Talk:Matthew Bryden

Ambassador Hotel should be included with balance

I have created a sep section to make it easier to deal with this point. I do not have any objection to including this incident, or using the Somali online resource as a source. We must include diverse sources because I really have a problem with this. There is no way to have balance by dismissing sources which look "native". I am not sure why such an incident was removed (if it was).--Inayity (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The material was removed a couple of times, mainly on the grounds that it was undue. However, the fact that the incident resulted in the detention of a number of people, the establishment of a presidential committee specifically to oversee the proceedings, and ultimately the sentencing of six foreign nationals, makes it notable. Somali/Eritrean sources should definitely also be included for balance and a local perspective. Middayexpress (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In relation to the Ambassador Hotel incident, for Inayity's benefit I think this article should be considered. Midday considered it unreliable when I flagged it earlier in the discussion, although I and others were unclear as to why that was. I will now stand back unless I am pinged for any reason, but before I do I would like to register my concern that Midday appears to have shifted the discussion from the ANI thread, which was going against him/her, and is once again attempting to monopolise this article via the talk page. Given Midday's neutrality was seriously questioned on ANI, it seems to me to be essential that, as Inayity suggested, editors Keithbob, Drmies, bobrayner, Lexein and CorporateM should be available to answer questions here. HOgilvy (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the ANI discussion is pretty much at a stalemate and the neutrality of multiple parties was questioned there, including yourself (as Bryden's official Bell Pottinger public relations representative [1]). Fact is, I'm posting here because I agreed with User:Obiwankenobi's recommendation to voluntarily recuse myself to the talk page while the article-space is cleaned up. This shouldn't be a problem, unless of course one doesn't want all aspects of the issue represented. Middayexpress (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but even if Mid talks on the talk place it still represents one opinion. And hence why his opinions should be included with the other editors. Neutrality cannot come from any one editor. I think the ultimate point of the ANI is to get this article better by making those contributing better.--Inayity (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, but we do, as you say, need more than one editor for neutrality. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The article in question,

• "Held at gunpoint in Somalia". December 22 2010. Melanie Gosling. The Independent Online. Cape Times.

According to the IOL FAQ, "IOL is owned and run by Independent Newspapers. The South African newspaper group publishes 15 national and regional newspapers, and several Cape-based community newspapers." The story was also carried verbatim on the multilingual Radio Daljir website here. I would consider this article reliable for

• supporting a specific sentence: "Bryden personally investigated a report of a foreign film team being held by Somali security police in 2010, and according to the film team, helped their conditions and their release.^[1]"
• supporting a general sentence: Bryden became involved in resolving questionable [detentions of foreign citizens] [or whatever].^[1][2][3]

