Talk:Al-Shabaab (militant group)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Australia? opponent?

The listing of the group as a terrorist organization does not mean we are at war with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.152.189 (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The previous name..

..had no sources at all. The only google result was this wikipedia article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Grassroots? Don't think so.

This is not a "grassroots" movement in the typical sense of a community organization passing petitions to get a new park authorized by the city council. Let's not use euphemisms when there are mortar attacks in Mogadishu leaving dozens dead or wounded, alright? --Petercorless 10:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions

Also as this page evolves, be careful not to make too many assumptions that the insurgency attackers are always Islamist. A Somali in Mogadishu does not have to be an Islamist supporter to be hostile to the Ethiopian presence. And there are one or two clan warlords and their supporters not averse to promoting instability in the city. Maghreb (talk · contribs) 16:24, 22 February 2007

That is 100% correct. There are many different reasons for the violence in Somalia, from individual warlords pursuing their own agendas, to banditry on the part of various individuals, including, allegedly, members of the military. The Islamists are a factor in amongst that, and should not be discounted, but not all violence is due to Islamists. It is very similar to the present situation in Iraq, where Al Qaeda is held up as the cause celebre for the violence, but is only one of the many factors involved in the sectarian and ethnic violence. Even so, I would not call the PRM nor Al Qaeda in Iraq "grassroots" movements. They don't seem to be doing door-to-door solicitation, phone banking, house parties, or gathering signatures on petitions. Underground movements are more appropriate. --Petercorless 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence

Moved the following sentence until someone can find a source:

Members earned a salary of $70 a month, paid for by their leader, Aden Hashi Farah "Eyrow" (or Ayro).

Some apparent sources out there seem to have been taken directly from the wikipedia article itself so please confirm the validity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.125.253 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information

The Current leader of the Harakah Al-Mujahideen Al-Shabaab is Sheikh Mukhtar Abu Zubeyr, and, as far as I know, has always been him. Aden Hashi Ayro (Abu Muhsin Al-Ansari), was a founding member and high-ranking commander, but NOT the leader of the group, and Sheikh Mukhtar Robow is not the leader now either. He is the spokesman and Amir of the Bay-Bakool regions in central Somalia. I think that this should be changed. The Al-Shabaab statement released after Ayro's death attests to all of this, and there was a speech recently released by Mukhtar Abu Zubeyr which labels him 'Leader of the Organization'.

Sa'ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.220.26 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite in progress if anyone wants to help

I am undertaking a cleanup of this article. I am keeping most text and references as they are, just adding new headings and tidying things up. If you wish to assist then visit my sandbox. I should be done by the end of the month. Suggestions welcome. - Damian Doyle (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• This rewrite has been delayed but will take place soon. - Damian Doyle (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Al-Shabaab's flag/logo

According to Al-Shabaab's website, their logo looks like this. Should the flag displayed on this article be removed? - Damian Doyle (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the flag in the article the correct one? The name of the file says it is "Somalia_Islamic_Courts_Flag.svg‎". This is not Al Shabaab. Should the flag be changed/removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.48.135 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Somalia’s Shabaab al-Mujahideen

Is this the same group? http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4935

http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/report.htm?report=3014&param=AJT --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Police Raids in Melbourne, Australia

On the morning of August 4th, 2009, (4:30 am) 400 police from Victoria, New South Wales and Australian Federal Police raided 19 houses across Melbourne. They arrested two Somalian-decendants and two Lebanese-decendants (all four are now Australian citizens), two of whom have recently visited Somalia. The police claim they were going to attack an Army Base in Sydney and have links to the Al-Shabaab group. A Reporter also stated that the raids were leaked to the media and was released in The Australian Newspaper around 1:30 am. Adamdaley (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On NBN (Channel 9) News at 6:00 pm - August 4th, 2009 - stated that the Holsworthy Barracks was the target of this attack. Adamdaley (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

Am going to rewrite the article. The lead is too long, and there's no history. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the result. Lead is shortened, sections have been added and material added. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Move request

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen → Al-Shabaab — Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen is the formal, complete name that is almost never used in coverage of this group. Note that every single title in the references section uses "Al-Shabaab" or a variant spelling. al-Shabaab already redirects here, since it was the initial location of the article. BanyanTree 07:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to more common and widely used name. I personally have never heard the long form used, but the short form is instantly recognizeable.Erudy (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Iranian support claim highly questionable given rest of text

At a few places, Iran is listed as one of 3 state supporters (libya, egypt, Iran). However, Iran is Shi'ite and also has a history of aiding extremist groups with quite specific geopolitical agendas that advance core Iranian national interests within the Middle East region. Moreover, when individual leaders, activists, financiers, managers, and supporters are mentioned further down, they are all Pakistani, Yemeni, Egyptian, or Saudi -- or, more generically, Al-Qaeda. And in this regard, Iran is an adversary of Arab, Sunni states (and vice-versa).

Thus, in short, this article shows signs of doing what all media outlets are doing, which is throwing Iran into the bucket even when all other evidence (and article text) points toward fundamentalist Sunni sects (Deobandi, Salafi, Wahhabi) associated loosely with Arab Sunni-dominated countries or societies. This reflects the US (Washington) policy debate but does not necessarily reflect empirical reality.

More to the point, it is entirely too easy to throw out the words "libya" and "iran" when they are still either state adversaries or are in a grey area (libya), while it is hard to use the word "Saudi," given that they are the world's foremost oil producer, the leader in OPEC, and listed and treated as a close US ally. This was true as well in articles on Iraq, 2003 to present, when IEDs were almost uniformly blamed on Iran but in fact empirical evidence often pointed toward Saudi extremists crossing the Saudi border into Iraq, and indeed, Petraeus' war during the surge was all about Sunni Arabs in Al-Anbar province killing, arresting, and kicking out fundamentalist Sunni transnational terrorists, not Iranian Shi'ite terrorists.

Michael Kraig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.60.240.80 (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The point may be moot, as the claim being made has no reference cited. The two citations that follow a sentence later have to do with Egyptian water and contain no reference to support from Iran (the only reference to Iran at all is in a wholly different context). So while I'd say you should back up your assertions with sources, the current text is also not backed up and should be removed. Can we get either a source on it, or a consensus to remove?Jbower47 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ties to Somaliland

Hi,

I'm not the anonymous editor who has been blanking this section, although I have some sympathy with him/her. It seems to be entirely sourced from Puntland media, often quoting Puntland government sources. These can't be considered reliable, given the ongoing disputes between the two regions. It also ignores the fact that the Somaliland government has completely denied the claims, and that al-Shabaab attacked Somaliland, including the Presidential Palace, in 2008 - 2008 Hargeisa–Bosaso bombings.

I think this section needs to be radically rewritten at the very least. --Copper button 20:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Garowe Online is not "Puntland media". It is independent Somali media based in the Puntland region, just as many other Somali media organizations are based and broadcast/publish from abroad. The only region in Somalia that does not allow independent press to operate within its territory is the secessionist Somaliland region in the northwest [1]. Also, this news outlet is hardly the only source that has pointed out Somaliland's ties with Al-Shabaab (ties which have primarily strengthened under the new Somaliland administration, well after the Hargeisa bombings of almost three years ago); it is just the latest (e.g. [2]). Middayexpress (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that Garowe Online is not state-controlled but it is still "Puntland media" in the way that Le Monde is "French media" or Der Spiegel is "German media." The other article you quote was written just as Silanyo was elected and states that Somaliland had previously been hostile to al-Shabaab but predicts that this would change. It doesn't support the current state of the article. --Copper button 18:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article (which is tellingly titled "Somaliland Predictions Bearing Out: al-Shabaab Terrorist Group Empowered; Ethiopia May React" [3]) was published almost a month after the election of the Silanyo administration. It also states, among other things, the following in reference to the Somaliland region's new Minister of Interior/Defense:

"Dr Mohamed Abdi Gaboose, a radical Islamist and longtime associate of the new President, was named Minister of Interior and Domestic Affairs. He is a member of the Yunis sub-clan of the Isaaq, and, as noted by Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis of July 14, 2010, has strong personal connections with al-Shabaab. His new position places him in direct control of internal security and intelligence, and thus overcomes all of the efforts of the previous Government to work with the Western states against al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups, such as al-Shabaab.".

So yes, I'm afraid it most certainly supports Somaliland's increasing ties with Al-Shabaab; here's another from the International Strategic Studies Association. Middayexpress (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The section you quote states that a Somaliland cabinet member (appointed a few days before) has personal ties to al-Shabaab. It doesn't say that Somaliland is in any way linked to al-Shabaab. The second article you cite is even vaguer - it simply predicts that cooperation with al-Shabaab will become routine. It's interesting to note that several of the other predictions (Somaliland will impose a harsh form of Sharia law, will sever ties with Ethiopia) have not come true. More recent news suggests that Somaliland is taking a hard line against al-Shabaab, for example recently arresting a bunch of al-Shabaab fighters [4]. I think the current section should be limited to a single sentence, listing Puntland's claims and Somaliland's denials. --Copper button 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The section won't be censored to a single sentence because the allegations surrounding Somaliland's ties to Al-Shabaab run much deeper than that. The Somaliland administration's reaction to Puntland's charges can be mentioned, but Puntland's charges won't be muffled because they are notable. Further, the article you produced above refers to the recent raid that Somaliland authorities made after foreign authorities in the region noticed terrorist elements there, not before ("Somalia: Somaliland silent as 'foreign soldiers' help capture terrorists" [5]). The term "Somaliland ties" likewise obviously refers to links that people within the Somaliland administration have with Al-Shabaab, not the landmass itself. And that unfortunately includes none other than the Minister of Interior/Defense -- the person who is actually in charge of the armed forces in the region -- according to that article by the International Strategic Studies Association (that is why it is titled "Somaliland Predictions Bearing Out: al-Shabaab Terrorist Group Empowered; Ethiopia May React" [6]). Remember, Puntland's intelligence agency, which is trained by U.S. security authorities, alleges that several actual Somaliland soldiers participated in the Galgala campaign and a couple of them died too; this is how they were able to identify them as such, going so far as to actually name one of them. With an Interior Minister/boss that's an Islamist according to the ISSA, that does not at all sound implausible:

"Dr Mohamed Abdi Gaboose, a radical Islamist and longtime associate of the new President, was named Minister of Interior and Domestic Affairs. He is a member of the Yunis sub-clan of the Isaaq, and, as noted by Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis of July 14, 2010, has strong personal connections with al-Shabaab. His new position places him in direct control of internal security and intelligence, and thus overcomes all of the efforts of the previous Government to work with the Western states against al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups, such as al-Shabaab."

Similarly, according to the second article by the ISSA [7], Somaliland's new president himself is tied to Islamists ("the pan-Somalist, radical Islamist Kulmiye party candidate, Ahmed Mohamed Silanyo") and Al-Shabaab itself was involved in the change in leadership in Somaliland following this past summer's elections:

"The Pan-Somalists and al-Shabaab and others involved in the change in Somaliland are themselves openly and strenuously hostile to Ethiopia, which had militarily supported the Somaliland Government and had also put troops into Somalia — including into the Somalian capital (and former capital of Italian Somaliland), Mogadishu, to fight the Islamists, including al-Shabaab"

As a former leader of the Somali National Movement rebel group (whose followers refer to them as "Mujahidiin", just like what Al-Shabaab call themselves [8]), this is likewise within the realm of plausibility. But none of this really matters anyway since, per WP:VER, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Middayexpress (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a long response, but you haven't introduced much new information. Your argument still rests on the following:

• A member of the Somaliland cabinet reportedly had personal ties to al-Shabaab prior to being elected.
• Puntland claims that Somaliland has ties to al-Shabaab.
• Conflating Islamism (a very broad movement) with al-Shabaab.

I'm aware of Wikipedia's policies. The one you don't mention is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I could quote at length, but "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" just about covers it. This has nothing to do with censorship. It's about fairly reflecting what the reliable sources say.

I don't think we're likely to reach agreement through this discussion, so I have a suggestion: I'll make an edit to the article, you can have a look at it, make further changes and we can work from there. Does that sound reasonable? --Copper button 22:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Both the Puntland administration and the International Strategic Studies Association unambiguously indicate that the Somaliland adminisration has strong ties with the Al-Shabaab militants (that's in the present tense -- both ISSA articles were published after the election of the new Somaliland administration). The only group or polity contesting this is the Somaliland administration itself, so that quote above from WP:NPOV is beside the point. This discussion is going in circles, so I will query shortly on RS/N as to whether or not the sources in question are reliable. Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have explained this poorly. There is a world of difference between the oilprice.com article stating that a Somaliland cabinet member has personal ties to al-Shabaab and the Puntland claims that the Somaliland authorities are directly supporting and collaborating with al-Shabaab. Anyway, how does my recent edit look? --Copper button 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The "oil price article" unfortunately is also from the International Strategic Studies Association ([9], [10]); it was just re-published on the oilprice website, among others. And it, of course, is quite unambiguous about the Somaliland administration's ties with Al-Shabaab, particularly its Minister of Interior:

"Dr Mohamed Abdi Gaboose, a radical Islamist and longtime associate of the new President, was named Minister of Interior and Domestic Affairs. He is a member of the Yunis sub-clan of the Isaaq, and, as noted by Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis of July 14, 2010, has strong personal connections with al-Shabaab. His new position places him in direct control of internal security and intelligence, and thus overcomes all of the efforts of the previous Government to work with the Western states against al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups, such as al-Shabaab."

