the ancient Barbara region was actually located in the littoral area between Upper Egypt and northeastern Somalia. Soupforone (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

can you help me make map?

can you help me make map of somalia and qatar regarding page of bilateral relationshions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullsaed (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Map that violates Neutral point of view rule

Area controlled by the Somalia shown in dark green; claimed but uncontrolled regions shown in light green.

Somalia (orthographic projection)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guledd369 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Politics

Per WP:BRD, please discuss your edits here for consensus Abdullsaed. You have renamed headers, moved files and text, and aggregated the 2010 and federal authorities though they are different governments. Also note that per WP:COUNTRIES, the politics area is not for breaking news, but instead serves as an overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, and some short notes on the parliament. Soupforone (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The politics section is outdated, i think (the Transitional institutions and Islamic courts Union which dates back 2000 and 2006) should be in History section, (see for example Libya).what ever happened in 2011 is not disturbing (Politics section) just governmental system same goes with Iraq, but Somalia Politics: these History related sections is disrupting politics chronology, ( with content about Transitional institutions , then Islamic Courts, then Government... did that look more presentable to you!) 2010-2012 Government is part of Coalition government (although different Prime minster) we should consider making it subsection. Abdullsaed (talk) Abdullsaed (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your perspective now. That actually makes sense. However, the 2012 to present government should therefore be labeled the federal government. Soupforone (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone Sure, I agree with you, and Huge thanks for you. Abdullsaed (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

2017 Population

The population of Somalia in 2017 according to the World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision - UNDESA is 14.743 million [21]. The other source is 3 years old and outdated, could someone update this in the page? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.55.28 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130124010543/http://www.somaliweyn.com/pages/news/Aug_12/Somalia_Constitution_English_FOR_WEB.pdf to http://www.somaliweyn.com/pages/news/Aug_12/Somalia_Constitution_English_FOR_WEB.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.somalbanca.org/economy-and-finance.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627100400/http://www.mbali.info/doc494.htm to http://www.mbali.info/doc494.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116055005/http://www.buluugleey.com/warkiidanbe/Governance.htm to http://www.buluugleey.com/warkiidanbe/Governance.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.garoweonline.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=558%3Asomalia-president-parliament-speaker-dispute-over-tfg-term&catid=55%3Asomalia&Itemid=79
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511194929/http://english.alshahid.net/archives/15120 to http://english.alshahid.net/archives/15120
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/articles/90029659?Somali_PM%3A_Anyone_in_gov&%23146%3Bt_who_commits_corruption_will_be_brought_to_justice
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402205646/http://www.globalgovernance.eu/index.php/p-s-publications/246-new-analysis-the-somali-crisis-and-the-eu-3.html to http://www.globalgovernance.eu/index.php/p-s-publications/246-new-analysis-the-somali-crisis-and-the-eu-3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131209072808/http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/states/ to http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/states/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511085616/http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1995/wf950219.htm to http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1995/wf950219.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515090635/http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/230810/australia___the_gulf_demand_for_australian_sheep_and_lamb.aspx to http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/230810/australia___the_gulf_demand_for_australian_sheep_and_lamb.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513155643/http://www.elmt-relpa.org/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/elmt/201004/Final%20Report%20Annex%203%20-%20sector%20profiles%20-%20logos.pdf to http://www.elmt-relpa.org/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/elmt/201004/Final%20Report%20Annex%203%20-%20sector%20profiles%20-%20logos.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626112218/http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/article_print.php?article=4693 to http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/article_print.php?article=4693
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.somalbanca.org/monetary-policy.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://somalbanca.org/payment-system.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webdev.cal.org/development/co/bantu/sbpeop.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

Aguywhoknows (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

may i have the writes to change few things?

