Talk:List of prime ministers of Somalia
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Sundostund in topic Numbers
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Numbers
edit@Sundostund: I saw your edit. The numbers 18, 19, and 21 have sources attached to them. You have rewritten them as 16, 17, and 19. What is your rationale for this?--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: The main problem with the numbers was that, in this version of the list, someone completely left out the number 4, and added Ismail Ali Abokor to the list (who never served as Prime Minister, but as Vice President). I see that as the main reason for the confusion. —Sundostund (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: If we take Hamza Abdi Barre as the 21st Prime Minister, we can see that the Wikipedia list does not add up. But still, the source clearly states the 21st. This is Puntlandes' description, but the 19th is based on AllFfrica (based on Radio Dalsan), the 18th on Hiiraan online, and there is no contradiction between multiple sources. Don't you think it is fair to describe Hamza Abdi Barre as the 21st?--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I understand your point, but in lists like this, its customary to mark officeholders' numbers in a certain pattern. For instance, Omar Sharmarke was the 12th Prime Minister when he first took office. His subsequent terms are marked with (12), not with a completely new number. That is a sort of standard, and I must say that I agree with it. —Sundostund (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: You claim Sharmarke as the 12th, but there is no source for that. According to Garowe online, which is relatively authoritative in Somali media, Ali Khalif Galaydh is 8th (8aad), Hassan Abshir Farah is 9th, and Nur Hassan Hussein is 12th.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I am not claiming anything, just mentioning what is the standard for lists like this on English Wikipedia. You normally don't count the same officeholder with different numbers for different terms – Muhammad Haji Ibrahim Egal is counted with 1 and (1), not as the 1st Prime Minister, and then the 4th one. —Sundostund (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: I am not claiming that a unique number be given to the reappointed Prime Minister. We don't know the PM's numbers without a source. I am working on the numbers in a bit more detail, which is reflected in the Japanese Wikipedia. Other than the numbers with the sources, these are my estimates.
According to Somali mass media, Abdirashid Shermarke is the 3rd Prime minister. Apparently, they considers Abdullahi Issa as the 1st prime minister.Anyway, I will try to match the numbers with their sources to the Japanese Wikipedia. Numbers without a source are also tentatively aligned with the Japanese Wikipedia, but you can rewrite them if you like.--Freetrashbox (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)- @Freetrashbox: I am not familiar with your work on Japanese Wikipedia, as my activities are mostly limited to English Wikipedia; I am aware of its usual standards for lists like this one. Of course, feel free to try to match the numbers as you see correct, and then we will see how it goes from there. Just to say – it doesn't seem logical to me to consider Abdullahi Issa as the 1st prime minister, since he served prior to the Somali independence in 1960. It would be hard to equalize him and other prime ministers of independent Somalia. —Sundostund (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: Thank you. I have edited it.--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- (Additional comment) Sorry, "Abdirashid Shermarke is the 3rd" is my mistake.--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I really appreciate your effort, but – I am sorry, I don't think this is fine at all. With this version of the list, we have the situation that a unique number is given to reappointed prime ministers, and that really should be avoided. Not to mention the situation with Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed, who is marked as both 17th and 18th Prime Minister, according to two different sources... From my experience with working on lists of officeholders – when a situation like this occur, it would be wise to scrap the number section from the list altogether. I think we should remodel both this list (and List of presidents of Somalia) to look like List of presidents of Germany and List of presidents of Austria, without any numbering. I see that as the only solution, if we can't avoid to give unique number to reappointed PMs, and to solve the numbering issue with Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed. —Sundostund (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: Please see WP:VERIFY. Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed i.e. in Wikipedia, it is generally not possible to delete statements based on reliable sources. Your numbering system has no basis and so far it is your original research.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: That is not the point at all, but how to present the numbers here, without contradicting all the standards applied to similar lists elsewhere. There is no original research in seeking consistency in layout of lists of officeholders. Anyway, why would you be against the removal of the number section? I think its a perfectly acceptable solution in this situation, and successfully applied elsewhere. —Sundostund (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: The first is I have indicated the source of the information, whereas you have not indicated the basis for the deletion. For example, please provide an internal link to the Wikipedia rule that shows the situation that a unique number is given to reappointed prime ministers, and that really should be avoided, you mentioned above. Second, this information is valuable. As can be inferred from the information I have presented, it is widely accepted in the Somali media that Hamza Abdi Barre is the 21st. It is useful for understanding the Somali's thoughts on the numbering system.