Talk:Matthew Bryden/Archive 1

War-torn Societies Project

References

Hi – there could be more information on the War-torn Societies Project, which was a UN-affiliated initiative that subsequently became the international peacebuilding organisation Interpeace, as well as on the Somali think tanks that were established during Matthew Bryden's tenure as Somalia coordinator for WSP. In the interests of transparency I am declaring that I work for Bell Pottinger, a London-based PR agency, and that Matthew Bryden is my client. I will register this on the COI Noticeboard. Please see my user page for more information.

I suggest expanding the two sentences:

In 1996, he established a Somali program called WSP-International, which stands for War-torn Societies Project. Around the same time, he co-founded three Somali think-tanks.

To read:

In 1996, Matthew Bryden became Somalia coordinator for the War-torn Societies Project (now Interpeace), a UN-affiliated research organisation set up to assist the international community and national actors to understand and respond to the challenges of rebuilding war-torn societies in post-conflict situations. During this tenure, Bryden co-founded three Somali research and peace-building institutions: the Centre for Research and Dialogue in Mogadishu; the Puntland Development Research Centre in Garowe, Puntland; and the Academy for Peace and Development in Hargeysa, Somaliland.

References are in citation templates in the HTML. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

We already had issues with Bell Pottinger representatives on the Dahabshiil page. Though it's good this time that you revealed your conflict of interest, please respect Wikipedia's policies, particularly those pertaining to neutrality. I realize that this may be challenging to adhere to with Bryden as your BP public relations client, but these are the website rules. Middayexpress (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Midday, you should be made aware of the discussion at COIN, which is where I was pinged. CorporateM (Talk) 17:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

User:Middayexpress, I accidentally sort of mowed over your edits in the Lead, not realizing someone else was editing in real-time. Is the current ok? I am not familiar with the topic. CorporateM (Talk) 15:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Middayexpress (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Or not, since you reverted it. To avoid edit-warring, lets discuss it here. A few thoughts about the lead:

• I think that he has "written, books, essays and articles" is too trivial to include in the lead
• Ditto on his passport
• I think saying he was "the center of considerable controversy" sounds like original synthesis and editorializing
• We have a really long, awkward, run-on sentence describing the views of his critics.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Bryden carries a Somaliland passport (which no country in the world recognizes) is important, but can be mentioned in the body. However, Bryden's longstanding support for the secessionist movement in Somaliland must be mentioned in the lede. Please propose alternate phrasing. Middayexpress (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Matthew Bryden is a Canadian political analyst. He is best-known for his work related to the Horn of Africa for the United Nations and other organizations. He was the coordinator for the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group from 2008 to 2012.

Bryden has been a supporter of the secession of Somaliland from Somalia. Critics have argued that he covertly sought to put Somalia in disarray to improve the odds of Somaliland being recognized as a free state. Bryden is a Canadian national, but carries a Somaliland passport."

It's debatable what Bryden is best known for. We can only state with confidence what he is known for, and that's his time at the SEMG and ICG, as well as his concurrent, related support for the secessionist movement in Somalia's northwestern Somaliland region. Given this, here's better phrasing:

Matthew Bryden is a Canadian political analyst. Between 2004 and 2006, he served as a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. He was appointed coordinator of the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group in 2008, but was later fired from the post in August 2012 after the UN received "detailed complaints" about him.

Along with his in-laws, Bryden has been a supporter of the secessionist movement in the northwestern Somaliland region of Somalia. Critics have argued that he covertly abused his positions within the SEMG and ICG to promote disorder in Somalia, on the belief that this would improve the odds that Somaliland would receive international recognition as an independent country.

Perhaps it should also be pointed out (at least in the body) that Bryden wasn't always a supporter of secessionism. Earlier in his career, he apparently wrote papers promoting unity. It seems that the change may have happened when he met his current wife. Middayexpress (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This may be original research or original synthesis, but I do remember seeing something along these lines in a proper secondary source. The structure is also a mess now and I'm not sure the best way to fix it. He is best-known for this one specific issue, which creates a WP:ONEEVENT problem. CorporateM (Talk) 17:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's all mentioned in the links that you just removed from the lede. The last part on Bryden's former unionist stance isn't mentioned, though. Middayexpress (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead is suppose to contain no citations, because it summarizes the body of the article, per WP:LEAD, but a bot should restore the cites momentarily where they are used in the Body. CorporateM (Talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but the fact that he was fired as coordinator of the SEMG somehow slipped through in the body. Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It was sourced to a primary source, which I would find "ok" for saying that he no longer works there, but not regarding the complaints they've heard. In such a highly-political environment, we would want secondary sources that are independent and can interpret the circumstances. It's normal for the one doing the firing (as well as the one being fired) to be bias about each other. CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the report on Bryden's dismissal from the SEMG is from a secondary source [1]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Works for me! Did Bryden have some involvement in this?:

At the behest of the Somali federal government, the United States,[9] African Union,[10] Arab League,[11] and IGAD,[12] the 15-member UN Security Council later unanimously approved Resolution 2093 on March 6, 2013 to suspend the 21-year arms embargo on Somalia.[13] The endorsement officially lifts the purchase ban on light weapons for a one year period, but retains certain restrictions on the procurement of heavy arms.[13]

CorporateM (Talk) 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's provided for context to show that the arms embargo, which his SEMG at least nominally helped enforce, was later/eventually lifted. Middayexpress (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Since it's more of a context thing, do you think we could shorten it? Like "the arms agreement Bryden supervised was later dismantled on March 6, 2013" CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Middayexpress (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Break

I'm going to stop editing for now for the following reason: the only sources I can find that present a balanced portrayal of his life (such as growing up, his early career, etc.) are primary sources. He appears to be known for only two things: (a) advocating for the secession of Somaliland and (b) his aggressive and (arguably) over-reaching enforcement of arms agreements. Both these actions are highly controversial and areas attracting substantial criticisms for his role at "one of the toughest jobs in the UN".

I think it would be worth getting a few thoughtful comments from different editors before proceeding on a few options:

1. We could argue that "this is what he is best known for" and WEIGHT applies
2. We can point out WP:WI1E and WP:ONEEVENT and nominate the article for deletion
3. We can split the article up into articles on Somoliland and the United Nations Monitoring Group

CorporateM (Talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The page is about Bryden and should focus on him and his actions. That includes those pertaining to the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG) and his longstanding support for secessionism in the Somaliland region. The two things listed above that Bryden is known for are actually related since he is alleged to have misused his position at the SEMG to further the goals of the secessionist movement. This was prior to his dismissal from the SEMG. Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading stuff like this, I'm not sure how to handle it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

The intro is (or was) based on just two sources a) a heavily biased opinion piece on hiiraan.com (Said A. Saryan routinely refers to Somaliland as ‘the secessionist enclave’ – there is in fact a significant minority in Somaliland who are opposed to secession), and b) a press release from the NSUM (Northern Somali Unionist Movement) – a group from the volatile Sool, Sanaag and Ceyn (SSC) regions that are situated between, and are disputed by, Somaliland and Puntland. It’s a press release, and, in any case, the link is broken and it doesn’t seem to be available anywhere else.

The notion that Ubax Bryden is a Somalilander (I can provide a copy of her passport which shows that she is in fact a French national) seems to come from the Hiiraan article:

“Matt is married to a 'Somalilander' woman and is known to travel overseas with a Canadian passport but when he lands at Hargeisa airport he produces his Somaliland’s ‘passport’, which is not recognized outside the secessionist’s enclave but holders of this symbolic but useless document are exempted from the payment of the airport’s landing fees.”

That sentence also seems to be the basis for the idea that Matthew Bryden carries a ‘Somaliland passport’. But as this passage itself points out, because Somaliland is not recognised there’s no such internationally recognised document – all he or anyone else visiting Somaliland is issued with is essentially just a temporary visa.

While there are plenty of accusations in the Hiiraan article that Matthew Bryden advocates the secession of Somaliland, there is nothing to suggest that he ‘covertly promotes disorder’. There is only this speculation about his likely attitude as Coordinator of the SEMG:

“After all Matt Bryden is a ‘Somalilander’ who will be suspected of looking the other way if, for example, arms and funds are flowing to the Somali insurgents in the southern parts of the country, thus re-enforcing Hargeisa’s sadistic Modus Operandi that: continued strife and anarchy in Mogadishu is their ticket to recognition as an independent state.”

The article contains a link to a Transitional Federal Government press release objecting to Bryden’s 2008 appointment as coordinator of the Monitoring Group – that link is also broken but it can be found here: http://wardheer.startlogic.com/News_08/june/press_release_somali_un_mission.html

This press release makes similar claims about his stance on Somaliland, but does not accuse him of actively promoting disorder as part of some supposed wider strategy among Somaliland separatists to denigrate other regions as a way of promoting their cause.

Hiiraan is known for publishing strongly anti-Somaliland content – a stance that is particularly apparent here. This one article surely can’t justify the current lead on its own.

The Hiiraan article is also the basis for the following:

“As Director of the African Program at the ICG, he oversaw in 2006 the preparation and publication of reports promoting the breakup of Somalia and the recognition of Somaliland.”

In fact he oversaw just one report on Somalia, which promoted neither. It concludes:

“Ultimately, there are only two possible outcomes to this dispute: some form of united Somali state (whether in the form of a federation, confederation or a unitary arrangement involving considerable autonomy), or independent neighbours. The AU’s challenge is to provide timely, neutral leadership in order to ensure a just, peaceful and enduring settlement.”

It's also worth having a look at two papers authored by Bryden that demonstrate the breadth of this thinking on the question of Somalia/Somaliland:

Somalia and Somaliland: Envisioning a dialogue on the question of Somali unity

This paper, in particular the section ‘The shape of Somali unity: restructuring the state’, explores a number of different possibilities for a federal solution and demonstrates a clear commitment to seeking compromise. In no way does it advance the cause of Somaliland ‘at the expense of other Somali regions’.

The "Banana Test": is Somaliland ready for recognition?

This paper is actually very sober in its description of Somaliland:

“Power remains overwhelmingly centralized, concentrated in the hands of a largely unaccountable elite. Corruption is endemic and the competing demands of clan-based interest groups for financial and political payoffs continue to provide opportunities for venal or complacent leaders to maintain power and influence.”

and warns that statehood (i.e. secession), far from solving those problems overnight, could in fact

“…breed corrupt and sclerotic government, crony capitalism, and popular apathy.”

These sentiments are hardly consistent with the idea that Matthew Bryden supports Somaliland separatists and opposes those who wish to maintain Somalia’s territorial integrity. HOgilvy (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We normally don't include the names of non-notable BLPs, which is why his wife is no longer mentioned. The best way to adjust for the bias of sources is for us to rely on them for facts, but not tone, and to balance them with a variety of sources. The papers you provided are primary sources, but could be added to the bibliography. I think all the press releases, op-eds, blogs and other junk sources you mentioned have already been taken out, but if we missed any, let us know. I will check the "covertly promotes disorder" item. CorporateM (Talk) 19:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not difficult to substantiate that Bryden is a longstanding supporter of the secessionist movement within the Somaliland region, that he is married to a woman originally from there, and that he carries a Somaliland passport (not a visa) (e.g. [2]). Both Somalia's and Eritrea's governments formally opposed his appointment to the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG) for a reason. At any rate, perhaps he has now renounced the separatist platform? He apparently used to support Somalia's territorial integrity in the earlier part of his career. Middayexpress (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is just our off-the-cuff responses, but it is difficult for us to carefully consider a comment when so many different issues are touched on at once. I need to wait for the "Ali" and "Oogle" sources to re-populate so I can look at if they are reliable. All of the media is bias, which is why we use them for facts, and not tone as much as possible. CorporateM (Talk) 19:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this referring to this?

He is married to a Somali woman from the northwestern Somaliland region

The source Midday provided says former marriage CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The lede should focus on Bryden, not the arms embargo. Additionally, he served as a senior analyst with the ICG from 2004 to 2006. his critics specifically accuse him of covertly abused his positions within the SEMG & ICG to promote disorder in Somalia, on the belief that this would improve the odds that Somaliland would receive international recognition as an independent country. There's also no media disputing that Bryden doesn't hold a passport from the Somaliland region (which the link above plainly states). Middayexpress (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Midday, I support the new addition. I trimmed a source that said it was written by a "regular contributor" but it raised an eyebrow with me because it was written in an overt op-ed style and the author's email address was not with the publication. So I am guessing it's one of those "guest contributor"-type things like Forbes does. Which we consider not reliable in most cases, unless the author can be established as an expert.

