![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article is skewed in that it heavily focuses on economics in Somalia and how the region serves as an example of anarcho-capitalism, while neglecting much of the turmoil and unrest in the area. It also could use criticism from those who would disagree Somalia represents anarcho-capitalism. These problems are largely a result of the fact that this article was split off from anarcho-capitalism originally. Owen 12:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't make any sense. First, it claims there's anarchy in Somalia, but then says there's mini-states and warlords.
It doesn't even belong in anarcho-capitalism, it's too much of a self-contradiction. Aufheben 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Anarchy is a form of order without rulers. Not only are there ministates in Somalia, but also brutal dictators. Just because their governments aren't recognized by the U.N. doesnt mean there is anarchy. People have no clue what anarchy is.
Has there ever been an actual anarchist movement in the country at hand? If there has been, or perhaps if anarchists have ever written a critique of that society, or if a anarchist who was from Somalia has ever written on some facet of the culture which was reasonably anarchic and recognized this as an anarchist tendency in that country, then the article can be rewritten. Otherwise, I suggest retitling the article as Somalia during the 90s' or sum-such. In fact, perhaps if it is not written as an article on the history of Anarchism in that country, it can be rewritten as an article on Somalia between '91 and '06, and then merged into the main article on Somalia.-- Cast 01:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC) P.S.Oh, and here, these are the only three articles on Somalia written by anarchists that I've been able to find: Somalia, Kenya and the instability of some modern African nations, Will the state that waged war against Nicaragua save Somalia?, Famine in Somalia None of the above are really satisfactory. The holy grail would be to discover that at some point there had been some active branch of Anarcho-Syndicalists in northern Somalia in the 1930s, or that there had been an anarcho-communist writer born in Somalia in 1893, or such. Pity I can't find anything along those lines.-- Cast 02:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Do editors still feel the article lacks neutrality? If so, could you cite or tag specific sections with which you disagree? If not, I will remove the NPOV tag from the page in a day or two. Skomorokh incite 11:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"From the fall of Siad Barre's government in January of 1991 until the capture of Mogadishu by the Islamic Courts Union in June of 2006, there was no permanent national government in Somalia, a situation which continues as of 2007."
The section under social conditions fails to mention certain positives such as those cited in this article. Examples:
As you can see, the section puts undue weight on negative social conditions and ignores positives. This is a glaring error by omission. I would work this in myself, but I haven't the time to try to untangle the section and try to find a place for this information without it being in a point-counterpoint style. — Memotype:: T 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no source showing that Somalia is anarcho-capitalist. There are sources showing that Somalia is anarchist. 72.94.48.81 ( talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I found these resources at the Somalian Anarchy League Facebook group:
Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Should this really be under "history of anarchism" or "history or anarchy"? I was looking for a like category under which to put anarchy in the United States. EVCM ( talk) 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Anarchy means lack of rulers, but Somalia is ruled by various factions, such as warlords, which doesn't make it an anarchy. "Chaos", "Stateless society", "lawlessness", etc. are more appropriate. bogdan ( talk) 10:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't talk about Piracy in Somalia, a major issue in the country (it should deserve a section). It tends to cherry pick mostly positive facts and it uses POV attributes and words such as "a clique of businessmen". The word clique, according to Webster's Revised Unabridge Dictionary, is "generally used in a bad sense." bogdan ( talk) 12:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
As a third party observer, I'm going to have to agree with the sentiment of Skomorokh: that more detailed sources on the subject should be presented; and with the anonymous user above: an editor who would dispute the NPOV of the article should produce the sources they desire. I think that sources on brigands who extract tolls can be perfectly acceptable, but the current source leaves much to be desired. The BBC may be considered verifiable in theory, but in the context of this article, it barely touches on the subject matter at hand — the effects of statelessness on society.
What the tagging editor seems to be insisting on is that new topics of crime should be included. Having observed the original editing which drove this article to GA status, I recall that such topics were not omitted because they were "damaging" to the POV of editors, but because they were not the intended subject of the article. The article is about the effects of the absence of government on the society. As such, all sources cited were of an academic origin, and directly addressed statelessness. I myself suggested several sources that were used, and did not attempt to limit my search to positive assessments. If these articles had addressed the issue of crime, such a section would have been created. They did not because piracy and kidnapping are not inherently a growth of statelessness. As a previous editor noted, these take place within governed regions of the world. Therefore, the authors of the cited essays chose not to address them.
