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.wiki.x.io/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…. [2]

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.” http://en.wiki.x.io/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” http://en.wiki.x.io/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.” http://en.wiki.x.io/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. http://en.wiki.x.io/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:[3] 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.

Saying that Sweeney criticized the Secretary General’s praise of the KGB investigation is simply wrong on its face. Sweeney’s piece expressly states that “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.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19012541

The KGB is not in the Ministry of Interior. It is part of the State Security Committee, a completely different entity. See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/State_Security_Committee_of_the_Republic_of_Belarus and RKN888 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC) http://president.gov.by/en/state-bodies/. Therefore, saying that Sweeney criticized the Secretary General’s praise of the KGB investigation is factually incorrect since Sweeney’s statement does not even reference the KGB, but rather the Interior Ministry, and since the KGB is not part of the Interior Ministry.

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".

It would certainly be more correct to say that Sweeney's criticism cited a critique by the mother of the investigation.

However, we still have to deal with the significant issue of the credibility of the mother, a major source for Sweeney’s article. I have demonstrated that there is a presumption that a loving mother’s criticism of the investigation that led to the son’s arrest and conviction is biased and not reliable. Your suggestion that maybe she is not biased does not rebut the presumption of bias or make her a reliable source. This speaks to the credibility of the Sweeney piece, which is almost entirely based on the mother’s criticism.

* 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.

As background to this response, Wikipedia’s definitions of “source” http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources are instructive. "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: · The piece of work itself (the article, book) · The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) · The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability (emphasis mine)" I agree with you that the BBC is a reliable source in the third sense: It is generally presumed reliable as a publisher. However, the reliability of a specific piece of work (the first definition of the word “source”) or the reliability of a specific journalist (the second definition of the word “source”)are what make this article not a reliable source. In this case, this article is not a reliable source. The mother’s opinion and bias serving as a major foundation of the article undermine the article’s reliability. With that background, my specific response is that I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I never said that a mother is not biased ONLY when she would “testify against her son.” I wrote: “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.”

A mother is presumed biased towards her son unless she testifies about something that “contradicts her natural bias.”  Her opinion in this case is completely consistent with her natural bias, and she is therefore not a reliable source on the topic about which she speaks.  The majority, if not the entire article being based on the mother’s testimony, makes this article not a reliable source.

* 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.

I have no disagreement with Wikipedia’s policy and am not against being criticized. For the record, however, it is no person's right as a Wikipedian to criticize anyone. Your right is to bring reliably sourced material that is relevant to a biography, even if it is critical. I assume that’s what you meant when you said that Wikipedia editors don’t “have to stop criticizing even if it’s fair criticism.” I certainly understand that the right to cite critical sources about a public figure continues after his departure from office. As a public figure, I gave Wikipedia and you more leeway to use the Sweeney piece based on a biased and unreliable source. Now, I am insisting that Wikipedia and its editors respect its policy concerning unbiased and reliable sources as well as the heightened care due to biographies of living persons.

* 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.

Your assertion is incorrect-- the length of time that something remains on Wikipedia is not evidence that the source is reliable. Consider the list of hoaxes that remained for years and years on Wikipedia (at least the ones that have been discovered so far): http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia And that relates to complete hoaxes (non-existent martial arts, fictitious persons attributed to the genealogy of real people, etc.) which are substantially easier to spot than the type of unreliability that can be detected only by opening up the cited article and examining it closely.

* 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)

Let me answer your broader question:

The 11 April 2011 Minsk metro bombing left 15 people dead and more than 200 wounded. INTERPOL wanted to help Belarus catch those responsible. Innocent people, whether they live in Belarus, Nigeria, Malaysia, the U.S. or any other country deserve the right not to be murdered or harmed by terrorists or other dangerous criminals.

As part of its investigation, INTERPOL Minsk sent us the fingerprints of the two suspects to compare them to our database of fingermarks and fingerprints. INTERPOL concluded that the fingerprints of one of the suspects matched fingermarks sent from the crime scene of a July 2008 Belarus bombing that injured 50. This conclusion is undisputed.

Thereafter, I traveled to Minsk just as I travelled many times previously and subsequently to other countries to offer support in the wake of a crisis, and met with representatives of the Interior Ministry and the police, who briefed me on the investigation and allowed me to personally review the evidence. I am competent to review such evidence, having done so in my former capacity as a federal prosecutor and as the head of several federal police agencies in the U.S.; having experience reviewing the evidence presented by INTERPOL’s member countries in a variety of cases over the years; and having focused on the subject of Evidence during my time as a law professor.

