Talk:History of Somalia (1991–2006)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Skewed

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)

Why don't categorise it under anarcho-capitalism again then? I think actually only anarcho-capitalists can reasonably see Somalia as an anarchy anyway (except for anarchy meaning 'big mess' of course, but I don't see how that deserves a special wiki-article). By the way, I think Somalia is clearly not stateless: the original author himself states that it consists of 'ministates' of warlords to which people are actually paying tributes. So the situation is not much different from medieval europe for example. Clearly still exists authority and rule. 'archos' is rule isn't it? so: no anarchy to the definition of most anarchist, I guess. Tamira C. 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The same discussion was taking place on talk:Anarchy, and may still be taking place. I stopped paying much attention. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The article now includes extensive information unsupportive of the anarcho-capitalist point of view (from the UN, World Bank, CIA etc.), includes the extent to which Somalia is successfully claimed by the TFG. While there is still much work to do, I think this difficulty is resolved. Skomorokh ^incite 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't work

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)

Agreed. This article needs to be rewritten, and re-titled. This situation has nothing do with anarchy. It should be titled Chaos in Somalia, or Lots of mini-states in Somalia without a central power recognized by the UN. Murderbike 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NOT ANARCHY

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.

Yes, we do - anarchy is absense of a central governing agency. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Should that be ANY governing agency? 62.56.89.184 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Now recognized in the article. Skomorokh ^incite 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Real) Anarchism in Somalia

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)

Agreed. Maybe a rewrite/retitling? A merge? Murderbike 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do with this thing, really. It's confusing me terribly. In part I want to just merge it away, but I also don't see why we should have to take care of someone else's mess. And at the same time, this article may be the home for content we simply haven't discovered yet. No point in destroy it right away only to discover a need for it in a few months. I'm beginning to find more articles written by anarchists or non-anarchists comparing the situation in Somalia to anarchism. The country may not have an anarchist history I can find online, but people have been talking about the subject. Here is another article written by a non-anarchist, but sympathetic in how it refers to Anarchy in Somalia. It only has a small section on Anarchy, but Kropotkin and Bakunin get respectable references: Somalia and Anarchy by Jim Davidson.

If we were to take what we can from all of these articles, we might put something nice together.--Cast 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Haven't gotten to the above links yet, but here is Google scholar linkdump for "stateless somalia": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Skomorokh ^incite 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are more sources on this topic: "The Rule of Law Without the State" [10], "Stateless in Somalia and Loving it" [11], "Are the Salad Days for Somalia Over?" [12]. I also just bought The Law of the Somalis by Michael van Notten, but I haven't read enough to contribute any of its contents to this article. It is, however, a serious, scholarly work that asserts that the Somali legal system is non-statist/non-governmental. DickClarkMises 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

No responses, so I am removing the tag. Skomorokh ^incite 19:19, 3 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."

• Makes no sense. If there was no government "until June 2006" - then logically there was from that time. What situation continues? Continues from when? The sentence needs re-written.--Doc^g 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic Courts briefly held a significant proportion of Somali territory under their control after capturing Mogadishu in June 2006. Skomorokh ^incite 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Social conditions POV

The section under social conditions fails to mention certain positives such as those cited in this article. Examples:

• "Perhaps most impressive is Somalia’s change in life expectancy. During the last five years of government rule, life expectancy fell by two years but since state collapse, it actually has increased by five years. Only three African countries, Guinea, Gambia, and Rwanda, can claim a bigger improvement."
• "In 2005, Somalia ranked in the top 50 percent in six of our 13 measures, and ranked near the bottom in only three: infant mortality, immunization rates, and access to improved water sources. This compares favorably with circumstances in 1990, when Somalia last had a government and was ranked in the bottom 50 percent for all seven of the measures for which we had that year’s data: death rate, infant mortality, life expectancy, main telephone lines, tuberculosis, and immunization for measles and DTP."