I encourage the editor who disputes this article to find appropriate articles on the subject of crime which exists as a direct result of statelessness. The sources should attempt to explain how the criminal activity is a result of the absence of a state, and theorize how the existence of a state would eliminate the crime. Such an analysis would be a valuable and welcome addition of the article. In the meantime, an expansion tag would be more suitable, given that the sources and the way they are referenced are neutral.-- Cast ( talk) 22:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a single section (with the needed subsections) about this topic. Currently, "The rule of law" and "Islamic courts" sections should be merged because they're both about law and law enforcement. bogdan ( talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to mention Blackwater's recent proposals to guard ships against Somali pirates? [13] Lightning Thundercat ( talk) 18:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph suggests that the state of anarchy ended in 2006 and then in the same sentence goes on to suggest that this state of anarchy continues to the present date. Lets get our act together a bit people? It makes no sense what is written there currently. Ryan Albrey ( talk) 16:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
How about "According to [source] from 2006, Somalia had had no permanent national government since the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991." I would add it myself, but I don't know the source you're referring to. — Memotype:: T 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I made a small change. I think it does a better job of communicating the point. That is, even though Somalia now has a nominal central government as of 2006, the condition of Anarchy is still pervasive to this day. Ryan Albrey ( talk) 09:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. While there doesn't seem to be a consensus regarding anarchy/anomie/statelessness, there is some support for the suggested title, and no particular opposition. GTBacchus( talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The term "anarchy" seems to be more trouble than it is worth for this article. Anarchists and Somalis alike are offended by the notion that Somalia is in a state of anarchy, whereas it seems uncontroversial to say that Somalia is stateless. For these reasons, would it not be more appropriate to have this article at Statelessness in Somalia or, more concisely, Stateless Somalia? the skomorokh 10:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have not participated in the writing of the article and will not do so either; but I do believe a move would clarify things and perhaps ease ideological tensions. I say this not as an anarchist, but as a Wikipedian - "Anarchy in Somalia" should remain a redirect, by the way. Plrk ( talk) 17:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the page should not be moved to "Statelessness Somalia" or "Stateless Somalia" because, like it or not, Somalia is a state and does have an actual government. The anarchy -- which is a correct term, BTW -- is confined to the southern part of the country. It hasn't metastasized to the northern Puntland and Somaliland regions. So anarchy is a far more accurate, honest, and less offensive term than "Stateless Somalia" could ever be. Middayexpress ( talk) 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No need to move. "Stateless Somalia" actually causes more problems than it solves. It is easy to prove the existence of some degree of Anarchy in Somalia but much harder to prove that Somalia is completely Stateless (on the grounds that is probably is not). Ryan Albrey ( talk) 08:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
YES. I think "Statelessness" would be more accurate and less troublesome. It's only anarchocapitalists who recognise it as an example of anarchy in the political sense. More commonly the view is that it's "anarchy" in the "chaos" sense, but that's not what the article is about. The word "Statelessness" doesn't imply that the whole country is / was stateless, only that there are / were parts of it where the writ of the / a state didn't run. It's more factually accurate, less ideologically controversial. 81.158.97.151 ( talk) 17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"Anarchy" is much less accurate "stateless(ness)". There's no significant anarchist movement in somalia, as their was in spain. The (former) situation in somalia is only called anarchy by anarchocapitalists who see it as a showcase for their ideology. The current naming is thus a reflexion of the bias due to the disproportionate number of anarchocapitalist wikipedians. I propose that the article be renamed to something like History of Somalia, 1991-2006. Bob A ( talk) 08:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Somalia has no anarchist movement! It is not anarchism but anomie. How about Statelessness in Somalia. If that title is so contentious then why does the first sentence state "Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system."
Genjix (
talk)
19:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I'm going to move the article to History of Somalia (1991-2006). Bob A ( talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The above section is misleading, as I at no point suggested the article be moved to the title History of Somalia (1991-2006) (which covers a radically different scope). Another editor misleadingly inserted a move request to that title and attributed it to me. Skomorokh 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Skomorokh. I didn't realize that the move request wasn't yours as it appeared; I took what I saw on good faith. I see no argument in the above discussion against the History of Somalia (1991-2006) name. However, you have posted reasons on my talk page against the move; perhaps it would be a good idea to post that argument here? I saw the bottom comment in the discussion being a 2-day old "If nobody objects, I'm going to move the article to History of Somalia (1991-2006)," and I saw no objection. This was also the oldest item in our backlog at WP:RM, so I also assumed there had been ample time for people to make any relevant arguments.
Before moving the page back, I'd like to know which title is most supported by our community standards, because if that's not the old title, then I'd rather not add another spurious move to the article's history. How can we get clarity on that point? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Skomorokh, now that I've read your comment on GTBacchus's talk page, I can see that you want this article to go in a completely different direction to the one I do. There's been very little scholarly attention to that subject. Even at the time this was listed as a Good Article, it was quite biased, giving undue weight to various fringe groups. Under the title it's had, the article has only got worse since then. The subject simply isn't notable enough for inclusion in a serious encyclopaedia.