The sources you removed have been restored until the admins I shall contact shortly respond as to whether or not they are reliable. Removing them is also pretty pointless since many other sources (including Reuters [11]) have covered Puntland's charges as well as Somaliland's response; it is therefore already notable. At any rate, kindly do not again remove or alter the material until the issue is resolved. Middayexpress (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The Somaliland region's ties with Al-Shabaab are not "external support"; that would be Eritrea. Somaliland's links constitute internal support. Middayexpress (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I explained that my problem is with Neutral point of view. I have no problem with the Puntland sources being used to say "Puntland claims that Somaliland has links to al-Shabaab". I used them like this in my version. I object to them being used to state that "Somaliland has links to al-Shabaab", as done in the original verison. "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", as I quoted before.

The current version of the article is better than the original but still has major problems.

• The Somaliland section is about three times longer than the Eritrea section, despite there being UN sanctions against Eritrea over the issue while the Somaliland section is almost entirely based on six months of material. The unqualified listing of Somaliland as an ally of al-Shabaab also needs to be changed. Wikipedia:Undue weight.
• It essentially paraphrases every relevant piece of information from every source. This is far too much detail for an article covering the whole of al-Shabaab. An encyclopedia article should summarise what the sources say, rather than repeat it.

Would you like to have a go at writing something we can both agree on or would you like to explain what you didn't like about my version and I'll have a go? --Copper button 11:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained above what was wrong with your edit (omitting key information), and fixed it too. The only phrases in the article that could be construed as coming directly from a Puntland-based media source (rather than simply reporting Puntland's charges) are the ones that reference Garowe Online's special report on Atom [12]: "Garowe Online reported in October that Mohamed Said Atom, an arms-smuggler believed to be allied with Al-Shabaab and who is on U.S. and U.N. security watch-lists, was hiding out in Somaliland after being pursued by the neighboring Puntland region's authorities for his role in targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots... Several of Atom's followers were also reportedly receiving medical attention in the region". Note that those phrases just state that Atom and his men were hiding out/receiving treatment in Somaliland, not that the Somaliland authorities actually provided them with a safe haven as Puntland alleges. And Garowe Online, again, is an independent news organization. It even publishes op-ed pieces from supporters of Somaliland's secession (e.g. [13]), so it cannot be accused of bias. Again, the only region in Somalia that does not allow independent media (nevermind pro-unity op-ed pieces) is the Somaliland region itself [14]. The Somaliland section is also longer than the Eritrea section because the region has a much longer history of involvement in the conflict in southern Somalia (this is not to say that the Eritrea section cannot be expanded; I'm sure it can). Including Somaliland alongside Eritrea in the infobox area that lists the groups/polities allied with or who have lent support to Al-Shabaab is also not placing undue weight since Somaliland's administration (at the highest levels, no less) has expressly been accused of such involvement by both Puntland authorities and the International Strategic Studies Association. Had it been just the Puntland administration that was accusing Somaliland, then yes, I would agree that adding Somaliland to the infobox would be a bit excessive.

Let's keep things in perspective here:

• Puntland has officially accused Somaliland of having strong ties with Al-Shabaab. This has been covered by all sorts of media, including Reuters.
• Somaliland has officially denied Puntland's charges. This too have been widely covered, including by Somaliland media.
• The ISSA has likewise accused Somaliland's administration of direct involvement with Al-Shabaab, including the region's President, its ruling political party and Interior Minister. This is no different to the ICG accusing Eritrea of having ties with Al-Shabaab, which has also been noted.
• Many of the Al-Shabaab group's top commanders hail from the Somaliland region's dominant, ruling clan. This includes both the former and current head of the organization, a fact that has also been covered by numerous sources.
• Somaliland's own, non-independent media (Hatuuf) has reported that a representative of Atom's has sought direct military assistance from the region. This too is notable.

Attempting to omit and/or limit parts of the above smacks of censorship. I have contacted an admin that regularly posts on RS/N about whether or not the disputed Garowe Online special report is a reliable source for the phrases cited above as to the whereabouts of Atom and his men. I ask you again to kindly not remove or alter the material until the gentleman responds and the issue is resolved. Middayexpress (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let me clarify a few things, to save you rebutting arguments I haven't made in the future. I have no problem with the Garowe Online article you quote being used as a source for Atom's men fleeing to Somaliland. I have never claimed otherwise. I have no problems with using Garowe Online and other sources to report on the Puntland Government's claims, provided they are identified as such.

My problem is with giving undue weight to the Puntland Government's claims, given the ongoing disputes between the two. (I am equally sceptical about Somaliland's claims that Puntland is supporting Shabaab-linked fighters, incidentally. [15])

My edit summarised this section as "In late 2010, the neighbouring region of Puntland claimed that Somaliland was supporting and shielding Shabaab-linked fighters."

Your response was to remove everything I had added and tell me I was wrong. Would you like to have a go at building some consensus? I haven't reverted you at all, I'm not trying to censor anything, I'm just trying to write a NPOV encylopedia article.

Regaridng your other points, I must again quote "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". I think that the fact that Somaliland completely denies the claims means they are seriously contested and listing Somaliland as a supporter of al-Shabaab with no qualification is stating it as fact. I respect your opinion, but this is pretty cut and dry.

The (uncontested) fact that some al-Shabaab leaders come from Somaliland is covered elsewhere in the article and not relevant in a section entitled "Support allegations". I'll leave off discussing the ISSA until we've managed to sort this out. --Copper button 23:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As can clearly be seen in this dif, your edit removed and/or significantly understated large bits of information tying the Somaliland administration with the Al-Shabaab rebels. My edit [16] expanded your edit, practically doubling the Eritrea section, mentioning in detail what the Somaliland authorities suggested is the reason behind Puntland's accusations, and actually quoting the ISSA's specific charges vis-a-vis Somaliland's president, ruling party and Interior Minister (not just what those ties might hold in store in the future, as your edit suggested).

Moving on, neither Somaliland nor any other polity or organization has issued statements accusing Puntland of supporting Al-Shabaab or of being in any way linked with the group. It's the writer of that Somalilandpress article you linked to [17] -- one "Dalmar Kahin", an open advocate of Somaliland's secession [18] -- who personally attempts to tie Puntland with Al-Shabaab via the SSC rebels ("But few knew that Puntland authority might be arming this Alshabab-affiliated rebel group, known as PSS (SSC/NSUM), and local clans to attack Somaliland security forces"). It is not the Somaliland administration or any other polity or organization that does this. There is likewise no polity or organization that links the SSC rebels themselves with Al-Shabaab (unlike the ICG, which ties Eritrea with Al-Shabaab & the ISSA, which ties Somaliland with the same group), so that whole argument is beside the point. In making this claim, this Kahin fellow also contradicts something he stated in another recent article of his [19] which he links to in that piece to the effect that the "Puntland authority views the PSS (SSC) group as a threat to the region's stability".

Your citing WP:NPOV's statement to "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" is also, again, out-of-place since that only applies to statements that "are stated in Wikipedia's voice" rather than "attributed in the text to particular sources". As can clearly be seen in the text, all of Puntland's claims are attributed directly to Puntland, Somaliland's to Somaliland, the ISSA's to the ISSA, Garowe Online's to Garowe Online, and Godane's to Godane. They are never made in "Wikipedia's voice", but specifically in the format that that policy itself recommends.

Your suggestion that Puntland's claims are given undue weight is also unfortunately mistaken because, as already pointed out, plenty of reliable sources (including Reuters) cover Puntland's charges, and per that same policy, "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public".

Your suggestion that the fact that several Al-Shabaab leaders come from Somaliland is not relevant to the "Support allegations" section is also something of an understatement since, along with foreign commanders, these men occupy several of the highest positions in the organization, including both the former and current leadership spots. These commanders also hail from the Somaliland region's dominant clan -- the same clan that constitutes over 70% of the current Somaliland administration, including all of the important ministerial positions and the presidency (c.f. [20]). At any rate, I don't have a problem moving this passage to the earlier Leadership section; it probably should've already been there in the first place.

Now that you have hinted that the ISSA might also be a problem -- although you yourself first added the source to the article [21] -- I have posted an additional query asking whether or not it is a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. As always, kindly do not remove or alter the material until the gentleman has had a chance to respond and the issue is resolved. Middayexpress (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if this wasn't clear, but I mentioned "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" in the context of listing Somaliland as an ally of al-Shabab with no qualification in the infobox. What is this, if not stating the assertion "in Wikipedia's voice"?

I have no problem with including Puntland's claims. I included them in my version. I agree that they are both verifiable and notable. I do have a problem with paraphrasing everything that has been written about them at great length. An encyclopedia article should summarise what the sources say, drawing out the key points, rather than repeating it line by line.

Read some featured articles - July 2009 Ürümqi riots deals well with a somewhat controversial topic. For example: "the World Uyghur Congress quickly issued press releases saying that the police had used deadly force and killed "scores" of protesters." It briefly conveys the key points. It doesn't duplicate everything in the press releases, which is what this section currently does.

This is what I tried to achieve with my edit. If you think I omitted too much information, that's fine. I think your version is too wordy. Would you like to try and write something we can both be happy with?

Finally, I let this go last time, but I don't appreciate being told that you're the only one who is allowed to alter the content of the article. I don't currently plan to edit the article (I think everything I've said and done so far proves that I'm trying to build consensus on the talk page amicably) but saying "kindly do not remove or alter the material" isn't really fair, is it? --Copper button 00:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if this wasn't clear, but I mentioned "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" in the context of listing Somaliland as an ally of al-Shabab with no qualification in the infobox. What is this, if not stating the assertion "in Wikipedia's voice"?

It wasn't at all clear that you were referring strictly to the infobox since you didn't mention it specifically. At any rate, I see your point here, so I've removed both Eritrea & Somaliland from the infobox (since both polities contest their putative involvement). Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with including Puntland's claims. I included them in my version. I agree that they are both verifiable and notable. I do have a problem with paraphrasing everything that has been written about them at great length. An encyclopedia article should summarise what the sources say, drawing out the key points, rather than repeating it line by line.

Read some featured articles - July 2009 Ürümqi riots deals well with a somewhat controversial topic. For example: "the World Uyghur Congress quickly issued press releases saying that the police had used deadly force and killed "scores" of protesters." It briefly conveys the key points. It doesn't duplicate everything in the press releases, which is what this section currently does.

This is what I tried to achieve with my edit. If you think I omitted too much information, that's fine. I think your version is too wordy. Would you like to try and write something we can both be happy with?

Actually, your edit omitted pretty much all of Puntland's charges (as shown above), and that's precisely the problem. Puntland's charges are very lengthy -- much longer than that one press release [22], only one sentence of which is devoted to it in this article ("the Puntland government issued a press release accusing the incumbent Somaliland administration of providing a safe haven for Atom and of attempting to revive remnants of his militia") -- and actually span several years over various publications and press releases. The handful of sentences in this article that summarize these charges don't even scratch the surface, so it's a bit of a stretch to describe them as undue (which is what you appear to doing again; please refer to my comment above about why the passages are by definition not undue). Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I let this go last time, but I don't appreciate being told that you're the only one who is allowed to alter the content of the article. I don't currently plan to edit the article (I think everything I've said and done so far proves that I'm trying to build consensus on the talk page amicably) but saying "kindly do not remove or alter the material" isn't really fair, is it?

You were never told that I was the only one allowed to alter the content, so there's no point in insisting that I said that. The fact is, you specifically complained about material that pertained to leadership/command of the group being quoted in the Support allegations section ("The (uncontested) fact that some al-Shabaab leaders come from Somaliland is covered elsewhere in the article and not relevant in a section entitled "Support allegations""). As I explained in my previous post, I tried to accommodate your concerns by moving [23] the material to the relevant Leadership area since it actually wasn't cited anywhere in the article ("I don't have a problem moving this passage to the earlier Leadership section; it probably should've already been there in the first place"), so you cannot now accuse me of being unreasonable. At any rate, I agree that we should try and work together to sort this out. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for editing the infobox. While we're on the subject, is there any reason why it shows flag for al-Qaeda in Iraq, rather than simply al-Qaeda?

I must have inferred that you considered yourself allowed to edit the article. Still, on three occasions you instructed me not to edit it, which is what bothered me.

I know that you were unhappy that I omitted most of the specifics of Puntland's charges. I think that the current version is overlong and not written in an encyclopedic style. Would you like to draft a version we might both be happy with or shall I? Or can you see another way forward? --Copper button 19:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand how Wikipedia works. Per WP:VER, it does not matter whether or not you are comfortable with particular material in the article as long as that material is from a reliable source: "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.". It has already been demonstrated that the material in question is from reliable sources, so attempting to remove it as you have done is tantamount to censorship. Middayexpress (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to put your mind at rest. The policy states that everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable, not that everything that is verifiable must be in Wikipedia. Can you imagine if that were actually the case? We would be forced to include even the most irrelevant details if there was a reliable source for them.

