This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theSomali Civil War article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Dilla Massacre was nominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed on29 March 2020 with a consensus tomerge. Its contents weremerged intoSomali Civil War. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please seeits history; for its talk page, seehere.
While thebiographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced orpoorly sourced contentious material about living personsmust be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please seethis noticeboard.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofEthiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofInternational relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIslam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Limited recognition, aWikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities withlimited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSomalia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomaliaWikipedia:WikiProject SomaliaTemplate:WikiProject SomaliaWikiProject Somalia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Somaliland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSomaliland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomalilandWikipedia:WikiProject SomalilandTemplate:WikiProject SomalilandWikiProject Somaliland
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must beaware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject tothe usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates totheHorn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
Is there any evidence of the United States funding or supporting the USC? I bring this up because I really think we should look into this, especially considering the Cold War was technically still going on, and the US had a staunch anti-communist and anti-soviet policy until the end.— Precedingunsigned comment added by108.4.228.5 (talk)00:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it is right now, the start date in the infobox looks extremely confusing, and it cannot stand. Seriously, "Disputed-present", what the hell does that even mean? The asterisk note doesn't really change how jarring the start date is. I propose that some number or year be placed but the disputed asterisk remain. It can be 1991, or 1986, or 1988, or the 1980s, or whichever has the most sources supporting it. Just so that the absurd dating is removed. Perhaps something like: 1991(Disputed) - present.*2601:85:C102:1220:640F:35E1:C872:594A (talk)00:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's absurd about noting that the start date is disputed. There's no clear consensus amongst sources about what the start date is, so it's difficult to know which one we'd pick if we were to highlight one.Cordless Larry (talk)09:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same poster, different IP. It's jarring and reads weird: "Start date disputed-present." When is disputed? I never said I was against noting that it was disputed, actually I want it to be noted. Hence, the above example I gave, 1991(Disputed) - present*. So we are in agreement that the start date needs to be shown that it is disputed. But some year needs to be put, and there are precedents on Wikipedia. SeeSecond Sino-Japanese War orVietnam War, where there are different ways to show multiple dates (in the former, it is beneath the main date, in the latter an explanation is given in a note). As to choosing which year to put for this particular article, it would make sense to pick the date which has the most RS supporting it. And that would be 1991. In addition, in the explanation given by the note in the infobox, 1991 is given by the majority sources present, so it would make sense to put 1991 as the main starting date. In the note,James Fearon gives various starting dates but ultimately rests on 1991. Of course, there is still a dispute, but the note takes care of that. So "1991-present[note]" would seem like the most reasonable course of action.
Thanks for your further thoughts. My concern was that you seemed to be suggesting picking a date for the sake of having one, and I wasn't sure how we'd assess what the majority of sources state given the large number of sources out there. However, reminding myself of some of them, I see that there does seem to be somewhat of a consensus on 1991 (with notable exceptions), rather than there being complete disagreement. I'm still a little reluctant though, and would prefer wider input (pingingCharles Essie andBuckshot06 as obvious candidates, from the discussion above). On Fearon, while he does settle on 1991, he states that that's for analytical purposes and I wouldn't want to read too much into such a decision.Cordless Larry (talk)09:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a good compromise maintained for a long period, that acknowledged 1991 was incorrect, except as the end of the first phase, Barre's downfall, with a long footnote. Suggest we go back to that.Buckshot06(talk)09:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same poster, different IP. Thanks for the replies guys. While I think 1991 is supported by most of the sources given (especially considering theCentral Bank of Somalia and the UN, which should take precedence in my humble opinion), I