I went to the metro bombing site, reviewed the cctv evidence, watched the videotape of the confession, and reviewed the evidence collected in 2008 and the evidence collected in 2011. I read translated reports of both investigations, met with investigators and asked any question I wished to ask. I received answers to all of my questions.

Based on my review of all of the evidence, I concluded that the Belarussian authorities conducted a highly professional investigation and that the evidence against the two suspects was overwhelming. When police make arrests in significant criminal cases, they are frequently congratulated for the investigative work that led to the arrest—the Minsk bombing investigation was not the first and not the last occasion on which I offered words of congratulation to a country’s police force when I felt it was warranted. INTERPOL is non-political, and it does not distinguish among the political systems of its member countries when providing its support to the police of its 190 member countries. If INTERPOL, or I as its Secretary General at the time, provided our support and praise only to countries whose political systems we prefer or approve of, it would undermine the foundation of international police cooperation that INTERPOL works so hard to develop, and make the world a far more dangerous place than it already is for the citizens of all of its countries.

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)

• Hello, thanks for the response. I'll wait till you have more time to respond in further detail in that case. For the record though, the BBC article directly criticises you (in what seems to me a fair way), so your page should reflect such notable and relevant criticism of you. That may not please you, but if the rest of the article lists your achievements, then as a public person it's only fair that it should also show the other side, the failures/criticism. This is exactly how we avoid bias. Of course, bias is in the eye of the beholder, and as WP editors we can only go by what is reported in the media, which for you, the subject, may seem unfair. Unfortunately, that's how a crowdsourced encyclopaedia must work. Malick78 (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want to be clear that throughout my career I have demonstrated my ability to take fair criticism. I believe in your good faith belief that the criticism you cite is fair. It is well established that any statement from a loving mother in support of her son is biased. I have given you independent citations to support this viewpoint. Since Sweeney's criticism is linked to her, I submit it is inherently biased. I simply want the criticism to be from an unbiased and reliable source like Wikipedia requires. Because you have so much more experience than I do with Wikipedia and because I give your professionalism as a Wikipedia editor such high marks, I am researching the whole issue of bias again -- even though I had considered myself an expert on evidentiary law. If you have any citations or authority for your position that a mother's speaking in defense of her son is not considered biased and unreliable on any point except that she loves her son, please let me know. You have been incredibly reasonable in responding to me. Thanks again. RKN888 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to be fair, so I'm glad that's appreciated. I see you've repeated this line a couple of times: "It is well established that any statement from a loving mother in support of her son is biased." I would correct that: "It is well established that any statement from a loving mother in support of her son may be biased." Since we (Wikipedia, not you ;) ) don't know the exact details, we have to go by the BBC reporter's take. Either way, this is somewhat of a side issue. The original phrasing actually led with: "John Sweeney has criticised Noble for endorsing the KGB's investigation..." We would still be left with that even if we dropped mentioning the mother. Would you accept that phrasing as fair? Sweeney looked at the whole case, not just what he was told by the mother. Malick78 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This will be my third time trying to save my responses to you, but they keep disappearing.

You are being fair. We are having a great discussion about the issue of bias and reliable sourcing. Now, I would like you to consider the distinction between the KGB which is in the State Security Committee and the police which is in the Ministry of Interior.

Thank you for your responses. I will first address your comments about the use of “KGB.” Saying that Sweeney criticized the Secretary General’s praise of the KGB investigation is simply wrong on its face. Sweeney’s piece expressly states that “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.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/21st-century-torture-life-under-europes-last-dictator-7986176.html

The KGB is not in the Ministry of Interior. It is part of the State Security Committee, a completely different entity. See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/State_Security_Committee_of_the_Republic_of_Belarus and RKN888 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC) http://president.gov.by/en/state-bodies/. Therefore, saying that Sweeney criticized the Secretary General’s praise of the KGB investigation is factually incorrect since Sweeney’s statement does not even reference the KGB, but rather the Interior Ministry, and since the KGB is not part of the Interior Ministry. RKN888 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Malick78,

I wish you and your family a happy, healthy and safe holiday season. I hope that you do not mind if I delay my responses to you until the holidays conclude. Kind regards, RKN888 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope your holiday season was happy and fruitful, and that you are doing well in the New Year.