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923225142/http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/horn-of-africa/kenya/184%20-%20The%20Kenyan%20Military%20Intervention%20in%20Somalia.pdf to http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/horn-of-africa/kenya/184%20-%20The%20Kenyan%20Military%20Intervention%20in%20Somalia.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Irrm56u6?url=http://unpos.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=v067edqd7a8= to http://unpos.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=v067edqd7a8%3D&tabid=9705&language=en-US
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712071037/http://www.hornrelief.org/goldman-prize-2002.htm to http://www.hornrelief.org/goldman-prize-2002.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511161616/http://www.goldmanprize.org/node/113 to http://www.goldmanprize.org/node/113
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517133126/http://www.somalichamber.so/?page_id=62 to http://www.somalichamber.so/?page_id=62
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511103540/http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-5-21/70884.html to http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-5-21/70884.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.persee.fr/articleAsPDF/ethio_0066-2127_2003_num_19_1_1051/article_ethio_0066-2127_2003_num_19_1_1051.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.puntlandgovt.com/education.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.puntlandgovt.com/girlseducation.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.puntlandgovt.com/child.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.puntlandgovt.com/nomads.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007224547/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2012-08/02/c_131757152.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2012-08/02/c_131757152.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510005900/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher%2CUSCIRF%2C%2C%2C4a4f272bc%2C0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,USCIRF,,,4a4f272bc,0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906202740/http://www.raxanreeb.com/2014/09/somalia-president-says-godane-is-dead-now-is-the-chance-for-the-members-of-al-shabaab-to-embrace-peace/ to http://www.raxanreeb.com/2014/09/somalia-president-says-godane-is-dead-now-is-the-chance-for-the-members-of-al-shabaab-to-embrace-peace/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://unpos.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=v067edqd7a8%3D&tabid=9705&language=en-US
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unep.org/women_env/w_details.asp?w_id=397
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224095458/http://www.raxanreeb.com/2013/12/somalia-parliament-approves-nomination-of-new-somali-pm-abdiweli-sheikh-ahmed/ to http://www.raxanreeb.com/2013/12/somalia-parliament-approves-nomination-of-new-somali-pm-abdiweli-sheikh-ahmed/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141031021901/http://www.soregistry.so/ to http://www.soregistry.so/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511075522/http://www.wes.org/ca/wedb/somalia/soedov.htm to http://www.wes.org/ca/wedb/somalia/soedov.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

proposed redirect

"Republic of Somalia" redirects to this page. Because of this, shouldn't there be a disambiguation note at the top of the page stating that fact, and that the Somali Republic is a different country altogether? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC))

Somalia national anthem

I saw here a wrong song this isn’t somalia National anthem it’s somalia flag song. Somalia national anthem is somaliyey toosoo Faiza406 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2018

This website is not very good. you should not let people change and edit stuff. 203.28.126.253 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Map

Somaliland is a secessionist region and so should be shown on the map, similarly to the way that Taiwan is on the map of the PRC, or South Ossetia/Abkhazia are on the map of Georgia. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Pakistan and Morocco are other examples of countries with breakaway regions that have declared independence. Koodbuur (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that I am in agreement with you both. The new map is inline with similar representations on other articles. Many thanks. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, this doesn't do justice to the internationally recognised borders, the map shown is already included in the article. The real map has been the same for years its not wise to change it now Pepsmiand (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The internationally recognised borders are intact and shown on the map. The map shows the de facto independent state of Somaliland as an area claimed (but not controlled) by Somalia. This is inline with other WP articles as shown by editors FOARP and Koodbuur above.--Kzl55 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

To back up what Kzl55 says above, look at Ukraine, China, Georgia (country), Azerbaijan, Pakistan, India, Japan, Morocco, Serbia, Cyprus and other countries with disputed claimed-but-not-controlled territories. In every case the territory they claim, but do not control, is shown in light green. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The map you chose doesn't accurately portray the territory each parties control. It shows the amount Somaliland claims as the successor state to British Somaliland but not what it controls. For instance towns such as Buuhoodle, Badhan, Sanaag, Las Khorey and Dhahar are under Puntland control. Puntland is a federal member state of Somalia. EELagoon (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC

I invite you to comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Isaaq_genocide#RfC_about_article_title this RfC. Thylacoop5 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018

please let me edit. i want to add some important information and history about this article Cilmigaafoow (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Northeast Africa scraping

There seems to be a consorted effort to scrape the term Northeast Africa completely from Wikipedia and even online because Egypt would then be attached to Sudan and the Horn of Africa. One such individual I've noticed is Ryanoo. On this page he made edits which do not correspond to the information in the cited source. I think he's part of groups who promote the Middle East origine of Egypt and hence anything that can attach Egypt to Africa must be scraped including the regional term Northeast Africa which has always been used. I think we should report these vandalisms disguised as valid edits. Arboleh (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2018

SOMALIA TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AS A STATE IS VIOLATED WITH THE PHOTO ON THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE I URGE THE WIKIPEDIA TO GIVE THE CORRECT INFORMATION AND TO PROTECT EVERY COUNTRY'S INTEGRITY WITHOUT INTERFERING IN THE INTERNAL ISSUE'S AND SHOW SOMALIA'S TERRITORY WITH A UNIFORMED SHADE OR COLOUR. OSOM01 (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is discussed in the map section above. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018

