Talk:Somali Democratic Republic

Somaliland

Seeing as a large portion of this former state is now part of the de facto sovereign state of Somaliland, I have reinstated the other editor's version with de facto clarification. Kzl55 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Somali Democratic Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503221634/http://www.wardheernews.com/Articles_2011/Oct/29_Brothers_in_Army_abdul.pdf to http://wardheernews.com/Articles_2011/Oct/29_Brothers_in_Army_abdul.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Assassination & Bloodless coup?

The LEDE for this article first says there was a bloodless coup in 1969 when the Marxist-Lenninist dictatorship took over. Then the next sentence says that the President of Somalia was assassinated in 1969.

How can a coup be bloodless when the head of state is shot and killed as part of a takeover? This seems contradictory.

It is probably just not well worded, the coup was apparently set in motion the day after the assassination. I dont think I have seen any source linking the coup to the assassination. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Colour of Somalia on map

Why is Somalia coloured blue? Aren't countries usually coloured green on Wikipedia? Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted details

I think we should keep the government infobox details previously had and also why is the map deleted? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, why is military dictatorship also not mentioned? These are all important details that didn't need to be deleted here. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Details should be discussed in the article body, rather than in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

These details are on every communist country’s government infobox. It should be the same here and your obstructionism is frankly, boring and wasting both of our time. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

What is on other countries doesn't matter (see WP:OTHERCONTENT. What does matter is what is in this article. The lead and infobox are meant to summarize the article, not the other way around; the article should remain complete with the infobox ignored (see MOS:IBP). Details belong in the article body, not in the lead (see WP:DETAIL). On top of that, sandwiching links together creates accessibility issues (see MOS:SOB).

This isn't the first time you've been told these things, nor am I the only one to point out that you are regularly "stuffing as much detail as possible into the infobox until it becomes totally useless to readers". If you find it boring to continue to hear this, the best solution is to stop making edits like that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The best solution would be for you to stop making these edits. It does nothing but degrade the article. Simply have “socialist state” is overly simplistic and too broad. There is no mention of unitary state or one party system or even military dictatorship. I honestly just consider this vandalism at this point and I suggest you stop making this kinds of stupid and useless edits that you always make. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate you don't like those changes, that does not make them vandalism, stupid, or useless. Across the various pages I and others have explained what the relevant policies and guidelines are, and I'd ask you to review those and follow them.

At present this article's Government section consists only of a list of leaders. If you feel passionately that the article should include all the details you propose and you have the sourcing to back that up, I encourage you to invest your time in building up that section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Don’t tell me what to do buddy ErickTheMerrick (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Reopening this discussion as well as I find it very neglectful to leave out the military dictatorship aspect for this regime and the totalitarianism of Siad Barre, both of which were sourced. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

These are features that make this regime stand out from other Marxist-Leninist states and should be included in the government infobox due to their importance. They are both sourced and leaving them out is irresponsible. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, why must you continue to delete the infobox details despite me having sourced the information I have provided? I do not know why you continue this irrational crusade, its frankly very bothersome. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I explained above several weeks ago why your proposed addition was problematic. Since that time you have not provided any policy-based rationale for its inclusion, nor have you obtained consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained to you that socialist state is too broad a category to describe the government structure. I don't know if maybe you’re just not reading what I'm saying or willfully ignoring it. This is getting incredibly obnoxious on your end. It’s like you’re incapable of understanding anything I attempt to explain to you. Hell, Communist state would be better than what’s there right now. The policy isn’t the issue here. That wasn’t too much info, it was what the government was. This is like putting simply “monarchy” instead of something like “constitutional monarchy”, a destructive edit that does nothing but denigrate the article. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I've read what you've said: you believe a more granular level of detail should be included in this parameter. Have you read what I've said? That level of detail isn't present in the article body. Why not work on adding it there? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It is now buddy. So now I think I can add it, no? It’s mentioned in the body now so you have no valid objection to this anymore. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I have the same objections I had before - the details belong in the body per IBP and DETAIL. Thank you for adding them there. Now the article says what you want it to say, in the place that it should be said - that's a positive outcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not. The details also belong in the government infobox as its the form of government. What the hell does socialist state tel you about the form of government? This is incredibly reductive of you and frankly stupid. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ve added a multitude of sources for you too so this is feels very obstructionist bordering vandalism ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hell, “Marxist-Leninist state” instead of “Unitary Marxist-Leninist One-Party Socialist Republic” would be better than what you put. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Since sourcing wasn't the issue, adding more sourcing is not a solution.

In the interests of concluding this matter, I've changed the parameter to Marxist-Leninist state. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

And I have re-added the part that you forgot, sourced of course ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, I think the sources could also be in the infobox. It isn’t too big a deal but I think its be good so it can look more evidenced. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Removing it here as well TheUzbek (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look more "evidenced", though, it just invites {{duplicate citations}} tagging. As to the part that wasn't forgotten, it does not appear that there is consensus for it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I have justified my edits because they have sources and totalitarianism is fine to add in government infoboxes. It is the consensus across wikipedia, you can check many, many states woth it there and I don't see the issue with it being here or in Communist Albania. I feel like you have some sort of personal issue with me. With your edits seem to do everything you can to revert or "um actually" anything I do. I suggest you stop as this is getting rather pathetic and bothersome having to argue with you even though you never seem to back off on a single thing you assert to be best and true. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, it doesn't matter what other articles say, adding too many details to the infobox makes the infobox worse, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Not adding that it was specifically a military dictatorship or even that it was totalitarian is too minimal. I have add sources for these claims and it is not too much to add. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Bringing this up again as the issue has not been resolved. I have provided sources to back up my edits here, it is not too much to add, and it doesn't break any wikipedia rules. This sort of obstructionist edit reversal is shameful and unfounded and not grounded in any realm of fact or rules. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but it still does not appear that consensus agrees with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I am attempting in good faith to convince you of why this would be a good idea to add the details I have laid out. You not even attempt posting to see the merit of what I am saying is incredibly rude. Maybe you should take your activities elsewhere if you wont even take the opinion of other seriously. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I have read and considered everything you've posted, but I have not been convinced by it. Unless one of the other opposers has been, it seems like time for you to drop the stick. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I will not because the resistance to this is ridiculous. It is sourced, it is not overbearing on the infobox, and should be a pretty obvious add as I would say totalitarianism and military dictatorship is pretty important in terms of a government form. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)