would also support whatBuckshot06 gave above: "c1981-1991 (disputed) - present." What matters is that at least a year or range of years, with a disputed note, is put for the start date, just to avoid the awkward wording of "Start date disputed-present." I believe you guys have more knowledge on this particular subject, so I'll defer to you as to which specific year or range of years to choose. Cheers.2601:85:C102:1220:9DF3:1D7:2E92:65F (talk)23:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could split hairs here for months on when the Somali rebellion became a civil war, but I'm more than happy to go with "1978-1991 (disputed) - present" if there is a clear and authoritative reference for 10 March 1978.Buckshot06(talk)13:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I couldn't find any source with 1978 as the start date for the Civil War. I still think "1991 (disputed) - present" would have the most support from the sources. But I'm just an IP, and you guys probably have more knowledge of this subject than I, so I defer to you.2601:85:C102:1220:2002:F3C3:A078:B0F4 (talk)03:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same OP. Aye, but then what information would the reader be getting from the nebulous start date of "disputed?" It would be akin to just putting "Start date - end date*[footnote]." But the matter is resolved now, no worries.2601:85:C100:46C0:C51A:2566:AF10:9013 (talk)04:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Interesting. I think perhaps the "conflict" ones are different, since conflict is less specific than war, but the others show that we have some inconsistency between articles.Cordless Larry (talk)13:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've been working on a draft for the period of the Somali Civil War between Barre's fall and the withdrawal of UNOSOM. I may change the scope to just between Barre's fall and the beginning of UNITAF, or expand it from Barre's fall to the creation of the TFG, idk. If anyone could help with this, though, that'd be appreciated. Posting this toWP:SOMALIA's talkpage to gather more participation -presidentofyes, thesuperaussaman17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are egregious claims that Al-Shabaab is still in places like Diinsoorwhich they were expelled by Amisom 9 years ago and current disputes arehandled by the South-West State of Somalia, so the area connecting Diinsoor and Baidoa should be marked red.
Along the Somali-Kenyan border, the area arounfGeriley should be marked as under government allied control, and since the entire border region is under vague control it should be striped.
Beyond that, the Northern areas of Somalia. Namely Khatumo state should only be marked as controlling Talex, Laascaanood, and Buudhoodle. With the Northern and Western parts of the claimed territory under Puntland and Somaliland control respectivily.Emx0264 (talk)08:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I'm trying! Ecrusized simply doesn't want to discuss with me because it'll "waste their time" or "they'll repeat the same thing everyday"Zabezt (talk)11:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something about being "not specific enough?" no idea.
But there is an RfC in this talk page that is up, Id like to see which you'd prefer, and it'd settle which map should be used once and for all.Zabezt (talk)12:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2024
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
The picture of the civil war is incorrect Al Shabab doesn’t control that much land.Cite error:There are<ref> tags on this page without content in them (see thehelp page).Munsaar55 (talk)03:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current conflict seems to look like more of an insurgency than a civil war, and I have seen it been called an insurgency more than a civil war in recent years. And in articles about the conflict, I rarely see the phrase "civil war" nowadays, unless it's something like "The civil war has been going on for over 30 years" etc, And if the Civil wardid end, what year did it happen?Zabezt (talk)01:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zabezt I see your point, but insurgency and civil war aren't mutually exclusive terms. The ongoing conflict with Al-Shabaab is still a civil war since Al-Shabaab is predominantly Somali and maintains substantial local support in some regions, with the goal of overthrowing the Somali government. Additionally, other conflicts like theLas Anod war, whereSSC forces have reclaimed large areas from Somaliland recently, are very clearly an ongoing civil war. Although today’s inter-Somali conflicts are far less serious than the civil violence of the 1990s, the broader civil war dynamic hasn't really ended.Whoopsawa (talk)03:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend you carefully read before responding as to not make a fool of yourself because I didn't actually say they were "...all Somali". They proudly advertise the prescene of foreign fighters in their ranks so obviously that is not true a statement. And if you had bothered to spend even 10 minutes of your time reading just about any written work about the group, you would realize you are asking a stupid question. Don't go around accusing people of lying just because you are too lazy to read a paper about the group and learn some basic well known facts. Since you clearly need help doing that, here's one of many sources discussing this for you to educate yourself with:
