Talk:Edna Adan Maternity Hospital

The issue of Somaliland's status

Greetings to Middayexpress. I have recently added my very first Wikipedia page, for the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital in Somaliland. I know the article has serious shortcomings and I appreciate most of your contributions to it. I will try to get some more verifiable details to be incorporated into the article. My goal is for it to be good and solid by the time Nicolas Kristof's new book, "Half the Sky: From Oppression to Opportunity for Women Worldwide," is published in September.

Both Edna Adan and her hospital feature prominently in the new book. Kristof, a Pulitzer Prize winner, is a huge fan of Edna's work and I expect that he will be discussing the hospital during his book tour, hopefully prompting lots of Wikipedia searches.

Kristof is also a huge fan of Somaliland. And that is the issue that prompts me to write to you.

Is there anything that we can possibly do within this article to locate Edna's hospital somewhat more in "Somaliland" than within the catastrophe which goes by the name Somalia?

While it is, sadly, true that nobody grants official recognition to Somaliland independence, neither is it accurate to state flatly that it's a part of Somalia. Somalia is currently ranked the world's #1 most failed state. Meanwhile, Somaliland is stable, democratic, peaceful and comparatively prosperous. It is practically the only source of good news in that entire region.

Kristof in his New York Times article When Aid Harms states: "I've often recommended that young people go and live abroad for a time, the better to understand the world - and also the better to see their own country. Somaliland is a wonderful little country, and I can't imagine a more remarkable experience than spending a year teaching at Edna's hospital."

I think we can all safely assume that he would not make any such recommendation to his readers that they all pack up and go live in Somalia.

They are truly very different places. Please, let us try to arrive at some sort of compromise language? Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Chuck, your opinions have no place in this or in any other Wikipedia article. Whether you like it or not, Somaliland is officially recognized as a part of Somalia by every country and international organization. It makes no difference what one little article writer indicates; it's still not an independent country until legally recognized as such, which it has yet to be (hence, the fervent campaign to acquire that recognition). I hope you understand this much; please refer to WP:NPOV for the rest. Middayexpress (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Middayexpress, the article as it stands now is positively misleading in its opening sentence - "Edna Adan Maternity Hospital is a non-profit charity hospital built in Hargeisa, Somalia." Somaliland bears little resemblance to Somalia and so, to state flatly that Somalia is where the hospital is located gives an impression that, while technically quite defensible, gives a totally false impression. No sane person would go to Somalia, not as a volunteer or for any other reason, and they certainly would not invest their life savings to build a hospital there. Somaliland has de facto independence. There must be some compromise language which accurately takes account both of Somaliland's de jure status and of its de facto status. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say, Chuck, I am rather disturbed by what I am reading. You write that "no sane person would go to Somalia, not as a volunteer or for any other reason, and they certainly would not invest their life savings to build a hospital there". Besides being factually inaccurate (Puntland is not any less "safe" or "visitible" a part of Somalia than is Somaliland; the war hasn't spread there either), it also implies that in your mind the ultimate goal of this article -- which, need I remind you, is on a hospital, not on secessionist politics -- is to write it in such a way as to "get people to visit" Somaliland. If not, then why include that completely irrelevant bit of information? Does it somehow make Somaliland any less legally a part of Somalia? No, of course it does not (and no, I'm afraid there's no way to "compromise" on this reality). What it does, however, do is betray a major conflict of interest on your part, and not for the first time either. In reference to this article, you wrote in your first post that "My goal is for it to be good and solid by the time Nicolas Kristof's new book, "Half the Sky: From Oppression to Opportunity for Women Worldwide," is published in September," which likewise indicates that you are somehow intimately connected with some sort of extraneous promotional effort that you are trying to coordinate through Wikipedia. That is the very definition of WP:COI. I also notice you have posted an image of the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital, which is identical to a copyrighted one found on that hospital's homepage, yet you have indicated on that image's information page that it is your own work ("Own work by uploader"). And I sincerely doubt that this is somehow a "mixup" of some kind or other since you also uploaded months before that yet another image -- this time of none other than Edna Adan Ismail herself -- that is featured on the aforementioned website (1). However, you have this time indicated that the image was taken from (i.e. its "Source" is) the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital itself! Unless you are guilty of copyright infringement on not one but two counts, then you indeed are somehow very intimately connected with the hospital. How intimate? Intimate enough to be able to claim the hospital's own copyrighted images as your "own work", and to be convinced (and, especially, aware) that an as-yet-to-be-published book by an author sympathetic to the Somaliland secessionist movement (and one who has already written on & produced a video on Edna Adan) will contain information that has something to do with this article. Google searches of said book's title plus the terms "Somaliland" and "Edna" turn up zero hits relating Kristof's upcoming book to either the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital or Edna Adan or the Somaliland secessionist movement, which indicates that there is absolutely no way you could presume a link between any of the aforementioned things and Kristof's upcoming book unless of course you yourself are, again, somehow privy to information that only someone who is intimately involved with the hospital and/or the Somaliland secessionist movement would know. This only further supports the notion that you are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote some sort of extraneous campaign, one most likely having something to do with said "movement". This would automatically disqualify you from editing this article since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and editors with a conflict of interest are forbidden from editing articles directly pertaining to that interest:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted."

