Talk:Nathaniel Raymond

Is this article for real? This is ridiculously shameless self-promotion.
I came across this article randomly and thought it was a joke at first. Wikipedia needs to police this type of self-serving bologna. No matter how noble Nathaniel's intentions may be, nothing about him or his life warrants a Wikipedia entry. What mechanisms does Wikipedia have in place to prevent any Joe Schmoe from recording his life story as this person has done? Utter rubbish. Honey715 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Honey715


 * My thoughts exactly. As I started reading this article I was asking myself, "is this page an inside joke of some kind?"Blander2 (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves.92.158.207.40 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Raymond is well-known in the human rights community. Because there is no specific Wikipedia standard for human rights advocates, this article would be covered by WP:BIO which mandates non-trivial coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. I reviewed all 17 references, and 6 of them (listed below) clearly meet this standard, whereas the others provide supporting information.


 * Raymond is well-known in the human rights community. Because there is no specific Wikipedia standard for human rights advocates, this article would be covered by WP:BIO which mandates non-trivial coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. I reviewed all 17 references, and 6 of them (listed below) clearly meet this standard, whereas the others provide supporting information.
 * Furthermore, I don't see any evidence of advertisement or self-promotion in the article. For example, there's no link to any Raymond-affiliated website, nor does the article use any puffery. The article appears to give a factual description about a person that is notable in their field.
 * [www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?_r=1 New York Time reference]
 * [www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/22/090622fa_fact_mayer?printable=true New Yorker reference]
 * [www.post-gazette.com/pg/11002/1114719-82.stm Pittsburg Post Gazette reference]
 * [www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/14/137859361/south-sudan-joins-u-n-mass-graves-reported-in-nearby-sudan National Public Radio reference]
 * [www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/24/george-clooney-spies-secrets-sudan Guardian reference]
 * [articles.boston.com/2012-04-29/magazine/31428585_1_south-sudan-nuba-mountains-harvard-humanitarian-initiative Boston Globe reference]]
 * WP:BIO "mandates non-trivial coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources." However, in order to establish notability of a person, he or she must be the subject of the publication. These establish notability of the subject of the publications (which is not Raymond).0Juan234 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I don't see any evidence of advertisement or self-promotion in the article. For example, there's no link to any Raymond-affiliated website, nor does the article use any puffery. The article appears to give a factual description about a person that is notable in their field.
 * Two links have Raymond as the subject; one is the bio from his own organization's blog (http://phrblog.org/blog/author/nraymond/) and the other is a bio for the poptech website (which is not exactly a publication). I do not think it's self-promotion per se, but it is a notability concern.0Juan234 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some more interesting things happening here: DavidinNJ apparently accidentally made a post from an IP in New Jersey, which he/she corrected []. A few months ago two editors recommended deletion of this silly page (here [] and here []). Then, mysteriously, an IP located ten miles from where DavidinNJ accidentally posted today, set the archive to remove "old" text (i.e. the discussion of Raymond's lack of notability) to ten days [], which effectively hid the posts from sight until someone happened to review them last week and reposted them to the talk page. Then -poof!- in just a few days the delete-this-page discussion was coincidentally archived yet again (bear in mind that the non-deletion text had been sitting there for nine months). Maybe my novice wiki mind has misread this, though I am sure it can't be Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, DavidinNJ playing games. It's just some strange coincidence.0Juan234 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete this page--Wikipedia is not for self promotion
This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves.92.158.207.40 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, aka Debbie W []., a username removed because you promote yourself though fake accounts...GET RIDE OF THIS PROPAGANDA81.249.156.134 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * x3 Blander2 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More fishyness: There are several people with New Jersey ties who have been blocked and apparently have been advocating the existence of the Raymond vanity page. One is here [] and here []. There's this text, concerning topics all through DavidinNJ's contribution history, "Although there are a few articles which both HHIAdm and I editted, there are a number of articles which I regularly edit that HHIAdm has nothing to do with -- Drew University, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, St. Padre Pio Shrine, We Can't Wait" here []. This Dwair123 is the user who created this Raymond vanity page to begin []. I am sure all of the above and all the hostility and strange posting patterns (five or six editors posting the same thing within twenty minutes) that lead to the "snow keep" as noted here [] are coincidences.0Juan234 (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability Questions, Material previously archived before consensus
The WP:Notability guidelines state that a person is notable "if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources..." While someone has obviously devoted a significant amount of time to develop and cite the article, Raymond is not the subject of the majority of references. Two citations do concern Raymond; one is a bio on a blog and the other is a website bio (not a publication in which Raymond is the subject). I found it rather odd that the talk page had no discussion of notability. I went to the archive and, yes, notability of this person has been raised on several occasions in the past. Those discussions were archived away for some reason before any consensus was reached. I would like to contribute to the discussions that were, for whatever reason, archived.