I have done my best to respond to your arguments point by point above. In summary: The BBC article claimed that I endorsed the Interior Ministry investigation, not the KGB investigation. The BBC article itself is based very largely on the statement of the mother of one of the suspects who was arrested and convicted of terrorism and murder. The mother's statement in this context carries a presumption of bias and unreliability. I have no objection to being criticized, but I insist that Wikipedia meet encyclopedia standards by demanding that such criticism be based on unbiased and reliable sources, not on biased and unreliable sources. The length of time something remains on a Wikipedia page is no indicator of the accuracy of what is on that page, as evidenced by the list of Wikipedia hoaxes I referenced abobr. The argument is a forteriori in a case like this, where an entire person or subject was not fraudulently created, but an error crept in which could only be discovered by someone who was digging back into the original sources. Finally, I responded to your query about why I went to Belarus in the first place in support of the investigation, by explaining that as Secretary General, I provided support to INTERPOL member countries without regard to their political systems because innocent victims of terrorist attacks deserve the protection of police, and that I was given the opportunity to review the details of this case and expressed strong support of the quality and thoroughness of the investigation, as I had done in the past for police investigations around the world. Kind regards,RKN888 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance template

I'd like to request to have the {{COI}} template at the top of the article removed. The template was reasonably placed there on 9 March by Doc James, but no further action has been taken by him or any other sysop/reviewer since; I even requested a peer review on 18 March but no reviewer responded. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 08:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The {{COI}} template describes a simple situation which can be resolved through one decidedly un-simple action — removing all of the content added by the editor who is suspected of having a personal or professional relationship to the subject. COI editing is a lot like spilling a can of purple paint on beige carpeting — it cannot just be vacuumed and then found to be clean. All of the carpet must be ripped out and replaced with newer carpet. The action of removing large portions of text in any article is a drastic step not favored by most editors, so in most cases the only pathway towards maintenance template removal is blocked by an editor's caution not to disturb much of an article's already established content, even if it was added by the COI editor. That is how many {{COI}} templates are allowed to remain for so long. The only way forward is to have the text added by the COI editor removed and then carefully rewritten and re-added to the article by a third party. This would technically resolve the issue at hand because then and only then could it be stated that no text was added by an editor with a close connection to the subject. Regards, Spintendo 09:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes

User:Davykamanzi best practice is to NOT directly edit articles you are being paid for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I'm well aware of that. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed text

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section was removed from the article be me; for reasons see below or the article's edit history. I am leaving it here in case its removal breaks any references and so future editors may reuse refs if relevant. Baffle☿gab 02:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(this appears to have nothing to do with Ronald Noble, who is not even mentioned in many of the sources.)

In 1994, following a plane crash in the south lawn of the White House carried out by Frank Eugene Corder, Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen directed Under Secretary Noble and Secret Service director Eljay B. Bowron to conduct a "thorough and comprehensive" investigation into the circumstances leading to the plane crash. In 1995, a public report of the White House Security Review was published, with President Bill Clinton accepting all its recommendations and announcing the closure of the portion of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House on May 21, 1995, restricting movement only to pedestrian traffic to eliminate the threat of any potential car bomb or truck bomb attacks, as well as changes to air traffic rules and other security measures.

References

Baffle☿gab 02:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bafflegab

Thank you for having taken the time to respond my request for Copy Edit assistance. As you correctly pointed out, the Wikipedia article in question is about me. I do not wish to complain about Wikipedia’s rules as they relate to living persons, but they seem unfair. Any 3d party is allowed to create an article about a living person that is false, misleading and incomplete or that does not follow Wikipedia guidelines, but the living person does not have the ability to correct the errors himself or to hire someone to correct those errors. This seems patently unfair.

I am now trying to use the Copy Edit approach simply to have an article that was created by someone without my knowledge to become a neutral, unbiased and encyclopedic type of article.

I want to use your specific proposed deletion as an example of how Wikipedia’s rules are stacked against living persons. Before doing so, I want you to know that I greatly respect and appreciate how transparent and careful you were about your proposed deletion. Unfortunately, since the language that you deleted was not carefully written, you reached a wrong conclusion that the language did not concern the subject of the Wikipedia article. In addition, since the editor of the deleted language did not use the best citations, you were able to point out his/her citations were lacking.

Let me begin by quoting you:

“CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section was removed from the article be me; for reasons see below or the article's edit history. I am leaving it here in case its removal breaks any references and so future editors may reuse refs if relevant. Baffle☿gab 02:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC) (this appears to have nothing to do with Ronald Noble, who is not even mentioned in many of the sources.) In 1994, following a plane crash in the south lawn of the White House carried out by Frank Eugene Corder,[1] Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen directed Under Secretary Noble and Secret Service director Eljay B. Bowron to conduct a "thorough and comprehensive" investigation into the circumstances leading to the plane crash.[2][3] In 1995, a public report of the White House Security Review was published, with President Bill Clinton accepting all its recommendations and announcing the closure of the portion of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House on May 21, 1995, restricting movement only to pedestrian traffic to eliminate the threat of any potential car bomb or truck bomb attacks,[4] as well as changes to air traffic rules and other security measures.[3]”

My response to your statement: “This appears to have nothing to do with Ronald Noble, who is not even mentioned in many of the sources.”

