User talk:MeejaIreland

Somalia Affair
Hi Midday,

I'm curious about your edit of the Somalia Affair article yesterday. It seems to suggest that the update I posted was quoting from a self-published source. Actually it came from the Irish Independent, which is a national newspaper in Ireland - I think it's the best-selling daily paper here.

The opinions I quoted are from Kevin Myers, a prominent enough commentator to have his own Wikipedia page. I disagree with them, but they are an on-the-record response to the events the article describes, from a sober national newspaper.

I may be getting this entirely wrong, by the way. I'm new to editing. For that reason I haven't reverted the article back to my edit. But I think my contribution yesterday was a valuable and interesting one, which might provide a useful lead for future researchers into the international impact of the atrocities.

Best,

MeejaIreland (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Meejaireland


 * Hi MeejaIreland. To answer your question, as my edit summaries explain, Wikipedia does not re-publish potentially libelous opinions on living people from op-ed pieces (c.f. ; I realize that the source is not self-published, which is why I added the following specification: "correction; from op-ed" ). Material on living persons is actually subject to a higher standard of sourcing than regular material. This is to due to several policies. First, WP:NOTSCANDAL states that "articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy". WP:BLP likewise instructs that "editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", that "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article", that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and that "editors should "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". Lastly, WP:QS stipulates that questionable sources are those "which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion", and that as such, "questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves[...] They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Since the material that was added was potentially slanderous personal opinions about a third party by an individual (who is also not an expert in any of the areas concerned), those opinions belong on the gentleman's own biographical article. That's basically it. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Middayexpress,

Thanks for your reply, and for expanding on the reasons for your edit.

I think you're mistaken, however. Nobody is libelled in the quote I appended from. (Nobody is mentioned by name.) I also don't think it's titillating, or potentially harmful. It does involve personal opinion, but I think that is unavoidable in a discussion of the public impact of an event.

I'm going to restore the bulk of my edit for the moment. (I did characterise Myers as "right wing" in the original piece. I'll remove that, as it may be contentious.) But I'd be happy to hear if there is any specific part of the new edit you think is troublesome, and maybe we can agree on a wording that avoids any pitfalls. If you want to refer it for resolution, I have no problem with that either.

Thanks again,

MeejaIreland (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Meejaireland


 * Hello again. The material attributed to Myers' offhand remarks cited in that op-ed piece is indeed quite libelous vis-a-vis the people of Somalia. Especially the part that alleges "the ungovernable nature of the victims". Here's the paragraph in full that was added to the article:


 * "'The soldiers concerned received sympathy from an unusual source in 2011. In an article condemning the provision of famine aid to starving Somalian children, Irish commentator Kevin Myers attributed the atrocities to 'despair' at the ungovernable nature of the victims. 'Everyone who has ever soldiered in Somalia has left in disgust.... The Canadian Parachute Regiment was actually disbanded after its despairing troops committed shocking atrocities against locals in the 1990s.'"


 * Note that WP:BLP applies to all persons on all articles: "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages". And that passage discussing third parties still obviously relies entirely on one man's personal opinion, which, as quoted earlier, WP:QS instructs "should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves[...] They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." I also forgot to mention a key clause of WP:BLP, one that's especially relevant to this situation: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." The italicized phrase makes clear that, besides the clauses already cited, there's an additional condition that must be met for living person-related issues; namely, that Myers' claims should also be referenced to a reliable secondary source. But here too they aren't. They are sourced directly to an opinion piece that the man himself apparently wrote i.e. a primary source. In fact, no reliable secondary source appears to have quoted or even discussed his remarks (only a few news feed pages ). Given the above, the passage does not seem salvageable in light of Wikipedia's policies. Per WP:BLP's instruction that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", I've therefore again removed the paragraph in question while I query on BLP/N as to the usability of those remarks given their source and nature. Please do not attempt to restore it in the meantime. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would also appear that the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI), among others, have accused Kevin Myers of racism and journalistic unprofessionalism vis-a-vis other articles that he has written in the recent past on Africa . This further renders the op-ed a questionable source since, per WP:QS, questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves[...] They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". Middayexpress (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Middayexpress,

Thanks for clarifying things. I'm happy to accept the arbitration of the BLP/N process. I think you've been very clear about your positions, and I'm not attempting to argue with you. I appreciate the time you've given to this already. But for the record, I will put down my response to your edit, so that it can be taken into consideration in any arbitration.

1. I think you are extending the meaning of "libel" to cover derogatory remarks about an entire nation. As much as one might disagree with Myers' position, the fact remains that it is not libellous. A nation cannot sue for libel.

2. Myers' opinions are not quoted as facts, or to support an attack on the Somalian people. They would be inappropriate as part of an attempt to depict the people of Somalia, but that is plainly not what they are there for. They are evidence of public reaction to the subject of the article.

3. I think you are also extending the category of Living People to include entire groups or nations (the Somalian people, in this instance). This is surely not what the safeguards of the BLP protocols are designed to do.

4. I think your position that the Irish Independent is an unreliable source is unsupportable. It certainly publishes pieces that rely on "personal opinion", but so does every newspaper in the world. The provisions you quote seem designed to prevent straight-faced citation from extremist websites, promotional material, etc. It surely can't be used to exclude opinion pieces, however misguided the opinions, from serious national newspapers.

Thanks again. I haven't reverted the article. Let's see what the others say.

Best,

MeejaIreland (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Meejaireland


 * Hello again. Per WP:LIBEL, libelous remarks on Wikipedia refers to derogatory comments in general (which Myers' remarks indeed are). As such, it makes no difference how Myers' remarks are quoted; they are still "contentious claims about third parties". They are also not evidence of anything but his own personal opinions (it's an op-ed). Further, WP:BLP applies to all living people, including the allegedly "ungovernable" "victims" cited in that quote above: "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article". I also never stated that the Irish Independent was unreliable, but quite clearly that Myers' opinion piece is -- and even more so given the ICI's serious charges accusations against him. Lastly, per WP:RS, the word "source" refers not just to the publisher of the work, but also to "the piece of work itself (the article, book) [and] the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)". And it's the last two aspects that render the work unreliable. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)