Talk:Mogadishu under Italian rule

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potential merging of article content[edit]

I have created the voice, but it needs additional data & images. Please help. Furthermore, Wikipedia needs to enlarge......and merge with other articles is illogical. For example, British Hong Kong is NOT merged with History of Hong Kong and Roman London is NOT merged with History of London. I have seen that someone wished to change the name: well, for me it is welcome any suggestion. I personally think that Italian Mogadishu would be OK (it is similar to Italian Benghazi). Anyway, let's make Wikipedia a more complete encyclopedia. Regards to all of you. User 68153223242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.223.242 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article already created controversial city name called 'Italian Mogadishu' on Facebook autocreated pages and showing the profile of hundred thousands of people they are from 'Italian Mogadishu', you have to understand one thing the original name of this page was Mogadishu and this page existed since 2002, if you know facebook auto created locations, Facebook pull information from Wikipedia pages facebook.On 7 December 2015 RobertsBiology moved page Mogadishu, Somalia to Mogadishu, Italian Somaliland, afterwards this change affected the Facebook users by redirecting to Mogadishu, Italian Somaliland check the history of this page for more information and Facebook auto created page italian Mogadishu.Axmaada (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What has to do "Facebook" with a Wikipedia article? User 68153223242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.223.242 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Italian Mogadishu → Mogadishu – There is no Italian Mogadishu and this page should be part history of Mogadishu,the capital of Somalia. On the other hand third party websites such as Facebook pull data from Wikipedia to auto created pages, it will create controversial location as there is no such Italian Mogadishu, please move this page to Mogadishu Somalia. Axmaada (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was an Italian Mogadiscio....and it existed for more than half a century (a bit like British Hong Kong). There is ample precedent for such articles at Wikipedia. User 68153223242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.223.242 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a merge into Mogadishu. That article is not the place for such detailed information. A merge into History of Mogadishu would be more appropriate but is also not warranted in this case. As 68.153.223.242 points, there is ample precedent for such articles at Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  01:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your opinion, AjaxSmack. Consequently, I erase the "illogical" merge tag. User 68153223242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.223.242 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the renaming of the heading was appropriate, and have changed that. (This is not an expression of support for the merging idea.) —BarrelProof (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI lots of IPs and users involved (namely those pushing a "neocolonialist" POV) were brunodam, long-term abuser blocked and locked for violating almost any rule/policy/whatever. Dealing with his contents you must assume bad faith checking deeply anything against sources (though lots might be copyvios). --Vituzzu (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mogadishu, banaadir, Somalia[edit]

Abdifatahaadle (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC) its colonized time back in 1995 wtf its 2016 change it plz Abdifatahaadle (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page was just moved by User:Muktar7 to Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia. It never had that title before. An IP user apparently did not like that change, and tried to recreate the article at Italian Mogadishu with this edit. Since a WP:Cut and paste move is not the appropriate way to move an article, I reverted that change. The article has been moved several times in the last month without any proper consensus agreement. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying note: The user identified above as User:Muktar7 is the user that appears in these discussions by the name "Axmaada". —BarrelProof (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus below. (Closed as an involved editor, due to a huge requested move backlog, and there is clearly consensus here. Feel free to revert if you disagree.)(non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia → Mogadishu under Italian rule – Per WP:DAB and to resolve general confusion. The article has been moved several times in the last month to various titles without any proper consensus agreement. The current title, "Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia", and the original title "Mogadishu, Somalia", both seem too ambiguous with the main article at Mogadishu (which also describes a city in the Banadir region in Somalia – in fact, I think it is the same city but just during a different period of history, although the article seems to say the city "officially ... disappeared"). A previous very recent discussion was opened as an RM but was changed into an article merging discussion that proceeded in a rather confusing way and concluded that a merging was not appropriate. An IP editor has objected to the most recent move and has twice performed a WP:Cut and paste move back to Italian Mogadishu. Personally, I would not necessarily object to the use of that name or various others, but please let's have a proper discussion and pick a name that has consensus support. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a move from the current ambiguous title. Mogadishu under Italian rule (no need for the superfluous "colonial") and the former title of Italian Mogadishu are fine with me. —  AjaxSmack  11:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the comment. I have amended the proposal above to remove the unnecessary inclusion of "colonial". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, to clarify re: points below: I strongly prefer "Mogadishu under..." to "Mogadiscio under..." The Constantinople analogy is weak as Mogadishu/discio was and is far less well-known. I fear the Italian spelling could confuse readers while offering no benefit. However, either version is preferable to the current title. —  AjaxSmack  19:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Mogadiscio under Italian rule. The current title is meaningless as a disambiguator and the city was called Mogadiscio under Italian rule, not Mogadishu. We use the name at the time (e.g. our article on pre-1922 Istanbul is at Constantinople). I'm tempted to just suggest Mogadiscio; however, as this is still sometimes seen as a name for Mogadishu (especially in Italy) and was in common use long after Italian rule ended, this on its own is probably not a useful title and should remain a redirect to Mogadishu. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Mogadiscio under Italian rule or Mogadishu under Italian rule (& also again Italian Mogadishu, a title chosen by user:RobertsBiology). I have written most of the article and I want to pinpoint that it is centered ONLY in the half a century of Italian control of the city: it is a small period of time in the history of Mogadishu (like there it is British Hong Kong and History of Hong Kong & Hong Kong). As AjaxSmack wrote, there is ample precedent for such articles at Wikipedia. IMHO it is illogical the actual rename of "Mogadishu,Benadir,Somalia", done just after the discussion over a rejected move/merge was finished: someone seems to wish to create "problems" & confusion here...... User 68153223242 15:39, 7 January 2016‎ (UTC)
File:Mogad.jpg
This is a screenshot of facebook auto generated page of Mogadishu
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move content under the history of Mogadishu 1900-1950[edit]