Your basis for deletion is clearly stated. First, you believe that the deleted material has nothing to do with Ronald Noble. Second, you write that Ronald Noble is not even mentioned in many of the sources.

Let me first demonstrate why the event that you deleted is significant not only to Ronald Noble but to the United States and therefore should be included in a Wikipedia article.

The White House Security Review overseen by then Under Secretary of Treasury Ronald Noble was ordered after a series of security breaches and terrorist attacks about which many articles were written in the US and around the world. Prior to the White House Security Review’s recommendation to close Pennsylvania to vehicular traffic, there had been an assassination attempt of President Clinton and a suicide plane crash into the White House. There also was the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City where 168 people were killed on April 19, 1995 less than a month before the White House Security Review that I oversaw recommended closing Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic.

Neutral articles making clear the importance of the White House Security review:

An LA Times article was entitled, “Clinton Seals Off Traffic from Part of Pennsylvania Ave: White House: Street in front of executive mansion is permanently closed to vehicles. President calls it part of 11-step program to tighten security after terrorist attacks.”

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-21-mn-4461-story.html

In this article, then President Clinton highlights the significance of his decision to close Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic. I quote: “Clinton noted that Pennsylvania Avenue has remained open to vehicular traffic for 130 years, "through four presidential assassinations and eight unsuccessful attempts on the lives of presidents . . . through a civil war, two world wars and the Gulf War."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-21-mn-4461-story.html

This article also makes clear how extensive the White House Security Review was. I quote: “The advisory committee reviewed more than 1,000 documents and interviewed 250 individuals, including former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Bush, and experts from eight nations with considerable experience with terrorism. It drafted a top-secret, 500-page report with a 260-page appendix; Five of its 11 recommendations remain classified.”

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-21-mn-4461-story.html

Now, let me turn to your observations which are understandable in light of the text as written in the Wikipedia article. You write: “this appears to have nothing to do with Ronald Noble.”

The language in the Wikipedia article states: “In 1994, following a plane crash in the south lawn of the White House carried out by Frank Eugene Corder,[1] Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen directed Under Secretary Noble and Secret Service director Eljay B. Bowron to conduct a "thorough and comprehensive" investigation into the circumstances leading to the plane crash.[2][3] “

This declarative sentence was imprecise in that it uses the label “Under Secretary Noble” when referring to who was directed to conduct a “thorough and comprehensive” investigation of White House security. It should say “Under Secretary Ronald Noble.” Earlier in the Wikipedia article, it states, “In 1993, Noble was appointed the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, being placed in charge of the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Customs Service Office of Enforcement, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.[4][9]” Therefore, one could deduce that the Under Secretary Noble referred to in this paragraph is in fact Under Secretary Ronald Noble, but you are right that it is not clear as currently written.

Once it is clear that the Under Secretary Noble referred to in this paragraph is the same Ronald Noble about whom this Wikipedia article was created, and the same Ronald Noble was ordered to oversee the entire White House Security Review, then the deleted material has everything to do with Ronald Noble.

Neutral citations referring to Ronald Noble as overseeing the White House Security Review:

Regarding your second point, you write: “Ronald Noble … is not even mentioned in many of the sources.”

Again, you are correct. The sources that were cited in this article do not clearly mention Ronald Noble’s name, but this problem can easily be corrected. I have very little familiarity with Wikipedia’s detailed rules, but I researched “types of content removal” and the sub-heading “unsourced information.”

I quote:

“Unsourced information[edit source] Shortcut • WP:USI

Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed.”

Wikipedia:Content removal

There are many neutral, independent and credible sources to support the statement that Ronald Noble oversaw the White House Security Review that gave the recommendation to close Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic and that Ronald Noble was tasked by then Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen to conduct a review of White House security.

1. New York Times:

“Treasury Under Secretary Ronald K. Noble, who oversees the Secret Service and heads the committee of security experts, declined to comment today about its conclusions or the Administration's plan to close Pennsylvania Avenue. But other officials said Mr. Noble had told them he was concerned about the possibility of a car bomb and would like to see the avenue closed to vehicles.” https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/10/us/security-plan-close-pennsylvania-avenue.html

2. LA Times:

“Ronald K. Noble, undersecretary of the Treasury for enforcement, was overseeing the investigation.” https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-24-mn-5471-story.html

3. UPI:

“Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, who oversees the service, ordered Noble to undertake a 90-day review of the security for Clinton and his family, which will parallel the sweeping probe of the crash by the Secret Service, the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board and the District of Columbia police force.”

