Talk:Ronald Noble

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Malick78 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

I allowed this biased entry entitled "Belarus Metro Bombing Controversy" that violated Wikipedia's standards to remain visible on my Wikipedia biographical page for years while I was a public servant. Please see the comments of Robofish entered on the 22 August 2012 which I quote here: ":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:[2] 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)" While INTERPOL Secretary General, I did not allow any of my public affairs team to remove this section. I was accountable to 190 member countries as Secretary General. Any one of these countries could have asked me to explain my comments, but not one country did.

Now, as a private citizen without an institution to protect me, I will insist that any Wikipedia editor who wishes to use my biography to criticize an event like the 2011 Belarus Metro Bombing play by Wikipedia's rules. Moreover, if the editor wishes to criticize the event, then he or she do it in a forum dedicated to the event; so each of us can have a fair and equal opportunity to find neutral point of view, verifiable and reliable sources about the event in question. But, if an editor wishes to criticize a living person who is a private citizen in that private citizen's biography, then that editor should take special care to make sure that his or her edits reflect a neutral point of view and that his or her sources are verifiable and neutral. He or she should not camouflage or mischaracterize the biased opinion of a mother as a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- not a talk forum for a Wikipedia editor to advance a mother's obviously biased opinion about her convicted son's case having been improperly investigated and then to mischaracterize that biased criticism of an investigation as a NPOV criticism of a living person.

Ronald K. Noble, 7 December 2015

RKN888 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, thank you Mr Noble for your comments. I would like to remind you, however, that in future please refrain from editing this page about you yourself - let the community do it. That's the general rule here. Feel free to leave messages on the talk page, though. Other editors will consider your suggestions for edits and act accordingly.

Regarding your points:

A. “John Sweeney has criticized Noble for endorsing the KGB's investigation.” Not "false", true. You endorsed Belorus's investigation though "seemed" unaware that it was a KGB investigation. The original statement doesn't claim you knew who led the investigation, just that you endorsed it. Btw, you haven't stated here that you really were unaware. Also, I'd be amazed if the head of Interpol didn't know of the existence of the KGB in Belorus and their likely involvement in such a huge case. Still, that's just my speculation and is neither here nor there. The text reflected the BBC article accurately.

B.    Whether I implied that the convicted murderer’s mother criticised you is arguable, that text stated: “BBC journalist John Sweeney has criticised Noble for endorsing the KGB's investigation, citing critique by the suspect Dmitry Konovalov's mother, Lyubov Kovalyova.”  So, I said Sweeney criticised you, citing "critique" from the mother. Well, "critique" is ambiguous, true (an unintended ambiguity I assure you). So, perhaps we can improve rather than delete? As you yourself say, "She criticized the investigation itself". Hence, I'd suggest adding those two words - "the investigation".

* The BBC is a highly respected institution, in the very topic rank of world media outlets. They'r RS (a reliable source). You say that it's biased to quote a deceased man's mother - yet your logic is highly flawed there. Obviously any emotional person can be biased, but to say they're not biased only when they "testify against their son" is baloney. Anyway, as for WP, we can quote said mother but to be neutral we should provide a balancing opinion, and my edits certainly did - we quoted Interpol. In fact, the counterquote from Interpol defending you was twice the length of the bit mentioning the mother as we can see here.

* Regarding your status as a private individual, you seem to have misunderstood Wikipedia's policy. With public individuals there is more leeway and you were certainly a public individual with a high profile job. That you left the job doesn't mean we have to stop talking about your time in the position and have to stop criticising even if it's fair criticism.

* You say that while in your position you refrained from editing this page and didn't ask staff to do that either. I commend you on that. However, that also shows that for a good few years people visiting this page didn't think to question or remove the information - they didn't find it biased. I think that alone should show you that the original edit was fair and balanced.

* Lastly - and on a personal note - I don't often get the chance to talk to those in high office, so I feel I shouldn't pass up the opportunity to ask you this. Why exactly did you go to the "last remaining dictatorship in Europe" and praise a state investigation before due process had been completed? Two men died and the mother of one of them has never been told where he was buried.

Regards, Malick78 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, if you have no response I will readd the disputed material. Malick78 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to Malick78 (talk) from Ronald:

I apologize for not having opened this page sooner. I had been looking at your talk page. My original posting was to this page but then as I read more about Wikipedia, I learned that I should have posted my Talk message to your page. I am currently traveling in Africa. I am writing you now to apologize for the delayed response. If you can give me a couple of days, I will respond at that time. I am reading about the proper rules and etiquette of Wikipedia, but I am still making mistakes. So, apologies. Also, please let me know if you prefer the Talk to occur on this page or your page. This page might be easier because as you can see there are no other entries so far. Kind regards, Ronald (Please keep your Wikipedia identity, but since this is my page and what I am doing is rare, I want to be transparent.

As I made clear, I feel strongly that criticism of an event and what someone did or said in relation to that event belong on the event's page. If you look at my Wikipedia page, it states "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (October 2011)" I left it there for readers who are curious to read the discussion. No one has taken it down even though the so-called promotional language was removed. Why because no one cares enough to remove it. Until we communicate again, I just want you to know that it is possible that something inaccurate or biased is on a Wikipedia page, but no one cares enough to remove it.

I will answer your personal question when I have more time because it deserves a very thoughtful response which I hope to give.

Kind regards,

Ronald aka RKN88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKN888 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)