I'd think that this guideline is the best defense for the existence of this page: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Raymond's recognized contributions (through secondary sources in which he is the subject) need to be documented here before I would agree that this page meets notability. Here below are some additional comments on the discussion begun before:0Juan234 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

''Why does this page exist? Is Wikipedia a platform for self-promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.147.211 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)''
 * Nathaniel Raymond is a leading human rights investigator. He has been interviewed by the NYT, New Yorker, IBT, and many other publications. Look at the references.Debbie W. 12:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interviews do not generally establish the notability of the person being interviewed, but rather they generally establish notability of the topic he/she discusses. It's clear that Raymond is involved in these Human Rights issues, though that does not necessarily establish notability.0Juan234 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, aka Debbie W., a username removed because you promote yourself though fake accounts...GET RIDE OF THIS PROPAGANDA81.249.156.134 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of that accusation?0Juan234 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

''This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves.92.158.207.40 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)''
 * Raymond is well-known in the human rights community. Because there is no specific Wikipedia standard for human rights advocates, this article would be covered by WP:BIO which mandates non-trivial coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. I reviewed all 17 references, and 6 of them (listed below) clearly meet this standard, whereas the others provide supporting information.
 * WP:BIO "mandates non-trivial coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources." However, in order to establish notability of a person, he or she must be the subject of the publication. These establish notability of the subject of the publications (which is not Raymond).0Juan234 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I don't see any evidence of advertisement or self-promotion in the article. For example, there's no link to any Raymond-affiliated website, nor does the article use any puffery. The article appears to give a factual description about a person that is notable in their field.
 * Two links have Raymond as the subject; one is the bio from his own organization's blog (http://phrblog.org/blog/author/nraymond/) and the other is a bio for the poptech website (which is not exactly a publication). I do not think it's self-promotion per se, but it is a notability concern.0Juan234 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Juan, I cleaned up this article the best I could a few months ago. It used to be a quote farm for Raymond's advocacy. As for notability, I have mixed feelings but think he is probably notable. I looked at the references, and for most of them, Raymond is not the main topic, but he does feature heavily in number of the articles. The articles appear to be more about the programs that he directed. WP:GNG states that "significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Based on my experience, if this article was subject to AfD, it would probably be kept. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I am not sure any of the references establish anything notable about Raymond. Which citations in particular do you feel are "significant coverage" about Raymond? Having those quoted here might help.0Juan234 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Juan, Looking through the references, I would say that the Boston Globe and Guardian articles are primarily about Raymond. He has a significant though not primary role in Nature, Newsweek, and International Business Times articles. In these references, Raymond is far more than the "passing mention" cited in WP:GNG. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Inside Harvard’s spy lab
 * George Clooney's satellite spies reveal secrets of Sudan's bloody army
 * Thanks for these links. I've had a look through them again. Globe: this one is the strongest, I think, as in the Guardian piece Raymond is more of a mouthpiece. In the Globe article, Raymond is cited as being active in the initiative, organizing events, and having some role in what the group does. It remains a slippery slope, though. Do these reference make him or the initiative notable? It's similar to notability metrics for authors, who are not necessarily "notable" even when their books are. It's too bad there isn't something stronger here. I'm on the fence.0Juan234 (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Juan - While the article doesn't reflect this, Raymond's work was largely instrumental behind a rather unprecedented FOIA release of State Dept. and DOD documents (and ensuing litigation) regarding Dasht-i-Leili and for their leak to Wikileaks. Further, his work was a lot of the background for Doran's documentary "Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death." Having been in AfPak, I disagree with his assessment, but his investigation is rather thorough. IMO, if he's interviewed by news media for PHR's efforts there's a reason for it, they think he's notable for his expertise and his work, and their cover establishes his notability sufficiently per Wikipedia's guidelines. I have to agree with DavidinNJ, if it was brought to AfD, it would be a keep.