Talk:Somali "Anti-Terrorism Alliance" gets US funds; so do "Blackhawk Down" warlords

Development time

This article appears to need a further period of time in development. Here are some issues which may need attention:

• Please avoid making imprecise statements; they may be biased.

  "This had led critics to say United States policy is at fault." Who, exactly, has said this?

• Please avoid using "loaded" language

  "...Islamists have claimed control of..." This statement suggests many things - the group currently in Mogadishu is extremist followers of Islam who may or may not be telling the truth when they say they are currently in control of a city which they have captured by force from opposing forces (who are not extremist followers of Islam.) Furthermore, what is an "Islamist"? who gets to decide who is, and who is not, an Islamist?

• Do not interpret or editorialize.

  "Mr Zorick's advice was not warmly taken by the Bush administration who recently had the regional expert resassigned to Chad." Did the Bush administration state they took Mr Zorick's advice coldly?

Please recall that Wikinews has a neutral point of view policy, and is not a soapbox. It is a place to report on single news events or phenomenon. Throughout this article, and not just in the specific examples cited above, there is evidence of POV, proselytizing, and mixing reporting about several news events in disparate settings into a single story.

I really hope, with some effort, this article can be improved from an essay to journalism. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to back the above statements, there is an interesting story here, which I do not have enough background information to bring up to our standards/policy requirements. If informed/interested contributors can work on the above concerns and look for more advice on how to work towards what is needed for publication here, I'll try and answer any questions here (on watchlist). For me this is the first point where Somalia slipping into a "replacement Afghanistan" position has been raised. If so, this is important news, but it must be free of opinion and editorialising by contributors. If within the context of the news story you are telling, you can report on the editatorializing or opinions of others - provided things are clearly attributed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Great comments there. Please edit and be brutal if necessary. I think the War on Terror perspective should be kept. Made some edits already with new quotes making the article at the top a bit more punchy.

Not sure how to format the indepth-type section.

three interesting news subjcts

In this article there is three very conected subjects that is newsy. By looking at the sorces title its obvious. they are:

• Diplomat moved on after criticising US payments to warlords
• US funding Somali warlords
• Islamists claim Mogadishu victory

I liked the editorial 'style' of this article. But it is not an editorial, it is newsreporting about a complex situation and its done good imo. To make it up to Wikinews standards, especially as Amgine mention 'single news events or phenomenon', Its better to focus on, and use spcially the first paragraph, to one of above newsitems and use the other as backgroundinfo. I suggest the first one as second is not so newsy and the therd is not verified. international 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ready for moment

I made rough editing, check it up and continue if anywikinesie like international 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

another article on subject...

...has been published. Maybe this one can be remade to adress the criticism against US involvment?

Ealturner 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They cover it from slightly different angles. The existing one is more on-the-ground-news; it makes no reference to America or American policy in the region. This is a separate story.

Thanks for all the edits. For the first time I enjoyed reading it. :)

Probably could be published now...

Title is POV

War on terror is not the property of the USA; Wake up guys. Redman 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Bush doesn't own it either. Redman 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

US has foreign policy goals. Redman 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

US goals is weak. War on Terror exists in President Bush's mind - we can agree? Therefore it is Bush's war on terror.

Interesting but I think the War on Terror has been adopted by much of the world as theirs...ergo it's no longer "Bush's" not the "U.S.'s" at least that's my opinion. What about something more concrete and less political like "Islamic fighters make gains in Somalia"? Redman 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article began as a piece about Bush's war on terror being set back in Somalia. There is another article June 5 about the Islamic fighters. This is about US policy. We can't discuss US policy without mentioning war on terror. Sorry but war on terror exists in so much George Bush thinks it does. And therefore the events in Somalia are a set back. It's not POV. It's the war on terror is embedded in the social structure of the world. Yap Yap Yap... don't get me started. I'm changing it back and moving it to develop so others can have their say on this as it's obviously a controversial issue.

• Just wanted to make sure that you guys are aware of the 3RR rule that says you shouldn't revert a page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period - I'm assuming this goes for titles too (it has now been reverted 3 times that I can tell). Perhaps before the title is changed again a concensus should be reached here in the talk page? R2b2 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush's war on terror is POV...he does not won the war on terror nor does the US. Jason Safoutin 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Article moved from Published>Develop

Re: other article: title is "Islamic group claims control over Somali capital". "Islamic fighters make gains in Somalia" is your suggestion for this one: sounds quite similar to me. Also, "Islamic fighters make gains in Somalia" doesn't conform to wikistyle as it is not specific enough.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Style_guide#Headlines >>* Tell the most important and unique thing — Article titles should consist of a descriptive and enduring headline. As a series of stories on a topic develop, each headline should convey the most important and unique thing about the story at that time.