For the record, I first suggested the name over a year ago. Bob A ( talk) 22:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article is skewed in that it heavily focuses on economics in Somalia and how the region serves as an example of anarcho-capitalism, while neglecting much of the turmoil and unrest in the area. It also could use criticism from those who would disagree Somalia represents anarcho-capitalism. These problems are largely a result of the fact that this article was split off from anarcho-capitalism originally. Owen 12:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't make any sense. First, it claims there's anarchy in Somalia, but then says there's mini-states and warlords.
It doesn't even belong in anarcho-capitalism, it's too much of a self-contradiction. Aufheben 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Anarchy is a form of order without rulers. Not only are there ministates in Somalia, but also brutal dictators. Just because their governments aren't recognized by the U.N. doesnt mean there is anarchy. People have no clue what anarchy is.
Has there ever been an actual anarchist movement in the country at hand? If there has been, or perhaps if anarchists have ever written a critique of that society, or if a anarchist who was from Somalia has ever written on some facet of the culture which was reasonably anarchic and recognized this as an anarchist tendency in that country, then the article can be rewritten. Otherwise, I suggest retitling the article as Somalia during the 90s' or sum-such. In fact, perhaps if it is not written as an article on the history of Anarchism in that country, it can be rewritten as an article on Somalia between '91 and '06, and then merged into the main article on Somalia.-- Cast 01:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC) P.S.Oh, and here, these are the only three articles on Somalia written by anarchists that I've been able to find: Somalia, Kenya and the instability of some modern African nations, Will the state that waged war against Nicaragua save Somalia?, Famine in Somalia None of the above are really satisfactory. The holy grail would be to discover that at some point there had been some active branch of Anarcho-Syndicalists in northern Somalia in the 1930s, or that there had been an anarcho-communist writer born in Somalia in 1893, or such. Pity I can't find anything along those lines.-- Cast 02:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Do editors still feel the article lacks neutrality? If so, could you cite or tag specific sections with which you disagree? If not, I will remove the NPOV tag from the page in a day or two. Skomorokh incite 11:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"From the fall of Siad Barre's government in January of 1991 until the capture of Mogadishu by the Islamic Courts Union in June of 2006, there was no permanent national government in Somalia, a situation which continues as of 2007."
The section under social conditions fails to mention certain positives such as those cited in this article. Examples:
As you can see, the section puts undue weight on negative social conditions and ignores positives. This is a glaring error by omission. I would work this in myself, but I haven't the time to try to untangle the section and try to find a place for this information without it being in a point-counterpoint style. — Memotype:: T 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no source showing that Somalia is anarcho-capitalist. There are sources showing that Somalia is anarchist. 72.94.48.81 ( talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I found these resources at the Somalian Anarchy League Facebook group:
Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Should this really be under "history of anarchism" or "history or anarchy"? I was looking for a like category under which to put anarchy in the United States. EVCM ( talk) 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Anarchy means lack of rulers, but Somalia is ruled by various factions, such as warlords, which doesn't make it an anarchy. "Chaos", "Stateless society", "lawlessness", etc. are more appropriate. bogdan ( talk) 10:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't talk about Piracy in Somalia, a major issue in the country (it should deserve a section). It tends to cherry pick mostly positive facts and it uses POV attributes and words such as "a clique of businessmen". The word clique, according to Webster's Revised Unabridge Dictionary, is "generally used in a bad sense." bogdan ( talk) 12:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
As a third party observer, I'm going to have to agree with the sentiment of Skomorokh: that more detailed sources on the subject should be presented; and with the anonymous user above: an editor who would dispute the NPOV of the article should produce the sources they desire. I think that sources on brigands who extract tolls can be perfectly acceptable, but the current source leaves much to be desired. The BBC may be considered verifiable in theory, but in the context of this article, it barely touches on the subject matter at hand — the effects of statelessness on society.
What the tagging editor seems to be insisting on is that new topics of crime should be included. Having observed the original editing which drove this article to GA status, I recall that such topics were not omitted because they were "damaging" to the POV of editors, but because they were not the intended subject of the article. The article is about the effects of the absence of government on the society. As such, all sources cited were of an academic origin, and directly addressed statelessness. I myself suggested several sources that were used, and did not attempt to limit my search to positive assessments. If these articles had addressed the issue of crime, such a section would have been created. They did not because piracy and kidnapping are not inherently a growth of statelessness. As a previous editor noted, these take place within governed regions of the world. Therefore, the authors of the cited essays chose not to address them.
