Jump to content

Talk:Ronald Noble: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
RKN888 (talk | contribs)
RKN888 (talk | contribs)
Line 15: Line 15:
:I don't really see how it can be considered "flattering" when the Belarus bombing criticism section takes up such a large portion of the article... or perhaps that part is new since you last commented? [[User:cooljeanius|Cooljeanius]] ([[User talk:cooljeanius|talk]]) ([[Special:contributions/cooljeanius|contribs]]) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:I don't really see how it can be considered "flattering" when the Belarus bombing criticism section takes up such a large portion of the article... or perhaps that part is new since you last commented? [[User:cooljeanius|Cooljeanius]] ([[User talk:cooljeanius|talk]]) ([[Special:contributions/cooljeanius|contribs]]) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


== Source for Belarus bombing criticism ==
02:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[[User:RKN888|RKN888]] ([[User talk:RKN888|talk]])== Source for Belarus bombing criticism ==


:This article recently had a section added criticising Noble's comments on the Belarus metro bombing case, where he praised the investigation and congratulated the authorities for capturing the suspects before the trial had taken place. This section is currently unsourced. I believe it was based on a recent film report by the BBC, available to British viewers here:[http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m9398/Our_World_Bombing_Belarus/] However, that doesn't seem to me like an ideal source because of its nature: does anyone have a text-based one, preferably available online, that we can use? [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 00:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
:This article recently had a section added criticising Noble's comments on the Belarus metro bombing case, where he praised the investigation and congratulated the authorities for capturing the suspects before the trial had taken place. This section is currently unsourced. I believe it was based on a recent film report by the BBC, available to British viewers here:[http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m9398/Our_World_Bombing_Belarus/] However, that doesn't seem to me like an ideal source because of its nature: does anyone have a text-based one, preferably available online, that we can use? [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 00:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:58, 7 December 2015

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Picture

Can we somehow put in a picture of this cat? They're not hard to find online. I just don't know how to do that, personally. Or I would. 63.95.64.254 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Biography

This very flattering piece is not an NPOV bio of its subject; it is clearly a press release from INTERPOL or some similar puff piece. Please, does nobody know enough about Noble to write an honest biography rather than simply a CV right out of his employer's files? Peter.zimmerman (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how it can be considered "flattering" when the Belarus bombing criticism section takes up such a large portion of the article... or perhaps that part is new since you last commented? Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)RKN888 (talk)== Source for Belarus bombing criticism ==

This article recently had a section added criticising Noble's comments on the Belarus metro bombing case, where he praised the investigation and congratulated the authorities for capturing the suspects before the trial had taken place. This section is currently unsourced. I believe it was based on a recent film report by the BBC, available to British viewers here:[1] However, that doesn't seem to me like an ideal source because of its nature: does anyone have a text-based one, preferably available online, that we can use? Robofish (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a text article now which seems RS. Unfortunately now somebody is trying to remove the section - the first attempt recently was by a user with Noble's initials!!! The next deletion was by an anonymous user. Smells fishy... Malick78 (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Editor Malick78’s edits to the Wikipedia page about me violate Wikipedia’s “standards (which) require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people….” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Enforcement#Enforcement by citing a biased sourced article based and by misrepresenting or misleading the reader about the content of the cited article in a way which discredits a living person.  As of this date, 6 December 2015, I am assuming that all errors were made in good faith.

 

I. Bias:

The obvious point of bias is contained in the following sentence used by editor Malick78: “BBC journalist John Sweeney has criticised Noble for endorsing the KGB's investigation, citing critique by the suspect Dmitry Konovalov's mother, Lyubov Kovalyova.” It is one of the most well-established principles of evidentiary law that loving parents are biased in favor of their children. “Typical associations that form the basis for showing bias are family relationships (e.g. mother, father…)” A Practical Guide to Federal evidence, Anthony J. Bocchino, ‎David A. Sonenshein, 2006.   Editor Malick78’s response to the challenge of a mother’s bias is “no, citing a mother isn’t always biased.”  That’s true, when the mother’s opinion contradicts her natural bias: a loving mother who testifies against her son in a criminal prosecution would not be considered biased. But a loving mother who criticizes the investigation that led to her son’s arrest and conviction would obviously be considered biased. Wikipedia advises editors to “use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules.” For this reason alone, editor Malick78’s post violated Wikipedia’s standards requiring neutrality.  

II.  Verifiability & Reliability:

Editor Malick78 has included factual statements that are proven false based on a simple reading of the article that cited by him/her.   A.       Editor Malick78’s entry states “John Sweeney has criticized Noble for endorsing the KGB's investigation.” False: 1. Nowhere does the cited article say that Noble endorsed the KGB investigation.  The cited article states: “The following month Secretary General Noble arrived in Minsk and praised ‘the high professionalism’ of the Interior Ministry officials for solving the case so quickly - long before their trial took place.” Moreover, the cited article expressly states: “The Secretary General seemed unaware that the KGB led the investigation….”http://www.bbc.com/news/world-19012541  B.       Editor Malick78’s entry misleads the reader by implying that the convicted murderer’s mother criticized Noble.  He writes: “BBC journalist John Sweeney has criticised Noble for endorsing the KGB's investigation, citing critique by the suspect Dmitry Konovalov's mother, Lyubov Kovalyova.”    In fact, the mother never made one reference directly or indirectly to Noble in the cited article.  She criticized the investigation itself.  

III.  Respect for living people:

Wikipedia’s standards show a deep concern for protecting living persons from biased, false and misleading entries about them.  I quote: “Purpose: Because living persons may suffer personal harm from inappropriate information, we should watch their articles carefully. This category exists to help Wikipedia editors improve the quality of biographies of living persons by ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people Editor Malick78 has submitted entries that were not neutral; were inaccurate and were not properly sourced.   Example: Editor Malick78 has created a heading in my personal biograph entitled “Criticism for response to Belarus metro bombing.” His entry then misleads the reader into thinking that the independent institution of the BBC and its reporter John Sweeney have produced a neutral article that criticizes me.  In fact, the article uses a loving mother’s criticism of the investigation that led to her son’s arrest and conviction for a terrorist attack where 15 innocent persons were killed and injured many more injured. Editor Malick78 distorts the article into making it appear that the mother was criticizing me.   The placement of this section in a Wikipedia personal biography page about me limits my ability to set the record straight. Instead of making corrections in the Wikipedia article entitled “Belarus Metro Bombing” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Minsk_Metro_bombing where my voice as an editor could be deemed as neutral, I must correct it on a Wikipedia page about me, where any edits by me would appear biased.  

IV.  Wikipedia the Encyclopedia and Editor Malick78

I have read some of Editor Malick78’s articles in Wikipedia.  Many reflect exhaustive and careful research.  He or she has rightfully received compliments for the care taking in creating and editing some of these articles.  My dispute with him/her here does not go to his/her integrity or good faith.  Instead, it goes to the heart of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.   I quote from Wikipedia’s own stated purpose which is : “to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose   Indeed, “the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race.”Diderot[1]   It is my hope that Editor Malick78 will take this long note not as an attack on him/her personally, but as a correction that I hope will lead to a decision by him to exclude from this page of this section, a biased criticism from the mother of a convicted murderer criticizing an investigation--and not me.  As I have already said, if Editor Malick78 wishes to highlight criticism of the investigation of the Belarus metro bombing, there is an article that has been created for that purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Minsk_Metro_bombing

Ronald K. Noble, 7 December 2015   — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKN888 (talkcontribs) 02:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]