Talk:Somalia

Include the Darwish state that ruled parts of the north, Ogaden and south. The state existed frin 1900 to 1922 and its capital was Taleh. 102.220.41.236 (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The term "Somalian" has been commonly used as a demonym online informally, oftentimes even more than the term Somali. This may not be the best way to prove my point, but look at how frequently the demonym "Somalian" has been used on X/Twitter.

Moreover, the Oxford English Dictionary recognizes it. Even if you don't agree that it is the correct term, Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, so Somalian should be added as a demonym. CerealContainer (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Somalian is not the demonym for the people of Somalia. Informal use by some individuals on social media platforms like X doesn't change that. Virtually all reliable sources use the term Somali as the demonym. Limegreencoral (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, just because some may use an improper demonym, that doesn't mean it should be included in the page. For example, in the case of Nigeria, Naija (Oxford English Dictionary) is used frequently in informal, self-referential contexts, yet it's not a demonym for Nigeria. By contrast, Somalian is not an informal self-designation at all, but a rarely used and generally mistaken term. Limegreencoral (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@CerealContainer

"Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive"

Wikipedia is descriptive of current usage in reliable secondary sources, not of every word recorded historically. The OED is a historical dictionary, not an authority on current usage of words (especially not demonyms). Ironically, using it to justify inclusion treats it prescriptively while accusing everyone else of being prescriptive.

Also, Somalis dont like the word at all. Somalia was named after Somalis, not the other way around. Demonyms reflect the people, not the country, it's like saying "Francian" instead of French.

Teefight (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

If multiple dictionaries (which are descriptive) recognize the term, then it must be used a significant amount of times to warrant being added into those dictionaries. Also, the term "Somalian" is still used to refer to people in Somalia today, not just historically, so I'm not sure what your point is when you emphasize that OED is a historical dictionary.

Moreover, it doesn't matter if Somalis/Somalians like or dislike the demonym. Even if every French person did not like the word "French", that still wouldn't change the fact that "French" is a commonly-used demonym of France. CerealContainer (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Dictionaries recognize words for a variety of reasons. My point with emphasizing the fact that the OED is a historical dictionary is that it's basically just a catalog of words that have shown up somewhere at some point. That includes rare terms, outdated terms, and outright mistakes. It’s not trying to tell you what people actually say today, or what anyone prefers, or whether the group being labeled even accepts the word. "Oriental" is listed as a demonym for Asians in the OED, should we list it on China's article?

"Also, the term "Somalian" is still used to refer to people in Somalia today.

Going off of google trends, there has only been a minor spike in usage for "Somalian", which is what you would expect for an incorrect term.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=somalian,somali&hl=en

I really don't know where you got the idea that it's so common that we should replace the correct and universally accepted "Somali" as a demonym. Occasional, incorrect usage of a term is not and should not be enough to consider it as a valid demonym.

"Moreover, it doesn't matter if Somalis/Somalians like or dislike the demonym"

Yes it does. Demonyms describe people, and if the people themselves outwardly reject the term, then that's very strong evidence that the term is wrong. The people are Somali and the country is named after them. "Somalian" is just an incorrect guess made by someone who's never interacted with Somalis or knows anything about the history of the nation. The fact that you're pushing for it to be changed despite usage, consensus, and basic grammar rules (English tries to avoid redundant double suffixes like adding -an to an already suffixed word: Somali + -ia + -an.), while accusing everyone else of being prescriptive is laughable.

"Even if every French person did not like the word "French", that still wouldn't change the fact that "French" is a commonly-used demonym of France."

The reason why "French" is a commonly-used demonym of France is because French people like the term. If they didn't, it wouldn't be a commonly-used demonym. Teefight (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

"Oriental" is listed as a demonym for Asians in the OED, should we list it on China's article?

No, because Asia ≠ China and the term is not commonly used today to refer to Chinese people.

I really don't know where you got the idea that it's so common that we should replace the correct and universally accepted "Somali" as a demonym. Occasional, incorrect usage of a term is not and should not be enough to consider it as a valid demonym.