76.66.124.205 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2019

Yahyehassan1 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

}} | languages_type = Other cities | languages = {{hlist|Somaliland

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Horodotus on Somalia

It's a bit discouraging reading an article about Somalia's history where they quote Herodotus as history without offering any caveat. This guy believed in giant gold making spiders in India, and his measurements for everything were super exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:200:571B:9C85:8093:75C7:DC36 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Somalia Map

Can you guys stop putting unnecessary information underneath the map, only thing that's needed is a clear definition between the light green and dark green. No need to put a whole history lesson in there, it looks messy. Hurbad (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hurbad - Apologies, but as you can see above, the map is controversial and so the consensus was to add explicatory language. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Somalia

Its peace Zakishilabo (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Map #2

The map used shows Somaliland as a claimed but not controlled region, this is inline with Wikipedia maps of areas with similar disputes e.g. India, Morocco, China and Pakistan...etc etc. There is no need to edit war over every thing. The map shows both claims in full, Somalia's claimed territory as well as Somaliland's claimed territory. Besides, we already have previous consensus on use of this map on this talk page Talk:Somalia/Archive_7#Map where majority of editors agreed map was appropriate and helpful to WP readership, (EELagoon who opposed was another blocked sock of disruptive editor Middayexpress), as such, Wadaad, if you have objections, or want to form consensus around a different map please use the talk page instead of resorting to edit warring. Lastly, the same distinction between Somaliland and Somalia is made in Wikipedia's default Geolocate feature. Kzl55 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kzl55: The proposed map (created by you) contains blatantly false information as it includes areas not under the control of Somaliland as being part of Somaliland's control. See the various maps on the article Somali Civil War. Secondly, there are many areas not under the direct control of the Somalia government within South Somalia (areas under Al-Shabaab) and this map only shows it from the perspective of Somaliland and not the reality on the ground. Since it contains false information I will remove it unless it is resolved reflecting the truth.Wadaad (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion of the map aside, the map in question was previously discussed on this talk page Talk:Somalia/Archive_7#Map, and a majority of editors agreed it is appropriate and helpful to WP readership. Bulldozing your own opinion against consensus in the form of edit warring is not helpful. Please perform a self-revert to the map version agreed upon by editors in the talk page until a new consensus is formed. Kzl55 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The map was created by YOU. It contains false information and therefore is not encyclopedic. It is not my opinion but the reality. Wadaad (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

other editors discussed it on this talk page and agreed it was appropriate and helpful to Wikipedia readership. It is not up to yourself to push your POV on everyone. Please perform a self-revert to restore the version agreed upon by editors on this talk page. Wikipedia is based on consensus, not your personal opinions. If after a new discussion editors decide on a new map then we can change it, but until then the current version agreed upon should not be changed. Kzl55 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It was barely discussed and such and important change to a national wiki page deserves further discussion. Moreover, wikipedia has a strong bias towards white males who are not knowledgeable on topics related to Somalia. One other Somali who commented on the matter was against your proposal. Lastly, the map you created contains false information and therefore is liable to be removed until it reflects the truth. Wadaad (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Aside from your prejudices, Wikipedia is based on consensus, "white male" or not, everyone is welcome to contribute. You do not decide if the discussion was "not enough", you too are welcome to contribute to forming consensus but you can not be pushing your own POV against what a majority of editors discussed previously. Its very disruptive. For the last time, please perform a self-revert, and discuss your edits. Kzl55 (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The only people who agreed with you were 1) an individual from Somaliland (clear bias) 2) a Taiwanese with a bias on the matter (see Foreign relations of Taiwan). You have no consensus at all, the map was created by you (trying to push a specific narrative) and contains false information and therefore liable to be removed. Wadaad (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not up to you to vet the editors' backgrounds. Three editors (@FOARP and Koodbuur: and myself) agreed that it was appropriate, whilst one @Pepsmiand: disagreed. I have pinged them all. The map is identical to the default Wikipedia map for the Geolocate feature as stated previously. You can not set a threshold for what is consensus and what isnt. Please restore the article to version agreed on the talk page, this is getting disruptive. Kzl55 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As I had stated in my previous comment in April 2018, there are other countries that have breakaway regions that have declared independence shown on their maps. There is no reason for Somaliland to not be shown on this map. Koodbuur (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