I disagree in the first place the creator of this page made big problem by naming it to Mogadishu,it was 2002, because of that name Facebook created Mogadishu page from this Wikipedia page if you change it. it will effect the Facebook page which thousands of people will see in their profile they are from Italian Mogadishu, you have to understand that matters more than what you want, how would people of Mogadishu accept that they are from Italian Mogadishu, one possible solutions is to move this page under the history of Mogadishu, the IP user is an idiot who doesn't know anything about history, the title is more important than the content. Axmaada (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying you disagree with or why. Can you please clarify? Are you saying you disagree with the idea of merging this content into the article "History of Mogadishu"? Are you saying you disagree with renaming the article to "Mogadishu under Italian rule"? It seems that you may not be very familiar with Wikipedia and its practices. Please do not remove the Requested Move template from the page, as that is not proper for someone who has been involved in these discussions and article moves. You can find instructions about proper handling of Requested Moves at WP:RM and WP:RMCI. I also don't really understand your comments about Facebook. Regarding your comments about the IP user, please try to remain civil and assume good faith in these discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Facebook auto created pages which are created from the Wikipedia articles? BarrelProof, I disagree renaming this article under Italian rule for the following reason this page is linked with Facebook geolocation page of Mogadishu (https://www.facebook.com/places/Things-to-do-in-Mogadishu-Banadir-Somalia/106058719434891/) renaming of this article will effect hundred thousands of Facebook user's profile and change their location to whatever the name is. I know everything about this article is the period Italy ruled southern Somalia I have no doubt with the content my point is this article had the name Mogadishu from 2002 to 7 December 2015, renaming the article is very easy but we have to respect that this page is linked with Facebook page of Mogadishu Somalia so renaming this article will also rename the Facebook page of Mogadishu.

I feel offended by the word against me used by User:Muktar7|Axmaada or whatever he/she calls himself.....I SHOULD DEMAND CIVILIZED APOLOGIES, even because he has deliberately erased the related tag for the rename discussion! And furthermore, what has to do our Wikipedia with the mistakes done by Facebook? That's their problem, not ours....BTW, it seems the problem has been repaired now (www.change.org/p/facebook-facebook-facebook-to-reinstate-somalia-and-remove-italian-somaliland/u/14909910?tk=U7OcVKJkleoK-vRibP_1ePTu7OQq_RfDXyJnZL_5dZ4 by the Facebook managers: so, I hope nobody in future is going to request other ILLOGICAL changes of name because another Somalian internet website is "connected" to our en.Wikipedia.....in that case, this is going to go down to the ridiculous.....68.153.223.242 13:51, 11 January 2016
I disagree with Axmaada, while I agree with the above IP about civil in the discussions.--Coteglyph (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. REDIRECT Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia to Mogadishu