One thing that's clawing at me is the structure. Not sure what to do about the Views section that can avoid creating one large SEMG section that covers most the article. If the PR rep can find similar independent press articles that have a more favorable view of his support of the secession, I would support adding those.

I support the prior version of the lead, because it seems that issues of covert sabotage (source?) seem to be just one of the many issues regarding allegations that he was favoring Somaliland over the greater good of Somalia. For the lead, we need a sort of "catch-all" for a broad swath of accusations of bias, favoritism, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 20:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what link you're referring to. However, the text in the views section should and can easily be integrated as is into the article's body for chronological context. The lead captures the main accusations pertaining to Bryden, which are largely centered on the notion that he is (or maybe was) trying to advance the secessionist cause in Somaliland. There are also those pertaining to Eritrea, but these are perhaps less defining. Middayexpress (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have consolidated it. I added a bit to the Lead as well to cover the arms embargo, as it needed some weight adjustment to be representative of the article/sources. I was also thinking the airplane debacle could be summarize a bit more concisely, but wasn't sure how to do so. I am open to seeing any independent sources from news outlets from the PR rep that may provide a different perspective on the issues, or any corrections, comments, etc. in general. We will probably need to wait for the next business day for that. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Please note that Bryden now apparently works as a Director for Sahan, an independent think tank. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, nice catch. We can't use LinkedIn as a source though, but an official bio somewhere should do the trick if we can find one. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That indeed would be best, but Sahan doesn't appear to have a website. Middayexpress (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiiran Online & other op-eds

Some of these sources from Hiiran especially have been contested by the PR rep and are indeed written in an overt op-ed style. Additionally, they contain "OP" in the url, which often signifies that the article is indeed an op-ed (it's unfortunate it is not more clearly labeled). The email addresses of the authors are to Hotmail and Gmail accounts rather than an email associated with the publication. However, the criticism that Bryden favored Somaliland over Somalia seems to be common even among more reliable sources, so what I have done is used them in an extremely limited fashion.

We should generally avoid adding a lot of weight to every detailed criticism of an op-ed or adding POV quotes from them, if we use them at all. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Middday. You just re-insterted a large amount of highly POV material from op-eds, without responding to my comments. Do you support using the op-eds more heavily? Lets get a second opinion? CorporateM (Talk) 16:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the criticisms in question are not from Hiiraan Online. They are from a formal critique of the ICG's 2006 report by the Washington-based Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center think tank [3], as well as a Bahrain-based Horn of Africa political specialist [4]. Also, please note that critics charge Bryden of misusing (not just using) his positions within the SEMG and the earlier ICG in order to advance the secessionist cause in Somaliland over the interests of the rest of Somalia. That includes the TFG, Somalia's then interim government, which released a formal press statement in 2008 to that effect [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The press release is not an adequate source, however the think-tank could be. Do you know who they are? Are they partisan? I can see if I can find the original source, as an op-ed will often have a distorted interpretation of the original.

Some of this POV language like "foreign meddling" and "he decried" I've been removing repeatedly. Stuff like "international community" needs to be more specific. Making it sound like a sign of corruption for attending events I don't think is neutral. Lets get some more eyes. CorporateM (Talk) 16:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "foreign meddling" was adapted from "foreign meddlers", which are Bryden's own words in his 1999 paper. It's also the first time I added it. The Bryden quote in full goes:

"Somalis may be forgiven if they have become wary of foreign help in putting their shattered country back together. Since the absurd colonial dismemberment of the Somali nation between five sovereign states, external involvement in Somalia has ranged from the mediocre to the disastrous. The anemic preparations by the British and Italian governments for Somali independence and statehood, the enthusiastic support of both cold war blocs in the training and armament of the small country's security services and armed forces, and the United Nation's ruinous attempts at nation-building are notable benchmarks in a long history of foreign meddlers - some of them sinister, some benign, others simply incompetent - but all of them ultimately unsuccessful."

The think tank piece is not an op-ed. It's a critique of the 2006 ICG report, published shortly after its release. As for the Somali government, its official press release is obviously a reliable source on its own objections and actions with regard to Bryden's appointment to the SEMG (WP:PRIMARY: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."). If the objection is that the press release is stored on Wardheernews' servers then another link to it can probably instead be produced though I don't believe that's necessary. Middayexpress (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The policy over-use of primary sources violates is WEIGHT and sometimes NPOV or V. The discussion is somewhat circular at this point. I don't trust an op-ed to fairly represent the original source material, and many "think-tanks" are front groups or partisan organizations. The original report should be used rather than an op-ed - but only if we can evaluate whether the think-tank itself is reliable. One of the criteria we use for evaluating the reliability of a source is the content itself, which is overtly POV in this case. I would need more information on the think-tank and the original source. In most cases, press releases are reliable for certain facts, but not for the notability of the information or for a fair presentation of it. IMO, when a conversation degrades into an argument over policies, that's a good time to get a second opinion. Even if the source is editorialized, Wikipedia has a different writing style. CorporateM (Talk) 17:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Here we go: "Qarshe Tima-Ade International Center for Unity is an independent organization based in the United States and Canada. It lobbies for the unification of all Somali speaking people through peaceful and non-violent means and the prevention of conflict in the Horn of Africa

As I suspected, this is a lobbying group, not a think-tank, with the explicit goal to oppose those like Bryden who want to split the country up. If the opposition to his appointment was notable, it would have been picked up by secondary sources. That's a weight issue. CorporateM (Talk) 17:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines come up in many Wikipedia discussions because that is ultimately what determines the website's best practices. It's true that the website has a higher standard for BLPs, and for excellent reason. But how exactly does one broach the bio of a controversial figure like Bryden without actually discussing at least some of the main issues that have shaped his career? Are you, for example, suggesting that we not mention the Somali government's press release formally objecting to his appointment to the SEMG? Another problem is that, other than incidental mentions, almost all of the pieces actually devoted to Bryden himself appear to be critical pieces (mainly in the Somali and Eritrean press i.e. his region of work). There seem to be few standalone bios on him. Middayexpress (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are few good sources, than the article should be small. Yes, we should not mention the opposition to his appointment at all, unless a reliable secondary source can be found. Wikipedia requires that secondary sources interpret the information so we can evaluate its significance and rely on those impartial sources for our information and presentation. It is the role of the media to research primary sources and interpret that information for our consumption. I cannot assess within Wikipedia policy whether their opposition to his appointment is significant, whether others supported it, or whether they were politically motivated. We need an expert, independent source to interpret and provide context.

Foreign Policy Magazine is a reliable source written by an independent journalist; it's not an op-ed, not a primary source, and not from a partisan group. When criticisms exist in sources like these, we include them. Or, if a source like Foreign Policy Magazine, included comments from the lobbying group prominently, this would be an argument for Weight and a primary source may be used to get it directly from the source. CorporateM (Talk) 17:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Foreign Policy piece is on the arms embargo, not Bryden per se [6]. It only mentions him within the context of that erstwhile blockade, and is critical of his time at the SEMG at that ("But with the hiring of Canadian/Somalilander and former International Crisis Group senior analyst Matthew Bryden in 2008, (a period that coincided with the growth of piracy and al-Shabab's arrival in the north) the reports took on a bizarre and voluminous tone accusing both friend and foe of serious violations."). This is what I mean by there appear to be few if any non-incidental mentions of Bryden himself that aren't in some way critical of his activities at the SEMG/ICG. I'm surprised, though, that you're still objecting to the Somali government's press statement opposing Bryden's appointment to the SEMG. Please note that WP:NOR allows faithful reproductions of government documents ("A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."). Middayexpress (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Googling ‘Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center’ or the ‘Qarshe-Timacadde Center’ or various other permutations suggests that it doesn’t actually exist – at least certainly not as a ‘think tank’ registered in Washington D.C. All online references to the Center track back either to that same Hiiraan article 1 or to this piece 2, also on Hiiraan, a critique by Omar Ali Haji of the writings of Professor Iqbal Jhazbhay, a South African academic currently serving as ambassador to Eritrea.

The authors of this critique are only able to cite one function that was attended by Bryden (despite the claim of ‘regular’ attendance): a conference organised by SOPRI in San Diego (not, in fact, in Los Angeles). The link to the SOPRI web page no longer works (it’s now in Russian), but it would, however, have linked to a photo showing Bryden seated at the conference next to the desk officer for Somalia from the U.S. Department of State – hardly evidence that he was attending as an activist.

There is no other indication that either Omar Ali Haji, Nura K. Ali, or the Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center (for which there is just a gmail account given) have ever published anything else to establish a track record of credibility.

Said A. Saryan has only published a few articles, which are characterised by a stridently anti-Somaliland stance – two examples:

http://taleex.net/2012/04/28/not-the-right-time-for-talks-between-somalias-transitional-government-somaliland

http://www.wardheernews.com/Articles%202012/Feb/06_fakers_saryan.html

He is also identifies himself with the NSPU (Northern Somalis for Peace and Unity), a political/clan network that opposes Somaliland's independence. See: http://www.nspu.org/ – at the top centre of that page directly under 'Articles' is his piece ‘Who are the fakers NSPU or the Peddlers of an Expired Product (British Somaliland)?’

As for Inner City Press and Somalia Report, both are self-published. All the content on Inner City Press is produced by Matthew Russell Lee – an investigative journalist and author – and is essentially a blog. Somalia Report is also self-published, by Robert Young Pelton, a Canadian journalist and film maker. You might contend that these two are experts in the region, but SOURCE makes clear that:

”Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.”

With regard to Pelton’s claims in the Foreign Policy article, during Bryden’s tenure the Security Council expanded the mandate of the Monitoring Group dramatically, extending it from arms embargo monitoring to cover a wide range of threats to peace and security, as well as violations of international humanitarian law. Eritrea was also added to the mandate. Hence the ‘voluminous’ tone. Pelton's characterisation of this as 'bizarre' is purely subjective – in fact the most recent SEMG report (after Bryden’s departure) is equally long. Plus levelling accusations against ‘friend and foe’ alike would suggest that the SEMG report was in fact balanced, not biased.

Pelton's allegations that Somaliland escaped criticism in the 2011 report are also inaccurate – for example:

41. Puntland officials have alleged that Atom receives support from the Somaliland administration and that some of his fighters received Somaliland salaries. In January 2011, the Puntland administration issued a statement expressing concern about what it termed “Somaliland’s growing ties to Al-Shabaab”, specifically Mohamed Sa’iid Atom.

42. The Somaliland authorities strongly deny such allegations and have called Atom a “terrorist”. But informed sources have told the Monitoring Group that Atom may have had links to certain individuals in the previous Somaliland administration, including the former Minister of Youth and Sports and the sector commander of the Somaliland armed forces in Ceerigaabo. If such support existed, there does not appear to be any evidence that it has continued under the new Somaliland administration, elected in June 2010."

And:

85. Although not responsible for instigating the Kaalshaale incident, the NSUM/SSCA leadership deliberately sought to escalate the violence and incite further inter-communal conflict. Political entrepreneurs in the Somaliland camp were also quick to portray the conflict in terms that would justify military escalation and impede reconciliation.

Similarly, the accusation that the SEMG failed to scrutinise Somaliland's armed forces is partly addressed here:

161. The principle beneficiaries of Ethiopian assistance in recent years have been the Transitional Federal Government, Puntland and Somaliland, all of which are considered to be “Somali security sector institutions” for the purposes of Security Council resolution 1772 (2007), and are therefore eligible for external assistance.

Lastly, Pelton's allegations overlook the fact that every SEMG report is the product of a team, and endorsed by consensus – hence the signatures of each team member. This is explained in the methodological section of each report. It would therefore be extremely difficult for one member of the team, even the coordinator, to introduce persistent bias into the report, especially over a period of several years. HOgilvy (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

HOgilvy, I realize (as you've stated at that the top of this page) that Bryden is your client at the Bell Pottinger public relations firm that you work at. However, it's a stretch to call both Robert Young Pelton's Somalia Report and Inner City Press self-published "blogs". They are assuredly neither. It's been established that the Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center for Unity is a lobby group. It's apparently not something the group has tried to hide either since this affiliation is stated right there in their critique [7]. Said A. Saryan also appears to be only mentioned in one link in connection with the NSPU [8], and that's on a snippet of an article on their website where he states that he is actually "an independent analyst" [9]. The original article was published on Wardheernews [10]. Additionally, Pelton does not suggest that Somaliland escaped criticism altogether in the SEMG report. He suggests that, unlike Puntland and other parts of the country, the Somaliland region was not made a focal point of the paper despite also having armed forces: ""This UN report seems to take an unusual interest in endorsing the success of Somaliland (where its headquarters were bombed a few years back) while ignoring the struggle of other regions to distance themselves from the Mogadishu/Nairobi UN efforts to run a dysfunctional central government. For that reason alone, it should be brought into question why Somaliland's impressive army is not one of the focal points of this report."" [11] Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We do allow sources from subject-matter experts, but not when those experts are working for competing political interests. I think the PR rep did good work drawing the connection regarding Said A. Saryan.