1) you (@Koodbuur: judging from your history on wikipedia appear to be from Somaliland (hardly an unbiased opinion). 2) The map should reflect the map on Somaliland for consistency (nuances around Far-East 'Somaliland') not being under the control of Somaliland. 3) Somaliland is not the only area not under control by Somalia's government. See various maps on Somali Civil War neglecting other regions to push your (pro-Somaliland) POV.Wadaad (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks. I have mentioned that other countries with breakaway regions have their maps showing breakaway regions. Your points about consistency or other regions outside Somalia's control do not warrant Somaliland being erased from the map. Koodbuur (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

1) The map on wikipage Somaliland is not the same as the claimed area on your proposed map 2) Somaliland is not the only area not under control by Somalia's government. See various maps on Somali Civil War neglecting other regions to push your POV. 3) One Somalilander and a Taiwanese editor is hardly consensus on such an important issue. Wadaad (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

To state the obvious, I am neither Taiwanese nor from Somaliland, though it wouldn't matter if I was. The map was selected as the most accurate map to hand of the present state of Somalia/Somaliland, if someone wants to produce an even more accurate map then let them produce it, but in the absence of such a map we should use the most accurate one available - one showing Somaliland as not under the control of the central government of Somalia and instead as claimed, but not controlled territory, in line with the treatment of other countries with similar issues. FOARP (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

PS - I've added a note that these are only approximate zones of control. Until there is a more accurate map available, showing Somaliland's current area of control, this will have to do. FOARP (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Koodbuur and FOARP. And yes, it absolutely would not matter if you were from Taiwan or Somaliland, or anywhere else for that matter, there is just no need for such language here. With regards to your added note FOARP, that would work, particularly given that Somalia does not control large swaths of territory currently controlled by Al Shabab. The most neutral and helpful presentation for WP readership is to show both Somalia's de jure claimed border as well as Somaliland's de facto claimed border, and there is precedent of this presentation in similar disputes across Wikipedia as discussed earlier. Regards Kzl55 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It DOES matter what the national backgrounds of editors are as it may show bias, imagine a group of Jewish editors deciding on the borders of Palestine or Arab issues. Taiwan is similar to Somaliland as it is in a longstanding sovereignty dispute with the People's Republic of China (PRC) - this is not a minor fact. Obviously, someone from Somaliland will likewise not provide a neutral opinion either. Wadaad (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It matters if editors exhibit bias in their editing, Wadaad; we do not assume that editors are biased because of their ethnic background. If I may say so, you also seem quick to assume that others are biased, without reflecting on your own possible biases. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: My bias on the matter is this: I am ancestrally from an area claimed by "Somaliland" but I do not recognize this entity. I recognize Somalia as the sovereign owner of "Somaliland", which is actually the internationally recognized norm. Wadaad (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

To re-iterate, I am not Taiwanese and I don't know why Wadaad thinks I am. I do not come from Somaliland. It wouldn't matter if I did. Wadaad seems to be trying to argue that, since everyone here belongs to ethnic groups they consider "biased", then only their view counts. This argument could easily be turned on them - what is there ethnic background? Could we not easily say "Wadaad comes from X and is a member of group Y so they must be biased"? And where does this end? The "international norm" does not matter since this is Wikipedia, not the UN - we merely report what reliable sources tell us, which is that, whilst according to the Somali point of view Somaliland is part of their territory, Somaliland is in fact a de facto independent state.

Furthermore, can I just point out the obvious contradiction in what you've been saying: up to now you've been arguing that the map should be changed because it does not accurately portray Somaliland's current zone of control. Now you are saying that it should not portray Somaliland at all. Which is it? If the map is not accurate, then the answer is a more accurate map (which you are free to create yourself based on reliable sourcing), not removing Somaliland from it entirely. Until there is a more accurate map, based on accurate sources, then we will use the most accurate map available - which is the one we have. FOARP (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@FOARP: I got it from your profile on here mentioning Taiwan. Well, if you are not Taiwanese you may be a Western Sinophile who is pro-Taiwan one way or another explaining why you would be interested in Somaliland (a pseudo-country with similar recognition issues). I stand by that national backgrounds or political leanings of editors matter. Wadaad (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If you stand by this, then why do you believe that it does not apply to you? Why should we not say "Wadaad is X so his opinion doesn't count", which is what you are effectively saying about everyone else here? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Anyway, Wiki policy clearly states that you should assume good faith, and your position (people with ethnic backgrounds you don't like should be ignored) is the polar opposite of that.