Now that you know the purpose of Wikipedia and what is and is not allowed, kindly stop promoting whatever it is you appear to be promoting. I have also marked the aforementioned images that you uploaded as copyright infringements until you can produce evidence proving that they are not (good luck on that). Middayexpress (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made quite a large number of errors above.

• It's not me who has any interest in encouraging anybody to visit Somaliland. I was quoting Pulitzer Prize winning author and New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof. He wrote that it's "a wonderful little country" (emphasis mine) and advised readers to spend a year there as volunteers. You have seriously distorted what I said.

• I asked you for compromise language. I have granted that inevitably the fact (de jure) of Somalia's sovereignty must be noted. All that I am asking is that we also note another fact (de facto) that nobody in Somalia exercises the slightest influence over events inside Somaliland. So, again, you have mis-characterized what I wrote. I'm only asking for a fuller more accurate portrayal of the situation.

• You seem to have got yourself worked up into some kind of conspiratorial fever when, as a matter of fact, I was only quoting from a NY Times article: "Today I received an email from Edna Adan... and she also figures into a book that my wife and I are writing about women in the developing world." I mentioned the book because it genuinely does seem to me that if this very famous foreign correspondent is going to travel all over declaring what a wonderful hospital this is then there ought to be a Wikipedia page covering it. The forthcoming book is also mentioned by name on Nicolas Kristof's own Wikipedia page. It's no secret.

• The photo of the hospital on Edna's web site is, in fact, not identical to the one here. The one here has about 10 times greater resolution so your accusation is insupportable on its face.

• The photo of Edna is one that I placed here with her full knowledge and permission months ago. The very idea that Edna's photo could reside on her very own Wikipedia article for months without her knowledge and consent is absurd and, again, insupportable.

• I have never been anything less than upfront about my lack of experience and my humility in approaching the task of creating this article. Please note that I have not made the slightest change to your version of the article. The creation of this Wikipedia article was long overdue. I've been waiting and hoping for about a year that somebody else would create it and then I went ahead, humbly, to create it myself. The hospital has won lots of international press and it needs an article here. Somebody had to get it started.

I simply and humbly asked you to consider accepting a small change to the opening sentence and you appear to have responded by declaring some kind of unprovoked war upon me. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I've definitely understood what it is going on, and it ain't pretty:

• You quoted the following from Kristoff "I've often recommended that young people go and live abroad for a time, the better to understand the world - and also the better to see their own country. Somaliland is a wonderful little country, and I can't imagine a more remarkable experience than spending a year teaching at Edna's hospital", and you did so for a reason. Remember, you've already more than betrayed your feelings regarding the fact that Somaliland is still recognized as a part of Somalia: "...it is, sadly, true that nobody grants official recognition to Somaliland independence". There's no back-tracking from that my friend.

• You have indeed asked for "compromise language" [sic] and specifically with regard to Somaliland's political status vis-a-vis Somalia. And I've already asked you per WP:SOAPBOX not to politicize an article that should be on a hospital.

