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)

Because the flag is blue :) ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2025 (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)

ErickTheMerrick, three people have engaged here and told you they disagree with your position. You're welcome to hold a different opinion, but you cannot pretend that didn't happen. Your edits do not have consensus at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I honestly just cannot understand what you have against adding something as basic as a military dictatorship. Not adding it is ridiculous and not properly describing the basics of government, it isn't overbearing on the government infobox and it is most importantly, sourced. I will not concede on this because I don't not agree with this horrendous oversimplification and I will continue to argue my point. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You are allowed to argue your point, but personal incredulity isn't a valid reason to make non-consensual edits, and given the clear consensus in this discussion, your continued revival of this discussion could very easily be considered a WP:DISRUPTIVE violation via WP:IDONTGETIT. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, I have the right to disagree so I will. I have sourced information and it’s incredibly foolish not to add it. The oversimplification of this page is baffling and idiotic. It was a military dictatorship and should have that in the government infobox. Ads it does on all countries under military dictatorships. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Government info box details

Hello, I have sources referring to the Somali Democratic Republic as a military dictatorship/regime. I believe that it should be added because of the significance and the fact that it was an important part of the government and is a standout feature when compared to other Marxist-Leninist states. I would also argue totalitarianism, which I may note, is referred to as a form of government on its page, is also well sourced and should be added as well. I am willing to find more sources if necessary. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It does not appear that anything has changed since the discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

"I am willing to find more sources if necessary." You're supposed to find the sources that back up your proposals before you make your proposals. Do you expect other editors to go, "I agree with your original conclusions, let's find reliable sources later or let someone else do it for us." Yue🌙 01:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me, do you think my edit was unsourced? I did add sources. I was simply saying that I could find even more because of some people's insistence on not adding military dictatorship for some reason. I will be finding even more sources tomorrow. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, y did you remove my sourced additions? I added more sourcing for it and it deserves mention as both are forms of government. Stop with these unconstructive edits. You didn't even engage with the conversation before hand. What the hell is the matter with you? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The claims are extensively sourced and I will repeat they are considered forms of government. Stop just reverting and present an argument. If not, then move aside and let the edit remain. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I did engage - see above. Your proposal has not received consensus for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I am attempting to gain consensus. Is it getting through to you now? I added more sources to strengthen the claim for inclusion, but you won't move an inch on this. Tell me, why does it not deserve mention? It is well sourced and both totalitarianism and military dictatorship are considered forms of government which means it should also be in the government infobox. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to the conversation above - adding sources does not address the concerns outlined there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

And the concerns are still as nonsensical today. It is not too much info so it does not break WP:IBP. They are both valid form of government. The resistance to this is incredibly weak given the amount of sources and the fact that it isn't a very big addition. There is no bloat, no rule breaking, just you exercising the fact that you don't like my edit. Your argument doesn't hold up to the rules. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you like your edit; however, you have no more convinced me than I have convinced you. Let's see if you've convinced anyone else, but until then it should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

How could I convince you? What would help you understand? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

this is the type of stuff that I'd start an RfC for to resolve 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm gonna be honest, I do not know how to do that. I'm still relatively new to editing on here. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I do think that it would be a good idea though. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@ErickTheMerrick I'm outside atm but WP:RFC has the steps of starting one 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for taking awhile on this. I’ll start one either today, tomorrow, or on the weekend. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

all good 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should “totalitarian military dictatorship“ be added to the gov’t infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) WP:SNOW consensus against both options provided. Please take care not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the info box describe the government as:

A: Unitary Marxist-Leninist state

B: Unitary Marxist-Leninist state under a totalitarian military dictatorship

I would like to gain a consensus on referring to the Somali Democratic Republic as a totalitarian military dictatorship in the government infobox. I believe that it should be added due to the significance of it as an important part of the government and a standout feature when compared to other Marxist-Leninist states. I would also argue that totalitarianism, which is referred to as a form of government on its page, should be added as well. These claims are well sourced and displayed in this previous edit here. I would also like to add more sources for it being a Marxist-Leninist state and cutting down on some the quotes as they seem too long. I apologize if there is anything wrong with my formatting. This is my first RfC and if there is anything wrong with it, please let me know. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@ErickTheMerrick, thanks for starting your first RFC. If it’s okay with you, I suggest we close this temporarily and review Wikipedia:RFCBRIEF and ask for help on that talk page. Is that okay? Dw31415 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

p.s. I was summoned by bot. Dw31415 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

If I might ask, what for? Was my framing or wording wrong? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The question should brief and neutral. Then your argument for the option you prefer should be the first response. Dw31415 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

So like:

Should the info box describe the government as:

A: Unitary communist state

B: Totalitarian military dictatorship

=== Survey (government) ====

Your !vote and rational here Dw31415 (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I will reformat it right now. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Did that fix it or should l put my argument for B in a separate reply? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Neither "Unitary Marxist-Leninist state" nor "Unitary Marxist-Leninist state under a totalitarian military dictatorship" fits the SDR. True, SDR has initially modeled in part on Soviet advice, but never a full-fledged member of socialist bloc. Politically SRSP/SDR/Barre drifted quite a lot over the years, and simplistic reductionist labels like these mislead readers. The different ideological inspirations of SDR, it's evolution over time and practical implications are best outlined in main body of article. I'd say that SDR was a republic for the sake of infobox or lede, and leave it at that. --Soman (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  Well that seems to contradict with the source which states that it was a Marxist-Leninist state. Multiple others call it a socialist state. The sources for totalitarianism and military dictatorship talk about his rule as a whole as well. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  In fact, page 44 of this source specifically says that “[…] despite having to appeal to the IMF in the 1980s and being pressured by the West and the Arabs to give up their "socialist way", the regime did not give in.”. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  And most simply refer to it as a communist state. I hope you will respect the results here. TheUzbek (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm fine with Communist state too. I am much more worried about the addition of totalitarianism and especially military dictatorship as those are quite important to include in a government infobox. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  @ErickTheMerrick But the WP community does not want it. didn't want in Albania, this or any other article. You need to stop working against WP:CONSENSUS. Yiu can start RFCs on the other article, but not break with consensus. TheUzbek (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  With respect, this RfC isn't even done so please take you concern somewhere else. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  You do see the pattern, and if you want to change WP:CONSENSUS on other pages you need to initiate an RFC. However, as has been said, your suggestions do fail infobox accessibility. The information you gathered can be in the text, but should not be included in the infobox. TheUzbek (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Soman (no objection to "republic") and per discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Per Soman. I think that it should be exactly the following: "Republic (see below)" User:Easternsahara 04:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support but as Unitary socialist republic under a military dictatorship. It should not simply be "Republic", it is WAYYY to vague, and the arguments for such short descriptors referred to a time in Wikipedia long past. Nuances are completely ignored and thus accessibility to those nuances is shunned. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 05:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  On the contrary, nuances are emphasized by adding (see below). User:Easternsahara 18:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  A military dictatorship seems ripe to be in the infobox as a fairly major part of the government, no? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose It was a communist state and self-identified as such, and has been identified by scholars as such. The military men ruled through the formal institutions of the party. --TheUzbek (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose both options and oppose characterising it as Marxist-Leninist in the infobox. At least based on the source from this version of the article which describes it as "self-declared Marxist-Leninist" which is an important caveat. Labels like "Marxist-Leninist" and "communist" infobox are likely to cause confusion. Alaexis_¿question? 16:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - If multiple reliable sources explicitly describe the regime as totalitarian, this can be discussed in a dedicated section such as “Political system”. Infobox is not the right placement for it. Sincreator (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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.