Talk:Mark Malloch Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

"Malloch Brown ranked No 3 in the UN system" Where did the author of this artile find this stat from?

its in the linked Times article Bwithh 04:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Times article is wrong. UNDP have always claimed that their Administrator is the third rank in the UN based on the size of the organisation and budget that he controls. However, this has never been formally agreed by the General Assembly or any other body with the authority to do so. All Under-Secretaries-General (see Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations) are of equal rank. RingoStarr 06:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the POV check explanation?

Added an encapsulation of the controversy to the lead stating both POV's.68.5.64.178 20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malloch Brown quote deleted to whitewash issue

The Financial Times http://www.ft.com/ is reliable media outlet, an outlet most would consider more reliable than wikipedia. Malloch Brown was quoted in the Financial Times using language by which he clearly attempted to draw a (to me absurd) distinction between a terrorist organization and an organization that uses terrorist tactics. To me, this is POV on his part, but my reporting the quote to wikipedia is NPOV. So, why was this quote deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Malloch_Brown&diff=67636817&oldid=67473739 Furthermore, as a result of this, my IP was blocked from editing and I was accused of being a "sockpuppet" for some banned user I never heard of. I need to call bullshit on this. The administrators (Wikibofh) are creating a weird and creepy NPOV by deleting things that Malloch Brown actually said because they apparently wish to protect his reputation from his own statements. And who would call himself Wikibofh anyway? I'm sure you would claim it's a joke, but I'm equally sure that Freud said there is no such thing as a joke: subconsciously, Freud would say, you consider yourself a bastard, so I shall do you the honor of agreeing. (Your user page says that you don't get worked up about people editing your stuff... um, can you say "denial") [[GoodGuy]]

There is no conspiracy. There is no need to go calling people bastards. It's just that the quote does not a) bear out what you wrote about it, and b) is POV:

strawman: I did not say there was a conspiracy. I said it was a whitewash. So quit "closing ranks" too, another term which does not allege consipiracy. You should feel free to delete your backhanded-allegation and this response as, IMO, you've distracted the discussion.

And, as I pointed out, he has named himself "bastard operator from hell", and as I mentioned in passing, the medical field of psychiatry believes that such things are not accidental. If someone is going to be a judge of other people and do things like ban them (even temporarily) I think they should not name themselves something that implies "unfair" as BOFH implies. If you wish to maintain civility, do not choose uncivil names. [[GoodGuy]]

On August 3, he was quoted in the Financial Times implying that Hezbollah should be considered something apart from a terrorist organization. "It’s not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism. Hizbollah employs terrorist tactics, it is an organisation however whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda."

That seems to me that he's acknowledging that it employs terrorist tactics (yes), but it is not a terrorist organisation in the same sense as Al-Qaeda (again, yes). That is not the same saying it is not a terrorist organisation. But even if he was, there's no need to go putting it into the article. The EU (for the time being) and Russia do not currently list it as a terrorist organisation. The United Kingdom and Australia only list its military arm as involved in terrorism. It would be American/Canadian/Israeli POV to say that "he [implied] it should be considered something apart from a terrorist organisation" - as that assumes that it is widely agreed to be a terrorist organisation. Please look at the article on Hezbollah; it is described as a "a Lebanese Islamist Shi'a organization and political party, with a military arm and a civilian arm." My personal opinion is that is a terrorist organisation, but that doesn't mean that I can foist that opinion on to Wikipedia. Please take time to re-read WP:NPOV. JF Mephisto 10:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've made your case. Let's keep this simple: (1) The Malloch Brown quote I included is very interesting and goes to the heart of the controversy about him; as such it is completely in keeping with that section of the article. The quote should not have been deleted. (2) My brief comment was not outside of any bounds, but even if it were it could easily have been edited down or corrected (3) nothing rose to the level of vandalism and my IP should not have been banned. [[GoodGuy]]

I'll deal with your points in turn:

1) the quote has nothing to do with the controversy about his speech regarding the perception of the UN in America, and it is only peripherally to do with his comments about America sharing the lead in Lebanon - i.e., the actual 'controversies.' The man himself is not a walking controversy. It's simply your opinion that it "goes to the heart" of the matter, as it's your perception that Malloch Brown does not think that Hizbollah is a terrorist organisation - when I've alrady pointed out that even if it was his opinion, it isn't noteworthy - neither does the European Union (and all its member states), Russia, China and Australia. Thinking that Hizbollah is not a terrorist organisation is not by itself relevant, as that is not a 'controversy.' We are not here to compile a laundry list of the ways in which he disagrees with specific American policies and positions.

2) Your comment was not NPOV. You wrote "he [implied] it should be considered something apart from a terrorist organisation," which is tantamount to stating "it is a terrorist organisation and Malloch Brown disagreed with this." That is not NPOV. Please read the article on Hezbollah and the article on NPOV. Wikipedia is not in a position to make these judgements.

3) I am not an admin and have nothing to do with your ban.

Additionally, accusing people of "whitewashing" the issue and "closing ranks" - when I've not corresponded with another user on this issue at all - is calling conspiracy. No one is trying to censor you or prevent you your due, we're just trying to keep the article NPOV; your edits violated that policy. Also, it's clear that Wikibofh is a play on the fictional BOFH character, not an attempt to call himself a 'bastard.' Your comment - "subconsciously, Freud would say, you consider yourself a bastard, so I shall do you the honor of agreeing" - is uncivil. One more thing - if you respond to this, please don't parse my message but places yours in its entirety below. It makes it difficult to read otherwise.