For example, "Los Angeles bank robbed" is an unenduring headline because there will likely be another bank robbery in Los Angeles at some point. Instead, find the unique angle about the story you are writing and mention that: "Thieves commit largest bank robbery in Los Angeles history", or "Trio robs Los Angeles bank, escapes on motorcycles". <<

Can you run through why "Bush's war on terror set back in Somalia" is wrong? From what I can understand you object to the phrase "War on terror" because it is POV. My position is that you were right that one should not say US's war on terror - many in US disagree with it, others don't believe it exists to disagree with. But one can say it is Bush's war on terror. That is an objective fact.

No its not a fact. Canada is in the war on terror, Pakistan, Afghanistan, UK, etc. Bush does NOT own the war on terror and neither does the US. WN:NPOV. Jason Safoutin 01:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you presume there is ONE war on terror? The title refers to Bush's war on terror.

No the title assumes Bush is in chage of the "war on terror." He is not. The war on terror is the war on terror and the he does not own it. Thats where the POV comes in. Jason Safoutin 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Bush is in charge of the war on terror as the Commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces. That's a fact. The war on terror is Bush administration policy and the buck stops with the US President. These are publically available facts.

Again no. Bush is NOT the owner of the war on terror. The US is not the owner.One can say Canada owns it or the UK owns it. That title is POV. There are a lot of nations participating on the war on terror. To balance NPOV, we would have to add all of them into the title. Jason Safoutin 01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the title is not neutral is because "war on terror" is a contested concept. Some people think that the term "war on terror" is nothing more than a tool of US propaganda, whereas others see it as a real conflict. See w:War_on_terror#Conceptual challenges for further discussion. Because of the controversy surrounding the use of the term, it should not appear in the title or the text of this article, unless it quoted or attributed in some way. - Borofkin 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

There is soo much speculation and non NPOV that I don't know where to start.

The growing influence of the Islamic courts is a set-back for the Bush administration's war on terror. Events on the ground may have further confused policy in a dangerous region and left the future diplomatic direction unclear.

Um...POV IMO.

Many in the US government are of the view a Somalia ruled by Sharia law might encourage terrorist attacks in places where there is no Sharia law, like the west. This would be on the apocalyptic model whereby Afghanistan, after the rise of the Taliban, sponsored al Qaeda training camps. An intelligence official said of the Islamic groups: "The Pentagon, and now the U.S. government as a whole, is convinced these are elements for establishing a religious-based government like the Taliban, that could be exploited by al Qaeda.

Who?

However; many policy veterans would fiercely disagree with the critics. Such a "U-turn" in policy demonstrates the magnitude of the Islamic threat which the Whitehouse sees growing in Somalia. The victories over the weekend might reinforce the perception.

Again...Who??

It is already known al Qaeda members responsible for the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2002 bombing of the Paradise Hotel in Kenya use the cover of Islamist regions to move freely into and out of Somalia.

They are also responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on NYC.

So far, the United States have not got a good return on diplomatic support they have given to the Anti-Terrorism Alliance.

Total POV.

Jason Safoutin 01:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the article content brutalise it. :)

>> Again no. Bush is NOT the owner of the war on terror. The US is not the owner.One can say Canada owns it or the UK owns it. That title is POV. There are a lot of nations participating on the war on terror. To balance NPOV, we would have to add all of them into the title. Jason Safoutin 01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC) <<

I'd disagree. It can be Bush's war on terror. It can be my war on terror. It can be your war on terror. There is no POV here unless you are bringing a POV to the question. The title simply Bush's war on terror. It makes no comment other than that - the rest is interpretation.

See comments above by Borofkin. I agree with him. But do you plan on adding your anme in the title? or mine? Interpertation? thats not NPOV...thats messing around with the facts IMO to make it so it reads a certain POV (sometimes). Jason Safoutin 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 02:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I've made my case.

However I will leave you with my final thought. Deliberately censoring certain disliked words and phrases is sign of bias as glaring as any other. A truly objective journalist works with facts however unpalletable they are.

I know. But what you propose are not facts. They are POV's and speculation. Jason Safoutin 02:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done with NPOV work on the "criticism" section. --vonbergm 03:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems ok now, to me. Redman 05:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed sentences and paragraphs which I consider to be unnatributed opinion, or unecessary analysis. It is still not clear where the focus of this article lies. Is it about Islamic groups taking control of the Mogadishu, or is it about US policy in Somalia? If the former, then there is much work to do, because the article currently contains almost no information about recent events. If it is the latter, then I question whether it is really news. Remember, a Wikinews article should not provide analysis or try to draw conclusions. We should only be reporting on what others say and do. - Borofkin 06:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I think originally the article was intended to cover both aspects, but then got published and the "taking control" part got merged and this was left for the "criticism" part. Maybe this should also be merged, now that it is reasonably NPOV. --vonbergm 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't even notice Islamic group claims control over Somali capital. In my opinion this article (the article for which this is the talk page) should be done away with entirely, either deleted or redirected. The "criticism" part has no recent event or phenomenon as its focus. - Borofkin 06:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Retagged as NPOV. The article continues to be particularly biased against Islamic people. The assumption that being a religious muslim who supports religious law is evil or wrong, and that no one else in Mogadishu feels the same way, is not okay in a Wikinews article. Please do not continually republish an article which has had strong disputes without having worked out compromises with most of the people involved. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Amgine, I didnt just continue to republish exactly, though I maybe agrea with your objection. I make a new try to adress your conserns. international 16:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look and untag if satisfied. If not I wish you edit instead of taging. The reaction cant be worser than reverts and you have specified your objections perfectly. international 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to attempt to improve this article, if I knew what the news event being covered is. There doesn't seem to be a single news event, but rather a range of them being interpreted here. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Amgine, I am not sure either where this article is going. It seems to me that it should be merged with the other Somalia article, so that the main events are covered, and the content from this article would give more background information. It seems to me that this article contains important information to explore the "how did we get there" question. --vonbergm 23:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Amgine,t he first paragraph contain the news event. The rest diferent statments and background info. Quite easy imo and not violating guidlines against multiple newsitems in one article. About your reason to tag it pov, is it better now? Less us/anglo anti islam pov? If so untag article or change tag to a more suitible tag if not edit yourself, which i would prefer. Then I could better understand your conserns as i think it is good enough in present form. international 00:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

vonbergm, I tried to make article focus on the strange US support of warlords that was the enemy a few yers ago. The rest is a cosequense of US chosing the losing side insted of dealing with the govement, recomended by that Michael Zorick guy. Maybe article bacom a mess after all fixing and changing of newsfocus, but I like it as it is now. international 00:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The title currently doesn't describe a single event or phenomenon. I've read the article, and I can't come up with a title. Perhaps if we can come up with an appropriate title then we can work on the article. - Borofkin 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

how about "US policy on Somalia under scrutiny"? in particular, covert aspects of the policy are under scrutiny, the current questions are prompted by

• the recent success of the ICU
• claims of covert US support of the other faction

Doldrums 06:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This title sounds ok for me. international 11:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised that I accidentally didn't move it back to develop when I said I did. Please, change the title. Anything would be better than War on terror "in another fine mess" in the Horn of Africa. This title is embarrassing. As far as I can tell, nobody has uttered the words "in another fine mess". Why are they in the title in quote marks? I would change it myself, but I don't understand what the article is supposed to be about. - Borofkin 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How about US funding counter-terrorism alliance in Somalia ? - Borofkin 04:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the focus?

Wikinews:Content guide says that "News stories focus on a single current event or phenomenon." The only way to salvage this article is to find a single current event or phenomenon and make it the focus of the article. This means that the title will clearly describe that single event, and the first paragraph will clearly describe the event in more detail. Some possible examples: "Michael Zorick removed from position as Somali political affairs officer", or "US policy in Somalia criticised by Someone Important". The disputes on this talk page are not about neutrality, or attribution, they are about what the article is about. We have to agree on that first. I'm moving it back to develop. - Borofkin 06:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

172.188.106.127 07:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Any excess material in here could be merged with the existing article, some of the existing article draws material from this one currently.

One way to make this original would be to focus on the blow to US policy aspect rather than the news-on-the-ground events themselves.

I edited article to focus on US support for Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism and that it seems to backfired. Article needs some improvement though but I think this focus is good as there is a article about the fightingstuff already international 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And I hope I understanded this redirecting things, if I made it wrong please tell me how to do it on my talkpage. international 12:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 13:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the change in title you made will be controversial! There's far too much stuff there. As already said there's probably 3 articles in there. We should pick one line and cut out everything else. Aim for the story to be told in 7 paragraphs. I'm not going to touch it yet because I'll probably spark a riot :)

Ok, take a look now. international 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done for getting this one out :) Good read. I think the title will be changed later though. While I can accept "US war on terror" it could offend some in US who don't support it: they might say it's not my US's war on terror. However if you ask me most people know when you write "US war on terror" referring to the present government not the entirity of the US people. Fine with me.

The fact that a decent title cannot be found demonstrates the problem here. The article should be about a single current event or phenomenon, and therefore it should be possible to describe that event or phenomenon in a single short sentence, which becomes the title. The current title is embarrassing. Who said "in a fine mess"? What is the "war on terror"? What single event or phenomenon is this article about? I'm happy to jump in and help bring it up to standard, but it needs to be about something. - Borofkin 00:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The same question and one one suggestion above. Not sure if this will work though. --vonbergm 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Title: "US support old enemy in Somalia" or something similar. international 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They've been supporting their old enemy for a while now haven't they? What is the recent event or phenomoenon? - Borofkin 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is new info for me. Is it been known for long time? Am I late informed? international 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's new for me too. I watched "black hawk down" recently and I am shocked if the US is supporting the people who killed those US military people. Redman 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)