Talk:Joshua Blahyi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Liberia.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Joshua Blahyi was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 28, 2007

If a special warfare center is named after him, it's impossible to find any other mention of it than that blog entry. I'm taking it out.

• Fair enough. As an aside, I don't think it would be slander to say so, as I don't think it would necessarily be a negative. But I've been looking for other sources as well, and couldn't find anything, and a blog entry isn't very reliable. That being said, when one reads the blog - if it is a flat-out invention, it's an oddly-placed one, very random... Zafiroblue05 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still suspicious of this article. If this man actually exists, the only evidence of his bizzare claims being true is that he had said so. A plausible alternative is that he may be engaging in "lying for Christ" - what else could be more persuading than "I have been an insane war criminal, but now Christianity has saved me"? Compare American fundamentalists [1] claiming "I have been a victim and/or perpetrator of satanic ritual abuse, but now ..." - you get the idea. - Mike Rosoft 16:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look here or here or here. Multiple credible sources - books published major American university's presses, articles in non-tabloid newspapers in South Africa and Scotland - take it at face value. The objection that he is now exaggerating his past for the sake of evangelizing is a good one; to some extent, his exaggerating is probably likely.

But I think it is highly unlikely that he doesn't exist at all, and the colorful nickname he received is at least one example of an outside source (the nickname had to come from somewhere, and wouldn't have been invented by a Christian evangelist or after-the-fact sensationalist reports - it's too good!). I think it's clear that he existed and was a particularly crazed warlord, as warlords go. The details could be incorrect, and I'm marking them more clearly as just claims. But there's at least basis of truth here that one can't deny, IMO.

In addition - if the sources say the stories are true, which they do, it's original research to say that they're NOT true. All we have to go on is what other people say, not what WE say. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(On that basis, I'm going to remove the verify tag. The article's claims ARE verfied by outside, independent, trustable sources. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

---

Another source for the nakedness/wig stuff - possibly could use as reason for why he and his troops dressed the way they did... zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC) http://www.slate.com/id/2086490/

The added source of his autobiography is useful, but as mentioned by others it must be kept in mind that his platform is very much that of the "reformed warlord" so there is a motivation behind it, especially given his current occupation as an Evangelical Minister. If anyone could include quotes from the documentary "The Love of Liberty", that would enhance the article with some recent footage of him. I do not think there can any longer be a debate about his actual existence given the numerous cross references in published sources regarding his wartime activities. This article should be monitored for quotations taken from questionable websites. (Published sources are available such as his autobiography and newspaper articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.195.46 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

the man's a nut... obviously should have been imprisoned in a psych ward somewhere, for all the things he's done or claimed to have done... but there was a short article on him on CNN.com today so I guess he is a real figure... he even walked the streets selling audiocassettes of his surmons at one time. 71.234.109.192 (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's all true.

It's all true. I just saw it on the History Channel today http://www.history.com/shows.do?episodeId=217237&action=detail

The show is called Heroes Under Fire and the episode is named Escape from Liberia. They had special operatives from the US government on talking about their experiences with the Butt Nakeds and General Butt Naked.

This should be in Ripley's Believe it or Not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.44.189 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 28, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass ^{[citation needed]}

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail This could be expanded and split into sub-sections

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Fail Not a single image, there should be an image which is correctly sourced etc.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — The Sunshine Man 11:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an image is not required for an article to attain the Good Article status, but this particular article fails to meet a whole lot of Good Article criteria, starting from such basic issues as inappropriate tone and style, possible POV problems, dubious use of sources, lead section in need of expansion and many others. PrinceGloria 11:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)