Regarding Inner City Press and Somalia Report, "self published" is intended to refer to personal blogs. Generally anything published by a professional journalist is acceptable, even if it's not a large team.

If the terms of the arms embargo was expanded, this would be important context. Do you have a source for that?

We can't accept original research regarding criticisms in the source material. However, this is a problem with using op-eds in general. The sources only tell one side of the story CorporateM (Talk) 20:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Here’s a 2010 statement from the UN Security Council announcing the expanded mandate of the Monitoring Group:

“The expanded mandate of the Monitoring Group includes oversight of the arms embargo on Eritrea and the designation of individuals subjected to a travel ban and asset freeze for violations, as set out in December 2009 by resolution 1907, which demanded that Eritrea cease its support for destabilizing elements in the region.”

With regard to primary sources, I'm not proposing their inclusion or the inclusion of original research. I'm suggesting that we look closely at them in order to make sure what has been written about them is reliable. It's about the accuracy and reliability of the secondary sources.

Regarding the Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center, why is it that what little we can find about this lobby group all seems to lead to these two articles on Hiiraan? What else has it done? Why has its only activity to date been to critique this 2006 ICG report, after which we never hear of it again? I don't think these are unreasonable questions in trying to establish the reliability of a source. I'm still not convinced this group has ever really existed as an active organisation.

I realise the conversation on sources is moving on, but I would appreciate clarification on these points. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The source is from 2010 and his position began in 2008. Additionally, as a primary source, it needs to be interpreted by an expert, independent source, before we can use it. It has been established that Qarshe... is a lobbying group with the explicit objective of opposing Bryden's platform. I support removing any source that originates from this group, unless their criticisms are interpreted and published by a credible secondary source we can trust to be NPOV. However, when editors disagree, it can take time to work things out. CorporateM (Talk) 13:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it has not been established that the Qarshe Tima-Ade International Center is a lobbying group with the explicit objective of opposing Bryden's platform (whatever that may be). It has only been established that it is an "independent organization based in the United States and Canada", which "lobbies for the unification of all Somali speaking people through peaceful and non-violent means and the prevention of conflict in the Horn of Africa". And that's because two members from the group who authored that ICG critique themselves indicated as much [12]. Middayexpress (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"lobbies for the unification of all Somali" is the opposite of Bryden's platform. Lobbiest groups are not reliable sources. CorporateM (Talk) 13:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Qarshe actually describes itself as an "independent organization". Lobbying "for the unification of all Somali speaking people" appears to be its chief activity. As a parallel, one such group that Saryan mentions, Progressio -- which, in direct opposition to Qarshe, lobbies for the recognition of Somaliland as a separate country from the rest of Somalia -- is cited here as the main "international observer" during the last presidential elections in the Somaliland region, but clearly identified as "an advocate for independence movements". Also note that much of the Somaliland media could likewise be described as lobbying organizations since in most of their articles they try and promote the fringe notion that the region is separate from the rest of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a very different circumstance. Secondary sources are used, multiple POVs are included, and it's not on a BLP. According to our BLP rules: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources...Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) 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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." I think we are just in a tit-for-tat at this point though. It's not like we will reach an agreement, so best thing to do is get more editors involved and see where things head. CorporateM (Talk) 13:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies to all living people mentioned on the website, not just in bios ("editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page"). So the situation is actually not that different. At any rate, please note that the only bit from Qarshe that is presently used with regard to Bryden specifically rather than vis-a-vis his ICG organization is Qarshe's view that Bryden had a direct hand in the ICG report's formulation. This doesn't seem particularly contentious since he was at the time serving as ICG Coordinator. Middayexpress (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bryden

Hi Midday. Still waiting to see if Drmies does some editing, but what do you think about us each creating a version and starting an RFC? I've seen this done when two editors were disputing about the right length of the Lead. I still want to do ALOT of trimming and I know we'll just get into edit-wars, so how about we create a couple different versions and ask more editors for input. CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why any let alone a lot of trimming is necessary. Actually, I found some interesting new material on Bryden's Somaliland ties that should probably be included. Anyway, please sign your bulleted post below per WP:TALK. Middayexpress (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So you don't want to participate in an RFC? How would you like to resolve our differences of opinion? CorporateM (Talk) 13:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on what exactly? Again, please name the exact sentences that you have issues with and why. Differences cannot be resolved if they aren't first identified. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's my version I just whipped up: User:CorporateM/Bryden. It's a tight three-paragraphs and a bibliography. The few primary sources and/or op-eds are used very sparingly with very little weight.

Let me know if you want to work together on an RfC, or I can just get it started if you don't want to work together on it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That subpage has no structure and includes irrelevant material, such as the phrase on the number of ships that were at the time reportedly attacked off Puntland's shores. In some spots, it is also written in a way that suggests something which the links themselves do not. The phrase that goes "In December 2011 he threatened a 60 Minutes camera crew headed to Puntland under the suspicion that it was carrying weapons to launch an attack on regions contested by Puntland and Somaliland" is an exmaple. It gives the erroneous impression that this is what the Foreign Policy piece (which is actually critical of Bryden) states, when in fact the FP piece states that Bryden "discovered that the two "mercenaries" were in fact a well-known 60 Minutes camera team invited to film the PMPF base" [13]. More importantly, the subpage leaves out quite a bit of biographical information relating to Bryden. Among the ommitted material is Somaliland's status as an autonomous region in Somalia, Robert Young Pelton's and the Somalia Report's criticisms of Bryden's work with the SEMG, as well as the Somali government's objection to his appointment as SEMG Coordinator. Sharif Ahmed also said a lot more on Bryden and the SEMG than that they were simply "against peace". In any event, per WP:TALK, please point out for the first time what exact sentences in the existing text you have issues with and why. Middayexpress (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As discussed here, I feel that the use of op-eds, press releases and other primary sources to add contentious material, especially with so much weight and detail, is a violation of our BLP policies, as well as WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. I also feel the current article has far too much detail in general and could use additional tightening. If the article is kept at all, I don't feel such a large article is needed on a BLP where few proper secondary sources exist. Additionally, it doesn't seem like discussion between us is heading in a particularly productive manner, so I'll go ahead and start an RFC so we can get a few more opinions. Very specific issues have been raised and defensive comments that don't directly address those issues were the response. CorporateM (Talk) 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'll query on RS/N as to whether or not the Somali government press release is a reliable source on its own position regarding Bryden's SEMG appointment. Middayexpress (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Most press releases are reliable sources for the opinion of their author. That is a WEIGHT, BLP and NPOV issue. We don't want to pile-on every instance in which someone said something negative about him, just those that secondary sources decided were important. I tried to research who they are, but the website is down for maintenance. CorporateM (Talk) 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Somali government is a known quantity. Its press release is also a response to Bryden's appointment to a monitoring group with a Somalia and Eritrea mandate, not a gratuitous criticism [14]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

While I am not well-versed in Somali politics, I have my doubts that it's as simple as "the government". I have no information on the "Permanent Mission of the Somali Republic to the United Nations." The only website that comes up in a Google search is a UN sub-site, so I presume they are part of the UN, not of the local government. However, I do not have any information to confirm who they are or if their statements are credible or important. I would need a secondary source to assist in such an evaluation. CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Another Break

Based on the Talk page comment by User:Drmies it seemed useful to try to make a clear assessment of the disputed areas. If these descriptions are not written fairly, or there are more disputed areas than I've included, please feel free to modify them. CorporateM (Talk) 20:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Using this press release from the Permanent Mission of the Somali as the only source regarding the organization contesting Bryden's appointment, the right amount of weight to add and whether it is neutrally-written. (first paragraph of the SEMG section)
• Adding a substantial amount of material from op-eds in the Hiiran Online[15][16] that are authored by Qarshe Tima-Ade International Center for Unity - a lobbying organization with the opposite platform as the article-subject.
• Whether the 2011 airplane incident should be trimmed by a sentence or two to avoid excessive detail
• Also, Midday and I have both noted that there are zero sources, where Bryden is the subject of the article, which might explain why we're grasping at op-eds and primary sources to fill his article. I am still somewhat partial to nominating for deletion.

---

N.B. The bulleted post above is also from CorporateM. Middayexpress (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be glad to look in some more detail today or tomorrow. Deletion--well, I'm looking for some more material. First hit in Google Books is another accusation of partiality. Here is another brief mention. And here for one of his publications, and this and this for the same one: it seems to be an article worth mentioning (it pops up in an article in the Human Rights Quarterly--you can read it if you have access to JSTOR). Testament to expertise here. Google News gives at least a half a dozen hits; many of them are from the 1990s and (thus) not accessible, but there is stuff there, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a better source and provides a much more clear explanation of the alleged conflict of interest issues. Jeez, we may have found it if we were spending more time researching than arguing ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 02:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Which of the several links above is a better source than what? And how? Please be specific. The Somali government's press release on its own position on Bryden's SEMG appointment [17]? By the way, would you mind signing your bulleted post above so that readers know it's from you and not anyone else. Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I also just noticed that Foreign Policy calls Bryden a "Canadian/Somalilander". Interesting dichotomy there [18]. Middayexpress (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's [19] a bio on Bryden from the Eri Gazette, republished from DissidentNation. Middayexpress (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Draft

Midday and I disagree on if, how and with what weight to use op-eds[20][21] press releases[22] and primary sources[23] for controversial material on a BLP, as well as how long the article should be in general. There are sort of a lot of areas we seem to disagree, so I'm not sure of the best way to summarize.

I've proposed a 3-paragraph version of the article here. I was going to see about starting an RFC, but this article has already been mentioned on BLPN, COIN and Midday mentioned raising an inquiry on RSN, so I thought it would be better to just start a fresh string I can link to and ping a few editors so we can get additional input. I feel like Midday and I have just gotten into a bit of a tit-for-tat, so the best way forward would be to just get more eyes on the article. Nobody from BLPN has responded and I was pinged with a request to help on COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 17:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The subpage linked to above omits a lot of key information. It is also phrased in an inadvertently misleading way in spots, as I explain here. For context, please refer to the existing, structured version of the wikipage for the exact sentences where the links above are used [24]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "key information" is my "trivia". And I'm an WP:inclusionist. --Lexein (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Trivia is not determined by personal opinion but rather the WP:TRIVIA guideline. What specific sentences are trivia according to you and how? The Somali government's press release statements? If it's an issue of sourcing, this can be readily sorted out on RS/N. Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Outsider's view

• The use of primary sources, like any questionable or imperfect source, depends on the context. But generally they should not be used to support contentious claims or info, especially in a BLP.
• I also feel the current article is unnecessarily politicized. It synthesizes his life history with politics. There is a feeling of an underlying agenda or POV.
• Also, there are too many quotes and details. WP is an encyclopedia that summarizes sources. We don't give a blow by blow account like a news article. These extra details give undue weight to controversies and dominate the article when they don't need to.
• I have not examined each source so I cannot comment on whether this man is notable enough or not for an article.
• My final comment is that if you folks decide to continue working on this, that you need to slow down, and break the issues down into very small parts and have a separate thread for each item. Discuss, and if you don't agree ask for a WP:3O and respect that deal breaker opinion and move on. That is slow and painstaking process but its the only way to progress in a situation like this with two editors who generally disagree.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur completely! I agree with every one of User:CorporateM's deletions. I would request that the article stop being fluffed up, and most primary sourced material just go away. Right now. If y'all can't agree to do this, I'll start doing it, and you really, really don't want that. I have no dog in this fight but WP:BLP. --Lexein (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input Keithbob, and good advice. As we've learned, the main problem is that, other than incidental mentions, almost all of the pieces actually devoted to Bryden himself appear to be critical pieces (mainly in the Somali and Eritrean press i.e. his region of work). There seem to be few standalone bios on him, and even those are almost wholly critical (e.g. [25]). At any rate, I agree that the issues are best resolved through discussion of specific phrases, one at a time. Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Midday, I understand what you mean about the majority of the sources being critical. I have not looked at the sources in this article but I've seen that situation before where a person's notablility is mainly via a negative event or series of events. But even in a situation like that we need to summarize and create text with great care.
    • Going through one item at a time is a necessary strategy when there are only two people on the page. However, more editors are commenting and there seems to be a consensus emerging about the primary sources ie if they are being used for anything other than uncontroversial, verifiable facts such as "he moved to Paris in 2008" or "he began the XYZ job in 2010" then the primary sources should not be there. WP is very sensitive about the tone of BLP's and WP:BLP is clear that they should be "written with the greatest care" and that "contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) 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." So while discussion can continue on each sentence, any editor has the right to remove anything poorly sourced right now and text sourced by primary sources would fall in that category in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary questions & comments

I was asked by CorporateM to comment. I have a few preliminary questions & comments.