“... [Shabaab] relies heavily on a relatively small number of foreign fighters, most of whom are Somalis with foreign passports from the large Somali diaspora,”
Map 1, a map that is mainly sourced fromhere, representing the situation in Somalia as of December 2023. This map is accused of breakingWP:SYNTH andWP:V One vote(Replayerr)Map 2, is mainly sourced fromhere and represents Somalia as of May 22nd this year. This map is accused of being sourced from Twitter and breakingWP:NOTTRUTH. One vote(Shadowwarrior8)Map 3, is sourced from a lot of places and represents the situation as of October 5th this year. This map is also accused of breakingWP:SYNTH andWP:V Three votes(Guardafuuii,AbzeronowShadowwarrior8)Map 4, is sourced fromhere and represents the situation as of 2021. This map apparently has its source copyrighted. No votes.Map 5 is sourced fromhere and represents the situation as of November 1st 2023, no accusations besides the quality (please remake this into an SVG file if you have the opportunity.) One vote(HetmanTheResearcher)Extra Map, no source, no accusations.One vote(CaptainEek)
I support Map 1 as it is highly accurate in the current territory withheld by Al-Shabaab. I have shown many flaws pointing towards Map 2 at multiple occasions including it being derived on Twitter(the author themselves admitted to not knowing the situation on the ground).Replayerr (talk)15:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Map 2 or a compromise should be used. My key issues with the first map is that it doesn't show Tiyeglow, Buula Fuuley, El Adde, Sablale, Fafafdhu, Buusaar, Ber Xaani, Kunyo Barrow, portions of the Cal Miskad Mountains and many other key strongholds that are clearly held by al-Shabaab and funnily enough, shows massive portions of Mareeg being controlled, despite no recorded instance of this being the case. Map 2 isn’t perfect (shows major towns like Janale, Diinsoor, El Wak, etc as controlled by AS despite not at all) but I suggest a compromise should be done. I am no expert on making maps such as this so I might ask for someone else to make it. There is a pretty goodmap made by some independent researchers which is incredibly detailed which I may be inclined to use if someone made it into a .svg file, but yeah. Hopefully a good compromise can be made.Guardafuuii (talk)05:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggestingthis map as the compromise? I mean, I don’t know if we can use it because the source is copyrighted… apparently?
And the main problem with Map 2 is thatthe creators themselves said that the map mixes both presence and control. Making it terribly unspecific.
Hmm, The map you link seems quite lacking in a lot of the towns that I listed previously. I think perhaps another map can be made to encompass all the towns and areas under the control of AS without it having an area of “presence” highlighted. I’ll try to make something of that nature todayGuardafuuii (talk)23:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Khatumo be marked as disputed? Yes, They both claim the territory, but the land is being Controlled by Khatumo forces and Somalia.Zabezt (talk)23:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a suggestion fromUser:Freetrashbox and a discussion had mentioned that the BBC had marked it as disputed, SSC is autonomous and should be colored separately from Somalia if we don't mark Khatumo as disputed territory.Abzeronow (talk)23:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above. Map 1 is bad as it's aWP:SYNTH mess, with the cited sources not matching what the map shows. Map 2 is bad because it cites an X thread instead of anything coming close to a reputable source. Map 3 suffers from similar problems ofWP:SYNTH as map 1. I would propose aMap 4 be added for Al-Shaabab control based on the area shown inAl Shabaab’s Area of Operations. by Critical Threats. https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/al-shabaabs-area-of-operations. If the area of control shown on this map can be adapted into one of the templates already being used that would work best. The source does not have problems withWP:SYNTH and the source is more credible than a twitter post (it's still not the best, using a think tank instead of a scholarly article, but I suppose getting a map from the latter will take time for the academia machine to run it's course). One advantage with this map is differentiating between areas of control and areas of presence. Map 2 has similar borders overall but much of the area it describes as control is described by Critical Threats as merely presence.
Could you elaborate on the claims of original research? Almost everything (at least, in my map) is sourced quite clearly. The ‘Critical Threats’ map suffers a key issue, that it doesn’t exactly clearly define certain areas of control.Guardafuuii (talk)22:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For original research, none of the eight sources from the map have their own visuals, so one has to go off textual descriptions. No description of how each source has been used is given, which makes it unclear where any one detail on the map was taken from. From the reading I've done I also don't believe such a detailed zone of control of possible from just eight sources.