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)

I am largely responsible for the current state of the article, and I left that section untouched because I thought it balanced all the positive commentary I added on Somalia's statelessness (economy, education etc.). Any effort at trying to make the figures match is a tightrope walk with WP:SYN. Skomorokh 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the child mortality mostly from malnutrition? That seemed to be the gist of http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=50731 Evidently, they have simply had some crop failures due to lack of moisture. It seems a bit strange that they can afford education and telecommunications and such but not enough imported food to keep their children from dying. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The section is clearly biased towards the liberal/propertarian interpretation of the situation. quoting the "study" in question gives undue weight to it. Bob A (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Somalia is not anarcho-capitalist

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)

It would be anarcho-capitalist if foreign governments did not interfere. I think anarchy has a tendency toward anarcho-capitalism. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think anarchism is historically anti-capitalistic. So as long as anarchy (as in anarchy in Somalia) has nothing to do with anarchism, you may be onto something. - Dawood H. 30 July 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.36.98 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been both pro- and anti-market anarchists in the past, and both factions are represented in the present day. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that the pro-market anarchists à la Proudhon were not only for the abolition of central government in favor of a loose, decentralized federation of locally self governed communes but also for the abolition of capitalism and private property beyond occupancy and use. They imagined an economy of non-hierarchical; democratic workers' cooperatives trading on the free market, but not capitalism (yes, an-archy was still considered incompatible with hier-archy back then!). Anarcho-capitalism definitely is an ideology that's different from traditional anarchism, including the pro-market socialist anarchism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Resources from Facebook group

I found these resources at the Somalian Anarchy League Facebook group:

• http://libertariannation.org/a/n030d1.html
• http://www.amazon.com/Law-Somalis-Foundation-Economic-Development/dp/156902250X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204607582&sr=8-1
• http://www.facebook.com/share_redirect.php?h=7ccc1bbd805c6e7f60977b3ed2a3a2ad&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mises.org%2Fstory%2F2701&sid=22043155157

Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

History of anarchy?

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)

In any case, it doesn't belong under "history of anarchism". Bob A (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is anarchy a misnomer?

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)

Are you serious? Please read the sources; editor's private opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles. the skomorokh 11:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you contesting that anarchy means a lack of rulers, or that various factions rule over Somalian society? What are your sources for contesting either of these assertions? All the sources I know, including Wikipedia, support them. What is inconsistent is that Wikipedia still calls the Somalian situation anarchy, although it doesn't conform to any of the definitions in the Anarchy article, even the one that defines it as Absence of government; a state of lawlessness because there is a judicial system or systems.--87.162.30.35 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about anarchy, but it's about anomie. Genjix (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

POV

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)

It's from a pro-libertarian POV and the support for this is that it badmouths businessmen? I think you need to get your story straight. This article is comnprised of sources which discuss the statelss aspect of Somalia, not the entire history of the country since '91. If you have reliable sources to add to the article that have another perspective, that would be most helpful. Otherwise, there is no legitimate rationale for the tag. the skomorokh 12:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, it's a libertarian POV, because it badmouths the idea of "fiat money" and the businessmen who did that.

Anyway, I read a few articles and I'm still looking for sources. So far, I found a BBC report talking about Somalia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4017147.stm

This article talks nothing about the checkpoints by militias, according to BBC:

Driving 50km (30 miles) from one of the airstrips near the capital, Mogadishu, to the city, you pass seven checkpoints, each run by a different militia.

At each of these "border crossings" all passenger vehicles and goods lorries must pay an "entry fee", ranging from $3 - $300, depending on the value of the goods being carried - and what the militiamen think they can get away with.