If all of the previous examples weren't sufficient, Donald Trump, the President of the United States, used the term Somalianas a demonym. That shows that the term is regularly being used by some of the most powerful people in the world.

Yes it does. Demonyms describe people, and if the people themselves outwardly reject the term, then that's very strong evidence that the term is wrong.

Since language is socially constructed, a term is only wrong if society does not think the term communicates what the speaker intends to communicate. If the term "Somalian" is commonly used, then it is a demonym for the country. If Wikipedia is meant to document the world as it is, how a certain group feels does not change how a term is commonly used.

For example, the founder of the word GIF does not like the pronunciation "gif" with a hard g. However, the pronunciation is still considered valid due to how widely it is used in society.

The reason why "French" is a commonly-used demonym of France is because French people like the term. If they didn't, it wouldn't be a commonly-used demonym.

The term "Byzantine" is linguistically considered a valid demonym for the Eastern Roman "Byzantine" Empire despite the people in it never using that term. In fact, they would've probably found the term weird because it deemphasizes their Romanness. CerealContainer (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

“Donald Trump, the President of the United States, used the term Somalianas a demonym. That shows that the term is regularly being used by some of the most powerful people in the world.”

Like I said, occasional incorrect usage of a term is not and should not be enough to consider it as a valid demonym. Politicians misuse demonyms all the time (‘Czechian’, Mexican-Americans are from Mexico, Kung flu, etc). Even the video you linked doesn't agree with you (And viral clips aren't a valid source anyways)

“If Wikipedia is meant to document the world as it is, how a certain group feels does not change how a term is commonly used.”

You’re right, and the term “Somali” is overwhelmingly preferred by Somalis themselves, used in official documentation, is an international standard, and it’s simply the more common term. Why should Wikipedia change because of what you personally saw on X or a politician making racist remarks? Even the title of the video you sent doesn't agree with you.

“The term "Byzantine" is linguistically considered a valid demonym for the Eastern Roman "Byzantine" Empire despite the people in it never using that term.”

Irrelevant. The “Byzantine” empire is a retroactive term for a historical entity. There are no byzantines left to protest the term, even if it is incorrect which is why it’s so ubiquitous. Why should we use this logic to force a demonym on a living people that actively rejects it? Should we start calling French people “Francians” now since language is all socially constructed? How about calling Germans “Teutons”?

“Since language is socially constructed, a term is only wrong if society does not think the term communicates what the speaker intends to communicate.“

Not really. Slurs “communicates what the speaker intends to communicate” but we don’t use it since they're offensive. This is just an example but you can't use "socially constructed" as free pass to override community/international consensus on demonyms

“For example, the founder of the word GIF does not like the pronunciation "gif" with a hard g. However, the pronunciation is still considered valid due to how widely it is used in society.”

Irrelevant point, objects aren’t people. GIFs don’t have an identity or ability to be harmed by false labels. Teefight (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

No, because Asia ≠ China and the term is not commonly used today to refer to Chinese people.

I was just using it as an example on why the OED shouldn't be used for modern demonyms. Wikipedia doesn't take dictionary inclusion as gospel, especially when it conflicts with common usage and acceptance. Teefight (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Also the article itself explains why Somalis don't prefer the term. I think it can stay in that section but should be removed from the infobox as to not cause confusion.