• lol Sure pal. You brought up the book for a reason, and it was not to insinuate that "there ought to be a Wikipedia page covering" the hospital. Not even close. First of all, I did not once challenge the existence of this article, so your grasping at straws here. Secondly, it's not the fact the book is mentioned by name on Kristoff's Wikipedia article that is or isn't a "secret"; that's a strawman. It's the non-existence of any reference anywhere on the internet that indicates that the book has anything to do with either Edna Adan or her hospital or Somaliland. This is what my pretty damning Google links above were for. What we are then left to conclude is that you either invented the connection between Kristoff's upcoming book and the aforementioned three things, or you have a foreknowledge of what will be featured in the book that only someone with an intimate & vested interest in what it says could know. Either way, it doesn't look good.

• Don't be coy. That's the exact same image content modified only perhaps for image resolution and other superficial details. The content itself -- that is, the hospital, the image angle & form, and the moment in time it captures -- is identical (proof: your Wikipedia upload; the original from the hospital's website). Are you disingenuous enough to deny that? The fact that your sole defense is that the image you uploaded "has about 10 times greater resolution" proves you have no legitimate defense for this.

• Another strawman. I did not address whether or not "Edna's photo could reside on her very own Wikipedia article for months without her knowledge and consent is absurd and, again, insupportable". I said that "you have posted an image of the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital, which is identical to a copyrighted one found on that hospital's homepage, yet you have indicated on that image's information page that it is your own work ("Own work by uploader")." If the image was indeed properly cleared, then you should have produced an OTRS ticket clearing its copyright. But alas, that did not happen. Instead, you simply labeled it as your own work (I hope you know that means you actually took the picture, which, if true, only further drives home the point that this is very much a case of WP:COI.

• You know what? It's very appropriate you should bring up the fact that you not only contributed significantly to this article, but actually created it yourself. You see, I've just had a chance to have a look at your user page, and I noticed something very interesting. You proudly reveal there that you "make web sites" and that "one of the sites I'm most proud of is for the the Edna Hospital in Somaliland" in addition to the fact that you "recently created the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital Wikipedia page." So not only do you find it "sad" that Somaliland isn't legally recognized as an independent country but rather as a part of Somalia (as already seen above), you also started a Wikipedia article on an institution whose website you also admit to having created and evidently have strong feelings about! As I've already stated, yours is a very clear cut case of conflict of interest. Middayexpress (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Middahyexpress. Quoting from the very article that you reference: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit." It is self-evident that I never made any effort to hide this fact that you now are celebrating having uncovered as if it's breaking news. You clearly have become hysterical. I have not directly contested your edits on the article in question and I will not argue with you any more here on its discussion page, either. Your tone of wild hysteria and your deliberate distortions above speak for themselves, and I leave it to another editor to challenge you further, if anyone so desires.

I will, however, make every effort to restore the two photos to their proper place here in case your vindictive effort succeeds in having either of them removed on the basis of your specious and self-contradictory arguments. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

lol "Vindictive", "specious", "distortions", "hysterical", "self-contradictory"... You're all talk man. You lay one bogus charge after another, only to have each and every one of your hollow accusations systematically and rather embarrassingly debunked. But just how exactly does one contest the truth aside from slinging mud on the truthsayer? You go ahead and restore those images (FYI, I actually rather like them). Only do so, however, once you have actual permissions for them; your personal assurances that they are your "own work" or that Edna gave you permission to use them (yet you can't even produce an OTRS ticket proving this much) here as elsewhere aren't good enough. But look on the bright side: since you are apparently the representative for said hospital on Wikipedia, that much shouldn't be so hard to do, now should it? ;-) And by the way, your revealing your obvious conflict of interest doesn't obscure the fact that it still is very much a conflict of interest. From the section of WP:COI aptly labeled "What is a conflict of interest?":

====Promotional article production on behalf of clients====

Editors should not create articles which serve solely to promote their subject. All Wikipedia articles should contain useful information written as if from a neutral point of view. The writing of 'puff pieces' and advertisements on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited. If you contribute to Wikipedia on behalf of clients, you owe it to both them and the encyclopedia to make very sure you understand the standards for content here, and do not insert promotional material.

====Campaigning====

Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.

Food for thought, my belligerent friend. Middayexpress (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Dead link

Hello, I removed the following link http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-03/2008-03-03-voa26.cfm (-Female Genital Mutilation Still Common in Somaliland.)

1. it was a dead link
2. i am not sure it is accurate here.

(Perhaps, if it was valid, would it be better in another article on the issue). Best.--Pierre et Condat (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)