I disagree renaming this page Thousands of Mogadishians feel offended because of the renaming of this page as its linked with Facebook geolocation page of Mogadishu, answering to the IP user; Facebook have not done anything I renamed this article to Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia because of the change I made the facebook page renamed to https://www.facebook.com/places/Things-to-do-in-Mogadishu-Banadir-Somalia/106058719434891/, note that whatever happens to this article reflects with the facebook page, can anyone else explain to this IP address that thousand of Facebook pages linked Wikipedia articles, if you don't believe what I am saying do simple search visit the wiki article of London the Facebook outo-generated London Page https://www.facebook.com/places/Things-to-do-in-London-United-Kingdom/106078429431815/ go if you are using PC scroll down till you see the map, below the map read the little info which are the first sentence of the Wikipedia article of London. please go and read the editing history of this article not the talk page and see how long this page exists, this page was redirect page to Mogadishu before 7 December 2015, "00:27, 7 December 2015‎ user:RobertsBiology moved page Mogadishu, Somalia to Mogadishu, Italian Somaliland", the claim of the IP user is not true the origin name of the article was Mogadishu if you want you can create new article under the name italian Mogadiscio move your content to that new article and let this page redirect to Mogadishu page.Axmaada (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say you disagree with renaming this page, but you suggest to "create new article under the name italian Mogadiscio move your content to that new article and let this page redirect to Mogadishu page". I think that is actually what is being proposed above. The suggestion is to move the current content of "Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia" to some name like "Italian Mogadishu" or "Mogadishu under Italian rule" or "Italian Mogadicio" or "Mogadiscio under Italian rule" and convert "Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia" into a redirect to "Mogadishu". Thus you seem to be agreeing with the move proposal, not disagreeing with it. Is that correct? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is all what I was suggesting all the time moving the content to a new article and this article Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia redirects to Mogadishu, I am against renaming the page manually like the way user:RobertsBiology moved Mogadishu, Somalia to Mogadishu, Italian Somaliland, there was totally huge misunderstand between me and the IP user I owe him an apology regarding my infamous words against him, thanks BarrelProof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muktar7 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 12 January 2016‎ (UTC) (a.k.a. "Axmaada")[reply]

Just to clarify, it is utterly irrelevant whether an article is linked to by Facebook or not. Wikipedia is not obliged to make changes Facebook-friendly. Facebook can sort out its own problems. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Brunodam, and I don't believe that this page should redirect to Mogadishu[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Vituzzu: you reverted my latest edit to this page with the comment "rv brunodam". I am not Brunodam, and I am not a neocolonialist. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to keep a page called "Mogadishu under Italian rule" to deal with that period of the history of the city, and it's also reasonable to redirect pages called "Italian Mogadishu" and "Italian Mogadisco" to this page. Please let me know your reasons why such a page should not exist.