The lack of areas of control is a problem, yes, but that's true for all insurgencies. While having clean lines on map is convenient its usually oversimplifying things. The Critical Threats map shows the situation is much more nuanced, where many areas have Al Shabaab operations but actual administration is under local governments. I don't think any solution will come out from that, in my view those areas marked as presence should be shown with unclear control on the map. This way, it's clear to the reader that there is no clear idea of what's going on in southern Somalia nowHetmanTheResearcher (talk)23:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree thatWP:SYNTH is a problem, but these maps have been breaking that rule since their existence, it's extremely hard to find a map that shows every inch of Al-Shabaab territory.
Can I get an update on what map you guys want? Like, does Replayerr still want Map 1? Does Guardafuuii still want Map 2? etc.Zabezt (talk)00:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Critical Threats map won't be used then this works for the time being. It should be modified slightly to only use the first source; its one map, and while outdated is at least an easily verifiable source that has no problems with synth. Using policy-based arguments its the best map of the four presented (it's definitely not the most accurate one. Personally I think map 2 is more accurate. But, sources on here operate onWP:NOTTRUTH, where the goal is not to truth the truth per se but rather what reliable sources say is the truth. On that end, map 2 fails miserably).HetmanTheResearcher (talk)06:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are still disagreements all over here, I think we need to keep this RFC running for another month, to at least get more opinions.Zabezt (talk)15:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above your map isWP:SYNTH or, I'll add here,WP:OR. For example, your map shows two thin lives under Somali government control on the coast. Do you have a source which explicitly says these strips are under Somali control. If so, place it on this talk page.HetmanTheResearcher (talk)20:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That solves one detail but there are others. For example, which source describes Wajid as being under siege? Is Dinsoor under government control? Is Burweyn? While I expect you have sources, these sources are all scattered and from different times (one source may be from 2020, the other from 2023, and so on). It's better to use a single map, or a few at most, as the source for this map to make it easily verifiable. That's what the Critical Threats map and PolGeo maps are.HetmanTheResearcher (talk)02:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if Map 1 only referenced the map from REACH, it would not beWP:SYNTH? I only added most of the other sources to explain what's happening up north with SCC-Khatumo, (as with Map 4)Zabezt (talk)21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link for that map does not go to REACH, rather another map from Wikipedia. The author claims it's from REACH but the link they provide doesn't lead to a map from that organization. I wouldn't use it either as that one fails aWP:V testHetmanTheResearcher (talk)00:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wajid has been under siege since at least 2017, with AS having a significant presence as recently aslast month, Diinsoor came under government control in an offensive led by AMISOM in2015, Burweyn was alsotaken in the 2022 Government-led offensive in Central Somalia. Your point on sources being scattered or scarce is true, however unfounded in these examples (with the exclusion of Wajid, which I must admit is not throughly documented by the media).Guardafuuii (talk)07:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said I don't doubt the information is false. My problem is withWP:V andWP:SYNTH. A map could be made with adding each and every news article cited but then the map would have dozens of citations, which makes verifying any one detail near-impossible for someone who wasn't the original map creator. Maps made off Wikipedia bypass this issue by having only a few links so any one detail can be easily verified.HetmanTheResearcher (talk)18:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got pinged to this RFC by bot. I admit I'm having a hard time parsing all of this; it's unclear what each map's origins are. Including the maps with who voted for it as a caption isn't super helpful, especially because more people might come in and vote. I think the most helpful way to solve this discussion would be if someone could lay out in a neutral and organized fashion what each map represents, the sources of that map, and why it looks different from the other maps. If that gets achieved, please ping me again and I will make an effort to express some thoughts on the merits.CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓05:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Map 1 is mainly sourced fromhere, representing the situation in Somalia as of December 2023. This map is accused of breakingWP:SYNTH andWP:V
Map 2 is mainly sourced fromhere and represents Somalia as of May 22nd this year. This map is accused of being sourced from Twitter and breakingWP:NOTTRUTH.
Map 3 is sourced from a lot of places and represents the situation as of October 5th this year. This map is also accused of breakingWP:SYNTH andWP:V
Map 4 is sourced fromhere and represents the situation as of 2021. This map apparently has its source copyrighted.