Somalis overwhelmingly prefer the demonym Somali over the incorrect Somalian since the former is an endonym, while the latter is an exonym with double suffixes Teefight (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Somalian’ is not a correct demonym. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and how people identify themselves. Somalis overwhelmingly call themselves Somali, not ‘Somalian’. Social media trends or dictionary listings do not override self-identification or academic usage ~2026-19321-3 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There was a disagreement regarding Arabic having the same status as Somali in Somalia. @Faio Sully:, can you provide any government constitutional document stating this? As far as I know, the Constitution of Somalia, ratified in 2012, states, under Article 6 that: "The official language of the Federal Republic of Somalia is Somali (Maay and Maxaa-tiri), and Arabic is the second language." Farmandeh Arkhar (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Arabic is an official language and is the second language of the country under article 5. Removing all traces of Arabic from the article is disingenuous and inaccurate. I suggest you do not revert the edit. Faio Sully (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Faio Sully:, Again, the constitution does not list Arabic as an official language. Also, Arabic was not removed from the article; it was still mentioned in several paragraphs and the leads? I suggest you bring any Somali constitutional source regarding Arabic's official national status. Farmandeh Arkhar (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The constitution does list Arabic as one of the official languages of Somalia under Article 5. There are no national languages and the constitution makes it clear of that. Although Somali is primary, Arabic is one of the official languages. Faio Sully (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

It does not mention Arabic as an "official language", only says "second language" and that's best to use for now. Farmandeh Arkhar (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Read the heading

Article 5. Official Languages

The official language of the Federal Republic of Somalia is Somali (Maay and Maxaa-tiri), and Arabic is the second language. Faio Sully (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin watching this page, it seems like this discussion is starting to go in circles, based on your differing readings of the Constitution of Somalia. I would recommend reaching out to WP:3O to get further input from other editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I advocate for accuracy and reliability. That’s all. Faio Sully (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the first sentence from "Somalia is the easternmost country in continental Africa" to "Somalia is the easternmost country in Africa". There's no need to have continental as it's well-known that Africa is a continent. ~2025-42683-08 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: "Continental" is included not to indicate that Africa is a continent, but to exclude insular African countries that are farther east than Somalia (such as Mauritius and Seychelles). Day Creature (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Somalian is NOT a demonym for someone from Somalia. The associated pressbook clearly states "AP Style tip: It's Somali, not Somalian, for a person from Somalia or as an adjective." Etymologically the term "Somalian" over Somali doesn't make sense, because the term Somali is derived from Samale, wherein "le" is already a well established Somali suffix. Likewise, standard anglicisation of the Somali word should conjure an "i" as well, since both English grammar and Somali permit for the suffix in its grammar. An example is how Israeli when anglicised, it doesn't become "Israelian", but rather maintains the suffix shared for the English and the Semitic word. Therefore I ask User:Swatjester to stop disrupting the article with grammatically false entries. If he continues to add false entries, I suggest someone should report him to administators. ~2026-14747-5 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I *am* an administrator. I've made one single revert -- presumably not of you, unless you're WP:LOUTSOCKing -- of unexplained removal of sourced content without consensus. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with our policies, and how to view a revision history, a bit more before taking shots like this.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin watching this page, Swatjester's edit seems justified per the OED citation included. AP appears to disagree (although a citation to their actual style guide, rather than Twitter, would be more helpful), but unless there's a preponderance of sources arguing against the use of Somalian, editors are unlikely to agree to drop an authoritative source like OED. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill

OED is NOT a valid source for demonyms!

it's a HISTORICAL DICTIONARY. It includes words based only on whether they have appeared at some point in history, not if it's accurate or not. Every official source uses "Somali" over the incorrect double suffixed "Somalian"

Usually used to refer to citizens of Somalia who are not ethnically Somali

No. Somali bantus exist. They aren't ethnically Somali yet we do not call them "Somalian bantus". Teefight (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I explained it more eloquently here:

Dictionaries recognize words for a variety of reasons. My point with emphasizing the fact that the OED is a historical dictionary is that it's basically just a catalog of words that have shown up somewhere at some point. That includes rare terms, outdated terms, and outright mistakes. It’s not trying to tell you what people actually say today, or what anyone prefers, or whether the group being labeled even accepts the word. "Oriental" is listed as a demonym for Asians in the OED, should we list it on China's article?

Teefight (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not know that, I thought Somali referred specifically to people who were ethnically Somali. Dr. Precursor (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

"but unless there's a preponderance of sources arguing against the use of Somalian"

There hardly any sources going either way. But from what we do have "Somali" is preferred by more official sources, while everything going in favor of "Somalian" is just an article or a misused dictionary entry

CIA factbook: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/somalia/

Somali constitution "Somali citizenship", not "Somalian citzenship": https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Somalia_2012#s64 Teefight (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the fact that it exists has been established. But is it used often enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox (WP:DUE)? I think the same of terms like kazakhstani, krygzstani, and the like, which populate similar infoboxes of other countries Sahib-e-Qiran 23:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to add further that in addition to etymological sources (also noting M-W), there are certainly other academic RS usages of "Somalian", e.g. the Tufts University Feinstein Center, Johnson and Wales University, etc. as well as NGO usages such as American Immigration Council. I don't actually have strong opinion either way about which is correct (I just have the article on my watchlist and saw the edit as it came by), but there seems to be pretty significant evidence supporting it as a usage in actual practice. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}

Somali is far and away more popular than the incorrect term "Somalian", going off of Google Trends. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=Somali,Somalian&hl=en A few cherry picked articles and a misuse of a historical dictionary is not enough to override community consensus/international standard. Also every argument used in favor for it falls flat with minimal scrutiny (Somali Bantus example proves it isn't tied to ethnicity) Teefight (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to add further that in addition to etymological sources (also noting M-W),

I'm not arguing against whether or not the word "Somalian" exists, I'm saying that it shouldn't be placed as the official demonym alongside "Somali".

For example, "Chinaman" is listed in the M-W dictionary. Should we put it on China's infobox as well? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Chinaman Teefight (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I have removed "Somalian" as a demonym. There just isn't enough evidence for "Somalian" as an official demonym. Grammatically it's wrong, official sources prefer "Somali", international consensus overwhelmingly prefers "Somali", and it's simply the more popular term. Going off of google trends, it's only started to become used over the correct term (nowhere near the level of "Somali"). If it was the correct term, why would it only start gaining traction ~3 months ago? Teefight (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Teefight, the changes and arguments you are proposing need to be evaluated by other editors and a WP:CONSENSUS reached before further changes are made. Please avoid overwhelming the discussion and be patient about making edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the IP who started the thread yesterday. I didnt mean to be rude; I'm actually dazed from the flu right now whilst speaking with you, so I might not see straight. But I have personally only heard people not familiar with Somalia anthropology use the term "Somalian". Academics who are well versed tend to avoid the term. The rationale for inclusion, i.e. a differentiation between a citizen and an ethnic Somali does not exist in the Somali constitution. In fact via the 4.5 system which delineates Somali identity it amalgamates all the Somali identities in a uniform and amalgamated manner. The only distinction the Somali constitution makes is in terms is statistical numbers, i.e. minorities. Gossipy notes on whether Benadiri people are considered ethnic Somalis or not is not set in stone, so not infobox material. Also, in general, English language online forums have either some inbuilt software preventing usage of "Somalian" (for example r/Somalia subreddit) or have similar hostile attitutes, though non-automated. Therefore, it seems unanimous in all well informed circles that "Somalian" is ungrammatical, and per online feedback, considered by significant numbers of Somali English speakers, offensive. Do NOT insert "Somalian" as demonym please. Thank you. ~2026-14503-5 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Does deletion help?It's probably best to confront and explain problems of a fringe or alternative theory than to leave our readers to search the web for the information. A well sourced article or section within an article can lead our readers to more reliable information then a search engine or AI generated content can. One must ask themselves how does deletion help our readers?

Moxy🍁 21:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Removing it from the infobox does help. Keeping it in would only confuse readers into thinking it's an offical/accepted term. If somebody's wondering what's the deal with "Somalian", there's a paragraph within the article explaining why "Somalian" isn't the correct term.

Somalis overwhelmingly prefer the demonym Somali over the incorrect Somalian since the former is an endonym, while the latter is an exonym with double suffixes

And again, it's only recently become used in online spaces (~3 months ago) by misinformed/malicious users. Putting it in the infobox will only reinforce this incorrect and widely rejected term.

@Rosguill Sorry for making hasty edits. I'll follow the proper dispute resolution methods next time. Teefight (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Somalian and Somali should both be in the infobox. The term 'Somalian' is used in the U.S., people like President Donald Trump have often used the term 'Somalian' instead of 'Somali' so it should be pretty clear that this has become a common term for the people from Somalia. Ali Koya Varakkal (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Somalian’ is not a correct demonym. Wikipedia infoboxes reflect standard usage in reliable sources and how people identify themselves. Somalis overwhelmingly call themselves Somali, not ‘Somalian’. Occasional use by U.S. media or politicians, including Donald Trump, does not make it correct. At most, ‘Somalian’ can be mentioned in the article body as a misused or nonstandard term, but it should not appear in the infobox ~2026-19321-3 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Many Iranians call themselves "Irani" and reject the term "Iranian" as incorrect. So what? It doesn't matter if Somalis view Somalian is incorrect. What matters is whether sources are using it or not. Oxford Dictionary uses 'Somalian', so does Merriam-Webster and other sites. It should absolutely be in the infobox. Ali Koya Varakkal (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, here's some examples of usages of "Somalian" -- Al-Amin Somalian Foundation, Somalian Aid International and Somalian Community Nottingham, and the Somalian Womens Assocation (website is down, this is a MN government doc referring to them). The AP even uses the term. So does Oregon Public Broadcasting and KATV in the US. The Council on Foreign Relations refers to the "Somalian government" in this doc. Ohlone College notes a plant called the Somalian Mountain Sage. PBS uses Somali and Somalian interchangeably in the same article. The Smithsonian has a Global Volcanism Program, that refers to the "Somalian-Antarctic Volcanic Regions." The Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia has a page called "Somalian Vaccine Informational Materials" written *in* Af Soomaali, in which it also uses "Somalian". So the idea that this usage is only occasional, or not by reliable sources, is simply not true. Again, whether you think it is correct or not, or whether you agree with it, is not the criteria for inclusion. Reliable source usage is. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• Why is it relevant whether the word is used by people from Somalia themselves? Are we going to have similar arguments about whether we should stop using the word "Germany" because it isn't what people from Deutschland call it? And whether we should stop using the word "Copenhagen" because it isn't what people from København call it? And Russia, and Rome, and Moscow, and Italy, and Spain, and Japan, and Iceland, and China, and....
• Saying "Wikipedia infoboxes reflect standard usage in reliable sources and how people identify themselves" reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's style. In the absence of good reasons for making an exception, Wikipedia's naming convention is to follow what is used by the English speaking community at large.
• As for various statements above about what is "correct" or "incorrect", what is correct in language is determined by how the language is actually used, not by your, or my, or someone else's opinion as to how it should be used. Similar considerations apply to whether something is "official" or not. "France" is not the official name of La République française... and of course I could easily give many more examples, but I don't need to, because so could you.
• Why is it relevant what the Associated Press stylebook says? Wikipedia is not an Associated Press publication, so that has no jurisdiction here. (I guess that was what "AP" was intended to mean, but if not then it would have been helpful to have made it explicit what it did mean.) JBW (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Not sure why the original editor included "Usually used to refer to citizens of Somalia who are not ethnically Somali." as a point. I've never come across this distinction before. The constitution designates every citizen as a Somali regardless of ethnic background.

The Cultural Atlas for example, an educational resource developed in collaboration with Australian government agencies states, "The word “Somali” is used to refer to something of, from or related to the country of Somalia, as well as the majority ethnic group and language. Do not use the word “Somalian” to describe the country or people, as this is an inaccurate demonym invented by the West."

Also like I explained in the above discussion topic, which I would've hoped the original editor could've joined before making further edits, the OED includes a term like Naija, yet I wouldn't necessarily include this as a demonym for the Nigeria article. And as already mentioned by other editors, the term Somalian can be deemed as offensive by some. I really don't think that an incorrect, less used term should be added to the country article. Limegreencoral (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)