@BarrelProof, AjaxSmack, Tiggerjay, and Coteglyph: pinging you because you were also involved in the discussion. --Slashme (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this content is strongly at risk of containing false informations, copyvios, etc. Dealing with such this kind of abuse you must assume bad faith. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vituzzu: What aspects of this version do you find particularly concerning? For me as a neutral reader, it seems to be simply a description of a certain period in the city's history. It needs some copy-editing and organisation, but as far as I can tell it's not particularly problematic. --Slashme (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is based upon a series of premises, among them there's "something is good till proven wrong". This premise cannot apply to some long-term abusers, bda is one of them. So the question to answer is not "what's wrong with this text?" but "can you prove this text is correct?". My answer, currently, is "nope, I cannot", what is your one? --Vituzzu (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that because this article was partly written by someone with a history of abuse, it has to be proven to be correct in its entirety before you'll accept any part of it? That's an unreasonably high standard. I will now restore the article, and let's look at the text. Go ahead and delete whatever is a copyright violation, or whatever is objectionable for some reason, one edit at a time, with a reason in the edit summary, and we can fix those issues one at a time.
To make it perfectly clear:
  • It's reasonable to have an article about the historical period when Mogadishu was under Italian rule.
  • It's appropriate to call that article "Mogidishu under Italian rule".
  • I can see no major problem with the article as it stands, so I'm putting it active again.
  • We can use collaborative editing and WP:dispute resolution to address any specific issues with the article.
Let's start working on it. --Slashme (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An unreasonably high standard? Are you fooling me? It wasn't partly written by someone with a history of abuse it was completely written by an abuser. So for every long-term abuser with a long history of copyvios/pov-pushing and inserting false informations I should waste days in proving some lines are abusive as it is supposed to be? Seriously it's easier to be an abuser rather than someone trying to protect this site from their vandalisms. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reverted again. Please show me one part of the article that's incorrect, misleading, abusive or for some reason shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --Slashme (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all remain calm guys. Anyways, such things that shouldn't be done is the use of images/postcards as sources. If this article is redirected to Mogadishu, then another such as I can take the time to rebuild it. AcidSnow (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point! I took a look to see what you were talking about, and immediately saw a map being used to support the use of the term "Mogadiscio" in a pointless manner, so I removed that. I'll take a look through the article to see if I can find some more cases like that. And @Vituzzu, I'd recommend instead of reverting the page back to Mogadishu, to take it to WP:AfD instead, and explain to the community why it should not stand as an article on its own. A "redirect" consensus there would mean that you wouldn't have to explain to people why they shouldn't restore the page, and why any recreation would have to be done from scratch, not keeping any of the existing text, per WP:TNT. --Slashme (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me one part of the article that's incorrect, misleading, abusive or for some reason shouldn't be on Wikipedia then you didn't read me. That's not an AfD matter, that's an ANI issue since you're going on proxying. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt to copy-edit the article, aiming to achieve neutral language (there certainly was some neocolonialist POV present in the article, and I think I've addressed that issue significantly, for example by removing unnecessary use of the spelling "Mogadiscio", taking out repeated comments about how the Italians did such marvelous things for the city) and I also re-organised the article somewhat. Let me know if you think it's an improvement. If you still feel that the article cannot be saved and should just be taken down, I'd strongly recommend that you follow the options at WP:Dispute resolution, including for example raising the issue at WP:DRN, but I certainly can't stop you from taking it to any forum that you feel will help to get this issue resolved. --Slashme (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a simple copy-editing problem, nor a simple wording issue. It's a *factual* problem. Sources are crappy: blogs, video, pictures, books which I cannot verify on my own. Again you're assuming bda's good faith and that's such a big mistake. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that Bda often causes problem but they did provide a lot of useful information on this article. The article has been both deleted and redirected to Mogadishu by an uninvolved admin. AcidSnow (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: Thanks for getting the text of the article for re-working. If you need help verifying and editing it, let me know.

@Vituzzu: I have now copied the relevant text from Mogadishu to this article. AcidSnow: maybe you can add chunks of the previous text as you finish reviewing it, or if you need help in validating it, you could add a subsection at a time at the bottom, tagging the new text with a disputed section template until it's been validated, and then move on to the next one. @The Wordsmith: would this be an acceptable way to attack the problem? --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection, as long as you make sure to thoroughly verify the content. This particular banned editor was known for shoddy sourcing, copyright violation, and introducing factual errors into sourced statements. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection[edit]

@McGeddon: I see that you restored the redirect to the main Mogadishu article with the note that it is a content fork. That's really not true: many articles about the history of a city have main articles for specific periods. Good reasons to redirect would be:

  • The historical period in question isn't notable. This is not true in this case: Italy had a major influence on Mogadishu, and the sources in this article mean that it passes the GNG
  • The article has such terrible content that it cannot be fixed, and should just redirect until it is re-written. This is not true in this case: there was a previous version that was very bad, but this version is not terribly controversial as far as I can tell. Let me know if you think that's wrong.
  • There is no scope for the article to grow beyond what is already in the parent article. I don't think that this is the case here. There was a lot of content in the deleted article, but it can't be used because it is tainted by the CoI and poor sourcing practices of the previous author.

Please let me know if you think I have misunderstood the situation! --Slashme (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware of any background, I just saw that article was a redundant word-for-word copy of the "Italian Somaliland" section of the Mogadishu article. We are wasting the reader's time by saying "Main article: Mogadishu under Italian rule" at the top of that section and then just presenting the same text again when they click through. But if you think the article can and will be expanded, fair enough. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mogadishu_under_Italian_rule&oldid=1183684214"