There is no pretence that any of this money goes on public services, such as health, education or roads. Much of it is spent by the militiamen on khat, an addictive stimulant, whose green leaves they can chew for hours on end. Those who can afford it travel with several armed guards - and then you can pass the road-blocks unmolested.

bogdan (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The currecy section, which is the only part you have objected to thus far, was added after this became a Good Article (in which it passed a POV check by one of Wikipedia's most experieced GA reviewers). That section still needs some work, sure. But that does not jsutify tagging the entire article. I agree that the article could benefit from a section examining the militia political economy. But again, this does not justify the tag. I will move it to the currency section, and encourage you to use {{npov-inline}} next to specific troublemsome claims/wording. the skomorokh 12:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm moving the NPOV tag back until the article is going to talk about the kidnappings (there were hundreds of foreigners kidnapped in the last few years) and about piracy (Piracy in Somalia -- dozens of ships raided). Currently, the article is not NPOV because it says the positive facts, while keeping out the negative facts. The kidnappings and piracy are also a result of the state of anarchy in Somalia, so they should be included for a fair and neutral article. bogdan (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I agree that a section on piracy would be an improvement to the article...provided that piracy is discussed by reliable sources in the context of anarchy/statelessness, and prefereably not by mere news reports. The libertarian perspective in the article comes from detailed academic investigations of the underlying dynamics, while the BBC article just added, for example, only mentions anarchy in somalia in a fleeting sense. I have yet to see a credible and detailed anaylsis of kidnapping, but if you have access to one, please by all means disclose it. I disagree strongly that the article only portrays positive things - how anyone could interpret the Social conditions as positive is beyond me. I think it is rather poor form to have the article tagged before you are forthcoming with sources. {{Expand further}} would be much more appropriate. the skomorokh 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea, instead of complaining that there isn't a pro-statist POV within the article, please add relevent information yourself and cite your sources. You've had plenty of opportunity to do so and haven't. Tag's coming off for now.

It's also worth considering that kidnappings are not unique to Somalia. They happen all over the world in places like Mexico...Mexico has a government and strict regulations against things like private ownership of weapons, but gun violence happens in Mexico all the time. Something bad happening in a government-less land doesn't necessarily mean that it's the lack of government that caused the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.70.228 (talk) 00:23, 23 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 have now added an expand-section tag, which includes a request for expansion of any crime — whether that include kidnapping and piracy, or not — in the "Rule of Law" section. As 1) there is currently no "Crime" section; 2) I would not want to create an empty section for the tag; and 3) it already mentions elements of the topic which is requested, so I felt it was the best place for it. Any editor who can find sources on the subject can add to "Rule of Law", or create a new section, per editor discretion. Hope this helps, and happy editing.--Cast (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Cast, very helpful and no disagreements from me. I'm not sure I will be dedicating much effort to working on this article but if I will, this will be the way I will go about it. Vielen dank, the skomorokh 02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider, I'd like to remark that the article in it's current version seems POV in the positive direction. Although the hardships of lawlesness are touched upon, it seems all the benefits this anarchy has done for Somalia get much more coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egregius (talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. This article is clearly mostly written by libertarians (note the use of the term "coercion" to refer to government. This article also reads a bit like an argument: it seems to try and present the case that statelessness, if anything, has improved conditions. Not only does the evidence not necessary support this conclusion, but a wikipedia article should not be drawing conclusions. 209.131.62.115 (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Section about law, law enforcement and lack thereof in some regions

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)

The only objection I would have is that the Islamic courts section is at the end for a good reason; it's not really of core interest for this topic. I'd support merging some of it into the rule of law section, but not all. the skomorokh 20:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Blackwater

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)

It would seem to be original research to make a link between that and statelessness, but it's a very interesting story, thanks! the skomorokh 18:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph is Contradictory

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)

Ebbed, perhaps, but not ended. If you choose to interpret the word "anarchy" as meaning an area with no coercive agents whatsoever, then the "contradiction" is in your own mind. The sources in this article seem to use the term to denote an area with no dominant government, a designation which accurately describes Somalia to this day. Neither the TNG, the Islamic Courts, the Warlords (including those in the TNG), or the Ethiopians ever ruled over Somalia wholly. the skomorokh 17:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not challenging the facts of the article so much as the English used to articulate them.

"From the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991 until the capture of Mogadishu by the Islamic Courts Union in June 2006, there was no permanent national government in Somalia, a situation which persists as of 2008."