But that isn't really the issue. I don't object to any of the core facts appearing in the article but, as I said last time, "I think that the current version is overlong and not written in an encyclopedic style". This section clearly looks nothing like the featured article I linked to. Are you interested in improving it? --Copper button 21:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I got you the first time you stated your position. As pointed out, however, that is all opinion (viz. "I think that the current version is overlong and not written in an encyclopedic style"), not actual Wiki policy. And Wikipedia's best practices unfortunately aren't determined by editors' opinions or select featured articles but by its actual policies, several of which have been quoted above. Even if this weren't the case, your claim that the paragraph pretty much repeats the entire Puntland press release [24] is still inaccurate since, in reality, only one sentence in the paragraph is earmarked to summarize Puntland's entire press release ("the Puntland government issued a press release accusing the incumbent Somaliland administration of providing a safe haven for Atom and of attempting to revive remnants of his militia"). Similarly, only two other sentences were devoted to Puntland's charges -- one explaining why the region believes Somaliland is supporting Al-Shabaab, just as it is indicated why the Somaliland administration believes Puntland is accusing it of supporting the group -- nevermind the fact that said charges actually span several years and over various publications and press releases. Bottom line, there is no such Wiki policy as WP:OVERLONG; and even if there were, this paragraph still wouldn't breach it. There are, however, policies such as WP:NOTCENSOR, which seems particularly relevant here. Middayexpress (talk)

I've tried to explain this a couple of times before, but I'm really not trying to censor anything. I think the bit about Somaliland's rebuttal needs to be shortened just as much as the initial claims. I have no ties to Somaliland or Puntland and am not interested in promoting either cause. I'm just trying to write an encyclopedia article. I'm sure you're equally dispassionate so how about we assume some good faith and try to build consensus? --Copper button 20:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to believe your statements above, but it's a bit difficult to do that given the fact that you have cited pro-secessionist material as authoritative (viz. that "Dalmar Kahin" article above) and have repeatedly complained about and, at one point, even removed almost all of Puntland's charges. Whatever the case, you have not presented valid arguments to justify the removal of the material in question, and the consensus process only pertains to legitimate concerns that are in line with Wikipedia's policies: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus aligned with Wikipedia's principles." Indicating that you are just trying to write an encyclopedia is not a valid reason for removing sourced material; only Wikipedia's actual policies determine the website's best practices, not editors' personal assurances/claims: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia". You already indicated that you felt that the Puntland material was too long, when in reality, it is only three sentences long -- nevermind the fact that said charges actually span several years and over various publications and press releases. And even if this had not been the case, it wouldn't really matter either way since there is no such policy as WP:OVERLONG (which the sentences wouldn't breach anyway). Similarly, per WP:NOTCENSOR, ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content". WP:VER is likewise clear that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Since the material in question is from reliable sources and given the forgoing, there is still no legitimate reason to attempt to remove/censor it. Middayexpress (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to re-read my comments. I didn't say that the Dalmar Kahin article was authoritative. Quite the reverse, actually. I said I was sceptical when I referenced it in passing, ironically in an attempt to point out that I wasn't partial to either side.

As I have previously explained, my edit attempted to summarise a section of text. I think this was quite obviously a good faith edit and perfectly normal activity for a Wikipedia editor.

Regarding the policies you quote, I'm not trying to shorten this material because it's objectionable or because it's not verifiable so they aren't relevant. I'm trying to shorten it because I think it can be written better.

Since you seem so unwilling to propose a compromise, I'll try myself. I'd say that the key facts in the Puntland section are these:

• Atom & followers hiding out/receiving medical attention in Somaliland
• Somaliland soldiers fighting with Atom
• Somaliland accused of providing a safe haven
• Financial and military assistance in 2006
• Somaliland denies charges
• Atom denies links to al-Shabaab
• Atom requests help from Somaliland

I think these can be fairly summarised as follows:

In January 2011, Puntland accused Somaliland of providing a safe haven for Mohamed Said Atom, an arms smuggler believed to be allied with al-Shabaab. The Somaliland authorities strenuously denied the charges, claiming that they were a smokescreen to divert attention from Puntland's own activities.

Atom and his followers were reportedly hiding out and receiving medical attention in Somaliland after being pursued by Puntland forces in late 2010. The Puntland Intelligence Agency also claimed that over 70 salaried Somaliland soldiers had fought alongside Atom's militiamen, including one known Somaliland intelligence official who died in the ensuing battle. In January Atom's representative requested military assistance from Somaliland, while denying that he was linked to al-Shabaab.

Puntland also claimed that Somaliland had offered financial and military assistance to Atom in 2006 as part of an ongoing dispute with Puntland.

This is roughly half the length of the current version but I don't think it omits any important details. If you don't like it I'd really appreciate specific feedback, particularly on what else needs to be included. --Copper button 19:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As repeatedly explained via actual difs, your initial edit omitted pretty much all of Puntland's charges. Your paragraph above this time omits all of the International Strategic Studies Association's charges, which is the main reason why it is much smaller than the existing paragraph on Somaliland's alleged ties with the group. Another reason why it is shorter is because you also omitted key details, such as the fact that Puntland's intelligence agency that accused Somaliland troops of fighting alongside Atom's men is actually trained by U.S. intelligence. You also seriously understated why Puntland believes Somaliland is backing the rebels: Puntland believes it is part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents and to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province, not simply "as part of an ongoing dispute with Puntland". That's not even including the fact that your paragraph completely omits just what exactly Atom is accused of having done in Puntland: he is wanted for targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots. I don't know why I even bothered pointing out these things. This is the second time now you have attempted to remove material, and without even so much as having first established any legitimate reason for doing so. This is unacceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, this was a summary of the Puntland section. My version is half the length of the Puntland section in the article. I'm deliberately addressing one issue at a time to make discussion simpler. Your specific objections:

• I don't see how the fact that the PIA is trained by the US is relevant to an article on al-Shabaab. This seems a tangential detail.
• I'm in two minds on your second point. I think my version was a reasonable summary but I can see that it could be phrased more strongly. What do you think of: "...assistance to Atom in 2006 to destabilize Puntland as part of an ongoing territorial dispute"? I think that makes it clear that Atom was used as a proxy and that Somaliland wanted to occupy a disputed province.
• Surely it's enough to state that Atom is believed to be linked to al-Shabab? This section is about Somaliland's ties to al-Shabaab. If Somaliland is linked to Atom and Atom is linked to al-Shabaab then the details of Atom's activities in Puntland are irrelevant.

As always, I'd welcome your thoughts. --Copper button 21:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough in my previous posts. What is or is not admissible on Wikipedia is not determined by an editor's opinions but by Wikipedia's policies only. That means that attempting to water-down Puntland's accusations vis-a-vis Somaliland's motives to a vague "ongoing dispute"/"ongoing territorial dispute" (when it's really about Somaliland allegedly attempting to destabilize Puntland to promote its secessionist agenda) or neglecting to mention the specific crimes that Atom is accused of (when most of the article is devoted to Al-Shabaab's many crimes) will never wash. That also means that your assertions that the fact that Puntland's intelligence agency was actually trained by US intelligence is a "tangential" detail -- something which is absurd to begin with since it is specifically cited in Garowe Online's editorial [25] on Atom's and Al-Shabaab's ties with Somaliland -- do not matter. Per WP:VER "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". Middayexpress (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that no-one is allowed to remove anything that is mentioned in a source, however irrelevant it may be to the subject of an article. I've previously explained that Wikipedia:Verifiability says that material that cannot be verified must be removed. It doesn't say that everything that is verifiable must stay in the article. Which policy do you think applies here?

If most of this article is devoted to al-Shabaab's crimes then that's because the article is about al-Shabaab. The details of Atom's activities don't affect al-Shabaab's links to Somaliland. And you haven't explained why you think the PIA being US-trained is relevant. You could write articles about Atom and the PIA if you wanted to include this information somewhere else.

Regarding your other point, my suggestion included "destabilize Puntland". I'm not keen on "promote its secessionist agenda", though. This seems to be unnecessarily emotive language for an encyclopedia. I look forward to your response. --Copper button 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does not state that Somaliland is looking to destabilize Puntland to promote its secessionist agenda (though it easily could, given the many reliable sources that indicate precisely this; e.g. [26] "Puntland government documents obtained by Garowe Online dating back to 2006 indicate that Somaliland's administration supported Atom's militia in Galgala area as a way to open a war front against Puntland. The idea was quite simple: with Mogadishu at war, it was only the stability of Puntland that threatened to break apart Somaliland's grand lie of saying: "Somaliland is peaceful while Somalia burns"); so your argument on "emotive language" is beside the point. It has also already been explained why your other argument that the fact that Puntland's intelligence agency is trained by the US is irrelevant to Somaliland's ties with Al-Shabaab is invalid: this training is specifically cited in Garowe Online's editorial [27] on Atom's and Al-Shabaab's ties with Somaliland; WP:IRRELEVANT likewise defines irrelevant material as "information that clearly has no relevance to the subject named in the article should be removed" such as "if in the article tiger you find one or more paragraphs about light bulbs, and there is no explanation from the text why this is there". Further, your claim that "the details of Atom's activities don't affect al-Shabaab's links to Somaliland" is, with all due respect, absurd, since Atom himself personally declared a few months back that he and his men "are members of the Shabab" [28] (though he later back-tracked on this when Puntland began cracking down on his militia) and since he has been identified as an Al-Shabaab operative by the UN [29]. Lastly, your claim that I suggested that "no-one is allowed to remove anything that is mentioned in a source, however irrelevant it may be to the subject of an article" is a strawman argument; I unfortunately never stated that. What I did do was quote for you WP:VER's very first sentence explaining what is the threshold for inclusion of material on Wikipedia: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". The materials are from reliable sources; ergo, they meet the threshold for inclusion whether or not one personally believes the material to be true. Your entire argument rests on non-existent Wikipedia policy constraints regarding content removal, when in reality, per WP:CRV, valid reasons for removing content are limited to the following points:

• Unsourced information -- the material is sourced, so nothing doing here
• Inaccurate information -- only applies to "information that is surely inaccurate beyond a reasonable doubt", which the material in question likewise does not fall under
• Information moved to another article -- not applicable
• Irrelevant information -- as defined earlier, it refers only to "information that clearly has no relevance to the subject named in the article should be removed" such as "if in the article tiger you find one or more paragraphs about light bulbs, and there is no explanation from the text why this is there"; that is what irrelevant material is on Wikipedia
• Inappropriate content for Wikipedia -- refers specifically to things like personal opinions, promotional or derogatory material, inappropriate external links and vandalism, none of which the material in question falls under either.

That's all of the valid reasons for removing material, none of which unfortunately apply to the present text. This is why it always comes back down to censorship concerns. Middayexpress (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The section is about al-Shabaab's links to Somaliland. If Somaliland is linked to Atom and Atom is linked to al-Shabaab then Somaliland is linked to al-Shabaab. This is true whether Atom has carried out multiple successful attacks in Puntland or if he's never been there. You haven't explained how these details affect

I apologise If I did not correctly characterise your argument, but you seem to be saying that this article must refer to the PIA being US-trained because it is in one of the sources. You haven't explained what this piece of information tells the reader about al-Shabaab. This seemed pretty close to "no-one is allowed to remove anything that is mentioned in a source, however irrelevant it may be to the subject of an article" but if I have missed some subtlety then I'm very sorry.

As I explained to you, Wikipedia:Verifiability does not prevent verifiable information being removed from Wikipedia. You haven't disagreed but you continue to quote it in support of the same point.

Wikipedia:Content removal says that the five reasons you quote are valid. It doesn't say that no content can be removed under any other circumstances. In this case, I'm trying improve the article by tightening the focus, and making the prose more readable. --Copper button 19:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Atom is linked directly to both Al-Shabaab and Somaliland, and Somaliland is linked directly to the group by the ISSA. As clearly explained above, Wikipedia:Content removal -- Wikipedia's page exclusively devoted to the topic -- also lists the specific reasons that are recognized as valid for removing contect. It does this in its eponymous Reasons section; and unfortunately, none of the aforelisted reasons apply to the present text. You have twice now claimed that the reference to Puntland's intelligence agency being trained by US intelligence is irrelevant and alluded to some idiosyncratic personal interpretation of WP:VER rather than what WP:IRRELEVANT itself actually states is irrelevant material: "information that clearly has no relevance to the subject named in the article should be removed" such as "if in the article tiger you find one or more paragraphs about light bulbs, and there is no explanation from the text why this is there". Since Puntland's intelligence agency that is accusing Somaliland of involvement was trained by US intelligence and since this training is specifically cited in Garowe Online's editorial [30] on Atom's and Al-Shabaab's ties with Somaliland as well as explained in the text per that policy, it is indeed relevant (unlike tigers and light bulbs, which are completely unrelated topics and which no sources associate in the first place). This is why it still always comes back down to censorship issues. Middayexpress (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't dispute that Atom was linked to al-Shabaab and Somaliland. You still haven't explained why specific details of Atom's activities in Puntland affect this conclusion.

As I have explained, Wikipedia:Content removal does not claim to provide an exhaustive list of reasons why content can be removed. You have not addressed this point. Equally my "idiosyncratic personal interpretation" is exactly in line with what Wikipedia:Verifiability says. You haven't been able to point out where the policy contradicts me.

I realise that the PIA is making accusations against Somaliland. The PIA is named in the article. Who trains the PIA, however, does not affect this, any more than who the chief is, the date it was founded or the location of its headquarters. There is no reason to include it. Your only argument still seems to be that because something is detailed in the source, it must be included in the article.

