Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somalian War

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Somali Civil War (2006-present), although it looks like there may be a civil war brewing for the merge suggestion too. Yomangani^talk 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somalian War

The "Somalian War" is not an actual conflict and all the events outlined on the page are part of the Somali Civil War. – Zntrip 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, its not all outlined there and cannot be understood as merely the same civil war that has been going on since 1991. The country has been in turmoil for many years, but starting with the taking of Mogadishu by the ICU countries such as Ethiopia have gotten involved. This is a specific conflict involving the ICU and those forces it is fighting. I really wish you would have discussed this before putting it up for deletion 8 minutes after it was made. Keep and allow people to expand it... ~Rangeley (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Somali Civil War page should be expanded if this information is to be included on Wikipedia. The Somali Civil War is an ongoing conflict and there is no need to have a new article. Also see Ethiopian involvement in Somalia. Pages already exist for this information. – Zntrip 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not the same conflict that was going on between the Siad Barre clan and the Mohamed Farrah Aidid clan. This article is about the current conflict with the ICU, a group which didnt even exist in 1991. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Is this a serious nomination? The ICU declared jihad. Eritrea moved their troops into the forbidden zone and government officials throughout the world have said Eritrea is using Somalia to wage a new war. What more is needed before this is considered a separate war? KazakhPol 03:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Eritrean involvment doesn't mean that this is a new conflict. – Zntrip 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not the same conflict that was going on between the Siad Barre clan and the Mohamed Farrah Aidid clan. This article is about the current conflict with the ICU, a group which didnt even exist in 1991. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is indeed a seperate war and should not be deleted. I believe this article should stay. Alex40045 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it a separate war? – Zntrip 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The real question is how is it the same war when the players are all completely different to those that fought in the original 1991 conflict. Somalia has been in a state of chaos, this is clear, but only recently has the war with the ICU been occuring. This war, with defined sides, deserves an article. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Somalia has been in chaos since 1991. All of the armed conflicts in Somalia from 1991 to the present are part of the Somali Civil War. The article you created uses the name “Somalian War”; Somali is the proper adjective form for Somalia and the “Somalian War” is a name that you picked that is not recognized by anyone else. I will not say it again, the article’s information should be incorporated into the Somali Civil War page. – Zntrip 04:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Somalian is used when pertaining to the country, somali is only for the ethnic group. Now that that is settled, how is it the same conflict when its obviously different groups fighting each other in a defined conflict totally different to the one in 1991? The state of chaos probably should not be treated as it is now where its Barre vs. Aidid, but instead as the state of chaos that it is. Within this state of chaos is this defined conflict between the ICU and other parties, and it does deserve an article. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, it's not a distinct conflict until reporters and analysts start saying so. It wouldn't be the first civil war to have multiple phases with occasional foreign involvement. Gazpacho 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and like Afghanistan, it should not be merged. You cant merge the Soviet War in the 80s with the American War going on now, even though there has been constant fighting. Like with Afghanistan, the Somalian civil war should be viewed as the general term to describe the chaos, whereas there are individual articles for the defined conflicts within it. It is a distinct conflict because it has distinct sides, this can be determined from reporting ~Rangeley (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that nobody's given a separate name to this conflict yet, and it could yet be settled. Keep the info in the Ethiopian involvement article until we have a name and a war. Gazpacho 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The question here is not whether one SHOULD think of these as seperate conflicts, the question is whether people ALREADY DO think of them as separate conflicts. There has been no proof offered that this conflict is regarded as separate outside of wikipedia. Since such distinction appears to only be made by this article, it is Original Research, and thus deletable re: WP:OR. If references can be provided to establish this as widely regarded as a separate conflict rather than a continuation of the same conflict, then I will change my vote. --Jayron32 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Somali Civil War (which should therefore have its infobox changed to reflect that it's still going on in some way) unless and until reliable analysts start saying that it's a new conflict. The parallel with Afghanistan (where a civil war involved Soviet action and then continued after they'd left) seems valid enough at the moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, if the conflict is deemed to be a new one, my guess is that this isn't going to be anything like the right name. Given the multiplicity of combatants, it's hard to say what will be, but "Second Somali Civil War" could well catch on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Jayron; Wikipedia only reports after other people say so. We don't invent a term for a change. --humblefool® 06:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for now. Those things are sticky. Imagine hearing a Somali warlord on BBC-WS: "We killed those traitors because we are at war with Eritrea! There is even an article on Wikipedia!". Stammer 06:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Even the first source cited in the article discusses this in terms of Ethiopia's involvement in the Somali civil war. JChap2007 06:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral and don't know what to do why was Rangeley so swift in creating this article? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think we should simply work on this article because all it really is is a high-importance matter that's just a stub article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs) 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

With respect, that's kind of what we're doing here. As I see it, "working on the article" involves both adding text to it and making certain it's named correctly and should be here in the first place. If there happens to be a source out there calling this conflict by this name (and editors more knowledgeable than I have said there isn't), then it should be added to the article and so forth. As it currently stands, though, there's a number of people suggesting that the best way to do things is to merge this information with another article - where it can be worked on - until later on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect per above. Foreign involvement does not remove its status as a civil war. The Somalian civil war is not a country versus country conflict, even though various countries help opposing sides, the war is largely fought by Somalians. Besides, content is still substub. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for now. Like the Afghan Civil War, this is a civil war that has gone through different phases. We should begin by adding to the Somali Civil War article and then split it up from there.(Am86 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC))
• Merge into the current period Somali Civil War (2006-present)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

then make a disambiguation.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• By definition, a civil war is between memebers of the same nation. if there is a conflict involving external aggressors, it ought not to be recorded under a misleading title. -- Simon Cursitor 08:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A fair point, but the Afghan Civil War article cited earlier on here is a good example of an article which breaks with that definition. Should it do so? I'm not sure, but it certainly does. The point about Wikipedia is that we're bound by what other sources refer to something as, so if this conflict is referred to as a "civil war" (as it appears to be), then a civil war is what we must call it. To call it something else would be a cardinal sin. Likewise, one can argue until the proverbial vaches return to la maison that a given world leader shouldn't be called a President or whatever, but if that's what people call him, then that's what we have to call him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To add to what BigHaz has said: It does not matter what this conflict SHOULD be called. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for changing the terminology. It is NOT a vehicle for changing ANYTHING. The only valid question is what do people ALREADY call this conflict. They call it the Somali Civil War. There is no compelling evidence of widespread recognition of a different conflict, or a different name for this conflict. Ergo, merge the non-redundant information into the Somali Civil War article, and redirect this one. It doesn't need to stay. --Jayron32 17:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--Nielswik_(talk) 14:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Merge --Nielswik_(talk) 14:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with existing article if journalists and commentators are not drawing a strict distinction (despite my belief that they are separate and distinct), but the main article should be VERY CLEAR that this is a seperate conflict with different participants and roots. Also, define "Somali Civil War" at the outset as an ongoing set of distinct conflicts. Riverbend 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy merge into Somali Civil War (2006-present) per above and then disambiguate. —Nightstallion (?) 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just a case where a discussion should have been held before putting something up for deletion. The article could have just been moved to that name to begin with and we could have avoided this lengthy talk and instead put the effort into writing the article instead. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. —Nightstallion (?) 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well put - page discussions seem to sort out a LOT of issues, a deletion nomination so shortly after the page was made seems way severe. Riverbend 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.