1. From our article on Somalia Report, I am unable to tell the reliability or possible bias of this publication, as the article on it is entirely unsourced. It seems to be heavily relied upon in many versions of this article.
2. I do not thing ONEEVENT applies here. The individual is clearly notable as a political figure, central to a major poltical dispute. ONEEVENT would be relevant if he became involved in one single incident in a conflict, not one international conflict.
3. There appears to be some connections between some of this material and the article on Robert Young Pelton. That article has been subject to obvious strong COI editing, with the signs of being either an autobiography or by someone with a similar POV. I think it will probably be easier to deal with than this article. i checked Pelton's publications, and if nothing else he is apparently at least a mildly notable author,so it's a question of rewriting not deletion.
4. WP is not a place for making political judgments. It is, as noted above, unrealistic to expect there to be any neutral sources on the subjects he has been involved in, but this is not a place to word things in such a way as to imply judgements. For example, the questioned recognition of the government fro which he holds a passport is irrelevant here,
5. I am not sure that in a case like this the issues are best resolved one at a time. As I see it, the first step is to remove clearly unreliable material, and see what is left. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

None of Bryden's various work positions are in themselves notable enough to support the existence of a bio. It's his purported role/actions while in the SEMG and ICG that render him notable. If the page were just about a former coordinator of an ad-hoc UN regional watchdog panel and nothing more, it would be deleted in short order. I'm not sure what you mean by "the questioned recognition of the government fro which he holds a passport". Which sentence(s) in the text are you referring to here? Also, the Somalia Report is one of the better Western publications specializing in the Horn of Africa [26]. It hires both local and foreign journalists and has been used by the UN itself, among others. It is especially noted for its Piracy Report. At any rate, if it's reliability that is in question, this can be sorted out on RS/N. Middayexpress (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

There are around three primary source statements presently used in the wikipage. Some uses could perhaps be construed as BLP contentious with respect to Bryden's person. However, other uses cannot because they aren't on the man himself, but rather on the ICG/SEMG and/or their reporting:

• Saryan, Said A. "Nomination of Somalia's Secessionist's Poster Boy, Matt Bryden". Huraan online. huraan online. Retrieved 23 September 2011.
  • Use: "According to Said A. Saryan, a Bahrain-based Somali writer and specialist on Horn of Africa social and political affairs, Bryden became the "poster boy" of the secessionist movement in Somalia's northwestern Somaliland region."
  • Use: "In 2006, the ICG published a report titled Somaliland: Time for African Union Leadership, which critics suggest advocated for the balkanization of Somalia."
• "The ICG Report and its negative implications for Somali Unity". Hiiraan Online. Retrieved November 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • Use: "The Washington-based Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center for Unity lobby group asserted that the paper was misleading and that Bryden likely played a direct role in its formulation.
  • Use: "They added that the report inappropriately compared Somalia with countries such as the former Yugoslavia that were by contrast characterized by a more heterogeneous demographic composition and longstanding, irreconcilable ethnic grievances."
• "PRESS RELEASE - 27 June 2008". Permanent Mission of the Somali Republic to the United Nations. Retrieved 3 September 2013.
  • Use: "Somalia's Permanent Mission to the United Nations subsequently issued a press statement formally objecting to Bryden's appointment, asserting that he had a "history of actively supporting disintegration of Somalia, contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the African Union and all Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 1811 (2008) that re-established the Monitoring Group."
  • Use: "The Somali government also informed members of the Security Council and UN officials that it would withdraw all cooperation with and/or facilitation for the SEMG if Bryden's appointment were upheld."

Which if any of the above statements are problematic and why? Note that many can be sourced to secondary souces as well. Middayexpress (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The op-eds

I have placed the draft in, as it's more aligned with the feedback we've gotten from multiple editors. Also, I agree with DGG and the tone of Drmies in not debating every sentence, as the consensus is quite clear, as is WP:BLP and there are certain issues like copyrights and BLP violations the community takes seriously in regards to urgency. If Midday wants to re-introduce primary sources that there is not support for currently, he should attempt to obtain consensus for using them or edit boldly, and use Talk if/when reverted.

There is still this statement:

The SEMG's reports of arms violations were also criticized during his tenure for favoring Somaliland over Puntland and other regions, by groups like the Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center, a lobbying organization against the secession of Somaliland.[9][10]

This is sourced to two op-eds in the Hiiran Online authored by the lobbying group themselves. I am going to take this out as well, at least until if/when a better source is found, but I believe there is a reasonable argument for including and/or a better source might be available. CorporateM (Talk) 14:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Qarshe, ICP, Somali gov

• If "The ICG Report and its negative implications for Somali Unity" is used, "ICG" ought to be explained: is it an independent club, is it tied to the UN, etc. The Hiiraan source is obviously not neutral, which doesn't mean we can't use it, but if it is used it should be made clear that it is an opinion piece of sorts; if Hiiraan is a reliable source, then the piece is still like an op-ed and its conclusions have to be moderated explicitly. The current version reads, "The Washington-based Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center for Unity lobby group asserted that the paper was misleading and that Bryden likely played a direct role in its formulation", stating as a fact what is an opinion.

  Corporate, I removed "symbolic" from your draft, but I see now that the word is used in "Nomination of Somalia’s Secessionist's Poster Boy, Matt Bryden", so it can be brought in if that source is cited--but what applies in the previous paragraph applies here as well, in regard to opinion-fact, and it's UNDUE (more UNDUE to follow). There's a big problem, IMO, in Midday's version: the Aug 2012 letter does not say that Bryden "had been dismissed from his position on the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group after the UN had received "detailed complaints" about him", and the related article in Inner City Press cannot be used to confirm such a suggested statement of fact, given that its neutrality is questionable. Again, this could be cited in the "critics say that" kind of way, but by then we're really in UNDUE territory. The Somali UN Mission's press release could be cited as well, as it is in Midday's version--but again, UNDUE: this is too much opinion, too much space given to non-neutral or primary sources.

  IMO, the Somali UN Mission press release is OK to insert, but not the "had been dismissed" sentence and the two references given in Midday's version. At the very least, that should go. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's explained a few sentences earlier in the wikitext that "From 2004 to 2006, Bryden acted as the Horn of Africa Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG)". While the Qarshe statement is already attributed to the group, this can perhaps be made even clearer with: "The Washington-based Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center for Unity lobby group asserted that the paper was misleading and it argued that Bryden likely played a direct role in its formulation".
• The assertion that Bryden was fired is attributed to Inner City Press in the wikitext: "In August 2012, Inner City Press reported that a UN document confirmed on 21 August that Bryden had been dismissed from his position on the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group after the UN had received "detailed complaints" about him".

Inner City Press writes that several Security Council members gave it "exclusive and negative reviews of Bryden's performance" and they indicated to it that he was consequently leaving the organization. The other link is the UN paper actually confirming the appointment of Bryden's replacement at the SEMG [27]. Here's what ICP writes on this [28]:

The UN has received detailed complaints about its experts, Matt Bryden on Eritrea and Steve Hege on the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. Bryden, a UN document this month confirms, is no longer on the committee[...] Bryden's departure was telegraphed in remarks to, and a report by, Inner City Press on July 24, when Security Council members from three countries gave Inner City Press exclusive and negative reviews of Bryden's performance. "He's leaving," one of them said dismissively and definitely of Bryden. There was snarky speculation Bryden may have been angling for a book deal, or a post with a group like HRW.

Given the above, the specific reasons that the Security Council members presented to ICP regarding Bryden's ultimate dismissal should at the very least be indicated. Middayexpress (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the antecedent of "it" is in your opening sentence. Does it refer to ICG? But the sentence you quote doesn't explain what ICG is. As for the firing of Bryden, yes, the primary source confirms that there was someone else appointed, but it says nothing about Bryden or why he was removed. So the firing, and its reasons, are sourced exclusively to ICP, and you clearly have more faith in them than I do. Is "telegraphed" used metaphorically? The rest of the passage is, as far as I'm concerned, to speculative for inclusion here. Are there no other sources, nothing from the mainstream press? Drmies (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean about what is the International Crisis Group (ICG). A phrase can be added defining the group's function. The UN pdf on Bryden's replacement at the SEMG can also be removed, as it doesn't mention him directly. The Inner City Press piece in the blockquote above is relaying what ICP was told by UN officials with respect to Bryden's dismissal. Middayexpress (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I share Drmies's concerns about innercitypress.com as a reliable (in this case secondary) source. According to its (poorly referenced) Wikipedia article, Inner City Press as an organisation dates back to 1987, when it was founded by Matthew Russell Lee as a pressure group. That's fine – the problem is with innercitypress.com as a source. It doesn’t seem to publish anything other than articles by Matthew Russell Lee, which surely makes those articles self-published. WP:SPS makes clear that:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Plenty has been written about Lee as an investigative journalist, but I can’t find an example of any work of his, let alone anything on this issue, appearing in a reliable third-party publication. Can he therefore be considered an established expert on the subject matter?

On the subject of the end of Bryden’s tenure as coordinator of the SEMG, here is a 2012 article on twincities.com, the website of the Pioneer Press – a newspaper serving Minneapolis–Saint Paul in Minnesota – in which he is described as having "stepped down":

"'The al-Shabaab that is indirectly on trial is not the al-Shabaab of today,' said Matthew Bryden, who stepped down last summer as head of the group that monitored the U.N.'s arms embargo on Somalia." HOgilvy (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

HOgilvy, is that what your Bell Pottinger public relations client Bryden has told you about his dismissal? Inner City Press states that it was told by UN officials themselves that Bryden was forced out from his position at the SEMG after "Security Council members from three countries gave Inner City Press exclusive and negative reviews of Bryden's performance" [29]. ICP is in turn often cited by the UN [30]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but citing isn't publishing. Where's the reliable third-party publication publishing Matthew Russell Lee's work on this subject matter? As for the twincities.com article, I'm merely directing editors to a source that's at odds with what Lee and other detractors of Mr Bryden have said about the end of his tenure. HOgilvy (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not unusual for the employer to claim they were the one doing the firing and for the employee to claim they quit. If one secondary source gets their information from the employer, and another gets it from the employee, this kind of factual conflict emerges. And it's not always clear whether it was one or the other.

If one source is clearly more reliable than the other, we may choose that source's version of events. In this case, they are both written by professional journalists, so we would summarize both points-of-view and attribute each to their source. This falls under NPOV to represent all viewpoints fairly. CorporateM (Talk) 18:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That PP link doesn't indicate under what circumstances/pressures Bryden allegedly stepped down. Inner City Press, on the other hand, indicates that it was apprised of Bryden's dismissal by UN officials themselves. Also note that ICP isn't a self-published source in the Wikipedia policy sense. It's an independent media organization; Matthew Lee just founded it. ICP is likewise an accredited media agency: "Inner City Press covers (and where applicable is accredited media at) the United Nations, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, banking and insurance regulatory agencies, the Federal Communications Commission, and various courts" [31]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what Matthew Lee says about himself. Do you have a secondary source confirming that accreditation? This article by Michael Y. Park for FoxNews.com describes Lee as "the editor-in-chief, Webmaster and pretty much the only reporter for Inner City Press". This article on unpost.org in fact describes him as the "sole reporter", which even a brief look at innercitypress.com bears out. In any case, even if there were other contributors, as the webmaster he's self-published the article in question here. He's not the founder behind a legitimate media organisation. He's the editor and the webmaster of a site that he uses to publish articles by him and him alone. It's activist, it's been single-issue since 2005 (focusing on internal corruption at the UN), and it's self-published.