We seem to be going in circles. Do you have a suggestion for how we can move forwards? --Copper button 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are going in circles because you keep repeating the same invalid arguments that have just been debunked and keep making absurd strawmen arguments. For example, in reference to the Puntland intelligence agency, you state that "the date it was founded or the location of its headquarters" does not affect the PIA's accusations with regard to Somaliland, when no one said it did nor does the text even mention this material. I hope you realize that making misleading claims like that is a clear violation of WP:TALK. You also keep insisting that material is "irrelevant" or "unneeded" (interestingly, pretty much all of which has to do with Somaliland being accused of wrongdoing), but never quote any policy to back up what you are claiming. And there's a good reason for that: no Wikipedia policy or guideline page, including both WP:Content removal and WP:IRRELEVANT, support your reasons for removing sourced, reliable material, as clearly demonstrated above in my posts from yesterday. Here's a challenge: per WP:TALK's recommendation to deal with facts, actually quote the policy(ies) you claim support your idiosyncratic reasons for removing reliable, sourced material. WP:VER certainly does not, as it clearly states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" and that "anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately". Since all of the material is referenced and to reliable sources (which is all that WP:BURDEN requires for its retention in the article), the forgoing unfortunately does not apply to it either. I'll be waiting with interest for those policy quotes that allegedly do for a change back up your consistent attempts to remove sourced content. Middayexpress (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As I explained in my previous post, you still have not even addressed, much less debunked my arguments.

You must have misread my comments if you think I was making a strawman argument. I said that the training of the PIA is not relevant to al-Shabaab. I compared this to other inconsequential details (such as the date the PIA was founded) in order to illustrate my point. I'm glad you agree with me that these details should not be included in the article. What makes the PIA's training different? I have asked this several times and received no response.

Which policies support your arguments? I've already demonstrated that neither Wikipedia:Verifiability nor Wikipedia:Content removal contradict my version.

There are millions of ways to write an article while remaining within Wikipedia's policies. Neither your version nor mine break any policies at all. The difference is that I think mine is more readable and has a tighter focus. You haven't disagreed.

Since you haven't suggested a way to resolve the dispute I will list it at Wikipedia:Third opinion and provide a summary below. I will try to write this in a neutral and dispassionate way but if you think that I haven't accurately represented what you have argued then feel free to edit it. --Copper button 22:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that, with regard to the Puntland intelligence agency, your argument above pertaining to "the date it was founded or the location of its headquarters" is a total strawmen for the simple fact that (as can be seen in the paragraph below) the date the PIA was founded and its headquarters were never mentioned. I am asking you politely to please stop misrepresenting what the text actually states; we cannot resolve this matter quickly if you keep doing this or threatening to remove sourced text. You have also never even come close to demonstrating that your edits are supported by WP:VER, WP:CRV or any other policy. In fact, you haven't quoted any policy that supports your edits, even after I specifically asked you to above per WP:TALK. Only I have done that, and in the process demonstrated that none of the sentences you deem irrelevant breach WP:IRRELEVANT. At any rate, I have contacted some admins about the paragraph in question, specifically querying as to whether or not the material is "irrelevant" as you claim or in any way unreliable. That should settle the matter once and for all. Middayexpress (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You still seem to be struggling to understand my argument. I'll try to explain it as simply as I can. I never claimed that the date the PIA was founded is in the article. I established that we agree that this information is inconsequential and asked what makes a similar detail such as the training of the PIA any more relevant. If this still confuses you, then we can forget everything apart from the following question: why is it relevant to al-Shabaab to state who trains the PIA?

I have established that the policies you quote do not oppose my edit. To recap, Wikipedia:Verifiability does not state that verifiable material cannot be removed, while Wikipedia:Content removal does not claim to offer an exhaustive list of reasons to remove content.

As I said, both versions of the article satisfy the core Wikipedia policies. I think mine is more readable and has a tighter focus. You still haven't disagreed. --Copper button 21:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is like the third time you are repeating almost exactly the same thing. I think I know your opinion by now. Per an admin's recommendation, I shall shortly query as to whether or not the passages you have characterized as "irrelevant" and sought to omit are indeed an issue. Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Somaliland summary

This is a dispute between User:Middayexpress and myself (User:Copper button) over how best to word some material relating to claims of links between Somali Islamist group al-Shabaab (the subject of this article) and Somaliland, an autonomous region of Somalia. The current article reads as follows (coming in mid-way through a paragraph):

In addition, Garowe Online reported in October that Mohamed Said Atom, an arms-smuggler believed to be allied with Al-Shabaab and who is on U.S. and U.N. security watch-lists, was hiding out in Somaliland after being pursued by the neighboring Puntland region's authorities for his role in targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots. Several of Atom's followers were also reportedly receiving medical attention in the region, after having been wounded in a counter-terrorism raid in the Galgala hills by Puntland security personnel. According to Puntland government documents, the Somaliland region's Riyale government in 2006 both financed and offered military assistance to Atom's men as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents and to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province. The Puntland Intelligence Agency (PIA), a covert organization supported and trained by U.S. counter-terrorism agencies based in Djibouti, also indicated that over 70 salaried Somaliland soldiers had fought alongside Atom's militiamen during the Galgala operation, including one known Somaliland intelligence official who died in the ensuing battle. In January 2011, the Puntland government issued a press release accusing the incumbent Somaliland administration of providing a safe haven for Atom and of attempting to revive remnants of his militia. The Somaliland authorities, which had earlier described Atom as a "terrorist", strenuously denied all of the charges, dismissing them as "baseless" and intended to divert attention away from Puntland's attempt to establish what it described as a "large army". In January 2011, the Hargeisa-based broadsheet Haatuf also published an interview wherein a representative of Atom's denied that his group was affiliated with Al-Shabaab and requested military assistance from the Somaliland administration.

I think that this version contains irrelevant details, is over-long and poorly written. After long attempts to reach a compromise, I proposed the following, which I thought captured all the important information in a more readable way:

In January 2011, Puntland accused Somaliland of providing a safe haven for Mohamed Said Atom, an arms smuggler believed to be allied with al-Shabaab. The Somaliland authorities strenuously denied the charges, claiming that they were a smokescreen to divert attention from Puntland's own activities.

Atom and his followers were reportedly hiding out and receiving medical attention in Somaliland after being pursued by Puntland forces in late 2010. The Puntland Intelligence Agency also claimed that over 70 salaried Somaliland soldiers had fought alongside Atom's militiamen, including one known Somaliland intelligence official who died in the ensuing battle. In January Atom's representative requested military assistance from Somaliland, while denying that he was linked to al-Shabaab.

Puntland also claimed that Somaliland had offered financial and military assistance to Atom in 2006 to destabilize Puntland as part of an ongoing territorial dispute.

User:Middayexpress objects to this version, feeling that it is important that the article includes the fact that the Puntland Intelligence Agency is trained by the US and some specific details regarding Atom's activities in Puntland. He/she also did not like me characterising "the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province" as a "territorial dispute". He/she feels that my version violates Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Content removal and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored.

I obviously disagree with all of this, but I won't go further into argument and counter-argument here. The last few screens of text in the main section contain the relevant discussion. Any further opinions are most welcome. --Copper button 22:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're dealing with a user who's been blocked for edit warring about 3 or 4 times, and I should point out that he's quite persistent. The current version is badly written, and contains several POINTy phrasings typical of this particular author. One obvious redlight: "the Somaliland region's Riyale government" implies that said government is the government of the "Somaliland region", which is not the case. The Riyale government is the government of the Republic of Somaliland, so that's one thing that needs changing. Nightw 11:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when one of the old pro-secessionist Somaliland accounts would show up, and sure enough, one has. FYI, there is no edit war going on, just talk page discussions; so attempting to score cheap points by resorting to ad hominem is unfortunately an epic fail. It is also blatantly untrue that the paragraph above tries to pass off the Riyale administration as the current government of Somaliland since the text clearly refers to the "the Somaliland region's Riyale government in 2006" -- which indeed was the government of the Somaliland region at the time, right up until just a few months ago. Middayexpress (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it was the government of the republic known as Somaliland, he wasn't affiliated with the autonomous regional government, which is what you're wording plainly implies. Nightw 12:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Somaliland is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia, unfortunately not as an independent "republic" (a self-declared republic, on the other hand...). Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You have already expressed your belief that the paragraph is overly long and contains some details you believe to be irrelevant. However, you have been unable to prove that this is in fact the case, much less that actual Wikipedia policy supports these claims. That heavily censored re-write above and its many omissions of sourced material were also already critiqued point-by-point, so there's no point in rehashing it here. It omits key details, such as the fact that Puntland's intelligence agency that accused Somaliland troops of fighting alongside Atom's men is actually trained by U.S. intelligence. You also seriously understated why Puntland believes Somaliland is backing the rebels in the fist place: as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents and to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province, not simply "as part of an ongoing territorial dispute". That's not even including the fact that your paragraph completely omits just what exactly Atom is accused of having done in Puntland: he is wanted for targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots. It also leaves out the key fact that Atom's group actually directly requested military support from the Somaliland administration. Whatever the case, I have contacted some admins about the paragraph in question, querying specifically as to whether or not the material is admissible. That should go a long way towards settling the matter. Middayexpress (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I will repeat my arguments very briefly, but I won't get involved in further discussion here - we've already been through all of this.

• I have no idea why the PIA being trained by the US is a key detail. It has nothing to do with al-Shabaab.
• I think that "had offered financial and military assistance to Atom in 2006 to destabilize Puntland as part of an ongoing territorial dispute" is a reasonable summary of the sentence you quote.
• If Somaliland is linked to Atom and Atom is linked to al-Shabaab then Somaliland is linked to al-Shabaab. Details of Atom's activities in Puntland are not relevant to this section.
• My version specifically references Atom requesting military support from Somaliland.

I'm really not attempting to censor anything - I'm just trying to improve the encyclopedia. --Copper button 21:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I will address just one point of the dispute. The Puntland Intelligence Agency is a proper name that is "likely to be unfamiliar to readers", but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article which one could link to to "help readers understand the article more fully" as per WP:UNDERLINK. Hence, for context, unless someone goes and create Puntland Intelligence Agency, I think a brief definition of the PIA, in a wording supported by a source and editorial consensus, would be on topic and justifiable. So, is the definition of PIA as "a covert organization supported and trained by U.S. counter-terrorism agencies based in Djibouti" challenged by any party as incorrect, unsourced or giving undue weight to one aspect?—Rontombontom (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think "Puntland Intelligence Agency" is a pretty self-explanatory name but I'm happy to create a short article if you think people might be confused. --Copper button 18:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am confused :-) If I just saw the name, I'd think of an organisation under the Puntland government, but would be unsure what weight to lend their word. But having read the above characterisation, I thought of a non-governmental organisation, and am unsure whether "based in Djibouti" refers to the PIA or (local branches of) U.S. counter-terrorism agencies. Which might either be true, or a wrong impression allowed by imprecise language, or a wrong impression from an incorrect interpretation or weighting of sources.

If there are multiple independent reliable sources discussing the PIA in a significant way, for example in the context of US influence/regional policy as reflected by the current characterisation in the Al-Shabaab article, then yes a short PIA article would be welcome. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair point - that sentence isn't very clear. I assume that the US troops in question would be based at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, while the PIA would be based in Garowe. I can't immediately find a source for either, though. I've strung a few sentences together (Puntland Intelligence Agency). Further edits are very welcome. --Copper button 19:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The source speaks about unspecified counter-intelligence agencies (which can be civilian), rather than US troops, so it's unclear. For WP:N (a more restrictive source requirement than WP:V, it would be ideal to find additional independent sources, that is ones not related to the Puntland government itself. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added some more stuff from the Jamestown Foundation. [31] That article also has some quite critical material, which I haven't included at the moment. I'll let other interested parties have a look first. --Copper button 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My view on this: the Jamestown Foundation is not an academic institution or a news organization, but a think tank, so its objectivity may be challenged. However, if the parts critical of PIS/PIA are to be used, those are critical of an organisation with US support, so I don't think its objectivity can be challenged on the basis of the biases mentioned in the Jamestown Foundation wiki article. On the other hand, the Jamestown Foundation source names its sources, maybe it's better to look up those. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Much of the Jamestown Foundation material is indeed drawn from secondary sources, so they need to be appraised on their own merits. One interesting passage that link contains alludes to another UN paper, this time apparently from 2008: "A report issued by the UN Monitoring Group in Somalia in 2008 claimed that information had been received indicating that Shaykh Atam was “aligned with al-Shabaab and may take instructions from Shabaab leader Fu’ad Muhammad Khalaf ‘Shangole.’” The reports also suggested that his forces received supplies of weapons from both Yemen and Eritrea." This is probably at least in part where the later UN Security Council's allegations of Atom taking orders from Shabaab's brass was culled from. That Jamestown Foundation link also mentions a UN Secretary-General's report from August 2010 that describes the Galgala militants as "a clan militia... believed to have close connections to al-Shabaab." I'm not sure what report this is, but it seems to confirm the UN's overall position on Atom and his men. Middayexpress (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RS Noticeboard

Note: Middayexpress has opened a discussion on this at the RS Noticeboard here. TDL (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to editors of this page: responding to the query at the RS Noticeboard, I challenged the relevance of some material based on the timeline, and uncovered further sources while checking those presently used and checking whether those are paraphrased faithfully and on topic. The further sources allow for a claim of ties between Atom and Al-Shabaab from 2009 only, and the claim of membership continues to apply from July 2010 only; but one additional source also mentions Al-Shabaab operations and connections in Somaliland unrelated to Atom, which started in 2003. I hope these sources can be used in a re-edit to everyone's agreement here. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The information about al-Shabaab in Somaliland in 2003 wouldn't be relevant to this section, however, since this is about links to the Somaliland regime, rather than attacks there. --Copper button 19:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The information in the UN report covers the period from 2003 to its issuing, with dated events in 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and it's not just attacks but declarations and Somaliland actions. To be more explicit, especially the September 2009 events seem to point against the assumption that earlier Atom–Somaliland ties can be treated as Al-Shabaab–Somaliland ties. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving on...