Campaign maps are inherently a bit SYNTH. Just look at the Ukraine or Syria campaign maps. They're intrinsically a Wiki-made product. Map 2 is obviously questionable due to its Twitter origins. Map 1 is a bit outdated. Map 4 is definitely too outdated. I could accept map 3. But overall, I prefer the extra map because it does a better job of showing just how many factions there actually are in the war. I'd also support an SVG campaign map that showed more than just three factions.CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓18:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukraine map near-exclusively uses the ISW map on that conflict. Other modern conflicts now, such as Gaza or Lebanon, also use the ISW and changes which would introduceWP:SYNTH have been rejected on the latter two (during mid and late April, a series of changes were made on the Gaza map, but these were all reverted because they violated policy). I know the Syria map is SYNTH but I don't know why this was allowed. Was there any debate which occurred which allowed the map to exist despite breaking policy? If no such debate occurred then I don't see why one violation of policy should be justification for further violations; instead, the original violation should be corrected.HetmanTheResearcher (talk)01:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Map 1 is terribly inaccurate and Map 4 is also incorrect.
Map 2 andMap 3 seem to be the most accurate versions. An analysis of themaps updated by Critical threats.org reveals that Map 2 and Map 3 are the closest to ground reality. "Institute for the Study of War" warmonitor group also analyses the war in Somalia based on the maps of "Critical threats".
It is possible that minor corrections are required in each of these versions, but that can be done by editing either of them, based on information from reliable sources.
Hence, I support the inclusion ofMap 2 and/orMap 3. (i.e. either of them)
If critical threats is used in a new map then I'll switch my support to that map. The map has a legend for it's various zones of control. From that legend, attack zones are clearly not under Al Shabaab control while Control Zones are (c'mon, it's in the name). Support zones are defined as a subset of attack zones so they should be shown under some sort of Al Shabaab control, perhaps a lighter shade of grey to indicate the looser control that group has over those regions. Contested support zones could use a lighter shade of red to show Somali control peeling off those regions. Alternatively, both support and contested support zones could be shown as while for uncertain control.HetmanTheResearcher (talk)05:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ta-da! Extremely disappointing, I know, but it’s basically all I can get done on a smartphone. I don’t have access to a computer at the moment, and even if I did learning how to make an SVG file would take a while. Consider this as a draft, and if anyone currently has the opportunity to make an SVG file, please remake the file I made accordingly.Zabezt (talk)23:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here’s my plan to conclude this RfC.We use either Map 3 or Map 4 (still disputed) and if a higher quality of Map 5 ever gets made, we’ll use that instead.Zabezt (talk)12:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a high quality version of map 5 is ever made, it will have to merge certain areas like control and support zones simply for a reader to understand it. But other than that, I agree with it.Guardafuuii (talk)08:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zabezt: Where in the source are you getting those borders? Nowhere in those sources are the borders shown or described like that. It also conflicts with the top map.Wowzers122 (talk)21:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the official wiki on Las Anod and most relevant sources, Somaliland excercises control over the city. The map should be rectified to account for this.81.206.119.242 (talk)20:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, nothing you said is factual, SSC-Khatumo is still in control of Las Anod, and this is reflected in theLas Anod Wikipedia article.Zabezt (talk)22:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current map doesn’t quite reflect the actual situation regarding Al-Shabaab’s presence in Somalia. It gives the impression that the group controls large areas in central and southern regions, which isn’t really the case anymore.
Since late 2022, joint military efforts by the Somali National Army (SNA), along with support from ATMIS, U.S. airstrikes (AFRICOM), and local clan militias (macawiisley), have pushed Al-Shabaab out of many areas. Several districts in Hirshabelle, Galmudug, and Southwest states have been brought back under government control. Today, most towns and key centers are run by federal or state authorities, while Al-Shabaab mostly resorts to hit-and-run tactics like ambushes and roadside bombs.
So does this map reflect a neutral up-to-date view of the situation, or is it just throwing around territorial claims for Al-Shabaab that no longer hold true?Majid8097 (talk)09:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you guys are updated 24/7, rather you take headlines without looking further. Yes, Al-Shabaab made some recent gains, but those places like Mogokori, Sabiib, and Caanole were quickly retaken by SNA and AU forces. The map and articles only show areas being attacked and ending with alshabab not being able to succeed in taking control.
Take a look at these links and how what you listed were quickly recaptured.
level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Isochrone (talk)13:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply].png)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=link}
