Somalia Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomaliaWikipedia:WikiProject SomaliaTemplate:WikiProject SomaliaWikiProject Somalia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I'm not sure why Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a is listed as an "Islamist administration". My understanding is that their (at least original) motive is to protect Somalia's Sufi heritage, specifically the graves of Sufi saints. Now that they have signed a power-sharing deal with the TFG, I suppose they are part of the administration, but they are not the administration, and I'm not sure "Islamist" really describes them. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the organization is run by a bunch of militant clerics with their own army, if that isn't an "Islamist administration" I don't know what is. If the fact that they're on the TFG's side makes them something other than Islamist, what the hell does Islamist even mean? Mind you it's a nebulous and stupid term to begin with. Ingoman (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Azania proclaimed - [1] - for the Kenya bordering region. Alinor (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some sources call it Jubaland. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just saw that there is already article about it - Raskamboni movement. That leaves SSC as the only "major" administration without article. Alinor (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding [2]. The group description that contains some current and former islamist administration was titled "disputed and de facto states", but it also contained these 'administrations' so it was changed accordingly. Alinor (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that the only thing you changed? Or would you like to share the whole story? Nightw 13:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please elaborate on your accusations? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Night w, in the link I gave the changes are obvious. You complained about who is a state, that's why I discuss this. If you find other things in this edit to be wrong - please say so. Alinor (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any objections to my changes? Alinor (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The autonomy is commonly rendered as "Jubaland", and the link should go there instead of to a political organisation. SSC is not a "federative administration". And the capital and Somali names in parentheses add nothing for navigational purposes. Nightw 14:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The capitals are part of the status quo that you abruptly changed without discussion and I object their removal.

SCC movement is allied with the TFG and controls parts of eastern Somaliland. Where else do you suggest to mention it?

Jubaland is a former administration, presently on this territory there are al-Shahab (Islamic Emirate of Somalia), TFG in the northern part near the Ethiopia border (operating from Garbahare and border towns/villages such as Doolow Bay), Raskamboni movement in western part near the Kenya border (operating from Dhobley border town/village). Where else do you suggest to mention the Dhobley operation/Kenya-supported Azania state? (see section above). Alinor (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ASWJ is not a state, nor a region, so the link to states and regions is inappropriate where you placed it. Alinor (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would we randomly list capitals in a navigation box? Why would we randomly list capitals (in Somali no less, not in English) for Islamist groups but not for other administrations? Can you explain the reasoning behind your objection?

The "SCC movement" (NSU) doesn't control anything; they're a rebel organisation based in Puntland and operating in Somaliland-controlled territory. Their goal is already listed under "proposed states" in the form of Northland State. Azania (what little there is of it) can go in the top section, but the link should go to an article on the state, not an insurgent group. Nightw 12:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the status quo cities are mentioned in brackets for the islamist administartions. I don't know who added these and why. One possible reason is to show the originating cities of these islamist administrations. Maybe there are other reasons - you can ask the editors who added these capitals if you want. Anyway, I don't agree with your removal - so stop pushing for your non-consensus change - WP:BRD, WP:EP.

Once again: Can you explain the reasoning behind your objection? Why would we randomly list capitals in a navigation box? Why would we randomly list capitals (in Somali no less, not in English) for Islamist groups but not for other administrations? Nightw 16:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those cities were included in this template since its creation, and subsequent editors apparently continued that practice. Nevertheless, I don't see any reason why we should continue that practice. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Night w, if you want to delete content that was there for so long you have to initiate a discussion about your change. Stop being disruptive, your changes will be reverted. The same applies to the "states and regions" link that you apply to islamist administrations. I gave you possible reasons why these are mentioned, but you can also ask editors who contributed to this page for more. Alinor (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong: see WP:CCC. I don't need to "ask permission" from long-gone editors. If anybody here is being disruptive, it's you. You don't actually care whether this navbox lists random capitals (in another language) in parentheses, you're just being deliberately objectionable for the sake of it. Keep it up, though, it's actually fairly amusing... Nightw 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to ask permission from these specific editors - you have to get consensus for your changes. You haven't even initiated a discussion about them. I gave you one reason why mentioning these cities is useful. If you have issue with the language - change it. And I also explained to you that ASWJ is not a state/region - so the link to "states and regions" that you continue to place in front of it is wrong. Alinor (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the discussion. You're more than welcome to continue to provide arguments for their restoration. So far, you've just dodged every question I've thrown at you and insisted on me asking a long-dead editor to explain his logic. Which obviously isn't how Wikipedia works. So once again: Can you explain the reasoning behind your objection? How does listing these towns, barely known even in their English names, facilitate navigation between topical articles? Nightw 07:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, let's go step by step. Why do you place ASWJ in the group of "states/regions"? Alinor (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Northern Somali Unionist Movement controls sizable parts of eastern Somaliland (see here) and it's not a rebel organization based in Puntland.[3] Also, Northland State is a separate initiative by another group - and this initiative was abandoned when that group joined Puntland.