Since the only outstanding third opinion agreed with my general criticism of the original wording, does this mean that we should insert my version into the article..? And assuming the answer is no, are there any plans to take this forward? We're at a bit of a stand-still. --Copper button 20:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the editor has indicated that "further sources allow for a claim of ties between Atom and Al-Shabaab from 2009 only". However, this was before my post above from 22:26, 22 February 2011 indicating that, according to the Jamestown Foundation [32], another UN paper was published as far back as 2008 stating that Atom was “aligned with al-Shabaab and may take instructions from Shabaab leader Fu’ad Muhammad Khalaf ‘Shangole’". The earlier Atom-Somaliland ties therefore can be treated as Shabaab-Somaliland ties, and indeed are by the sources themselves. Also, the other editor indicated that Somaliland's ties to Al-Shabaab actually stretched back to 2003 ("one additional source also mentions Al-Shabaab operations and connections in Somaliland unrelated to Atom, which started in 2003"). However, this is something you have described as irrelevant since the material is about the group's links to the Somaliland regime rather than attacks. I obviously disagree; the section is about support allegations, not just attacks, Middayexpress (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in debating when Atom's links to al-Shabaab began. I pretty much agree with you and, as you say, all the sources we're currently using refer to the link so it doesn't really affect us.

I think you've got me the wrong way round on the 2003 stuff. I meant that the source referred to al-Shabaab attacks in Somaliland rather than links to the regime, so it's not relevant to support allegations. ("Shabaab operations in Somaliland date from at least 2003, when members of the group killed four foreign aid workers in three separate operations.")

I was more referring to the editor who stated that the current version of the article was poorly written [33]. Do you think that this is sufficient justification to change the article? And if not, what do you suggest we do? --Copper button 21:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The other editor is an open supporter of Somaliland's secession and therefore hardly the neutral third opinion that WP:Third opinion actually pertains to: "Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute." As explained, the only actually neutral editor that weighed in is the user above. I do, however, see your point about Shabaab's operations in Somaliland ca. 2003; this information wasn't added to the paragraph though, so it's a non-issue. This leaves us with the following remaining points of contention, which you have deemed irrelevant and in some way or another sought to omit:

1) The fact that the Puntland Intelligence Agency (PIA) is trained and supported by Djibouti-based U.S. intelligence authorities.

2) The Puntland administration's belief as to why Somaliland would be backing the rebels in the fist place i.e. as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents and to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province vs. your draft's "as part of an ongoing territorial dispute".

3) The specific crimes that Atom is accused of having orchestrated in Puntland and that he is therefore wanted for; namely, targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots.

4) The fact that a representative of Atom's sought military assistance for his group from the Somaliland administration.

I agree that point one above is no longer particularly necessary since the PIA article now mentions this. Point two is obviously relevant since it describes the Puntland administration's belief as to why the Somaliland authorities would be supporting the rebels to begin with, just as the Somaliland authorities' belief as to why Puntland is accusing it in the first place is also already cited and relevant. Point three is likewise obviously relevant since it outlines the actual crimes that Atom is alleged to have engineered in Puntland, crimes which the UN Security Council's security profile [34] on the man also details. Finally, point 4 is relevant since it describes an instance of Atom's group directly seeking assistance from the Somaliland administration. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Brilliant.

2) I realise that the original version is reporting the Puntland government's point of view, but it strikes me as a very opinionated phrasing. I was trying to find something more detached. How about the following: "[Somaliland assisted Atom] to destabilize Puntland as part of its attempts to occupy the disputed Sool province." If you don't like this version, can you propose a version that takes my point into account?

3) I'm afraid it isn't obvious to me why the details of Atom's activities in Puntland are relevant to his links to Somaliland. Can you explain this? I would have no problem with including all of this and more in an article on Atom - there seem to be plenty of independent sources. Would you like to start one?

4) My original suggestion included "In January Atom's representative requested military assistance from Somaliland". Did you overlook this or is there some other aspect you think is important?

I take your point on the user in question. I wasn't aware of any position on Somaliland, but he/she has clearly had dealings with you before. Do you have any plans to seek other opinions, or do you think we can solve it between us? --Copper button 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Ok.

2) That's unsatisfactory because it makes it seem like Somaliland, almost as if in passing, just happened to have assisted Atom in its campaign to seize the Sool region, when Puntland authorities actually believe that Atom and his men are proxy agents of Somaliland who were sent in specifically to destabilize the territory. Here's a better explanation of this: "Puntland government documents allege that the Somaliland region's Riyale administration in 2006 both financed and offered military assistance to Atom's men as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents and to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province."

3) Simple. Puntland government officials and public places have been targets of assassination attempts and bomb plots, respectively. Both Puntland and the UN, among others, have reported this and believe Atom is behind all of these acts of terrorism [35]: "He is described as the leader of a militia that emerged in 2006 in the eastern Sanaag region of northern Somalia. The militia comprises as many as 250 fighters and has been implicated in incidents of kidnapping, piracy and terrorism, and imports its own weapons, in violation of the arms embargo." Puntland also believes that Somaliland put him up to it in the first place i.e. that Atom is a proxy agent for Somaliland (see point #2 above). This info unfortunately cannot be sanitized or relegated to an hypothetical Atom bio becuase it describes what exactly those attempts to "destabilize" Puntland are to begin with (just like the bulk of this article is devoted to describing Al-Shabaab's many other acts of terrorism).

4) My bad; I must've overlooked that. However, it is still unsatisfactory because it fails to let the reader know that it is Somaliland's own non-independent media that's reporting this.

In short, little if anything in the paragraph needed re-writing in the first place. Per WP:IRRELEVANT, the material was already relevant, often obviously so. My post above pointed out this basic fact and was an attempt to resolve the issue through discussion. Whether this is possible remains to be seen; if not, I'll have to take the admin's advice and seek neutral opinions elsewhere. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

2) Restating your original suggestion virtually unaltered was not a constructive way to achieve agreement. I think my version conveys that Somaliland was supporting Atom as a proxy agent, but if you really want to use the word, how about: "[Somaliland offered assisitance to Atom] as a proxy agent to destabilize Puntland as part of its attempts to occupy the disputed Sool province."

3) You demonstrate that others have covered Atom's activities, which I don't dispute but isn't relevant. You then say that Somaliland put him up to it, but I can't find this in any source and it isn't in the current article. Can you help me out? It's only in 2006 that Atom is alleged to have acted as a proxy.

4) I'm not sure why that's important, but I have no problem with "according to Somaliland media..." or "Somaliland media reported that..."

Just in case this wasn't clear, my aim isn't to remove some information that I personally object to. I'm just trying to end up with something vaguely well-written. --Copper button 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

2) Yes, the sentence I proposed is almost identical to the original because there was nothing wrong with the wording to begin with nor have you demonstrated there is or that it is irrelevant (refer again to WP:IRRELEVANT for what does actually qualify as irrelevant on this website). Your proposal is still unsatisfactory since it implies that Somaliland is a proxy agent, whereas Puntland believes Atom is a proxy agent specifically for Somaliland; and not as part of Somaliland's attempts to occupy the disputed Sool province as you've indicated, but to distract attention away from that occupation.

3) No, I haven't just demonstrated that others have covered Atom's activities, but quite clearly indicated that both Puntland and the UN have implicated the man specifically in the recent rash of bombings and assassination attempts in Puntland. The Puntland adminixtration has explicitly accused the Somaliland authorities of supporting Atom; and not just in 2006, but in the present too [36]:

"Puntland's livestock minister accused the neighboring administration of Somaliland of aiding and supporting Atom's armed group, echoing the words of Puntland President Farole who called on Somaliland to "act against terror groups" active inside Somaliland... As revealed by our [Puntland] intelligence agency, more than 70 soldiers who received salary from Somaliland government fought alongside Al Shabaab during the Galgala conflict…some of them died in the conflict," Minister Shire concluded."

This info unfortunately cannot be sanitized since it describes what exactly those attempts to "destabilize" Puntland are in the first place.

4) Good. Middayexpress (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

2) How about "Puntland also claims that Atom was used as a proxy agent in 2006. It accused Somaliland of offering him financial and military assistance to destabilize Puntland and distract attention from its own attempts to occupy the disputed Sool province." I think this is better than the current version because it is more readable and doesn't consist of a single 50+ word sentence.

3) Your previous response said that Somaliland put Atom up to the assassination attempts, bomb plots, etc. I agree that this would make them relevant, but I can't find any reference to it in the sources. The passage you quoted just says that Somaliland supported Atom. Unless there is a link to Somaliland I don't see the relevance of these details. --Copper button 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

2) That's certainly an improvement over your previous proposed sentences. However, it still omits some key information; namely: (a) the fact that it's specifically Puntland government documents (as opposed to, say, via a press conference or an interview) which allege that Somaliland's Riyale administration was supporting Atom's men; (b) that Atom is just one of several proxy agents (plural, not singular) that Puntland believes Somaliland deployed; and (c) that this attempt was part of a larger campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory.

3) I did not say that Somaliland put Atom up to the assassination attempts, bomb plots, etc., but clearly that Puntland charges Somaliland specifically of having done this (that is what I meant by "Puntland also believes that Somaliland put him up to it in the first place i.e. that Atom is a proxy agent for Somaliland"). And Puntland believes Atom is attempting to do that to begin with through bomb plots and assassination attempts against public officials -- terrorist activities which both Puntland and the UN have explicitly linked to Atom and identified as attempts on his part to destabilize the territory. Middayexpress (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2) a) Why is this important? b and c) This is relevant to Somaliland's dispute with Puntland. What does it have to do with al-Shabaab?

3) Which source says that Puntland believes that Somaliland put Atom up to the bombings and assassination attempts? --Copper button 18:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2) a) It is important to mention that Puntland government documents indicate this obviously because of Wikipedia's policy that contentious claims should be directly attributed to the people/source making them; in this case, that would be Puntland government documents, not an off-hand remark in an interview.

b & c) the fact that Atom is just one of several proxy agents (plural, still not singular) that Puntland believes Somaliland deployed and that this attempt was part of a larger campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory is of course relevant to Al-Shabaab because Atom has been identified as an Al-Shabaab operative.

3) The passage does not state that Puntland believes that Somaliland put Atom up to the bombings and assassination attempts, so this is irrelevant. It states that Atom was believed to be hiding out in Somaliland and that he is being "pursued by the neighboring Puntland region's authorities for his role in targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots". Please stay on topic. Middayexpress (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2) a) The claims are attributed to the Puntland government. The policy doesn't state that we must also explain through what medium they were made. I don't see how this changes anything.

2) b and c) I don't see how the fact that Atom is a Shabaab operative makes Somaliland's other attempts to destabilize Puntland relevant to al-Shabaab.

3) Your argument seemed to be that Atom's bombings and assassination attempts were relevant here because Puntland believed that Somaliland put him up to them [37]. If they have nothing to do with Somaliland, why are they relevant to a section on ties to Somaliland? Atom's activites are only relevant in this section where there is a link to Somaliland, surely? --Copper button 19:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2) a) We have been over this already I believe (does "Wikipedia's voice" ring any bells?). In reference to seriously contested assertions (which would be Puntland's charges), WP:NPOV indicates that editors should "treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts" and that these statements should be "attributed in the text to particular sources". That, again, would be Puntland government documents. Unless one is worried that this sounds too "official", I don't see what the problem is or which Wiki policy indicates otherwise.

2) b and c) & 3) As already explained, Puntland believes Atom in particular and Al-Shabaab at large are trying to destabilize the region specifically via bombings and assassination attempts, and that Somaliland is behind this [38]:

Puntland's government blames Atom and Al Shabaab for a string of unprecedented bombings and assassinations targeting Puntland government officials, soldiers and civilians in major towns like Bossaso and Garowe, Puntland's state capital...

Under Somaliland's former president, Mr. Dahir Riyale, Somaliland funded and provided military assistance to Atom's fighters in Galgala, according to Puntland government documents dating back to 2006. That policy was part of Somaliland's "illegal practice" to destabilize Puntland by using proxies and to turn attention away from the real issue of "Somaliland military aggressions in Sool region," the documents revealed...

"Plans to destabilize Puntland have failed and so now Atom and his Al Shabaab supporters have infiltrated a major town in Somaliland," concluded the Puntland government official, whilst referring to Al Shabaab's operations in Burao.

The foregoing is unfortunately not "irrelevant" nor can it be sanitized. Middayexpress (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2a) Surely the source is the Puntland government? What difference does it make if they said it in a document or an official speech? But I really don't care enough to carry on arguing over one word if you're convinced it's crucial.

2b and c) You haven't responded to this.