--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: This not the issue of any Wikipedia rule, nor there is a rule that provide the layout of lists of officeholders. But there are some standards and consistency on such lists through English Wikipedia, and I see no reason to leave Somali lists out of such consistency. The issue we have is about the presentation; for instance, you placed the ref links in the number section, and that's a very poor solution. The standards I mention also include that giving a unique number to reappointed prime ministers is avoided whenever possible. There is no logic in marking the same person's terms in different numbers. —Sundostund (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: With all due respect, you do not seem to know much about the world numbering system. For example, do you know that Japan has emperors? List of emperors of Japan shows that there were two people who were appointed emperor of Japan twice. 35th & 37th, 46th & 48th. Thus, a person who has been emperor of Japan twice is numbered twice. This is one proof that your standards have no basis.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: With all due respect, stop implying what I might know, or not know. I am talking about lists of political officeholders, and such lists do have standards. One of them is to avoid numbering the same person with different numbers. Lists of monarchs usually follow that standard as well, but its not necessary – having monarchs who were enthroned more than once is very rare anyway, so such issue may be solved in various ways. And, I am waiting that you remove ref links from the number section, since they certainly don't belong there. I see that as the even bigger issue than the numbering pattern. I can't recall that, so far, I saw a single list on English Wikipedia that has something like that. —Sundostund (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: So please provide a link to those standards.--Freetrashbox (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: Once again – we are not talking about codified policies and rules. There is no policy on how layouts of lists like this should look, just positive examples to follow. Aren't you able to browse lists of officeholders yourself, and see that vast majority of them number a person only once, and repeat that number? And once again – please create a separate "Refs" section for references, and remove them from the number section. —Sundostund (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: There is no reason why positive examples you believe should be preferred over source-based statements. Wikipedia discussions should only be based on policy or guidelines or by counterexample. Wikipedia articles are not available as example(s).--Freetrashbox (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: In this case, we have nothing to discuss that is related to policies and guidelines. The issues are different here. Its about the presentation and the general appearance of the list. Yes, there are positive examples to be taken into account, and we should have such examples on our minds when we work on similar articles. Please find even one list which have references as part of the number section. —Sundostund (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: I have been a Wikipedia user for a long time, and this is the first time I have been asked to delete a source for any reason other than reliability. If I erase the references number, do you accept the number I indicated?--Freetrashbox (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I have been a Wikipedia user since 2010, and I never asked anybody to delete a source or a reference, for any reason. This is just the issue of presentation, and how to fit the sourced data in the list, in a correct way, without interfering with the usual layout for lists like this one. Everything referenced should stay, the question is just how the table will look in the end. The references certainly don't belong in the number section. Please find a new place for them. —Sundostund (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: Does that mean that you do not accept the number I suggested at this time? I am willing to compromise if erasing the reference number would end all discussion, but if not, I can't compromise with you not following Wikipedia's rules. Please provide evidence for your argument, not only your thoughts.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I have been a Wikipedia user since 2010, and I never asked anybody to delete a source or a reference, for any reason. This is just the issue of presentation, and how to fit the sourced data in the list, in a correct way, without interfering with the usual layout for lists like this one. Everything referenced should stay, the question is just how the table will look in the end. The references certainly don't belong in the number section. Please find a new place for them. —Sundostund (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: I have been a Wikipedia user for a long time, and this is the first time I have been asked to delete a source for any reason other than reliability. If I erase the references number, do you accept the number I indicated?--Freetrashbox (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: In this case, we have nothing to discuss that is related to policies and guidelines. The issues are different here. Its about the presentation and the general appearance of the list. Yes, there are positive examples to be taken into account, and we should have such examples on our minds when we work on similar articles. Please find even one list which have references as part of the number section. —Sundostund (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: There is no reason why positive examples you believe should be preferred over source-based statements. Wikipedia discussions should only be based on policy or guidelines or by counterexample. Wikipedia articles are not available as example(s).--Freetrashbox (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: Once again – we are not talking about codified policies and rules. There is no policy on how layouts of lists like this should look, just positive examples to follow. Aren't you able to browse lists of officeholders yourself, and see that vast majority of them number a person only once, and repeat that number? And once again – please create a separate "Refs" section for references, and remove them from the number section. —Sundostund (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: So please provide a link to those standards.--Freetrashbox (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: With all due respect, stop implying what I might know, or not know. I am talking about lists of political officeholders, and such lists do have standards. One of them is to avoid numbering the same person with different numbers. Lists of monarchs usually follow that standard as well, but its not necessary – having monarchs who were enthroned more than once is very rare anyway, so such issue may be solved in various ways. And, I am waiting that you remove ref links from the number section, since they certainly don't belong there. I see that as the even bigger issue than the numbering pattern. I can't recall that, so far, I saw a single list on English Wikipedia that has something like that. —Sundostund (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: With all due respect, you do not seem to know much about the world numbering system. For example, do you know that Japan has emperors? List of emperors of Japan shows that there were two people who were appointed emperor of Japan twice. 35th & 37th, 46th & 48th. Thus, a person who has been emperor of Japan twice is numbered twice. This is one proof that your standards have no basis.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: This not the issue of any Wikipedia rule, nor there is a rule that provide the layout of lists of officeholders. But there are some standards and consistency on such lists through English Wikipedia, and I see no reason to leave Somali lists out of such consistency. The issue we have is about the presentation; for instance, you placed the ref links in the number section, and that's a very poor solution. The standards I mention also include that giving a unique number to reappointed prime ministers is avoided whenever possible. There is no logic in marking the same person's terms in different numbers. —Sundostund (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: The first is I have indicated the source of the information, whereas you have not indicated the basis for the deletion. For example, please provide an internal link to the Wikipedia rule that shows the situation that a unique number is given to reappointed prime ministers, and that really should be avoided, you mentioned above. Second, this information is valuable. As can be inferred from the information I have presented, it is widely accepted in the Somali media that Hamza Abdi Barre is the 21st. It is useful for understanding the Somali's thoughts on the numbering system.--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: That is not the point at all, but how to present the numbers here, without contradicting all the standards applied to similar lists elsewhere. There is no original research in seeking consistency in layout of lists of officeholders. Anyway, why would you be against the removal of the number section? I think its a perfectly acceptable solution in this situation, and successfully applied elsewhere. —Sundostund (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: Please see WP:VERIFY. Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed i.e. in Wikipedia, it is generally not possible to delete statements based on reliable sources. Your numbering system has no basis and so far it is your original research.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I really appreciate your effort, but – I am sorry, I don't think this is fine at all. With this version of the list, we have the situation that a unique number is given to reappointed prime ministers, and that really should be avoided. Not to mention the situation with Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed, who is marked as both 17th and 18th Prime Minister, according to two different sources... From my experience with working on lists of officeholders – when a situation like this occur, it would be wise to scrap the number section from the list altogether. I think we should remodel both this list (and List of presidents of Somalia) to look like List of presidents of Germany and List of presidents of Austria, without any numbering. I see that as the only solution, if we can't avoid to give unique number to reappointed PMs, and to solve the numbering issue with Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed. —Sundostund (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I am not familiar with your work on Japanese Wikipedia, as my activities are mostly limited to English Wikipedia; I am aware of its usual standards for lists like this one. Of course, feel free to try to match the numbers as you see correct, and then we will see how it goes from there. Just to say – it doesn't seem logical to me to consider Abdullahi Issa as the 1st prime minister, since he served prior to the Somali independence in 1960. It would be hard to equalize him and other prime ministers of independent Somalia. —Sundostund (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: I am not claiming that a unique number be given to the reappointed Prime Minister. We don't know the PM's numbers without a source. I am working on the numbers in a bit more detail, which is reflected in the Japanese Wikipedia. Other than the numbers with the sources, these are my estimates.
- @Freetrashbox: I am not claiming anything, just mentioning what is the standard for lists like this on English Wikipedia. You normally don't count the same officeholder with different numbers for different terms – Muhammad Haji Ibrahim Egal is counted with 1 and (1), not as the 1st Prime Minister, and then the 4th one. —Sundostund (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: You claim Sharmarke as the 12th, but there is no source for that. According to Garowe online, which is relatively authoritative in Somali media, Ali Khalif Galaydh is 8th (8aad), Hassan Abshir Farah is 9th, and Nur Hassan Hussein is 12th.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I understand your point, but in lists like this, its customary to mark officeholders' numbers in a certain pattern. For instance, Omar Sharmarke was the 12th Prime Minister when he first took office. His subsequent terms are marked with (12), not with a completely new number. That is a sort of standard, and I must say that I agree with it. —Sundostund (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: If we take Hamza Abdi Barre as the 21st Prime Minister, we can see that the Wikipedia list does not add up. But still, the source clearly states the 21st. This is Puntlandes' description, but the 19th is based on AllFfrica (based on Radio Dalsan), the 18th on Hiiraan online, and there is no contradiction between multiple sources. Don't you think it is fair to describe Hamza Abdi Barre as the 21st?--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Freetrashbox: I am always willing to compromise if needed. I can accept that a unique number is given to reappointed officeholders (although I disagree with it), since I know that it happens in some lists, so it wouldn't be such an unusual thing. On the other hand, placing references in the number section is certainly highly unusual. I don't have the problem to accept anything that is sourced; the issue exist only about how to present the data, in the layout of the table. Having in mind our disagreement about the numbering, and the confusing fact that Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed is marked as both 17th and 18th Prime Minister by two different sources, I still think that the best solution would be to scrap the number section from the list. Quite a few lists are without numbering (for instance List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, List of presidents of Germany, List of presidents of Austria and List of chancellors of Austria), and they are completely fine without it. We can state that Hamza Abdi Barre is the 21st Prime Minister in the lead section, since his name is already mentioned there. With a proper reference about his number. —Sundostund (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: I have checked the page you indicated and it does not apply to this case. It seems that numbering system for List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom was discussed in Talk:List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom#Numbing of PMs. This article is not numbered because (a) Numbering is not commonly in the UK, (b)UK is a union country, there can be more than one way to numbering, and (c) There are various theories about the "first prime minister." None of these apply to the Somalia prime minister. List of presidents of Germany was discussed in Talk:List of presidents of Germany#Numbers of presidents. The reasons are (d) Disagree on whether to include the Prime Minister of Nazism. (e) Unsourced. None of these apply to the Somalia prime minister. List of presidents of Austria was discussed in User:Kramler/Kurz is not the 25th chancellor. The reasons are above (a) and (f) Unclear treatment of interim and very short term prime minister, and above (e). None of these apply to the Somalia prime minister. I am not familiar with the European mindset, so I don't know if the reasons above are valid or not, but they are compelling in any case. Can you give reasons for your assertion that you should not number the Somalia PM?--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I am sorry, but we will have to agree that we disagree about this. All the lists that I mentioned apply to this case. It doesn't matter why the numbers were removed from those lists, the only thing that matter is that those lists are perfectly fine and presentable without numbering. That is my point. (I can include List of prime ministers of Japan in that category as well). Somali lists can't be treated as something special, totally different from all the other lists of officeholders. I already mentioned the main reasons to remove the numbering from this list – Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed can't be marked as both 17th and 18th Prime Minister, which is the case now according to two of your different sources. Next, references can't be located in the number section, that is just ludicrous and non-existent in any other list on English Wikipedia. I can compromise on giving a unique number to reappointed officeholders (although I disagree with it, as I stated above), but the other two issues must be solved. I don't see how they may be solved, if the number section isn't scrapped. And, I expect you to be willing to make compromises as well, in order to solve this. —Sundostund (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: In Comparison with other sources, the article on hiiraan.com that lists Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed as the 18th seems to be simply wrong. If you mean to remove this, I can agree. The removal of the numbers is simply your personal opinion unless you can provide a basis for it, and I disagree.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I am not insisting on the removal of the numbers (although there is a solid basis for that, as the lists I mentioned show), if we solve the issue with Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed's number. I will now remove the source (from hiiraan.com) that claim him to be the 18th Prime Minister. With that, the numbers can stay. I can also accept that a unique number is given to reappointed officeholders, as I mentioned above. Those are my compromises. Now I expect you to accept a compromise on the issue of references in the number section, and place them elsewhere in the list. They shouldn't stay in the number section at all. —Sundostund (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: I have removed references from the number section as you requested. In the future I expect you to cite Wikipedia policy or guideline or previous agreements in your discussions. Using examples from other pages should only be an auxiliary means. Have a good Wikipedia life.--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I find your solution for the references as a rather acceptable one. It is surely far better than to have them in the number section. We will see if other editors can find some better solution for it later on, with some different ideas. In the future, I expect you to seek and rely upon positive examples when you work on articles you are interested in, and learn from those examples, instead of repeatedly asking for policies and guidelines that doesn't exist. Those examples are very valuable, when we have a similar article in front of us. No one even bothered to codify that into policies and guidelines, since there are some standards that are widely accepted by the community, as numerous lists of officeholders shows (not just the ones I listed here). Have a good Wikipedia life as well, and cheers! —Sundostund (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: I have removed references from the number section as you requested. In the future I expect you to cite Wikipedia policy or guideline or previous agreements in your discussions. Using examples from other pages should only be an auxiliary means. Have a good Wikipedia life.--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I am not insisting on the removal of the numbers (although there is a solid basis for that, as the lists I mentioned show), if we solve the issue with Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed's number. I will now remove the source (from hiiraan.com) that claim him to be the 18th Prime Minister. With that, the numbers can stay. I can also accept that a unique number is given to reappointed officeholders, as I mentioned above. Those are my compromises. Now I expect you to accept a compromise on the issue of references in the number section, and place them elsewhere in the list. They shouldn't stay in the number section at all. —Sundostund (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund: In Comparison with other sources, the article on hiiraan.com that lists Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed as the 18th seems to be simply wrong. If you mean to remove this, I can agree. The removal of the numbers is simply your personal opinion unless you can provide a basis for it, and I disagree.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Freetrashbox: I am sorry, but we will have to agree that we disagree about this. All the lists that I mentioned apply to this case. It doesn't matter why the numbers were removed from those lists, the only thing that matter is that those lists are perfectly fine and presentable without numbering. That is my point. (I can include List of prime ministers of Japan in that category as well). Somali lists can't be treated as something special, totally different from all the other lists of officeholders. I already mentioned the main reasons to remove the numbering from this list – Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed can't be marked as both 17th and 18th Prime Minister, which is the case now according to two of your different sources. Next, references can't be located in the number section, that is just ludicrous and non-existent in any other list on English Wikipedia. I can compromise on giving a unique number to reappointed officeholders (although I disagree with it, as I stated above), but the other two issues must be solved. I don't see how they may be solved, if the number section isn't scrapped. And, I expect you to be willing to make compromises as well, in order to solve this. —Sundostund (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)