Regarding the PP article, you can't use the absence of any detail on the circumstances of Bryden's stepping down to infer that he was forced out. It simply says that he stepped down. HOgilvy (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The level of detail has some effect on the reliability of the source, but it is not a good argument for relying exclusively on the most detailed source. Often one article makes errors when they over-generalize, while the more detailed article gets their facts straight and it's possible that's the case here. The sources you list calls him a "reporter" and "editor-in-chief". Being his own webmaster is not a good reason to label him as unreliable. Our policies are not designed to be protected against loopholes by Wikilaywers, because they're intended to be interpreted by volunteers that exercise common sense and good judgement. Do you believe the reporter fabricated the complaints from Bryden's peers? That seems to be the accusation of saying it is unreliable. CorporateM (Talk) 19:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It’s misleading to describe UNSC country representatives as “peers” of Bryden. Beyond Eritrea it’s unclear from this ICP article what the other two countries are, but those UNSC members were representing national interests at the Security Council while Bryden and his team were (initially) monitoring compliance with the arms embargo. In terms of what I believe, that seems irrelevant to me as it involves original research but since you ask, no, it’s not my belief that these complaints were “fabricated” by Matthew Lee. Detailed complaints were indeed received against Bryden and his team after the submission of each of the Monitoring Group’s reports – that is standard practice. During his tenure, as I’ve said above, the UNSC vastly expanded the Monitoring Group’s mandate to include a whole array of other regional issues including threats to peace and security in Somalia (including acts that threatened the TFG, the AU forces, or the political process by force); misappropriation of financial resources that undermined the functioning of the Transitional Federal Institutions; financing of Al-Shabaab…the list goes on. Anyone can look at the relevant UNSC resolutions to see this for themselves. I realise this is original research but you asked me what I believe so please bear with me. In 2011, Eritrea was formally added to the SEMG’s mandate. That included the monitoring of the arms embargo on Eritrea and alleged Eritrean support for armed opposition groups throughout the region. The Monitoring Group’s reports on these hugely sensitive issues were, unsurprisingly, sometimes critical of governments in the region; Bryden’s role as coordinator was to ensure that the findings of his team met or exceeded the minimum evidentiary standards required by the UNSC.

In reference to the Security Council letter, SEMG members are hired as consultants on fixed term contracts (usually one year). When each mandate expires, the SEMG is effectively disbanded and its members are off-contract. UNHQ then decides which of them to approach for reappointment. Between 2008 and 2012, the UNHQ ignored the complaints against Bryden and reappointed him each time, with the approval of the UNSC Sanctions Committee. In 2012, having served his fourth full term, Bryden decided not to put his name forward for the current SEMG, and advised both UNHQ and the Sanctions Committee of this fact in his outgoing briefing. His name therefore does not appear on the August 2012 UNSC letter of appointment.

But of course all that is original research and is irrelevant here. What is relevant, however, is that Lee’s article only mentions Bryden’s “departure”, not his dismissal, and that the (unidentified) UNSC member is simply quoted as having said, “He’s leaving.”

As far as being a ‘Wikilawyer’ goes, I don’t see how referring to policy to assess the reliability of a source amounts to searching for loopholes. This is a BLP, and the ICP article is by a reporter who’s also his own editor as well as his own publisher. In any case, Drmies’s concerns above are based on the fact that Bryden’s ‘firing’ and the reasons for it are based solely on this source and the Security Council letter, neither of which actually says that he was fired. HOgilvy (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As the Foreign Policy piece indicates, Bryden actually took the SEMG well beyond its mandate into strange and unprecedented territory ("But with the hiring of Canadian/Somalilander and former International Crisis Group senior analyst Matthew Bryden in 2008, (a period that coincided with the growth of piracy and al-Shabab's arrival in the north) the reports took on a bizarre and voluminous tone accusing both friend and foe of serious violations" [32]). This is further supported by the findings this month of FTI Consulting and a legal team from the US firm Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, PA, which the Somali federal government had hired to investigate allegations of corruption that the Bryden-led Monitoring Group had leveled against it. The auditing team found that the methodology and conclusions in Annex 5.2 of the SEMG report were "deeply flawed and entirely unreliable". Additionally, the auditors recommended that the section of the SEMG report carrying allegations of corruption should be removed, and asked the Security Council to issue a public rebuke to the SEMG for its failure to adhere to and apply UN fact-finding standards [33]. Also note that most sources that have reported on Bryden's departure from the SEMG note, like Inner City Press, that he was fired. ICP clearly had an inside angle on this since it reported on Bryden's dismissal as it was happening and before everyone else, and quoted UN officials at that. Another example of this [34]:

Update: a Permanent Representative came out and told Inner City Press the problem with Bryden is speaking on his own for a "collective product." Others point at the report and wonder if it's really in the SEMG's mandate to analyze the Eritrean Air Force, down to the last spark plug, see report at Page 16. One wag asked, "A no fly zone via sanctions?"

It seems that the last straw for the UN may have been when Bryden reportedly took it upon himself to leak an SEMG report ahead of schedule ("Meanwhile the coordinator of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea, the Canadian Matt Bryden, openly leaked his Group's report and was quoted about it by name, before it was given to Eritrea"). Middayexpress (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• That Foreign Policy article is explicitly advertised as "Argument", but if cited appropriately (and I don't know if that should be "in an opinion piece" or "in an investigative report"--I tend toward the latter) the facts cited in the article seem to be beyond reproach. Criticism followed by "Bryden was not a member of the newly appointed blah blah" should therefore be OK, as long as we're not drawing the conclusion "he was fired because of" or "he was not reappointed because of." Because I don't think we can cite ICP to draw such a factual conclusion--not because I don't trust them, but because it's based on a few unnamed sources, and I do think the cited ICP articles lean toward undue weight given to one side over the other. I think I have two concerns here, only two: that we don't draw a conclusion that impeccable sources don't bear out, and that we don't give undue weight in a biographical article to developments/actions/inactions that didn't exclusively involve Bryden: the FP piece mentions Bryden's team. That's not to say it can't be mentioned, but that it needs to be done carefully. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The FP piece attributes the bizarre turns that the SEMG began taking specifically with Bryden's tenure, and it's not the only source to have done this. ICP also explains that "with Bryden the questions were larger of leaking, of micro-managing the Eritrean air force and more. But now he is gone. What's next for Bryden?" [35]. In another piece, ICP actually names one of the Security Council members in question: "chief Matt Bryden leaked his report and gave interviews about it, leading to criticism not only from Eritrea and Somalia, but even Western members of the Security Council like Portuguese Permanent Representative Cabral [36]". Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Midday, I’m confused about your mention of Abdi Guled's article on ABCNews.go.com on the audit by FTI Consulting and Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker. That article is from four days ago, makes no mention of Bryden, and discusses the “U.N. report, released in July”, i.e. it was an audit of the Somalia report of the SEMG of 12 July 2013. Annex 5.2 of that report is titled, “Public financial mismanagement and corruption”, which is presumably the section that came in for attack, and the first paragraph on page 7 of the report does indeed say, as quoted in Guled's article, that Mohamud’s election “presented an opportunity for a new kind of leadership in the country.” However much we may disagree on the circumstances of the end of Bryden’s tenure as coordinator of the SEMG, we do, I think, agree that it was in 2012. He therefore had no part in that report – page 2 clearly shows that it was overseen by his successor Jarat Chopra, and that Matthew Bryden wasn't on the team. With regard to these other sources that say he was fired from the role, it’d be good to see them so we can assess them. HOgilvy (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Though the SEMG paper was published recently, the allegations in it actually date from Bryden's tenure there, which ended in mid-2012 [37]. Incidentally, Bryden also served as a consultant with the ICG well after he had left it (he says so himself in a byline: "Matt Bryden is an independent regional analyst with over 16 years of experience in Somali affairs. He is former director of the International Crisis Group's Horn of Africa Project and still serves as a consultant with Crisis Group" [38]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

He didn't produce the report and the article doesn't mention him, so trying to link him to its content is original research. As far as his consultancy for the ICG goes, that is indeed incidental. I think we need some fresh opinions here. HOgilvy (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The first link above states that the SEMG allegations predate the current administration's time in office. This means that they date from at least July 2012, when Bryden was still with the SEMG. Bryden's consultancy with the ICG past his departure from the ICG means that he had an influence on its work beyond his tenure there. Just so it's clear, I'm not necessarily proposing that we mention either of these things. I'm just bringing them to your attention to show that there's substance to Foreign Policy's assertion that Bryden during his time as SEMG Coordinator took the organization well beyond its mandate into strange and unprecedented territory. Middayexpress (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally a source needs to mention Bryden to be used on his article. Anything that doesn't mention him will naturally be WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Higher up on this Talk page, Midday said Inner City Press said he was fired, but this is not actually the case. It just says he "is no longer on the committee." Another source says he "stepped down". Midday, why do you keep insisting he was fired? I haven't seen this in any secondary sources anywhere. "Stepped down" seems to imply he quit, though as a metaphor it is somewhat ambiguous. CorporateM (Talk) 22:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Inner City Press explains elsewhere that "Schbley previously worked on the UN's Somalia and Eritrea sanctions, from which after complaints he and coordinator Matt Bryden were removed". So yes, Bryden was apparently fired [39]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Aw, there we go - Midday is correct: "which after complaints he and coordinator Matt Bryden were removed." CorporateM (Talk) 18:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

The discussion on this page has jumped all over the place. I suggest that the discussion be focused on a top-down approach, excluding the Lead which usually comes last. CorporateM (Talk) 10:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

Bryden was born in 1967 in Canada. He attended McGill University between 1985-1988. As of 2008, he was married to a woman from Somaliland, and has three children.[40][41][42]

• Delete: Unless I am mistaken, none of these sources appear to mention Canada or McGill University. A quick Google News archive search does not reveal any sources for even his birthdate. This source is reliable enough regarding a "former marriage to a Somalilander" however this is in the context of alleged conflicts of interest, not his personal life, and it should be mentioned in the appropriate context later in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 11:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Bryden's marriage/wife is his personal life, so it would go in the personal life section. His birthdate and McGill indeed don't appear to be mentioned in the link. He instead apparently attended Upper Canada College. Middayexpress (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The school paper is reliable enough for its use. I'm ok with his wife being mentioned here and again later on, however I have some holdouts about using a 13-year-old source for his place of residence and where he spends his time. It's probably reasonable to assume this is outdated. CorporateM (Talk) 16:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The as of template is used in such instances. Middayexpress (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"As of" is a good way of handling it when there is a reasonable chance the information is still accurate (or close to accurate). For something like where he lives and spends his time, we can be almost certain that a 13-year-old source from 2000 will no longer be accurate. Maybe DGG, Keithbob, Drmies or Lexein can chime in to provide a tie-breaker here and at the next discussion below. CorporateM (Talk) 14:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've created a Personal life section and placed the personal info there. BLP's on WP traditionally start with Early life and Education. I see no reason to digress from that tradition here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the fact that Bryden and his family lived in Hargeisa, the capital of the northwestern Somaliland region of Somalia, was changed to simply "Hargeisa, Somalia"? Also, why was his wife's name (Ubax) removed? Privacy obviously doesn't apply to spouses because there's a spouse parameter in the infobox. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As indicated in my edit summaries WP:DOB and WP:NPF give reasons to exclude the names of non-notable people like relatives. Furthermore, Hargeisa has a wiki link, if readers want to know more about it they can click it. We don't give a geography lessons in a BLP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those links say anything about excluding a subject's immediate family (which, in any case, the infobox spouse and children parameters indicate are okay bio material). Hargeisa is the capital of Somalia's Somaliland region, and Bryden and his family happened to live there. This is obviously relevant given his reported ties with/favoritism toward the Somaliland authorities. Middayexpress (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is the accepted norm that we focus on the BLP's professional life they are notable for and not their personal life, though it varies widely based on the circumstance and how famous they are. But I do see that there are infobox parameters and I think we could add that he is married with two kids (no names) into the Infobox, without concern over personal information or undue emphasis on his personal life. CorporateM (Talk) 16:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine if it was a reliable source. But I don't believe it is (see below)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Aww, good point. I know there are reliable sources about his being married, so I'll take out the two kids until/if/when we find a better source for it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Old Times source