3) You quote Puntland claims that Somaliland used Atom as a proxy in specific circumstances in 2006. They don't claim that Atom's current actions are on Somaliland instructions. If his bombings and assassination attempts have some claimed link to Somaliland then I agree that they are relevant to al-Shabaab's ties to Somaliland. None of the sources support this and you haven't provided any other justification. --Copper button 20:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2) b and c: Here's what you wrote: "I don't see how the fact that Atom is a Shabaab operative makes Somaliland's other attempts to destabilize Puntland relevant to al-Shabaab."

I then quoted a passage above showing that Somaliland's attempts to destabilize Puntland through Atom are part of a larger campaign;

"Under Somaliland's former president, Mr. Dahir Riyale, Somaliland funded and provided military assistance to Atom's fighters in Galgala, according to Puntland government documents dating back to 2006. That policy was part of Somaliland's "illegal practice" to destabilize Puntland by using proxies and to turn attention away from the real issue of "Somaliland military aggressions in Sool region," the documents revealed."

Just like what has actually been indicated in the article (as opposed to what you've written above):

"According to Puntland government documents, the Somaliland region's Riyale government in 2006 both financed and offered military assistance to Atom's men as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents and to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province."

Again, per WP:TALK, kindly discuss what is actually in the article.

3) Firstly, the article doesn't state that Atom's bombings and assassination attempts are on Somaliland's instructions; it states that Atom "was hiding out in Somaliland after being pursued by the neighboring Puntland region's authorities for his role in targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots" and that Puntland believes that "the incumbent Somaliland administration [is] providing a safe haven for Atom and [is] attempting to revive remnants of his militia". Puntland also believes (present tense) that Somaliland is actively supporting Atom to destabilize Puntland. Besides having fought alongside Atom's militia in the Galgala clampdown (Atom's former headquarters), Puntland has also charged that Somaliland officials are directly linked with Atom and his men [39]:

"Puntland's leader said the government has sufficient evidence linking Somaliland-appointed officials in Sanaag region to Atom and his militia, who used hideouts in the Galgala hills until Puntland troops seized the entire area in late October, including militant training camps.

President Farole provided specific names of four men who are on the Somaliland government payroll but are actively involved with funding and other support to Atom and the Galgala militants allied to Al Shabaab.

"These men receive salaries as officials appointed by Somaliland in Erigavo [capital of Sanaag region] but we know that these men brought money to Galgala to fund Atom's terrorist activities," Puntland's president said."

The pagaraph above clearly indicates that Puntland believes Somaliland is supporting Atom's terrorist activities, and now you want to claim that those same terrorist activities are "irrelevant"? Absurd. Middayexpress (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This section is about Somaliland's ties to al-Shabaab. Unless something relates to both Somaliland and al-Shabaab then there's no reason to include it.

2) Somaliland's attempts to use an al-Shabaab figure to destablilze Puntland are relevant. Somaliland's other attempts to destabilize Puntland have nothing to do with al-Shabaab and do not need to be included.

Incidentally, this point came up because you objected to my proposed wording because it was important to reference Somaliland's other attempts to destabilize Puntland. I'm puzzled by being told to "kindly discuss what is actually in the article".

3) Puntland clearly believes that Somaliland is supporting an al-Shabaab figure. The article should obviously detail these claims. Atom's other activities, however, which no-one has linked to Somaliland, do not need to be included. --Copper button 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

2) Somaliland's "other attempts" to destabilize Puntland are not mentioned because the "illegal practice" of using proxies that the original quote mentions is a reference to other terrorist activities by the same Atom and his men, conducted with Somaliland's support:

"Under Somaliland's former president, Mr. Dahir Riyale, Somaliland funded and provided military assistance to Atom's fighters in Galgala, according to Puntland government documents dating back to 2006. That policy was part of Somaliland's "illegal practice" to destabilize Puntland by using proxies and to turn attention away from the real issue of "Somaliland military aggressions in Sool region," the documents revealed."

Again, kindly address what is actually written in the article.

3) Not quite. Puntland believes Somaliland is supporting Al-Shabaab operatives; that's plural, not singular:

President Farole provided specific names of four men who are on the Somaliland government payroll but are actively involved with funding and other support to Atom and the Galgala militants allied to Al Shabaab.

That's both Atom and his militiamen that Puntland alleges Somaliland is supporting -- all of whom have been linked to Al-Shabaab by the UN (that Jamestown Foundation link you produced mentions a UN Secretary-General's report from August 2010 that describes the Galgala militants as "a clan militia... believed to have close connections to al-Shabaab.").

It is therefore unfortunately nonsensical to now claim that these same terrorist activities allegedly financed by Somaliland are irrelevant; the entire section is on support allegations. Middayexpress (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

2) I'm still puzzled. You objected to my proposed wording because I didn't make it clear that Puntland believes Somaliland employed other proxies and that it was involved in a wider campaign. [40] I'm trying to argue that we don't need to include these details because they have nothing to do with al-Shabaab. Your responses don't seem to be addressing this point, which is clearly about the content of the article. Do you no longer object?

3) The section is indeed about support allegations. Atom's assassination/bombing attempts are not support allegations. --Copper button 18:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

2) I'll make it simple. Somaliland's "illegal practice" of using proxies that the original quote mentions is a reference to other terrorist activities by the same Atom, not to other destablization attempts. The plural "proxies" refers to Atom and his men. This is something I have already explained several times now. You also keep saying that this phrase or that phrase is "irrelevant", but rarely bother mentioning what those phrases are to begin with as WP:TALK instructs. I unfortunately cannot respond to vague assertions.

3) Actually, the section was originally titled "Somaliland ties" until you added info about Eritrea, among other things, and renamed it to "External support" (although Somaliland is internationally recognized as an autonomous region in Somalia). I then renamed the section to a more neutral "Support allegations". The quotes above likewise make it clear that Atom's terrorist activities were allegedly both financed and otherwise supported by Somaliland. We unfortunately cannot mention support allegations without also mentioning what terrorist activities Somaliland is accused of supporting in the first place. Middayexpress (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

2) I now understand your argument. I don't agree with your reading of the source and I don't think that any reasonable person would read a reference to Atom and assume that it didn't also refer to his men. But rather than wade through the debate, would substituting "Atom's militia" for "Atom" satisfy you?

3) But Somaliland is not accused of supporting Atom's assassination/bombing campaign. Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position seems relevant here. Published sources state that Somaliland is accused of funding Atom and, separately, that Atom is accused of assassination/bombing attempts. We're not allowed to imply any link that isn't in the sources. And if you don't want to imply a link, why do they need to be in the article at all? --Copper button 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

2) I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Please give the entire sentence you're referring to, and this proposed change to "Atom's militia".

3) This, again, is irrelevant because the passage in the article never states that Somaliland supported Atom's bombing campaign. It states that Atom was believed to be hiding out in Somaliland and that he is being "pursued by the neighboring Puntland region's authorities for his role in targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots". WP:SYNTH pertains to the "combin[ation of] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". However, no sources were combined to make that assertion -- it's explicitly stated in the report on Atom "hiding out" in Somaliland & his alleged ties with the region's administration [41]. Had this not been the case and had the wiki paragraph instead stated that "Somaliland is alleged to have financed bomb plots and assassination attempts by Atom's militia against Puntland officials and localities", then you would have a point. However, it doesn't say that and never has. What it does actually state with regard to Puntland's charges is that "the Somaliland region's Riyale government in 2006 both financed and offered military assistance to Atom's men as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents and to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province." No mention of bomb plots or assassination attempts here, just the attempts at destabilization that the source itself refers to. As we've already seen, Puntland's government accused Somaliland's new administration of also being "actively involved with funding and other support to Atom and the Galgala militants allied to Al Shabaab", so the passage could easily be updated to reflect this. Bottom line, indicating why Puntland is pursuing Atom into his Somaliland hideout in the first place is most certainly not synthesis or OR. On the contrary, it helps establish context and clarifies why Puntland intiated the clampdown on Atom's Galgala headquarters in the first place. Middayexpress (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

2) "Puntland government documents claim that Atom's militia were used as proxy agents in 2006. They accuse Somaliland of offering financial and military assistance to destabilize Puntland and distract attention from attempts to occupy the disputed Sool province."

3) You said it was important to mention the bombings and assassination campaigns to illustrate "what terrorist activities Somaliland is accused of supporting". In other words, to imply that Somaliland was accused of supporting the bombing and assassination campaigns. This is clearly forbidden by WP:SYNTH, which specifically references implied conclusions. Even if you have changed your mind and now only want to include it to provide contextual detail, you must realise that it is easily open to another interpretation, since you have pointed it out yourself.

Assuming we now agree that there is no link to Somaliland, I don't see why this particular piece of contextual detail is important. It helps us understand Puntland's dislike of Atom but not Atom's links to Somaliland. If people want context then we can link to Galgala campaign, which should tell them everything they need to know. --Copper button 08:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

2) Will not do. You are using the passive voice, which has the effect (unintended or otherwise) of absolving the involved party (viz. Somaliland) of responsibility i.e. "Atom's militia were used as proxy agents in 2006" vs. "the Somaliland region's Riyale government in 2006 both financed and offered military assistance to Atom's men as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents"; "and distract attention from attempts to occupy the disputed Sool province" vs. "to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province". As already pointed out, this is just a small part of a much larger campaign by Somaliland to allegedly destabilize other parts of Somalia. It is therefore tantamount to censorship to omit mention of this fact; see below for more. 3) As already pointed out, the passage in the article does not state that Somaliland supported Atom's bombing campaign. It states that Atom was believed to be hiding out in Somaliland and that he is being "pursued by the neighboring Puntland region's authorities for his role in targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots". Your claims of synthesis are therefore unfortunately irrelevant and a distraction. Note, however, that the passage easily could (and indeed probably ought to) expand on the extent of Somaliland's alleged involvement with Shabaab to destabilize not only Puntland, but more pointedly Somalia's conflict-ridden southern territories as well:

"The leadership of Al-Shabaab are from Somaliland (isaaq clan) who are using those postions they hold within Al-Shabaab to prolong the war in Somalia and to prevent any Somali central government from taking place in Mogadishu until Somaliland receives the ever elusive recognition."

Here is a shortlist of just some of the other Al-Shabaab-related activities Somaliland is accused of. Like the paragraph above, it's taken from an activist website called "Terror Free Somalia", so the article itself is not usable for Wikipedia's purposes; however, many of the claims it makes have also been printed elsewhere and can be independently appraised [42]:

• "The suicide bombers who attack Somali civilians in Mogadishu daily all hail from Somaliland."
• "The Amiir of Al-Shabaab, Ahmed Abdi Godane, hails from Somaliland."
• "The second in Command of Al-Shabaab, Ibrahim Al-Afghani, hails from Somaliland."
• "The representative of Al-Shabaab in Burao is Sheekh Ali warsame hails from Somaliland and is a close relative of Axmed Mohamed Siilaanyo, the current president of Somaliland."
• "The biggest base of all terrorist activities in Somalia is Burao and Hargeisa, two main cities that are part of the entity that calls itself Somaliland."
• "The Dahabshiil company that finances the terrorist activities in all of Somalia has its headquarters in Hargeisa, Somaliland and its owners hail from Somaliland. They ensure that all of the finance activities of Ahmed Abdi Godane is managed by this company. They also ensure any viable money remittance that can challenge Dahabshiil’s money remittance is blocked by Al-Shabaab leaders. This is the main reason why ZAAD services was baaned. The services provided by ZAAD was vast, reliable, and much cheaper than Dahabshiil."
• "The commander of the terrorist activities that was and still taking place in Galgala mountains, Siciid Atam, has his biggest base in Burao, Togdheer and he is financed by Somaliland intelligence."
• "Somaliland’s terrorist activities and attacks against the Ayn region (capital Buuhoodle) is proof of the the terrorist nature of this entity that calls itself Somaliland."
• "Somaliland’s current foreign minister Mohamed Abdillahi Omar has sent his son to join Al-Shabaab and to support Ahmed Abdi Godane, the leader of Al-Shabaab. The young son of Somaliland’s foreign minister who has joined Al-Shabaab was qouted saying “his father encouraged him to support the activities of uncle Ahmed Abdi Godane”. Keep in mind the young man did not say his father sent him to support Islam but to support “the activities of uncle Ahmed Abdi Godane”."
• "Faisal Ali Waraabe, the leader of the UCID party in Hargeisa, Somaliland, has called for the war in Mogadishu should be increased twofold after he met Somaliland’s president Ahmed Mohamed Siilaanyo on February 22, 2011. Here you have one of the leaders of that entity encouraging the war effort led by Ahmed Abdi Godane be increased."
• "The Minister of Religious Affairs in Somaliland, Sheekh Khaliil Cabdillaahi Axmed, regularly visits his son who is a top official within Al-shabaab movement in Southern Somalia and continues the encouragement for the war in Mogadishu to be continued. According to Somali media reports, this SL minister of religious affairs was in Baidoa, Bay region of Somalia visiting his son and was encouraging the war in Somalia be increased in twofold."
• "The president of Somaliland, Ahmed Mohamed Siilaanyo, told a group of Isaaq delegates that he met recently in London, UK that the goal of Ahmed Abdi Godane is to deny the stability of any government in Mogadishu and also to make sure Al-Shabaab never passes beyond Dhuusamareeb . centeral somalia ..have you eve ask your self why ? Somaliland Link With Al Shabaab. The spiritual leader of Somali Jehadest is Sheikh ali Warsame Fron town of Burco, which is about 300km from Hargeisa the capital of Tribal Entity one clan secessionist Somaliland."

It's time to finally move past the censorship stage of this discussion and get down to the nitty gritty of ascertaining just how deep Somaliland's alleged involvement with the Al-Shabaab Islamists really runs. Middayexpress (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we're getting nowhere. I certainly have no interest in debating "just how deep Somaliland's alleged involvement with the Al-Shabaab Islamists really runs." I just want to improve the wording of some text. I'm going to seek further uninvolved opinions. --Copper button 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't think you would be interested in "ascertaining [not "debating", unfortunately] just how deep Somaliland's alleged involvement with the Al-Shabaab Islamists really runs". The situation can also no longer credibly be presented as a "wording" issue, but clearly now as primarily one of cenorship after the new revelations above and your attempts below to hold on to the same already censored "draft" despite them. In any event, I shall shortly contact an admin to monitor this Rfc in case one of the pro-Somaliland accounts just so happens to show up. This will be a neutral discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral, as in only open Somali nationalists are welcome to join? TDL (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral as in editors who have not had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" (hint: that would not include you). I have also never revealed my ethnicity anywhere on Wikipedia, so that personal attack is unfortunately a failure. Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither have I. That hasn't stopped you from repeatedly referring to me as an "open supporter of Somaliland". TDL (talk) 12:29 pm, Today (UTC−6)

This non-free fringe map [43] you uploaded showing an independent Somaliland "country" -- which wasn't even published by MapArt Publishing to boot -- might have something to do with that. Middayexpress (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't delete other users comments Middayexpress. This is VERY bad etiquette. See WP:TPO if you need an explanation as to why. TDL (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I may have accidentally deleted your comments. That was certainly not my intention. I ran into one of those "edit conflict" things when I was trying to respond a while back (i.e. I tried to post an older entry when you had already posted a newer one), so that's probably when it happened. Middayexpress (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. It can happen to anyone. TDL (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained before, my "draft" only covers the material relating to Atom. I have no problem with including other allegations, if they can be reliably sourced. Until we've found some sources, though, there's not much to be gained by discussing it. --Copper button 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll hold you to your word. Middayexpress (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Somaliland RFC

This is a dispute between User:Middayexpress and myself (User:Copper button) over how best to word some material relating to claims of links between the Somali Islamist group al-Shabaab (the subject of this article) and Somaliland, an autonomous region of Somalia. I'd like input on whether a proposed edit is an improvement on the current version.

Current version

In addition, Garowe Online reported in October that Mohamed Said Atom, an arms-smuggler believed to be allied with Al-Shabaab and who is on U.S. and U.N. security watch-lists, was hiding out in Somaliland after being pursued by the neighboring Puntland region's authorities for his role in targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots. Several of Atom's followers were also reportedly receiving medical attention in the region, after having been wounded in a counter-terrorism raid in the Galgala hills by Puntland security personnel. According to Puntland government documents, the Somaliland region's Riyale government in 2006 both financed and offered military assistance to Atom's men as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents and to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province. The Puntland Intelligence Agency (PIA) also alleged that over 70 salaried Somaliland soldiers had fought alongside Atom's militiamen during the Galgala operation, including one known Somaliland intelligence official who died in the ensuing battle. In January 2011, the Puntland government issued a press release accusing the incumbent Somaliland administration of providing a safe haven for Atom and of attempting to revive remnants of his militia. The Somaliland authorities, which had earlier described Atom as a "terrorist", strenuously denied all of the charges, dismissing them as "baseless" and intended to divert attention away from Puntland's attempt to establish what it described as a "large army". In January 2011, the Hargeisa-based broadsheet Haatuf also published an interview wherein a representative of Atom's denied that his group was affiliated with Al-Shabaab and requested military assistance from the Somaliland administration.

I think this is badly written and difficult to read. I have tried really hard to improve this while including all the key information and satisfying all of Middayexpress' demands. My suggestion is as follows:

Proposed edit

In January 2011, Puntland accused Somaliland of providing a safe haven for Mohamed Said Atom, an arms smuggler believed to be allied with al-Shabaab. Somaliland strenuously denied the charges, calling them a smokescreen to divert attention from Puntland's own activities. Atom and his men were reportedly hiding out and receiving medical attention in Somaliland after being pursued by Puntland forces in late 2010. The Puntland Intelligence Agency also claimed that over 70 Somaliland soldiers had fought alongside Atom's militiamen, including one known intelligence official who died in battle. Somaliland media reported that Atom's representative requested military assistance from Somaliland in January, while denying that he was linked to al-Shabaab. Puntland government documents claim that Atom's militia were used as proxy agents in 2006. They accuse Somaliland of offering financial and military assistance to destabilize Puntland and distract attention from attempts to occupy the disputed Sool province.

I think this is undeniably more readable (it takes the Flesch Reading Ease score from c. 20 to c. 40, for example). Middayexpress, however, feels that it omits crucial information, such as Atom's attempted bombings/assassinations. While Atom has been linked to Somaliland, no source has linked these actions to Somaliland, so I don't see why it's so important to refer to them here.

I'd appreciate any uninvolved opinions on whether my suggested edit is an improvement - is it a valid summary or does it distort the sources? --Copper button 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The above is an inaccurate summary of the situation, to put it mildly. It describes the dispute prior to my post from 18:32, 14 March 2011, when I enumerated many additional elements that are not already included in the article which allegedly link the Somaliland region to the Al-Shabaab group of militants. Copper button's proposed draft above does not take into account any of these numerous factors but instead attempts to actually shorten the existing passage in the article, removing key information from it, rather than logically expand the passage to accommodate these many new tie allegations. Also note that this comes on the heels of an RS/N post (where it was decided that the references cited in the passage are reliable) and a Third Opinion initiative (where only one pro-Somaliland account weighed in, contrary to Wikipedia:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute").

Given the foregoing, I would like to remind all prospective respondents of some Rfc rules:

• Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research.
• RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.
• Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions.
• Mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
• If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies or style page.

Neutral, constructive comments are welcome. Middayexpress (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In your post here, you yourself pointed out that your source wasn't reliable. If you can't back these new claims up with a RS, then they don't belong in the article.

This is an article about Al-Shabaab, not Atom. There are allegations that Atom is linked to Al-Shabaab, and these should be mentioned. But not all the details of every crime Atom is alleged to have ever committed are relevant to this article, only those crimes which have been linked to Al-Shabaab by RS. If you want to create an article on Atom specifically, then this information would be notable there.

Copper's version is clearly an improvement. It makes the text far more readable, and focused on the topic of the article as opposed to being a laundry list of allegations against Atom. Middayexpress's version contains extensive WP:SYN by implying that SINCE Atom has committed crimes AND Atom is tied to Al-Shabaab AND Atom is tied to Somaliland THUS Somaliland supports Al-Shabaab. Only in cases where this link has been made by RS is this not WP:OR. TDL (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The User:Danlaycock above is an open supporter of the Somaliland region's self-declared independence, one of several such accounts on Wikipedia. This is why he naturally prefers Copper button's heavily-censored "draft" proposal that minimizes the many allegations regarding the Somaliland region's ties to the Al-Shabaab group of militants. The post above is an attempt to misrepresent the situation by claiming and/or insinuating that (a) Atom is the only thing linking Somaliland with Al-Shabaab and he is not an Al-Shabaab operative; in fact, both Atom and his group have explicitly been tied to the group by the UN as Al-Shabaab operatives and Somaliland has been accused of being linked to the group in many other ways not involving Atom, including through direct government contacts; (b) I proposed using an unreliable source; in reality, I suggested in my post from 18:32, 14 March 2011 that the new tie allegations above that aren't already mentioned in the article "have also been printed elsewhere and can be independently appraised" before being included; and (bc) the passage in the article is "synthesis", a type of original research. In fact, the material in the article does not contain the source he links to above and was already deemed reliably sourced on RS/N (and in a discussion that this same user attempted to influence, no less). In short, the foregoing is an excellent example of why I felt the need to point out that per Wiki policy, editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute". I have also contacted an admin about this Rfc, and he will be monitoring the discussion to make sure that no non-neutral parties attempt to influence the proceedings. Middayexpress (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please save your WP:personal attacks for elsewhere. I could care less about Somaliland. If you think otherwise, take it to WP:AN/I. (But beware of the WP:BOOMERANG which struck you last time.) Otherwise, keep your comments to the content. Also, don't delete other users comments like you just did. That is VERY bad etiquette.

As for the content of your post:

• "Somaliland has been accused of being linked to the group in many other ways not involving Atom, including through direct government contacts" - Great, then let's mention this since it's clearly relevant to the article. I never stated that links to Somaliland shouldn't be included. I only stated that WE shouldn't be implying links that RS don't. If you've got a RS which make this link then by all means provide it. By you can't WP:SYN multiple sources and multiple accusations together.
• ""have also been printed elsewhere and can be independently appraised" before being included" - OK, then produce the sources. Until such time as you do, they don't support your position and thus aren't relevant to the discussion.
• "already deemed reliably sourced on RS/N" - you missed the point. I never said that the sources weren't reliable. I said you performed WP:SYN. These are completely different.
• "[should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute" - this isn't a third opinion. You will recall that I did hold back from offering an opinion when the third opinion was requested previously. However, clearly no progress has been made since then. TDL (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That Atom and his group have been identified as Al-Shabaab operatives has been repeatedly quoted, linked to or otherwise demonstrated on this talk page. That is why he is listed as an Al-Shabaab leader in the article in the first place [44]. Stating that you are an open supporter of Somaliland's self-declared independence is not a "personal attack", unfortunately. It is fact and easily observable, among other ways, by this non-free fringe map [45] that you uploaded, which attempts to show an independent Somaliland "country" juxtaposed by the Somalia it is internationally recognized as being an autonomous region of. You claim the map was sourced to "MapArt Publishing", but MapArt Publishing has its entire catalogue listed online and includes no such map. At any rate, this issue will be dealt with later. WP:RFC also indeed involves third opinions: "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first." Middayexpress (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, please save the personal attacks. Either take it to WP:AN/I or drop it. If you still think that the map I uploaded is forged, then by all means file it at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. However, this isn't the place for such a discussion. Also, you might also want to take a look at WP:ENEMY. Just because someone adds content that supports a particular POV doesn't mean that they personally support this POV. Any good editor is FORCED to write for POV's which they personally disagree with in order to achieve neutrality.

I've restored my comment below, after you deleted it for a second time. Please respect other editors comments.

"That Atom and his group have been identified as Al-Shabaab operatives has been repeatedly quoted, linked to or otherwise demonstrated on this talk page." - Right. I'm not disputing this. I specifically stated above that this should be kept in the article. You suggested that there were sources which directly linked al-Shabaab to Somaliland "through direct government contacts". I asked to see them. You've yet to produce them.

"WP:RFC also indeed involves third opinions" - uh yes of course. But where does RFC policy state that only uninvolved editors can contribute? You quoted WP:3O policy, which doesn't apply to WP:RFCs. TDL (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not the fact that that non-free fringe map shows an independent Somaliland "country" that's the issue. It's the fact that its supposed source is in all likelihood not its source at all that's the problem (and therefore could've easily been taken from a partisan source, like a secessionist publication). As indicated though, the map issue will be dealt with later. I also already explained in my post above from 20:14, 17 March 2011 that the deletions of your comments was an accident because I was writing and posting my responses when you had already left a newer response i.e. an "edit conflict". In your response to this explanation, you seemed to understand this, so I'm not sure what's the problem now. As already pointed out, linked to and quoted many times, the ISSA directly links Somaliland to Shabaab; many new allegations also purport to link the territory with the Islamist group, and these need to be independently appraised as I've also explained and even the Copper account seemed to agree on. As for the issue involving the fact that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response", this is clearly related to WP:Third opinion since that is precisely what RFC respondents are offering per WP:RFC. But just to make sure, I shall ask an admin whether this quite logical precept still applies. Middayexpress (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, save the personal attacks for elsewhere. File a WP:FFD if you feel so strongly that I lied about the source of the map. You've been threatening to for months now.

Please read the timestamps of my posts. I posted my comment here prior to responding to your other comment.