Beyond that, readers can click on the link to the story and read more. We don't really know what he did behind the scenes. I mean, he's not magic; they were still held against their will for quite a while. --Lexein (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Somalia Report investigative story actually links to the December 2010 Gosling piece, so perhaps it's okay for background info on the journalists. However, the Gosling article doesn't mention anywhere Bryden's alleged Ambassador Hotel threats. This appears to have come to light later, in February 2011, after Somalia Report actually interviewed eyewitnesses to the incident [2]. The Foreign Policy piece also points out that it's actually the SEMG that tipped off the Somaliland authorities to the alleged mercenary and weapon-filled plane, not the other way around. This makes sense since the UN at the time managed Somalia's airspace through the Civil Aviation Caretaker Authority for Somalia ("The SEMG apparently (the U.N. handles all flight permissions over Somalia) tipped off Somaliland officials that a PMPF plane supposedly loaded with weapons and mercenaries was on its way to Puntland[...] Almost as if by magic, Bryden showed up at the Ambassador Hotel in Hargeisa and threatened the two South African passengers[...] That is, until he discovered that the two "mercenaries" were in fact a well-known 60 Minutes camera team invited to film the PMPF base") [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support user:Lexein's version (first bullet) if it is included at all. The Somalia Report is written in an op-ed style and its reporting differs substantially from more neutrally-written sources, which merely say that he showed up, interviewed them and let them go. Bryden played an insignificant role in a controversial event. Midday argues that Bryden was the one that detained the plane. I do not remember all the arguments for it, but I do not believe that to be the case. This article relies too heavily on a single author, Robert Young Pelton, who shows a pattern of attack-style reporting that differs from other sources. The Somalia Report appears to be entirely funded by Pelton himself and is used a platform for his personal views rather than professional reporting, making it more of a personal blog than an investigative report. CorporateM (Talk) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not strongly advocating inclusion, just showing where I lean if asked. I'm slightly concerned about two things. The Gosling story wasn't picked up internationally, and I don't know if the film team talked to anyone else, or wrote about the incident on their own blogs. Also, we must be mindful of political spin, especially in op-ed pieces. We should either report both "sides" of a story, or only report what the two "sides" agree upon; this goes to article length, and it's already pretty long. Finally, I'm not sure how important this incident is to Bryden's BLP. (Does it merit its own article per GNG?) Will it be important in 50 years? Or will it be just one of many things he got involved in a) for political points (bad reasons, per sources) or b) doing his job (good reasons, per sources) or c) per orders? Of course if he dies, the brazen eulogizing and whitewashing will begin, and we'll be right back here revisiting all of this. That's the problem with political coverage. If the answers to these questions aren't just obvious to a reasonable person, then perhaps this section should be temporarily retired to Talk for development until issues of source bias are resolved, rather than endless edit warring. Now you know why I don't get or stay involved in political figure BLPs much. --Lexein (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole discussion string, so I don't know what the Gosling piece is, but I don't think we would want to use anybody's blogs, including the film crew's, if such a blog existed. CorporateM (Talk) 22:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sry, the Gosling piece is riight up there. --Lexein (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Somalia Report is actually one of the better Western publications specializing in the Horn of Africa [4]. It hires both local and foreign journalists and has been used by the UN itself, among others. The main piece on the Ambassador Hotel incident was also not signed by Pelton. It's actually a magazine investigative report [5]; the op-eds are in the separate Opinion section of the website [6]. Also note that for the piece, "Somalia Report has interviewed a number of eyewitnesses and gathered evidence to show that there was much more to this event than published in the media." It is therefore different from the earlier Gosling piece, as Gosling did not conduct any interviews with eyewitnesses at the Hotel. That said, I have not argued that Bryden is the one that detained the plane. That obviously would be the Somaliland authorities themselves. According to eyewitness testimony gathered by the Somalia Report, it would appear that Bryden and other UN officials were already aware that the detained reporters were in the area on a journalistic assignment and not as mercenaries: "Somalia Report has learned that[...] Bryden and many other high ranking UN and government officials had been briefed on the entire anti-piracy program beforehand in Nairobi." A more balanced approach would thus be chronological i.e. to indicate what Gosling initially reported on the incident, and follow that with later developments such as the Somalia Report's eyewitness testimony/key player interviews. If Bryden has made any statements on the affair, we should of course add that too. Middayexpress (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should include anything Bryden said about it, or the camera crew (mentioned by user:Drmies), or "eyewitnesses", or this "reporter" Robert. If a separate page was created on the incident itself, that level of detail would be acceptable, but this page is not about politics, it's about a person. We should only include a very brief summary (again, if it's included at all) on the facts the sources agree on. As far as I can tell, the sources agree that he interviewed the detainees and secured their release. CorporateM (Talk) 15:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide an example/copy of the sort of wikitext you're referring to? Middayexpress (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

I gave it a fresh cleanup removing some anecdotes and unecessary detail about his early career, taking out editorialized political commentary, etc. etc. The article is still negative, but I am content with that based on the sources I have seen, so long as it's not editorialized and excessive. That being said, it is difficult to assess what a neutral article looks like when the sources are difficult to access/find and I may change my view and alter the article accordingly if new reliable, secondary sources emerge.

A couple things I noticed are:

• We need a proper citation with his year of birth. The cited sources did not actually support the birth-date provided
• Did this page use to have an image in the infobox?

CorporateM (Talk) 00:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between Negative and NPOV. The article on Hitler and Stalin is negative but that does not mean it is not balanced. and NPOV. It might be an idea to use the talk page for any edits which are known to be controversial. That is how I think we will get a better article.--Inayity (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare it to Hitler. He held a controversial position in a rather volatile part of the world and held a very strong political platform that not everybody liked. CorporateM (Talk) 12:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

For reasons not 100% clear to me, because I do not know the topic, MiddayExpress is not happy with some of your changes. So is it that some of the edits are giving him a polish he does not deserve?--Inayity (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant ANI post is here. You may also want to check out the Talk page archives. CorporateM (Talk) 13:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Inayity: A lot was removed; from Bryden's first encounter with the Somali National Movement, to the fact that in 2004 he chaired and led a conference organized by the Somaliland International Recognition Action Group (SIRAG), to he and his family's previous place of residence in Hargeisa. There were also some factual errors, like the claim that the incumbent president of the Puntland region Farole was a former regional president. Additionally, the fact that the arms embargo (which was within Bryden's SEMG's mandate) was lifted was removed, yet some off-topic blurb on piracy (which isn't within the SEMG's) was instead noted. I've fixed that much, but please review the overall text to make sure everything is ok [7]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A few updates

Bryden's PR rep provided some other comments/sources here that I think will help balance the article a bit with some minor, but important changes. I'm going to go through them now. CorporateM (Talk) 14:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)