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/09/12/Probe-begins-into-White-House-plane-crash/8392779342400/

4. Washington Post:

“It's not clear whether the advisory committee's proposal has the support of Ronald K. Noble, undersecretary of the treasury for enforcement, or his boss, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who will forward the panel's report to Clinton, possibly next week.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1995/05/10/proposal-to-close-pennsylvania-ave-irks-commuters-tourists/dfe4ca2d-d86f-45ad-a443-10e2b24cc18c/?utm_term=.166af3944830

5. Orlando Sentinel:

“But Noble's report made clear how vulnerable the White House remained to an assailant. For example, he disclosed that Frank Eugene Corder, the pilot who crashed below the president's bedroom window last year, had his plane's wing flaps up and his throttle at full forward, which led investigators to conclude that he had intended to crash in a suicide mission.”

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1995-05-21-9505210399-story.html

6. The Daily Pennsylvanian:

“The advisory committee, which will be chaired by the Under Secretary for Enforcement Ron Noble, will review "every aspect of how the White House could be attacked, from the ground or from the air," Bentsen said during a press conference.”

https://www.thedp.com/article/1994/11/pres-rodin-named-to-white-house-safety-panel

Conclusion:

Using my Wikipedia account, I requested a copy edit of an article in a transparent manner where a major editor has a close connection with me. You rightly pointed out language that was not as clear as it could be. You also rightly indicated that Ronald Noble was not even mentioned in many of the sources used.

If the event in question is notable and would be included in any encyclopedia, if it is linked to the subject of the article and if it is properly sourced, then it should be included, not deleted.

Next Steps:

I do not wish to get involved in a dispute with a thoughtful editor such as yourself who took the time to respond to my request for a copy edit. I also will not add back the language that you deleted, but I would just appreciate your giving me guidance as to how a living person can make sure that a Wikipedia article created about him is accurate if he cannot make it accurate himself or if he cannot hire someone who indicates his conflict of interest to make corrections/additions/deletions?

Again, thank you for the time that you have devoted to this issue.

RKN888 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @RKN888:, thank you for your in-depth reply and comments. Sometimes, text that is veering off-topic for a specific article—we call this coat-racking—please see this essay—gets removed. In this instance, I removed the paragraph because it discusses the plane crash incident and its aftermath more than it discusses you, the article's subject. Articles like this are sometimes difficult to balance well; we don't want it to read like a resumé but we also need to stay on-topic. As you know, we can only report what reliable sources reported at the time of the incident; somethimes those sources are limited in content relevent to the article's subject. Thank you for providing sources; I'm not adverse to putting it back into the article but it should focus on you rather than the incident itself, which should go in Pennsylvania Avenue or White House, where I see it's mentioned briefly. That said, I can probably work it back into this article once I check more sources.

Regarding the copy-edit; I do try to be transparent and careful with the material I'm presented with—particularly with biographies of living people, and to re-word the text to make it clearer for the reader. As the subject of the article, feel free to make suggestions here or to use the {{Help me}} template on your own talk page, which will attract a volunteer editor to help you. You can report libelous or defamatory material on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you see text that really needs to be hidden from public view, please e-mail an active administrator and ask for reversion deletion by e-mail or contact an oversight volunteer. I hope that's useful and points you in the right direction. Best regards, Baffle☿gab 20:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Baffle☿gab

Thank you again for your thoughtful comments and great suggestions with which I agree.

I have read Wikipedia: Editor Assistance and gotten in touch with an editor willing to provide assistance. @Newslinger has given me excellent suggestions about how I could possibly engage the Wikipedia community concerning this article. He recommended "reading Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide ... on how to interact with other editors when a conflict of interest prevents (a person) from editing an article directly." He also recommended that I look at 'the WP:PSCOI § Steps for engagement section will most likely be useful."

Maybe I will be lucky and find an editor with no conflict of interest willing to give the article a close read and scrub. Until then, the banner will alert readers about the conflict of interest.

Again, I thank you for having taken the time to respond to me so quickly such thoughtful comments and suggestions -- especially over the weekend.  :)

Please forgive my not using the right Wikipedia symbols in my responses to you. It will take me a while to learn how to communicate properly using Wikipedia's style. It is complicated for novices like me. So, I will keep reading and watching videos until I get the hang of it.

Kindest regards,

RKN888 (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)