I encourage the editor who disputes this article to find appropriate articles on the subject of crime which exists as a direct result of statelessness. The sources should attempt to explain how the criminal activity is a result of the absence of a state, and theorize how the existence of a state would eliminate the crime. Such an analysis would be a valuable and welcome addition of the article. In the meantime, an expansion tag would be more suitable, given that the sources and the way they are referenced are neutral.-- Cast ( talk) 22:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a single section (with the needed subsections) about this topic. Currently, "The rule of law" and "Islamic courts" sections should be merged because they're both about law and law enforcement. bogdan ( talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to mention Blackwater's recent proposals to guard ships against Somali pirates? [13] Lightning Thundercat ( talk) 18:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph suggests that the state of anarchy ended in 2006 and then in the same sentence goes on to suggest that this state of anarchy continues to the present date. Lets get our act together a bit people? It makes no sense what is written there currently. Ryan Albrey ( talk) 16:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
How about "According to [source] from 2006, Somalia had had no permanent national government since the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991." I would add it myself, but I don't know the source you're referring to. — Memotype:: T 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I made a small change. I think it does a better job of communicating the point. That is, even though Somalia now has a nominal central government as of 2006, the condition of Anarchy is still pervasive to this day. Ryan Albrey ( talk) 09:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. While there doesn't seem to be a consensus regarding anarchy/anomie/statelessness, there is some support for the suggested title, and no particular opposition. GTBacchus( talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The term "anarchy" seems to be more trouble than it is worth for this article. Anarchists and Somalis alike are offended by the notion that Somalia is in a state of anarchy, whereas it seems uncontroversial to say that Somalia is stateless. For these reasons, would it not be more appropriate to have this article at Statelessness in Somalia or, more concisely, Stateless Somalia? the skomorokh 10:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have not participated in the writing of the article and will not do so either; but I do believe a move would clarify things and perhaps ease ideological tensions. I say this not as an anarchist, but as a Wikipedian - "Anarchy in Somalia" should remain a redirect, by the way. Plrk ( talk) 17:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the page should not be moved to "Statelessness Somalia" or "Stateless Somalia" because, like it or not, Somalia is a state and does have an actual government. The anarchy -- which is a correct term, BTW -- is confined to the southern part of the country. It hasn't metastasized to the northern Puntland and Somaliland regions. So anarchy is a far more accurate, honest, and less offensive term than "Stateless Somalia" could ever be. Middayexpress ( talk) 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No need to move. "Stateless Somalia" actually causes more problems than it solves. It is easy to prove the existence of some degree of Anarchy in Somalia but much harder to prove that Somalia is completely Stateless (on the grounds that is probably is not). Ryan Albrey ( talk) 08:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
YES. I think "Statelessness" would be more accurate and less troublesome. It's only anarchocapitalists who recognise it as an example of anarchy in the political sense. More commonly the view is that it's "anarchy" in the "chaos" sense, but that's not what the article is about. The word "Statelessness" doesn't imply that the whole country is / was stateless, only that there are / were parts of it where the writ of the / a state didn't run. It's more factually accurate, less ideologically controversial. 81.158.97.151 ( talk) 17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"Anarchy" is much less accurate "stateless(ness)". There's no significant anarchist movement in somalia, as their was in spain. The (former) situation in somalia is only called anarchy by anarchocapitalists who see it as a showcase for their ideology. The current naming is thus a reflexion of the bias due to the disproportionate number of anarchocapitalist wikipedians. I propose that the article be renamed to something like History of Somalia, 1991-2006. Bob A ( talk) 08:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Somalia has no anarchist movement! It is not anarchism but anomie. How about Statelessness in Somalia. If that title is so contentious then why does the first sentence state "Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system."
Genjix (
talk)
19:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I'm going to move the article to History of Somalia (1991-2006). Bob A ( talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The above section is misleading, as I at no point suggested the article be moved to the title History of Somalia (1991-2006) (which covers a radically different scope). Another editor misleadingly inserted a move request to that title and attributed it to me. Skomorokh 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Skomorokh. I didn't realize that the move request wasn't yours as it appeared; I took what I saw on good faith. I see no argument in the above discussion against the History of Somalia (1991-2006) name. However, you have posted reasons on my talk page against the move; perhaps it would be a good idea to post that argument here? I saw the bottom comment in the discussion being a 2-day old "If nobody objects, I'm going to move the article to History of Somalia (1991-2006)," and I saw no objection. This was also the oldest item in our backlog at WP:RM, so I also assumed there had been ample time for people to make any relevant arguments.
Before moving the page back, I'd like to know which title is most supported by our community standards, because if that's not the old title, then I'd rather not add another spurious move to the article's history. How can we get clarity on that point? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Skomorokh, now that I've read your comment on GTBacchus's talk page, I can see that you want this article to go in a completely different direction to the one I do. There's been very little scholarly attention to that subject. Even at the time this was listed as a Good Article, it was quite biased, giving undue weight to various fringe groups. Under the title it's had, the article has only got worse since then. The subject simply isn't notable enough for inclusion in a serious encyclopaedia.
For the record, I first suggested the name over a year ago. Bob A ( talk) 22:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |