Talk:Mohamed Farrah Aidid

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

Inaccuracies[edit]

This article contains misleading comments about the U.N which don't tally with scholarly accounts I'm currently reading. Once I figure out how to cite properly in Wikipedia I might come and correct it but in the meantime anyone with more ability should consider adding the fact that the UN actually left Somalia in Dec 1990 when it looked like the Siad Barre government was falling, and didn't take any action until 1992.

130.216.163.4 (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General???[edit]

Ok, since I'm the one making a big deal out of this, I'll spell it out. This man should not be referred to as a General. He was not the leader of a formal military with a command structure. "But he called himself a General..." - so what? I can't make myself a "General" but calling myself one, why should he? It takes years of work and sacrifice to attain that rank, regardless of whatever country's military an individual might be in. Giap (North Vietnam) was a General. Zhukov (Soviet Russia) was a General. Powell (U.S.) was a General. Aidid was not. By naming Aidid as a General, Wikipedia is taking a position on the man's status. Equinox137 08:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your POV, he is genarlly recognized as general. He proclaimed himself president and nobody is disputing that title as well. He served in military to some extent and held some important positions in governments as well. There can be disscussion about legality of his positions. Although it will be hard to argue against his rank because at least his faction (and international community/press) recognized it. Somalia is failed state with fractions fighting one another, we need to recognize each one of them and treat them as neutrally as possible.--Pethr 18:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally recognized by whom? What military (aside from the Habr Gadir clan) did he serve in? All the article says is that he served in Barre's government, ultimately as intelligence chief...nothing about military service. What press outlet called this man a "general"? I know CNN didn't. I stand by my original position. By recognizing this name as a "general", Wikipedia is taking a POV. Either "general" needs to come out, or a POV tag needs to go in. Equinox137 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know CNN did.[1] [2] [3] [4][5][6] You may add something about his military rank beeing disputed (you can even make it section if you like)if you have any source for such claim, otherwise I will revert your changes again. Please find some credible source that says he couldn't be general.--Pethr 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word General doesn't need to be on every second line. When we will settle a bit here, I will revert it and rewrite the article a bit. You'd be wecomed to do so as well but please use more sources than you did so far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pethr (talk • contribs) 02:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I'm good with that. I'll be looking for your revision. Thanks. Equinox137 03:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I somewhat feel you've got point but you need to dip into it deeper for it becoming fact. Unfortunately there is very little information available which makes it really hard to know something about his military carier. It's likely that he made himself general of some fraction and media jumped on it, but this is pure speculation. I'm reverting hoping to get back to this article soon.--Pethr 03:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the lack of info on his military career, if one existed, should be noted??? Equinox137 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Mogadishu[edit]

In the history of the Somali Civil War, the Battle of Mogadishu does NOT refer to the battle between Mr. Aidid and the US/UN, but the battle between Mr. Aidid and Mr. Ali Mahdi. The reason is because the Aidid vs. Ali Mahdi battle was the largest of all the battle in Mogadishu and it resulted in the creation of the "green line" which still divides Mogadishu today.

The battle between the US/UN and Mr. Aidids forces did not have any lasting political effect on Mogadishu besides leading to the withdrawal of US forces from Somali.

The battle between the Mr. Aidid and Mr. Ali Mahdi on the other had lasted for many months and resulted in the death of many 10's of thousands of people. It remains the greatest battle fought in Mogadishu during the whole of the Somali civil conflict It also marked a great political rift in the rebel movement that Overthrew the Siad Barre regime, and a rift between Mr. Aidid and the Menifesto Group. As a result of the Mr. Aidid vs. Mr. Ali Mahdi battle (the real Battle of Mogadishu) the Somali civil conflict took on a distinctly clan based character. It also resulted in the accent of the Habr Gidr as the most powerful clan in Mogadishu.

I suggest that the term "Battle of Mogadishu" be reserved to refer only to the Aidid vs. Ali Mahdi battle.

It's appropriate for the US/UN battle for the English language Wikipedia, just as it would be appropriate for the Somali civil conflict to be referred to as such in the Somali language Wikipedia, if there is one. Equinox137 04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were actually 19 soldiers who died during the battle.
Would it be possible to cite a source which calls the fighting between Mr. Aidid and Mr. Mahdi "the Battle for Mogadishu?" It might be more appropriate to call it the "War for Mogadishu" or the "Struggle for Mogadishu" if it did last for months. --Petercorless
Am I the only one who thinks this page does not need what is ostensibly a summary of Black Hawk Down? There's already a summary of the event on the page for the movie, the page for the book, and the page for the battle - and probably a dozen other places. Enough of the Americentricity. Ancholm (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clan affiliation[edit]

Regarding recent edits: So, was Aidid a Hawiye or Habr Gidr? Why would this be disputed? Is there a source for either assertion? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out the Mark Bowden reference (specifically, this page mentions that Aidid was a Habr Gidr member (the leader, in fact). The text could probably use an in-line citation for this particular fact, so as to avoid this confusion in the future. However, I don't think the introductory paragraph (much less the first sentence), from a stylistic point-of-view, should have citations, so I'm thinking this would need to be re-written (otherwise I would have added the citation myself; right now I don't have the time nor energy for such a rewrite, sorry). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've removed the "Attention" tag from the top of the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in article[edit]

I have removed the following comments from the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the biographical data is ture, however, Aideed is unjustly portraied what his enimies said about him. He did not hindered the humanitarian mission, but rather, it was a pretext made by the Americans to intervine Somalia in persue of geopolitical interest." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.202.19.93 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Attention Marker[edit]

This article should be both expanded and checked for facts. I have never seen any video or reference to a video of Somalis eating the dead body of Cliff Walton (although I don't have extensive knowledge of the situation), perhaps there should be a citation. There is also a significant amount of information about the Somali Civil War that could be added here. An expert should expand this article and fact check it.

Date of death[edit]

The intro says he died 1 august - then lower down it says 2 august - can't both be right.

It's not. I just watched the movie and it said 2 August 1996 was when the warlord died. -- Fiver2552 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really conclusive? Then the article should be modified for consistency (for it still says August 1st at one point and 2nd elsewhere). Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warlord[edit]

The following sources support including Aidid as a warlord:

He is undoubtedly a military leader. If you don't think he should be called a warlord please explain why. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be in this category since it's not justified by the article itself. The word warlord isn't used in the article. Also see Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Warlord if it is right to call him warlord. Anyway you first need to suply some sources (f.e. U.S. government calling Aidid warlord then stating in article that according to the U.S. G., Aidid was warlord). Also remember that categories need to be sorted by last name so it looks like this in the code: [[Category:Warlord|Aidid, Mohammed Farah]].--Pethr 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that last point, aren't "Farah" and "Aidid" his father's and grandfather's names, respectively? Since these are Arabic names I assume it follows Arabic naming conventions (but I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles this). I know there has been similar confusion with Ethiopian names (e.g. it's properly "Meles Zenawi", not "Zenawi, Meles.") -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure abou this. I know that he is commonly reffered to as Aidid, so I categorized based on this.
I don't fully agree with warlord category since it's not used or discribed in the article. I will remove this category again if this won't change in seven days or if isn't at least properly explained on the talk page why he should be in this category and article should not mention the word once. Remeber that Wikipedia doesn't call anybody names.--Pethr 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT remove the term 'warlord,' as it is a term which is cited repeatedly in news articles about Mr. Aidid. Aidid is commonly referred to as a 'warlord,' along with his son. The term is not necessarily considered a pejorative in Somalia, since it represents a powerful clan leader. Which indeed he was. A Google search on "+warlord +aidid" results in 43,600 results. Some of those will be his son. Even a more specific search of "+warlord +mohamed +farah +aidid" resulted in 850 results. --Petercorless 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, i don't object the title (though news article isn't reason for encyclopedia to call somebody terrorist either), However, I do object that the article doesn't mention word warlord once. Write paragraph describing how he became warlord or why he is called warlord and if it is well sourced then keep it in this category. Otherwise I will remove it within one week. I would suggest terms like "clan leader" or "leader of a fraction controlling parts of Somalia/Mogadishu" it IMO comply more with WP:NPOV. Still it needs some research to be done.--Pethr 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words[edit]

In the biography section it reads:

"The United States withdrew its forces soon afterwards (a move viewed by some as a sign of weakening American strength on the international front)"

Who are "some"? I'm going to delete the section in brackets because it looks like P.O.V. to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stewiegriffin76 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I believe you can cite Osama bin Laden's view of American weakness after the Battle of Mogadishu. However, it should be a clear citation. --Petercorless 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming or Being?[edit]

I'm not here to quibble about whether or not he did or didn't fill a specific office, but about the inconsistency in the article of "claiming" to be President of Somalia in the body of the article and having him listed as President in the side-bar. I can't even correct this because I don't know which it was. If he was President, the fact that he claimed to be so is moot. I'll bet Ronald Reagan claimed to be President, too. But if his claim is in dispute, then you can't cite it as fact in the sidebar, as not everyone who glances as the brief facts therein is going to read the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantw (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted references to him being President for consistency with List of Presidents of Somalia.Alekksandr (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mohamed Farrah Aidid. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohamed_Farrah_Aidid&oldid=1216968867"