As I've said all along, there is nothing wrong with discussing sources which link Somaliland and al-Shabaab directly. This is highly relevant material that belongs in the article. But only for specific issues discussed by RS. You can't find one source which links Somalia to al-Shabaab, another source which links Atom and al-Shabaab, and WP:SYN them together to imply that everything Atom has ever done is as a proxy agent for al-Shabaab. If RS don't draw these conclusions, then we can't either and it doesn't belong in the article. TDL (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is a sub-policy of WP:NOR, which defines original research as "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". And as I'm sure you already know by now, the material in question was already deemed reliable sourced on RS/N [46] (not "synth", I'm afraid). Middayexpress (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You've quoted the key point, but you've not understood it: "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Each of the allegations listed under "Support allegations - Somaliland" need to be linked DIRECTLY between Somalia and al-Shabaab by RS, not us. Otherwise, you are advancing this position without sources, the definition of WP:SYN. So which source supports the suggestion that "over 70 salaried Somaliland soldiers had fought alongside Atom's militiamen during the Galgala operation" on behalf of al-Shabaab? If you have such a source, then great let's include the claim. But if you don't have such a source, then this is WP:SYN. TDL (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sourcing tip. Unfortunately, it is already indicated that Puntland (including its President) has charged Somaliland with offering both military and financial support to Atom and his militiamen (Al-Shabaab operatives per the UN) -- see my post above from 22:30, 6 March 2011 for quotes. Middayexpress (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at what you just wrote. You made two distinct claims: "Puntland (including its President) has charged Somaliland with offering both military and financial support to Atom and his militiamen" and "Al-Shabaab operatives per the UN". Which single source makes both of these claims? You can't rely on the UN for one, and second source for the other claims. That's WP:SYN. You need a RS to draw the conclusion that Somaliland is supporting al-Shabaab via Atom. I'm not saying these sources don't exist, it was just an example to explain my point. TDL (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. Puntland has also explicitly accused Atom and his men of being Al-Shabaab operatives and charged Somaliland of supporting Al-Shabaab: "Puntland's livestock minister accused the neighboring administration of Somaliland of aiding and supporting Atom's armed group, echoing the words of Puntland President Farole who called on Somaliland to "act against terror groups" active inside Somaliland... "As revealed by our [Puntland] intelligence agency, more than 70 soldiers who received salary from Somaliland government fought alongside Al Shabaab during the Galgala conflict…some of them died in the conflict," Minister Shire concluded." [47] Thanks again for the sourcing tip. Middayexpress (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. See the new section I opened below. I'm not suggesting that this specific claim isn't valid. It was an example to demonstrate my point. TDL (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw the section and it's quite pointless. Those are passages that have already been discussed and vetted via links, quotes, etc. in the lengthy discussion above [48], just like that passage you just complained about. Rehashing it below won't make those tie allegations go away, you know. Middayexpress (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they were "vetted" according to you. It seems that others dodn't agree with your POV. Otherwise, this dispute would be over. TDL (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My "POV"? Sorry pal, I have not once shared my opinion. Those are unfortunately actual quotes I've linked to above. Middayexpress (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You missed the point. Obviously I don't dispute the quotes. I dispute your interpretation of the quotes. TDL (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really difficult to properly interpret "as revealed by our [Puntland] intelligence agency, more than 70 soldiers who received salary from Somaliland government fought alongside Al Shabaab during the Galgala conflict…some of them died in the conflict". Middayexpress (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the section below. I clearly stated that in this instance the quote "seems to support the claim." However, I object to your interpreting of other quotes, such as "Somaliland still provides a safe haven and is organizing support for the fleeing remnants of Al Shabaab terrorist group" to mean that "Puntland government issued a press release accusing the incumbent Somaliland administration of providing a safe haven for Atom." The source doesn't mention anything about Atom. TDL (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does. Per the Puntland government's press release with regard to the Galgala campaign against Atom and his men [49]: "The series of public statements made by Somaliland officials in Hargeisa, culminating with the chairman of KULMIYE ruling party’s BBC interview on 30 Dec 2010, once again underlines the incitement, the beating of war drums, and the speaking of minerals in language that is identical to Al Shabaab spokesman Mohamed Said Atom, that Somaliland still provides a safe haven and is organizing support for the fleeing remnants of Al Shabaab terrorist group, which was recently defeated in Galgala hills area (Al Medo mountain range)." Middayexpress (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion in one place. I've replied below. TDL (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the paragraphs we're comparing are about links between al-Shabaab and Somaliland through Mohamed Said Atom. The post you mention introduced (virtually) no new information about Atom so it isn't really relevant here. If there are reliable sources for the other details then we can discuss them separately, but I'd prefer to conclude this first. I think it will avoid confusing the issue. --Copper button 18:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I was just responding to the suggestion by Middayexpress above that "I enumerated many additional elements that are not already included in the article which allegedly link the Somaliland region to the Al-Shabaab group of militants". TDL (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the UN, Atom and his group are Al-Shabaab operatives and take orders from the group, so it's unfortunately not a case of trying to link Somaliland "through" Atom. Plenty of new tie allegations have also been presented which your draft does not take into account, including the fact that: the suicide bombers destabilizing southern Somalia hail from the Somaliland region; the representative of Al-Shabaab in Burao also hails from Somaliland and is a close relative of Axmed Mohamed Siilaanyo, the current president of Somaliland; that Somaliland's Foreign Minister actually sent his own son to assist "uncle" Godane (Shabaab's former leader) according to that same son's testimony; that Somaliland's Minister of Religious Affairs' son is a top Al-Shabaab official whom he regularly visits and urges to continue the war in Mogadishu; and that the leader of the UCID in Hargeisa has personally called for the war in Mogadishu to be increased twofold. As already pointed out, these are claims that need to be independently appraised, not dismissed off-hand or censored; the latter is unfortunately not neutral and against the spirit of Wikipedia. At any rate, please stop continuing the dispute here and allow the Rfc to continue unimpeded. Per WP:RFC: Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. Keep it simple and be clear about what the question is, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response. Be sure to sign your statement with ~~~~ Consider creating a separate section for threaded replies so the initial comments section does not become bogged down. Middayexpress (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources please? We can't discuss including this information until we see what the sources actually say. I agree with Copper that we should focus first on the allegations against Atom, and try to get an agreement on that. If you find RS to support your new claims, then this information can be added. But it's simpler to deal with one issue at a time. TDL (talk) 1:34 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Actually, it's best to get this dealt with all at once in the Rfc. That way, no group of partisan editors can attempt to sway/strong-arm the discussion in their favor once all of the neutral Rfc parties have gone :) I also still maintain that you are not by any means a neutral third opinion but rather an editor who has had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response". The purpose of an Rfc is to "mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." This cannot be accomplished if the opining third party is already partisan to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm not particularly bothered either way. I think two smaller RFC's would be more productive. But if you insist on dealing with this all at once, then I'd be happy to work on that.

It's hard to mediate when the second party is partisan to begin with as well. Perhaps you should recluse yourself from this discussion? TDL (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I am one of the two disputants involved in the dispute. I'm afraid I was here well before the Rfc was created to resolve that very issue in the first place (and that you later tried to involve yourself in). Somaliland's status as an autonomous region in Somalia is also not "partisan"; it is legal fact and internationally recognized. Middayexpress (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As was I. I've been involved in this discussion since you filed the note on the RS noticeboard. And Somaliland's status as a de facto state is not 'partisan' either; it's widely accepted by the academic community. Please see declarative theory of statehood for details of why states can exist without recognition. Again, none of this is relevant to al-Shabaab. Please try to stay on topic. TDL (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am already quite aware of your opinion by now, thanks. The fact remains, though, that Somaliland is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia, not an independent country ("de facto" or otherwise; a self-declared republic, on the other hand...) [50]. As can be seen above, you also have not been involved in this discussion since I posted on RS/N because WP:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute" of course prevented you from being involved. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of all these people: [51]. I just presented their argument. Can we get beyond how biased and incompetent you think I am now, and start to address the issue? TDL (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a link to a Google Books search, which brings back random links, including from Books, LLC (a wiki mirror in book format). The opinions of select authors, many of whom are tied to the movement itself, unfortunately does not change the basic fact (not opinion) that Somaliland is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia [52] ("the Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community" -- Tony Blair). Middayexpress (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, I didn't post a link to every single book which made the claim since that would be rather WP:POINTY. Here [53] is another link with numerous academic papers that make the same claim. Again, how is this relevant to al-Shabaab? Or is this still part of your attempt to have me banned from this discussion for being "partisan"? TDL (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, WP:POINTy; that trusty, all-purpose essay. Unfortunately, per Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t, a search angine such as Google cannot:

• Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false).
• Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance.
• Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses. (Eg, a search for a specific John Smith may pick up many "John Smiths" who aren't the one meant, many pages containing "John" and "Smith" separately, and also miss out all the useful references indexed under "John M. Smith" or "John Michael Smith")
• Guarantee you aren't missing crucial references through choice of search expression.
• Guarantee that little mentioned or unmentioned items are automatically unimportant.
• Guarantee that a particular result is the original instance of a piece of text and not a reprint, excerpt, quotation, misquotation, or copyright violation.

and search engines often will not:

• Provide the latest research in depth to the same extent as journals and books, for rapidly developing subjects.
• Be neutral.

That said, this discussion is not about the Somaliland region's internationally unrecognized declaration of independence ([54]). WP:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute", on the other hand, remains relevant. Middayexpress (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Except for the pesky fact that this isn't a third opinion. It's a RFC. TDL (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A "Respondent or Third party is the person (usually a third opinion contributor) providing the third opinion" [55]. So yes, the directive above still unfortunately applies. Middayexpress (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just found this on the RfC list. I don't see any issues with the proposed edit; although a little more flow couldn't hurt. Either way it seems neutral to me, but I don't see where the connection between Somaliland (the state) and Al-Shabaab itself it coming from. I recommend including sources to back this claim up. Outback the koala (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Somaliland's incumbent government is alleged to be financially and militarily supporting Atom and his militia, whom are Al-Shabaab operatives per the UN. The ISSA has also independently charged Somaliland's new administration (though not its previous one) with having strong Islamist ties, in particular with Al-Shabaab. Middayexpress (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What the sources actually say

• "his role in targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots." [56] doesn't indicate that these assassination attempts and bomb plots were supported by Somaliland. Not relevant unless we find new sources linking them to Somalialnd.
• "Atom's followers were also reportedly receiving medical attention in the region" [57] doesn't include any allegations of support by the government of Somaliland. Just because they receive medical treatment IN Somaliland doesn't mean the government of Somaliland is supporting them.
• "Somaliland region's Riyale government in 2006 both financed and offered military assistance to Atom's men as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory" [58] seems to support the claim.
• "Puntland Intelligence Agency (PIA) also alleged that over 70 salaried Somaliland soldiers had fought alongside Atom's militiamen" [59] seems to support the claim.
• "Puntland government issued a press release accusing the incumbent Somaliland administration of providing a safe haven for Atom" [60] doesn't mention anything about providing a safe haven for Atom (but does for al-Shabaab in general) TDL (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The material above was posted by User:Danlaycock/TDL. It has already been discussed ad infinitum here by myself and the other party involved in the dispute, with direct quotes and links to the relevant sources supporting the statements in question. Refer to that section for the supporting materials. Middayexpress (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that they don't actually support the claims. If they did I wouldn't be raising the issue. Where does [61] state that Somaliland is providing a safe haven for Atom? (Hint: it doesn't). TDL (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The quotes and links cited by me in the discussion above unfortunately do indeed support the claims, including that paper you just linked to [62] (a Puntland government press reslease: "Somaliland still provides a safe haven and is organizing support for the fleeing remnants of Al Shabaab terrorist group"). Perhaps that's what is really the problem here. Middayexpress (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Where is Atom's name in that passage? No where does the source mention anything about Somaliland providing a safe haven for Atom, just al-Shabaab in general. If we replace Atom's name in this passage with "al-Shabaab" this would address the issue. TDL (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Galgala campaign was against Atom and his men: [63]: "The series of public statements made by Somaliland officials in Hargeisa, culminating with the chairman of KULMIYE ruling party’s BBC interview on 30 Dec 2010, once again underlines the incitement, the beating of war drums, and the speaking of minerals in language that is identical to Al Shabaab spokesman Mohamed Said Atom, that Somaliland still provides a safe haven and is organizing support for the fleeing remnants of Al Shabaab terrorist group, which was recently defeated in Galgala hills area (Al Medo mountain range)." Middayexpress (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My question once again: Where does this quote state that Somaliland is providing a safe haven for Atom? The answer is that it doesn't, so neither should we. This is why I suggested that we should soften the wording so that we only claim that Somaliland is providing a safe haven for members of "al-Shabaab" (which is after all what the source acutally sais). TDL (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In the bold text above, that's where. The "fleeing remnants of Al Shabaab terrorist group [who were] recently defeated in Galgala hills area" is a reference to Puntland's recent Galgala campaign against Atom and his men (Al-Shabaab operatives). This is something the Copper account also does not appear to have trouble understanding either since he included the phrase in his draft. Note that this is the last response I'm going to write until the admin contacts me back about WP:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute". No point in addressing a user who probably shouldn't even be responding to the Rfc in the first place. Middayexpress (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask for your interpretation of the source. I asked for a source which backed up the claim that Atom was being sheltered by Somaliland. You can't just assume that Atom is in Somaliland because some al-Shabaab fighters are. If you don't have a source which states this, then it's WP:OR. TDL (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC resolution?

The RFC period ended the other day. The only two editors who commented seemed to be broadly in favour of the proposed edit. Is there any objection to making the edit (with the changes we discussed)? --Copper button 20:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated on your talk page [64], I have no objection to the implementation of your draft paragraph if that's the outcome of the process. However, the factually inaccurate statements we discussed there need to be corrected prior to doing so. Middayexpress (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm interested in joining this discussion; could you show the proposed edit you speak of? Outback the koala (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposed edit is the one that was presented by Copper in the Rfc, and which you already indicated support for in your Third Opinion comment [65]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what this is all about?? This is alot of discussion over such a small change. Outback the koala (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response - I haven't been around much. I'll make the edit now. If I have time I'll start a discussion about the rest of that paragraph in the next few days. --Copper button 13:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of new information regarding possible links/support has emerged in the past few months, so more discussion is welcome. Middayexpress (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

New info, Like what? Outback the koala (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)