This is not a reliable source and it, and its associated text, should be removed. It is an alumni magazine with a circulation of 10,000. The edition we are citing is 14 years old. The magazine has very little editorial oversight and no reputation for fact checking. It is an academic gossip magazine. [43]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Also the official edition, accessible here at the College web site, has no entry for Bryden.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Old Times obviously is a reliable source because Bryden's own alma mater, the Upper Canada College, publishes it. He's mentioned in the Summer 2000 issue in that very link above [44], as well as in the Summer 2002 [45], Summer/Fall 2010 [46], and Summer/Fall 2011 issues [47]. He and his wife Ubax have also since had a third child, and the family was based in Nairobi as of 2011. Middayexpress (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because its his Alma Mater does not make it a reliable source per WP:RS. Any comments from others on this point?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I favor removing it. I don't agree that college papers are not reliable sources by default, or that circulation is an adequate measure. Often college papers are the best available source to cover that period in the BLP's lifetime, however in this case the "Article" is merely a series of two-sentence blurbs on alumni. Also, it doesn't technically confirm he attended college there and I don't see any content of real encyclopedic significance. I would compare it loosely to the various other sorts of blurbs that we generally discount, such as infotainment "top ten gadget" type posts, blurbs that are re-written from a press release, online directory information, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I figured you say that :) However, Old Times isn't a college paper. It's the university's official alumni magazine, published since the 1940s [48]. Looks like this will have to be sorted out on RS/N. Middayexpress (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea to get some outside input at RSN. Midday are you going to post there? If so could you place a link here so we can all participate? Thanks -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Early career

Bryden began his career as an infantry officer in the Canadian Forces Reserve before being hired by the United Nations in 1990. He was later appointed Canadian Ambassador's Special Advisor in 1992 and led the War-torn Societies Project (WSP) from 1996 to 2003. From 2007 to 2008, he also served as an adviser on Somali affairs for the United States' USAID bureau and the US embassy.[49] The March 1999 issue of the Review of African Political Economy published a paper from him, "New Hope for Somalia? Building Block Approach," in which he opposed foreign involvement in Somalian affairs.[50]

• Comment: The "New Hope for Somalia" paper should be moved to the Bibliography. I note that the primary source is "good enough" for the un-controversial information it's cited for. There is a contradiction in that WP:BLP encourages us to create a complete profile on the article-subject, while WEIGHT would suggest we focus on what he is best-known for. I would support either choice (deleting or keeping the material) as reasonable enough. CorporateM (Talk) 00:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That Bryden paper with the WSP should be mentioned in the body because it expresses his earlier views regarding Somalia's unity and territorial integrity that are directly opposed to his later views and actions on the same issue. It shows that idealogically, something changed for Bryden after he left the WSP (which was founded by a man from Puntland, btw). The relevant passage from his paper should perhaps be quoted. Middayexpress (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We would need a secondary source to draw that comparison. Otherwise it's original synthesis. CorporateM (Talk) 14:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It was originally sourced to Qarshe, but you replaced that with the Bryden primary source. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is how this section should read:

• Bryden was an infantry officer in the Canadian Forces Reserve before being hired by the United Nations in 1990. He was appointed Canadian Ambassador's Special Advisor in 1992 and was Director of the War-torn Societies Project (WSP) from 1996 to 2003. From 2007 to 2008, he served as an adviser on Somali affairs for the United States' USAID bureau and the US embassy.[51] In 1999 he published a paper called "New Hope for Somalia? Building Block Approach," in Review of African Political Economy.

That's it. A BLP is not the place to espouse a subject's political views unless those views are designated as notable by secondary sources. For example if the LA Times reported that "At the XYZ conference Bryden strongly criticized the UN's recent military actions in Somalia" or something like that. Then it becomes notable. Otherwise there should not be any mention of what his paper is about or how we feel his thinking has changed etc. At WP we just summarize secondary sources, we don't synthesize sources or give our own opinions nor do we cherry pick isolated items from sources to justify our personal point of view of the BLP subject.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A bio recounts the main aspects of a subject's life, including all major parts of his career. If Bryden had been the Coordinator for a hypothetical United States and Mexico Monitoring Group/UMMG, reportedly used this position to advance the cause of secessionism in Texas, simultaneously carried around a Texas passport, was heavily criticized for all of this by the US and Mexican governments among other international actors, was eventually dismissed from the UMMG at least partly due to this, had many of the allegations dating to his tenure likewise disproved by auditors, and finally inspired the UN to consider creating an independent adjudication panel to ensure accuracy in future UMMG reports, it would not be difficult at all to appreciate the actual scale of the issue at hand. Middayexpress (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I would still think this would be better-placed in the Bibliography. There are no secondary sources besides an op-ed to summarize the paper's contents, how it effected his career or how it reflects his personal views and I don't see why we would add his other papers to the Bibliography, but call this one out in particular. The sentence you propose doesn't contain any information that wouldn't be included in a bullet in the bibliography. But as long as it's reasonably neutral, I don't see a reason to debate it too extensively. CorporateM (Talk) 16:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Which sentence(s) are you referring to? Middayexpress (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Midday, we're talking about this sentence: "In 1999 he published a paper called "New Hope for Somalia? Building Block Approach," in Review of African Political Economy." CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That Bryden paper is mentioned in the Qarshe piece and quoted as an example of his previously published views on Somalia's territorial integrity when he was still with the WSP [52]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that mention is in an opinion piece published on a non-notable news website. It gives some minor credence to the fact that this paper of Bryden's may have some slight significance over other papers which have never been mentioned in other sources but it does not give editors license to characterize or summarize the paper in an attempt to build a narrative in the BLP. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Build a narrative? The only wikitext sourced to Qarshe that directly pertained to Bryden was the assertion with regard to the 2006 ICG paper that "Bryden likely played a direct role in its formulation". This is hardly contentious nor is it difficult to substantiate. At any rate, Qarshe isn't even in the article. Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Stuff like "foreign meddling" and "his crediblity and impartiality... widely recognized" is not really Wikipedia's approach to covering the topic, even if the sources were undeniably reliable, but especially when they are mediocre and/or primary. I felt there was already support in the prior discussion to just mention his publication without adding more emphasis by quoting material from it. However, if you feel Kiethbob and I are both incorrect, we can get an additional editor's input to establish a stronger consensus. CorporateM (Talk) 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Bryden's 1999 paper (when he was with the War-torn Societies Project) does not "sugges[t] the AU get involved in the secession of Somoliland". It actually decries the "absurd colonial dismemberment of the Somali nation between five sovereign states", as well as "foreign meddlers - some of them sinister, some benign, others simply incompetent - but all of them ultimately unsuccessful." Bryden at the time emphasized Somalia's territorial integrity. Middayexpress (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to "said". This is usually the preferred and most neutral wording over "claimed" "urged", etc. Although Keithbob may also delete the short descriptor, which would also be reasonable. Do you feel that's adequate enough for us to go to the next section? CorporateM (Talk) 18:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't accurate because Bryden never suggested any AU involvement in that paper in the first place nor does the link say that he did. That Bryden "opposed foreign meddling in Somali affairs" is more accurate. "Foreign meddling/meddler(s)" is also Bryden's own expression, by the way. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The op-ed said he urged the AU to help Smoliland in their secession bid, however I see from reading the first couple sentences that the main thrust of the paper is clearly the opposition against foreign involvement. Without an independent source that accurately describes the paper's main thrust, I would support just a line-item in the bibliography or Kbob's version, but this is fine, I guess. Not really something worth arguing about IMO. CorporateM (Talk) 19:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Qarshe is referring there to Bryden's 2006 paper with the ICG. In reference to his earlier political beliefs while at the WSP, it states further below that "before joining the ICG, Mr. Bryden used to decry foreign meddling in Somalia’s affairs[...] The following is an excerpt from one of his briefings titled “New Hope for Somalia? Building Block Approach”, that was published in the March 1999 issue of the journal “Review of African Political Economy - Vol. 26 No. 795”" [53]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Stuff like "foreign meddling" and "his crediblity and impartiality... widely recognized" is not really Wikipedia's approach to covering the topic, even if the sources were undeniably reliable, but especially when they are mediocre and/or primary.-- I echo this comment by CM. and I question whether the Qarshe piece is even a reliable source for this BLP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, "foreign meddling/meddlers" is Bryden's expression. Qarshe is just paraphrasing his own words there. Qarshe also isn't used in the article, as I'm sure you're already aware. In any event, BLP indicates that "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." Middayexpress (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Next up

According to Said A. Saryan, a Bahrain-based Somali writer and specialist on Horn of Africa social and political affairs, Bryden became the "poster boy" of the secessionist movement in Somalia's northwestern Somaliland region.[54]

• Comment: Citing an op-ed to call him a poster-boy is a bit antagonistic. Just something like "supports the secession of" would be adequate and there are other sources we could use for this that wouldn't require so much attribution. CorporateM (Talk) 19:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright. The fact that Bryden both chaired and led the Somaliland International Recognition Action Group (SIRAG)'s 2004 conference in London pretty much communicates the same thing [55]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Next

In 2006, the ICG published a report titled Somaliland: Time for African Union Leadership, which critics suggest advocated for the balkanization of Somalia. The Washington-based Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center for Unity lobby group asserted that the paper was misleading and that Bryden likely played a direct role in its formulation.[56][6] They added that the report inappropriately compared Somalia with countries such as the former Yugoslavia that were by contrast characterized by a more heterogeneous demographic composition and longstanding, irreconcilable ethnic grievances.[57][58]

• Delete: I note that the two sources cited are both op-eds written by political interest and are not adequate sources for criticisms. Additionally, if Bryden's authorship really is only speculative, as is stated by the current text, Wikipedia is not a place for speculation. If the criticisms of these groups were notable, they would be covered in reliable secondary sources. I also note that nothing comes up on this lobby group in a Google search, except for a couple op-eds criticizing Bryden and the email addresses used are personal ones. It is difficult to say if these organizations even exist or are real, substantive and important in a meaningful way. Without proper secondary sources, I have no method to assess the importance of both the group itself and their statements. CorporateM (Talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. But note that Bryden is himself involved with a lobby group (viz. Somaliland International Recognition Action Group/SIRAG). The Chairman of the External Relations Commission of Somalia's SSC Region also asserted pretty much the same thing in a letter to the Security Council [59]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Midday, you reverted my edit, even though it was discussed here and you said "ok". I guess I'm confused - you oppose it? CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit removed the official statement from the Chairman of the External Relations Commission of Somalia's SSC Region to the Security Council. That was not discussed anywhere nor could it be since I just mentioned it for the first time above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that must have been added after I posted the content here on Talk? Midday, it's really counter-productive if every time we agree to remove poorly-sourced contentious material, more of it keeps getting added without discussion. It's like a game of wack-a-mole.

It's been mentioned several times here that BLP says "contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) 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

Why does this material keep getting added? CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't know what is objectionable to you until you actually state it; I'm not a mind-reader. You'll notice that the BLP policy also states at the very top under Balance that "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." That said, I'll try and find a secondary source for this. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what I object to is the use of primary or mediocre sources, like blogs, op-eds, press releases, blurbs, etc. for controversial or critical information that is hyper-editorialized. It is reasonably predictable that I will continue to object to similar sources used in a similar fashion. If sources that are written by professional journalists for established news organizations can be found than those should be added and you would find me less annoying in that case ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

...more like official press releases from the Somali government, reviews from independent lobby groups (like Bryden's own SIRAG), and pieces published on southern Somalia's most prominent online news outlet (Hiiraan Online). "Professional journalists [from] established news orgnizations"? That is totally subjective, and I've yet to see which policy indicates this. Would you be good enough to cite it for me? Because if you're not basing your objections on actual Wikipedia policy, what exactly are you basing them on? Middayexpress (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In discussions above,[60] veteran editors (like yourself), who are familiar with WP:BLP guidelines, have consistently supported the non-use of primary sources as described by CM above. So this is not the time for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT style objections.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Next 3

Somalia's Permanent Mission to the United Nations subsequently issued a press statement formally objecting to Bryden's appointment, asserting that he had a "history of actively supporting disintegration of Somalia, contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the African Union and all Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 1811 (2008) that re-established the Monitoring Group." The Somali government also informed members of the Security Council and UN officials that it would withdraw all cooperation with and/or facilitation for the SEMG if Bryden's appointment were upheld.[61]

• Delete: I note that this press releases is a primary source, and WP:BLP does not allow us to use primary sources for contentious material about a BLP. Midday says they are a "known quantity" because the press release is from "the government" but I do not find this to be the case. Their website seems to suggest this is an organization affiliated with the UN in some way. Their about us page does not provide much information about them, except a listing of its 4 employees. Without a proper secondary source, I cannot evaluate the significance of this organization or its statements. This press release needs to be interpreted by an impartial, reliable, secondary sources both for NPOV and for WEIGHT before it can be considered for inclusion. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's affiliated with the UN. It's the Permanent Mission of the Somali Republic to the United Nations, just as this is the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations. The Mission is a reliable source on the Somali government's own objections and actions with regard to Bryden's appointment to the SEMG (WP:PRIMARY: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."). Here's non-archived link to the official statement [62]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Unless restricted by another policy" such as WP:BLP. Lets see if someone else can serve as a tie-breaker of sorts. CorporateM (Talk) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please quote where WP:BLP indicates that government press releases are not permitted. Cause that certainly does not appear to be indicated anywhere in that link. Middayexpress (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: "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."--A press release is not a reliable secondary source no matter who it comes from.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That would perhaps only pertain to the assertion above that Bryden had "history of actively supporting disintegration of Somalia, contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the African Union and all Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 1811 (2008) that re-established the Monitoring Group." It definitely would not pertain to the following fact-based phrases: "Somalia's Permanent Mission to the United Nations subsequently issued a press statement formally objecting to Bryden's appointment[...] The Somali government also informed members of the Security Council and UN officials that it would withdraw all cooperation with and/or facilitation for the SEMG if Bryden's appointment were upheld." Those are permitted per WP:PRIMARY ("Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them"). Middayexpress (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe this statement is permissible either:

The Somali government also informed members of the Security Council and UN officials that it would withdraw all cooperation with and/or facilitation for the SEMG if Bryden's appointment were upheld. As its a claim about a third party.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That statement is on Bryden's appointment, not his person. The clause on primary sources also pertains to contentious statements, not fact-based ones like the above. No party is disputing that the Somali government informed members of the Security Council and UN officials that it would withdraw all cooperation with and/or facilitation for the SEMG if Bryden's appointment were upheld because it's fact. Middayexpress (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the press release from the Somali UN Mission is not a qualified source for the Security Council's position on Bryden's appt. If it's an accepted fact then there would be a secondary source that reports that and we wouldn't have to resort to this press release from a biased primary source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

60 Minutes controversy

In December 2011, a 60 Minutes camera crew headed to Somalia's northeastern Puntland region was threatened by Bryden at the Ambassador Hotel in Hargeisa under suspicions that the plane contained weapons.[5][6] According to the Somalia Report, the alleged bomb material turned out to be "24 boxes of work uniforms, construction materials and a few mirrors to check for bombs under cars", and that there was no lawful reason to detain the aircraft. Bryden and Somaliland authorities were concerned that the Puntland Maritime Police Force would be used to attack the disputed Sool, Sanaag and Cayn regions, which both Puntland and Somaliland lay claim to. The article said that while Bryden had "one of the toughest jobs in the UN", the incident and his overheard conversations at the Ambassador Hotel demonstrated "a clear bias" for protecting the interests of Somaliland over those of Puntland and of not supporting anti-piracy measures in Puntland.[6]

• Comment I think this is too much emphasis and detail on a single incident to be appropriate for a profile on Bryden. The important aspect of it is that it led to criticisms that he showed a bias for protecting the interests of Somaliland over Puntland. I prefer the Foreign Policy Magazine source over The Somalia Report. I notice the source explicitly claims that it "gathered evidence....to show that there was much more to this event than published in the media" - the text in context in the source suggests to me that they approached the story with an editorial mission for slanting. This is reflected in how different the tone is from the other source the PR rep provided. We should use all these sources, but with caution, balance and good judgement on a concise summary of just the things we can be confident in. CorporateM (Talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The PR rep's South African pieces are unreliable, as already established. They appear to have some weird connection with Bryden and/or the SEMG, whom they actually cite as their source [63]:

There have been curious events leading up to this deployment. For example, the PMPF was just positively featured in a high level Fox News live broadcast featuring Oliver North. Less than two days later two disparaging articles appeared in the South African press. The most recent press release from the PMPF to announce the move to Eyl shows a sophistication in media relations that may indicate a new conflict while the identical talking points in both South African publications with the coordinator of the SEMG listed as the source may reveal a looming back room media brawl. The SEMG is slated to release another report this summer and according to SEMG provided comments it is clear that another attempt to shut down the program is coming. The SEMG maintains that the Puntland program violates the arms embargo. The appearance of two articles by Ivor Powell in the Independent Online and Mel Frykberg of the New Age, directly mentioning UN employee Matt Bryden and/or the SEMG as their source, with identical talking points. The former article says, "SEMG co-ordinator Matthew Bryden confirmed the company had failed to seek or secure authorisation from the international authority to operate as a private military contractor in Somalia after being fingered in the Monitoring Group’s June 2011 report."

Moving on, the Somalia Report piece is an exclusive investigative report, not an op-ed. It also references actual eyewitnesses over the Ambassador Hotel affair ("Eyewitnesses at the Ambassador Hotel recall Bryden threatening the two South African nationals with serious consequences if they didn't cooperate[...] It turned out the two terrified captives were telling the truth" [64]). That said, the bio should indeed avoid BLP violations where they appear, but it should avoid whitewashing as well. Bear in mind that Bryden was fired over his actions; he didn't just "step down" (as the PR username also at one point claimed). Middayexpress (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that it should be white-washed or even less negative. Only that is should be more concise. Do you know what the URL is for the PR rep's source? I can't seem to find it in the strings. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Check your talk page; I'm sure it's there. Middayexpress (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Here we go. I was looking for it on this Talk page. The link you provided is referring to articles written by Ivor Powell and Mel Frykberg, while this source is written by Melanie Gosling. There doesn't appear to be any connection. I'm not sure I understand why the source would be disqualified as acceptable. It's not unusual for multiple sources that are all adequate to report from a different perspective and we use good judgement and represent them equally. CorporateM (Talk) 14:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that 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, like the other South African pieces (which aren't reliable), it doesn't mention anywhere Bryden's apparent Ambassador Hotel threats. This appears to have come to light later, in February 2011, after Somalia Report actually interviewed eyewitnesses to the incident [65]. I also just noticed that the Foreign Policy piece 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 ("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") [66]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The dates of the sources are important. I also noticed that the journalists often work for 60 Minutes, but they were not doing work for 60 minutes at-the-time. And it might be important to clarify that they didn't "discover" that the cargo was not military, but rather insisted it was even after they confiscated it and it clearly wasn't. We usually use "said" as the preferred neutral term over things like "threatened." Do you want take a shot at proposed copy or shall I take the first stab for further discussion? CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree text under discussion creates undue weight and innuendo through the use of coatracking. IMO it should be summarized into one or two sentences.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, the issue is more complicated and bigger than previously assumed. It unfortunately cannot be summarized in two sentences. For starters, the plane apparently had eight passengers in total, including the two South African journalists; the other crew members were Russian. All of them were detained, but only the two South African reporters were released. Charges against the other six were not immediately dropped. They were instead indicted with "delivering weapons to an enemy", assigned a local attorney, and subsequently sentenced to one-year jail terms by a Hargeisa Regional Court judge (with an option for early release after paying some undisclosed amount). The crew members were also each fined $500 and another $4,000 was levied on the aircraft. Somalia Report's assertion about what was actually on the plane also appears to be confirmed by the actual plane manifest, which indicates as much. Additionally, the Somaliland region's president appointed a committee to oversee the case, whose members reportedly disagreed amongst themselves about how to handle the situation. Interestingly, the Hargeisa Regional Court also "ruled that the Somaliland government confiscated all materials for government use, which contradicts accusations that the materials was a violation of U.N. arms embargo" [67]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Bryden and that source only mentions him in a couple places. I would say it may be three sentences though, but I can't say for sure. I'll wip something up as a starting point today or tomorrow. CorporateM (Talk) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It mentions Bryden and the SEMG delegation, which he led over the whole affair. I'll look forward to your draft here and propose amendments per BRD. Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

May I ask why do you keep removing all criticism of Bryden? I would expect that from the Bell Pottinger public relations representative, but not from a user who insisted that he doesn't have a dog in the fight, so-to-speak. Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Bryden was briefly mentioned along with two other names and the statement in the source was so vague that it didn't really say much of anything. However, where there is smoke, there's fire. There must be a better source for this somewhere. CorporateM (Talk) 18:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing vague in the assertion that "the UN has also insisted on retaining and re-nominating Matt Bryden, Arnaud Laloum and Jörg Roofthooft despite objections from some quarters" [68]. It's straightforward and factual. I could produce another similar link with little difficulty, but something tells me that would somehow be "problematic" too. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think its OK to say "A September 2010 report said that the UN had retained Bryden and asked he be re-nominated for his position at the Monitoring Group on Somalia/Eritrea." -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

With respect, that's being selective: Mentioning that Bryden was retained on the Monitoring Group, yet omitting the fact mentioned in the same sentence that there were already objections to his appointment in some quarters. Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I was simply summarizing the quote you provided in your post above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Somaliland passport

Also, the fact that the Somaliland passport which Bryden voluntarily holds is not recognized by any country in the world is certainly relevant; especially given his previous position as Coordinator of the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea. Middayexpress (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, it's not relevant it's off topic coatrack info. This article is not about SEMG, or Somaliland or about the status of its passports. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It obviously is relevant since Bryden is accused of favoring Somaliland over other regions in Somalia in the first place. The fact that he holds a passport from the region -- which no country in the world recognizes -- is certainly telling in this regard.Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but what do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not enough to simply disagree. You have to provide actual reasons for doing so. Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree you cannot just edit and say you disagree. Disagreement must be by logic. As it relates to the passport. Do sources say his passport status is linked to his bias? Chomsky has an American passport he is still very biased against the country that issued it. would need more to make a case for the international validity of the passport.--Inayity (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

SEMG

Is there a reason why you removed [69] the key assertion that "In 2008, the SEMG accused the United States of violating the arms embargo for launching missiles against terrorists. Bryden's group also asserted that it regarded all weapons transported to Somalia as a breach of the embargo, regardless of the manner in which those arms were delivered"? You didn't leave an edit summary, so it's uncertain what your justification is. Please explain. Middayexpress (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My apology about the edit summary, I typed one, but when I clicked save I got an edit conflict message. Then when I refreshed the page I saw that my edit had been recorded anyway, with no edit summary. The reason for the deletion is the info is about the SEMG whichh is a self title "group". Just because Bryden is the Coordinator of that group doesn't make the two topics the same. This article is not the place for a history of the SEMG and all its actions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"Bryden is tasked with preparing the report in conjunction with a maritime, finance and armed group expert" [70]. So yes, the foregoing is certainly relevant to Bryden's bio page. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but again I disagree, and btw the source you've cited is an opinion piece on a self published web site whose use I object to per my thread below.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No it's not (see below). Middayexpress (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Pelton editorials

It is also not "npov" to attribute the reports of Bryden's Ambassador Hotel threats to the Somalia Report and Foreign Policy editorial, as you did here [71]. The Somalia Report clearly indicates that it's actual eyewitnesses who saw Bryden threatening the men ("Eyewitnesses at the Ambassador Hotel recall Bryden threatening the two South African nationals" [72]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am challenging both of those sources (please see the thread below) as they are IMO clearly editorials by Pelton and per WP:BLP Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) 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. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Somalia Report piece is an exclusive investigative report, not an editorial. It is also clearly labeled as such [73]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You can call it what you want but the fact remains that the Somali Reports are the self-published, opinions of its owner/edito/writer, Robert Pelton, and it no place as a source for contentious or critical content in this BLP per prior discussions by several editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeating this inaccurate statement ad infinitum will not all of a sudden make it true. The fact is, the Somalia Report is an independent news outlet that employs many journalists, both local and foreign, not just Pelton (c.f. [74]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

First cut

Just my first quick cut at something shorter:

In December 2011, the Somali police detained an aircraft headed to Puntland after the SEMG told officials it contained weapons and mercenaries. The plane was actually transporting two journalists. Bryden said the uniforms they were carrying was a military good and that the journalists would face "serious consequences" if they did not cooperate.