Currently there is no article about the Azania state, only about the insurgent group. We can create a redirect or red link. Alinor (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On your first point, no it doesn't, and whatever small territory it does control is not a "federative administration". It's covered under Northland State. Educate yourself on the subject before preaching to others about it. And I'm not reading a self-published source on the NSUM. A redlink for Azania is fine. Nightw 16:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It controls sizable territory and is related neither to Puntland nor to the already defunct idea of Northland. Not everybody who is against Somaliland is part of Puntland. So, my proposal for where to mention SCC remains. Alinor (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

..."Controls sizable territory" Where's your source??? It's an insurgent group based out of Puntland and Nairobi and it's led by northern American warlords from Columbus and Toronto. Their goal is Northland State. You've yet to disprove that. Nightw 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you looked at the Northland article? Have you looked at the War in Somalia 2009- article? You challenge the content of these articles - I only said what's shown there. About the SCC territory and affiliation you can ask Ingoman for example. Where's your source that SCC/NSUM goal is Northland? Alinor (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't need to look at the articles. Unlike you, I don't get my facts from Wikipedia. Unlike you, I don't rely on other Wikipedia editors for sources and verification. If Northland is not their goal, then it should be moved to "former administrations", since it's certainly not in effect. Nightw 07:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so where do you get 'the fact' that "SCC goal is Northland state" and "SCC doesn't control any territory" (XavierGreen and Ingoman disagree with that)? Alinor (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In order to construct consensus and resolve this dispute, I've brought up this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Somalia. Hopefully, someone will provide a third opinion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Nightw 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the meantime it seems that I will have to restore the status quo state previously to Night w and mine involvement and his edit warring. Alinor (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe you should run and tell your mummy about it. Nightw 07:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, you mock my decision not to report your 1RR breach at the noticeboard and instead to try to ask somebody to intervene in our dispute without treats of bans/etc. Alinor (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a political scientist ive followed the situation in Somaliland fairly closely. Northland state never really existed except on paper, a particular clan proposed that they form there own federative state but they never really got hold of any firmly controlled territory. SSC is a somewhat pro-puntland militant group that has controlled parts of the cayn region for sometime. Occasionally the Somalilanders will campaign in the area to try and suppress and retake the region, but shortly after the elections in somaliland most of the land in cayn reverted back to SSC control. SSC definately has some level of control over Buuhoodle and the surrounding area, but in comparison eastern sool province is really a no-mans land where puntlander, somalilander, ssc militants and clan factions fight with each other almost constantly. Any claimed control is usually fleeting and extremly week. Many of the so called states such as Azania and Ximan have little control outside of their capitals or headquarters and are largely just warlord domains controlled by a single strong man's milita. A good example of how loose governance is is simply by looking at the level of pirate activity in each "state", only in somaliland and shabab controlled areas is piracy low and that correlates with the high level of governance they have. Weaker polities such as Galmudug and Puntland have rampant piracy issues and likewise poor governance of their territory. XavierGreen (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well then given the fact that the situation is largely fluid, I'd suggest dividing the section into 2 groups: "Major administrations" and "Former administrations". Proposals and religion aren't important and by using the clarifyer "Major" we can safely avoid worrying about minor fiefdoms and khanates. Nightw 09:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thats a break down that could work. I would agree with that. Outback the koala (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the current Night w version I see two issues:

1. the link to "states and regions" is encompassing both the present/former state administrations (independent/federal sub-units) and islamist administrations. The latter are neither states nor regions, so I suggest moving the "states and regions" link to "declared states".
2. the SCC control over eastern Somaliland regions isn't mentioned neither in "administrations" (not islamist) nor in "states". Given the above discussion, the link I gave and the wikipedia articles - SCC is not related to Northland state (a formerly proposed and currently abandoned initiative) and since they are presently in control I suggest that we mention them (you can see in the history one possible arrangement I made). Alinor (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your right that SCC and Northland state movement are not related, but the fact is that SCC control over any area other than Buuhoodle and its suburbs is extremely tenuous and questionable. Even their control over Buuhoodle is somewhat murkey, there are sources that state that Somaliland retook control of the area around the time of their presidential elections, but sources regarding the area are somewhat scant.XavierGreen (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nugalawi, can you explain why you reverted my edits?

Read these references:

• http://somalireview.com/2016/10/somalias-regional-states-submit-upper-house-nominations/
• http://www.garoweonline.com/en/news/somalia/somalia-new-president-elected-for-hir-shabelle-state

It is clear that Somalia government officially defines 6 states in Somalia and that name of one new state is Hir-Shabelle. It is also clear that Awdalland and Khatumo are officially not recognized, aside the fact Awdalland even do not exist - it is just political proposal. 109.121.17.87 (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]