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Col. Henry's rationale and conclusion; this seems to me to meet the GNG and be a clear keep. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some sketchy things going on with this talk page. All this text recommending deletion was mysteriously archived a few days after it was posted - while everything else on the talk page remained there for nine months. I cut and pasted it again here last week, and -voila!- the same text recommending deletion was archived again today! Hmmm... Anyway, these above entries are nice reports, though unfortunately they do not add much to the questions on notability. The concept of notability must be established through certain types of references (regardless of a person's opinion of the individual). The question is why/how does these references establish notability? If he's interviewed about something, that establishes the notability of the subject of the interview. Rather than saying "this seems to me to [this or that]" - responses on this topic need to be "this reference establishes/fails to establish notability because..." The further one reads into the wiki explanations about notability for people, these cites for Raymond do not have material that is even close:
 * The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
 * This Raymond page is obviously someone's baby, and someone who's account was removed due to sockpuppeting was posting on this talk page last year. That doesn't mean that Raymond shouldn't have a wikipedia page. But the references here don't add up to notability as notability has been described by wikipedia.0Juan234 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it does not. There's no evidence in these references that Raymond meets any of these notability criteria.Blander2 (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Juan (and Blander2), your views on the matter are noted, but I still disagree with them, Raymond is sufficiently notable and verifiable. Given my experience on Wikipedia, and knowing how notability is interpreted and recognizing the breadth of significant coverage in reliable sources within this article, your views are clearly in the minority and such an argument isn't even minimally cogent for AfD.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ColonelHenry, let's focus on why you feel he should be considered notable or not. Why not respond to my comments or to what Blanders posted? As to your respons: "recognizing the breadth of significant coverage in reliable sources within this article" what cites in particular are "significant" and establish notabiity? Again, as stated above x3, the references must be about Raymond, not Raymond speaking about another topic. Let's look at these piece-by-piece:
 * "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." No, no, and no. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Has he made a contribution? Hard to say from theses sources. He certainly has not made any contribution that is "widely recognized" or "enduring." I won't bother to cite the rest of the above paragraph as there's no chance there's notability through those channels.0Juan234 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Juan, Usually the editor who continues to do add nothing to a discussion but to repeats his tired ridiculous argument hoping someone, anyone, will agree with him, is on the wrong side of the argument and becomes a tedious nuisance. Your interpretation is not credible and has been refuted. Further, it is, at face value, quite preposterous. If you're not going to listen to my years of editing and policy judgment, or to other editors with similar experience, you're simply being deliberately obtuse and discussing the matter with you further is fruitless. Your continued attempts to ignore consensus and argue the point verge on disruptive, and continued disruption will be brought to the attention of an administrator for an appropriate remedial response. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion has nothing to do with anything beyond the sources. Use your "years of" whatever you'd like, to discuss the topic: the specific sources that you feel confer notability.0Juan234 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered ad nauseam. Under this account, I have almost 10,000 edits, under two previous accounts from years ago, another 15,000-20,000...you have 60 edits. You're lucky I even bother attempting to explain anything to you after you didn't get the hint the first 5 times.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're awesome! Are you going to discuss the sources now or is the plan to just post more about your inflated ego?0Juan234 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Improvements to the Article
I updated the article about Raymond's connection to the film "Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death," and the Dasht-i-Leili massacre. What other information should be added or modified? DavidinNJ (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)