And again, if you think the issue here is that the map inaccurately portrays Somaliland's zone of control, then why not provide a more accurate map of Somaliland's zone of control, based on reliable sourcing, yourself? FOARP (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I am contesting that there is a consensus for the current map. For years the previous map was listed and was only changed by Kzl55 with the approval of only two individuals. Where is the consensus? I do not consider that there is one.Wadaad (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is in the agreement of three people that this is the correct map to use, as well as the general consensus on Wiki that this is how such matter should be dealt with. You are one person, which is less than three, and your reasons for opposing this map are not grounded in Wiki policy. Of course, if you want a discussion with more people involved, you can always try to raise this as a topic on the various forums dedicated to this kind of discussion on Wiki. For example, you could try raising this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). FOARP (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@FOARP: previously he had several individuals disagree (two if IIRC) with him, add mine to it and then the majority of the previous and current discussion are not in favor of this map. Also, such an important change to a national wiki page should require the input from many more editors. Wadaad (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't just stack across debates like that. The consensus comes from the debate, and isn't decided simply by counting votes but also depends on who makes the best arguments based on Wiki policy. If you want to get more people involved the best way is to raise an RFC. Wikipedia:Requests for comment has a guide on when and how to do this. FOARP (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As FOARP stated, multiple times now, there is clear precedent in Wikipedia to present de facto states on the maps. In fact, Wikipedia's default Geolocate feature presents Somaliland and Somalia as two separate entities. Perhaps Wadaad should view their insistence on removal of Somaliland as a manifestation of their own bias. It is unacceptable to exclude anyone or vet editors based on background, whether White, Taiwanese or from Somaliland, as long as their contributions adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. You can potentially end up in situations where you build your thesis on assuming someone being from a specific background, and it turns out they are not, as happened above. With regards to stacking votes from historic debates, this obviously isn't how it works on Wikipedia, but Wadaad also seems to be counting votes of long-term disruptive editors to bolster their claim, despite being aware that they were a blocked sock of disruptive editor Middayexpress.Kzl55 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please remove that global map due to the fact that Somaliland does not control Khatumo State of Somalia. Let's not be biased in our publishing. Khatumo State does not believe in the old colonial borders that divided Somali people, and wants to remain in the Union. Only the Isaaqs that inhabit "Somaliland" are pushing a propaganda that they govern/control regions more than they actually do. We do not want any more war. Somaliland situation is similar to Catalonia, not Taiwan or Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somsom93 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

someone needs to add a new map which includes the states of khatumo and makhir as independent from somaliland --Gashaamo (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Somalia And Somaliland.

Iskawaran

It is very unnecessary to add Somaliland in light-green. It is not claimed land of Somalia. It is infact, part of Somalia. There is no point at all of adding it light-green at all.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konfekt-confections (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see consensus reached above Talk:Somalia#Map_#2, this is inline with other articles with similar subject matter on Wikipedia. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the light green as the region of 'Somaliland' and Khatumo State of Somalia is still respectively part of Somalia. Let's not provide incorrect information on this page. Respect Somalia sovereignty. Also 'Somaliland' government does not control all the regions claim based on old colonial borders. This is nothing but a propaganda.

This Kx155 user needs to be removed and stop from providing any further incorrect information.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4000:A190:AC16:FB56:A9FD:6BF2 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Somaliland is a de facto state — that it is de jure still part of Somalia does not make it incorrect information. Kzl55 is an editor in good standing. They are not going to be "removed." El_C 02:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are all aware of that matter but it is still unnecessary to add that global map shown in different color. If 'Somaliland' is included then it's unfair to not include the disputed region in the North called Khatumo State [22]. Somalia political differences is already mentioned in the text. But that map is still incorrect because it's not highlighted with the same color. Please refer to the maps provided by the international organization and they don't make the contrast like Wikipedia. And all the federal states of Somalia have their own page. Please remove the image that was only added few months ago. Anyway many other users like Wadaad expressed their dislike and requested to have that image removed. Please let's not create more conflict. There are many readers that research and view that page, that show not be the first thing the see and create a narrative. It seems Wikipedia does not respect Somalia sovereignty and is pushing a agenda.

Regardless if "Kx155" is in good standing or not, he is biased. Please review their matters.

That global map was edited only a while ago. This is a sensitive matter.

Rather change the image to link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union_Mission_to_Somalia#/media/File:Location_Somalia_AU_Africa.svg or remove the image entirely.

Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4000:A190:AC16:FB56:A9FD:6BF2 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that does not respond to my comment. If you wish to make changes, please try to get consensus for these, here, on the article talk page. You are not going to override other editors by appealing to administrative intervention. That is unlikely to happen. Thanks and good luck. El_C 04:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)