JF Mephisto 12:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't like "parsing", I don't like random numbers of colons, so I'll use one. This is in response to all that has come before, and I will not address every point, suffice it to say I stand by everything I have said. I want to add here a few things just to point out your inadequacy, and that will do for me because it's just a waste of time at this point. You list yourself as a native speaker of English: "whitewash" and "closing ranks" do not require consiracy or even contact with another person, it's that simple; and, nor have I alleged conspiracy; and I've pointed all of this out to you explicitly, so I won't again, I'm wasting my time, you are not up to it. Furthermore, I already said that you would attempt to claim that BOFH's choice of his name was a joke and I already said that I, and every single legitimate psychiatrist and psychologist, would tell you that it probably exposes subconscious motivation. But I understand, actual expertise, experience, education and training earn no status with wikipedians, it's how much free time you have to impose your will on an article or discussion, which might actually be inversely proportionate. So, an admin "jokingly" calls himself "bastard operator from hell" and he bans my IP for the edits I made to this article. You render your opinion-POV on many many issues here, but you refuse to render your opinion on whether my actual edits rose to the level of IP banning. It doesn't matter whether you have admin rights, you can still have an opinion... My opinion is that he acted exactly like a BOFH and I call him a bastard in exactly the sense that BOFH implies. You quoted "bastard" out of that context in an attempt by you to change the meaning, but I meant it *exactly* as he did himself, an operator who bans people because he has the power to, not because they've actually transgressed. Let me add that you have refused to give one word of accord to any single thing I have said here. I find it very hard to believe that I am wrong about every single thing I have said, so I must conclude that you are some combination of insecure and not nice, and once again I'm wasting my time with you. The other Malloch Brown quote I added that you left in, by the way, also shows Malloch Brown to be an ass, but since he shares your POV, you can't see it. Let me explain, and you can add the explanation to the article: If two parties in a dispute have a "mediator", and the mediator interferes in the debate and undermines one of the party's bargaining position, then after a bargain is struck, to call himself "prophetic" is preening and self important, and all the more infuriating to the party that he has just wronged; and, I would add, completely beyond a UN "civil servant"'s role, and behavior which undermines the UN, an organization whose goals I hold dear. GoodGuy

Here we go again. In turn:

1) First, you're wrong. "Closing ranks" does indeed imply the existence of more than one person: it stems, roughly, from the practise of a military unit of closing formation to defend a leader or a position. And seeing as you were already blatantly aware prior to your reply that there were at least two people involved (myself and the admin who blocked you), I don't think you can reasonably argue that you were only aiming the "closing ranks" comment at me. After all, who am I supposedly closing ranks with?

2) Second, your appeal to authority about "most psychologists" is pathetic and baseless. If you can point me to one serious psychological study that indicates the choice of online usernames implies a literal identification with that username, even when it's after a fictional character, I'll eat my hat. I'd also be very interested to meet all the people who call themselves some variation of 'muffin' online, and examine the nature of their personal identification with a sweet breadstuff. You're trying to backtrack on calling another user a 'bastard' based on the childish rationale that because his username contained the word 'bastard,' he must be calling himself one. You did not call him a 'bastard operator from hell,' you called him a bastard. Which is, I wager, amongst the numerous reasons you found yourself blocked in the first place.

3) Third, the more you bitch and moan about me or other users "imposing our will" on an article, the more you reinforce my perception that you'd rather think there is a conspiracy to suppress your opinion than the more simple and correct truth that people are just trying to enforce Wikipedia policies on NPOV. You can skirt around the issue all you want, but the section of text you inserted was POV: "he implied it should be considered something apart from a terrorist organisation." That puts Wikipedia in the position of declaring that Hizbollah is a terrorist organisation, which is not NPOV.

4) Fourth, you have no idea what my opinions on Malloch-Brown are, let alone my opinions on politics in general. This isn't about defending Malloch-Brown and what you presume are our shared points of view, it's about ensuring Wikipedia's policies are carried out. It's as simple as that. And I really couldn't give a toss if you think that I'm insecure and "not nice" - I think you're a troll who wants to impose his POV (that Malloch-Brown is an "ass") on a Wikipedia article, and is quick to adopt a victim's complex of censorship and conspiracy when he doesn't get his own way.

5) Fifth, Malloch-Brown wasn't claiming literally to be a prophet. He was making a tongue-in-cheek statement about how the very thing that he had been criticised for suggesting America do had taken place "within a single news cycle." The quote stands in his defence, not his condemnation.

6) Lastly, let's remember why all this started. You were trying to insert POV into the article. You've been prevented from doing it. You're not helping your position by whining about the nasty bullies who prevented you.

- JF Mephisto 19:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section obviously POV

I'll attempt a fix. Let me know how it's received, then we can discuss when the POV tag can be removed JF Mephisto 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. It's been four or five days since I made the changes and there hasn't been any feedback, so I'm gonna remove the POV tag for now. Please don't hestitate to add it again if you spot a POV violation, though please do discuss your reasons here. JF Mephisto 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)