I have read that one sentence over and over and I cannot seem to force it to make sense. It doesn't make sense. Read it carefully. I can not for the life of me, discern from that statement whether or not there was a permanent national government in Somalia in, say for example, 2007.

Ok let me put it this way. After the capture of Mogadishu by the ICU in June 2006 was there a permanent national government in Somalia or is there still to this day no permanent national government? Ryan Albrey (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see what you are getting at now. The reason the statement reads weirdly is because we have a reference from 2006 that supports the "no permanent national govt since 1991" claim, but saying that "As of 2006, there was no permanent national govt in Somalia" gave the impression that statelessness ended in 2006, which is inaccurate. Suggestions for rephrasing are welcome. the skomorokh 19:34, 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)

Yeah, that's probably the wisest way to go. I'll re-acquaint myself with the source when I get the time, haven't looked at the innards of this article since it hit GA. the skomorokh 23:08, 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)

OK, I had another look at the CIA World Factbook entry, and it still lists Somalia as having "no permanent national government" as of November 6, 2008, so that's all we need to say. the skomorokh 10:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Move?

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 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)

Anomie is a more appropriate term. TalonX84.151.187.190 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, now I have an image of black turtleneck-wearing Gauloises-smoking Left Bank existentialist Somali checkpoint gunmen ominously pondering their metaphysical fleetingness over cups of black coffee. the skomorokh 14:57, 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)

...but in Anarchism there is no state! I vote for move (in lack of a better option). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.52.147 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2010 (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)

• I believe is accurate "Anarchy", what should be innaccurated would be "Anarchist Somalia". It's not something ideologgical, sources like World Bank uses the term anarchy in the sense of absense of State. In an ideological deffinition only northern Somalia could be "anarchist", so there isn't solid arguments to say that this article is not neutral. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, even if the title is changed there isn't any reason to sepak about a POV biased article. It's very neutral, a good exposition, good references, and accurate critics. That user have the bad habbit of delete referenced content. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 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)

I think it might be an improvement, but we could avoid this problem altogether by moving it to History of Somalia (1991-2006). Bob A (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, that wouldn't be an improvement, because statelessness refers to the situation where one lacks citizenship. Bob A (talk) 00:25, 24 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 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.

Note

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)

Sorry about that; I put a template on the top of the page, and another user moved it to this section. I'm quite ignorant of how this procedure works. Bob A (talk) 19:17, 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)

I chose the title based on History of Germany (1945-1990). It's the most matter-of-fact and avoids controversy over how this period is to be characterised. Bob A (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got sympathy for that viewpoint, Bob A. However, as a note to carry into the future, I think it's best to avoid edits such as this, which really make it look as if Skomorokh proposed the move to History of Somalia (1991-2006). That's certainly how it appeared to me, and that's why I moved the page accordingly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That edit was made by MSGJ, not me. Again, I'm sorry for the confusion I've caused. Bob A (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it was. My bad. At any rate, no worries, a lesson to us all, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 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)

Given the study of the effects of statelessness on Somalia, the subject would seem very much notable enough for inclusion in this serious encyclopaedia. I conjecture that this article could not have been as biased as you accuse it, if it concisely adhered to its topic; was properly cited with verifiable, third-party sources; was well-written and complimented with appropriate and illustrative images and link templates; and as a result was promoted to Good Article status. Further, while the organizations which have devoted study to the subject may be considered "fringe" by yourself, I see that they would be specialized to review this subject matter. That would make their publications valuable resources for the topic of "anarchy in Somalia". I also see that nothing in the article title predisposes this subject to bias, as critical commentary could be found on the subject of the detrimental effects statelessness has had on Somalia. Perhaps if you are as concerned with the subject as you suggest, the article would be well served by your bold research and editorial skills. The renaming of the article has left us with an article body removed from the article title. This can only lead to confusion for readers. I suggest that as you requested this move, you begin a massive overhaul to bring the body back into line with the suggested title. Barring that, we must revert this back to its original title. Our options are clear. I'll be monitoring your progress and look forward to your initiative. --Cast (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2