If I have my facts straight, it doesn't appear as though Bryden was the one that made the decision to detain the aircraft. His role was that he questioned them and was basically the decision-maker on whether they would be released. However, he questioned the innocent journalists in a somewhat intimidating fashion. Also, calling clothes military goods is along the lines of the well-known criticism regarding bizarre and voluminous violations. CorporateM (Talk) 18:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Bryden's group tipped off the Somaliland authorities to the supposedly weapons-and-mercenary-carrying plane in the first place ("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") [75]. I will try and ask for a formal third opinion for additional, uninvolved input. Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. I made the correction in the text above. CorporateM (Talk) 18:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Pelton Sources

I'm questioning these sources. We have two of them. Foreign Policy and Somali Report. Turns out both are editorials written by Robert Pelton whose writings are being cited 7 times in the current article and the sole source of info for 60%-70% of the entire SEMG section. The Foreign Policy article is listed in the 'Argument' section of the magazine [76] and the Somali Report is owned and funded by Pelton. So there is no editorial oversight for that source, its pure opinion.-- "Somalia Report was created by Robert Young Pelton, author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.......Somalia Report is currently funded entirely by Pelton" [77] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Somalia Report piece is an exclusive investigative report, not an editorial. It is also clearly labeled as such [78]. Actual editorials are filed under Opinions [79]. Further, the only contentious part in that link is Bryden's apparent threats made at the Ambassador Hotel, and this testimony actually comes from interviewed eyewitnesses, not Pelton. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That does raise a cause for concern, both that the article relies so heavily on a single author, and that the Foreign Policy article is an op-ed (I didn't notice that before). Pelton obviously has a strong opinion on Bryden, which is reflected in the tone of the articles. However, looking at his bio I don't see any major flags. I think it's reliable enough, but seeing as all these sources come from a single author, we wouldn't want to give so much weight to a single source and could probably consolidate all of Pelton's criticisms into three sentences. CorporateM (Talk) 19:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything in the Bryden/Hargeisa affair is sourceable to other sources besides Pelton (e.g. [80]). The only part that isn't are the interviews he conducted with the eyewitnesses at the Ambassador Hotel, which he shares in the exclusive report (not an op-ed). Middayexpress (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed you again removed all allusion to the fact that a) Bryden was originally the Coordinator of the Somalia Monitoring Group (SEG), b) he was later retained on-board the panel when it was renamed the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG) in March 2010 and its mandate was expanded to include Eritrea, and c) there were objections from various quarters even then to his appointment. It's quite apparent at this point that any criticism of Bryden is what's the real problem. Middayexpress (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This string has gotten very confusing to follow, so I missed a few things. I have changed my mind and now agree with Keithbob that all the sources from Pelton should be treated in a similar fashion as an op-ed and used with caution if at all. I note that sources from this particular author show a clear bias in tone and that they conflict factually from other, more neutral sources. For example, both this and this source says that Bryden only arrived later to question the journalists, after they were already detained, but Pelton suggests that Bryden was the one that tipped them off and that he was there that instant. I am not sure if this event is even worth mentioning, as there is nothing of significance to say when using more neutral sources. He questioned them, said their uniforms were military goods, let them go and did not report a violation.

I trust these sources only as a representation of personal opinion, as this is the tone they are written in and the nature of the reporting. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It was already explained above that a) the Somalia Report is not an op-ed; it's an investigative piece published in the relevant section of that website (not the Opinion section), b) the Somalia Report's investigation took place in February 2011, months after when those two pieces above were published in December 2010. Pelton also interviewed actual eyewitnesses to the Ambassador Hotel incident, which neither of those articles' authors did. Middayexpress (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I also notice that the article on Pelton himself shows signs of COI editing by Mr. Pelton, which makes me suspicious if Pelton also added the material here in the first place without disclosing his conflict of interest. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What proof do you have that Pelton has it in for Bryden? Or that he edited his wikipedia article let alone this one? Ironically, proof that at least one username connected with Bryden has actually sought to modify his bio on his behalf is found at the top of this very discussion page, in the form of a disclosure statement by a Bell Pottinger public relations representative. Middayexpress (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Interviewing "eyewitnesses" in my view makes it less reliable, not more, as it's essentially heresay. I would be more convinced if he witnessed it himself. I don't believe the Somali report is an op-ed, but only that I would treat it similarly, in that I trust it to represent the opinions of the author, but not for statements of fact. CorporateM (Talk) 21:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable source says an interviewed eyewitness says they saw something, we don't treat it as hearsay but rather as something the eyewitness actually saw. The Somalia Report piece is also not an op-ed per Wikipedia policy, nor was it authored by Pelton. Rather, it's one of the magazine's exclusive investigative reports. Somalia Report employs many journalists, both local and foreign, besides Pelton (c.f. [81]). In any event, this is an invalid pretext for removing the whole passage on the Ambassador Hotel affair. The incident resulted in the unfair detention of a number of people, the establishment of a presidential committee specifically to oversee the proceedings, and ultimately the sentencing of six innocent foreign nationals. It's no small matter. Middayexpress (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the event itself seems substantial, but Bryden's role in it was not that great, besides questioning them and letting them go. Lets see what Kbob says. CorporateM (Talk) 21:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bryden's role in this is front and center as SEMG Coordinator. Had the SEMG not tipped off the Somaliland authorities to the supposedly embargo-flouting aircraft, none of this ever would have happened. Looks like this will have to be sorted out on RS/N as well.Middayexpress (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that he actually tipped them off. The other sources say that the Somali police asked him to question them. I believe those sources are more reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Those links say nothing about whether or not the SEMG tipped off the Somaliland authorities i.e. what happened before the incident. What they say is that Bryden after the fact traveled to the region at the Somaliland government's request [82]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that this source says he "traveled to Somaliland at the authority's request to interview the plane's passengers." This sounds to me like the police detained the plane, then asked him to interview the passengers. CorporateM (Talk) 22:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I just said. What it does not say is what happened before the plane was detained. How did the Somaliland authorities get wind of a plane supposedly carrying mercenaries and weapons in the first place? Likely from the SEMG, since the UN at the time monitored Somalia's airspace (see Somali Civil Aviation Authority). Middayexpress (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before the Somalia Report is a self published editorial by Pelton and is not a valid source for contentious content in this BLP. I would be very happy with its complete removal from the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Somalia Report piece is an exclusive investigative report, not an editorial. It is also clearly labeled as such [83]. Actual editorials are filed under Opinions [84]. The article also was not authored by Pelton. Rather, it's one of the magazine's exclusive investigative reports. Somalia Report employs many journalists, both local and foreign, besides Pelton (c.f. [85]). Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the Somaliareport.com is good enough for most stuff. It certainly is not "self-published" this accusation against things we do not like is something I have a problem with on Wikipedia. So an Independent African source in Africa, living it (as an example) cannot be trusted. But the lies on BBC can. --Inayity (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I have added the book citation Drmies provided, which includes comments from the then-President of Puntland regarding the accusations of conflict of interest and did some other copyediting, trimming, and re-writing of the Lead. I removed the tags at the top of the article. While there could be other details to work out, such as the very last string, I think it's "neutral enough" not to need the tags or be a cause for major concern.

However, I left the primary sources tag up, at least until/when/if there is some discussion that leads to support for the current use of primary sources. The speaker biography is used for a substantial portion of the article regarding the more mundane aspects of his career, which may be a weight problem. CorporateM (Talk) 21:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a few additional edits and I like the current state of the article. I feel it is fair and balanced.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There's only one primary source, the Robert Young Pelton editorial. So the tag is overkill for the article as a whole. Middayexpress (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot more than the Puntland President have accused Bryden of bias. To try and reduce it to just him is grossly reductive and not at all neutral. It's also interesting how you appear to believe that the fact that a spike in pirate attacks off the coast of Puntland in 2010 is somehow relevant to Bryden's bio, while his appointment to the SEG (not SEMG) in 2008, his direct involvement in the Ambassador Hotel affair, and the fact that he and his family previously lived in the Somaliland region are not. You not that long ago titled the whole section "arms embargo", so asserting now that this is not relevant doesn't really hold water. Moreover, Pelton did not accuse Bryden of "tak[ing] an unsual interest in endorsing the success of Somaliland" while ignoring that of Somalia's other regions, despite the fact that the UN's offices in Somaliland had been bombed only a few years earlier. It's the Somalia Report's investigative piece, which wasn't authored by Pelton personally. There are so many other factual errors, as well as sanitized, omitted and/or misleading statements, it's frankly absurd. This begs the question, are you genuinely interested in factual accuracy as you originally claimed, or just editing on behalf of Bryden's Bell Pottinger public relations account that contacted you ostensibly for that purpose? Middayexpress (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The source is clearly written by Mr. Pelton. While Kiethbob and I both have different reasons, we both feel the source is only reliable as a representation of Pelton's point-of-view, not for statements of fact. I'm eager to take a look at the much more high-quality sources provided by Keithbob below. CorporateM (Talk) 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not the Ambassador Hotel link. This is, and it's clearly not written by Mr. Pelton. Something also tells me you've already looked at the Keithbob username's links below. Middayexpress (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That source does not contain the quote about "taking an unusual interest." The link I provided does and is bylined by Pelton. I don't understand what you mean. Kbob just posted the links less than an hour ago. CorporateM (Talk) 18:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure you don't. I just removed that link in my edit, not that that makes a difference here. I also removed the whole Ambassador Hotel affair, only until a consensus paragraph can be agreed to. This means that the "primary sources" tag is not only unnecessary, but misleading since there are no primary sources in the article. Middayexpress (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The article relies heavily on a speaker biography for mundane details about his prior positions. This may or may not be a problem. Since conferences generally just publish whatever biography is provided by the BLP, I would consider that to be a primary source from the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What speaker biography are you referring to? Please both name and link to it. Middayexpress (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Midday, please be careful with your tone and per WP:TALK let's keep our comments on the content and avoiding making bad faith accusations about other editors actions or suspected motivations. Please remain civil and stick to content. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's funny. I remove both the Pelton Foreign Policy editorial criticizing Bryden as well as the Somalia Report's Ambassador Hotel criticisms that you also complained about, and you promptly re-add the Pelton piece and tag the whole page as "rel[ying] on primary sources" on that basis. From this, it's clear that it's my corrections of the factual errors described in my post above dated 18:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC) that are the real problem. The rest is evidently just a pretext. Middayexpress (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the page as lacking neutrality. The template will remain there until a mutually acceptable version can be agreed to. Moreover, the speaker bio you're referring to is presumably this one. It's not actually a primary source, but a secondary source. This means that there indeed is no legitimate reason for the primary references tag. Middayexpress (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive talk page

I've added an auto archive feature to the talk page and set it for 60 days. Any objections or comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Concur. The Talk page has gotten very unwieldly. CorporateM (Talk) 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Let's consider using these secondary sources (if they meet WP:RS) to further develop the BLP.

• the Economist
• The Star
• New York Times
• Huff Po
• Aljazeera
• World News
• All Africa
• Afrique
• Bryden is also mentioned in several books:
  • Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War by Mark Bowden (Apr 13, 2010)
  • The Road to Hell by Michael Maren (Jul 1, 2002) [86]
  • Contested States in World Politics [Hardcover]
  • Decade of Fear [87]
  • UN Security Council [88]
  • Useful Enemies [89]
  • The Pirates of Somalia [90]
  • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are all links on Bryden commenting on Somali affairs, not on his life per se. As such, any criticism leveled by Bryden at other parties should for balance be followed with counter-criticism by those parties. Middayexpress (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look. Most of them are just quoting Bryden and don't have a lot of good content for us. I noticed the Huffington Post said he is an analyst on Somalia affairs, which might be more specific than the general statement of calling him a political analyst.

Some of the coverage includes those of specific reports his current employer has published. If the original reports have his byline on them, I wouldn't mind using them to expand the bibliography. CorporateM (Talk) 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The page is a total whitewash. No wonder the Bell Pottinger public relations account is (ostensibly) MIA. Middayexpress (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added a few links to some books in case they are useful. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This one in particular looks like it has a lot of good content. I'll try to take a look at them this week if nobody else gets around to it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look like much bio material either. At any rate, any criticism that Bryden levels at other parties will for balance be followed by responses/counter-criticism from those parties. I will also try and ask for additional input from active WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members. The page in its current state lacks both neutrality and accuracy. Middayexpress (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Paraphrasing & formatting

There have been several inaccurate representations of sources, both in the actual links and the paraphrased text. These include phrases with respect to the Pelton, Farole and Ahmed statements, as well as Bryden's tenure with CARE. The links vis-a-vis the CARE position actually pointed to the wrong pages and the wikitext also wasn't accurately transcribed/paraphrased. Middayexpress (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you've fixed the faulty URL links in the citations but if you need assistance let me know and I'll help also. But you'll have to be more specifc. Same with the "inaccurate representations of sources". Can you cite the specific text and corresponding source(s) so other editors can understand your post. thanks -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

See below, for starters. Middayexpress (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm glad to see the NPOV tag is still on the article as recent edits have once again skewed the tone of the article in the direction of POV.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I added the POV tag cause the page is indeed POV-laden. I've also restored the full context of what Sharif Ahmed actually said. It's a BLP violation to accuse him of corruption and not add the full scope of his response for balance. Perhaps it's time I contacted the editors who handled the last Bell Pottinger PR rep debacle on the Dahabshiil page. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be canvassing, since you are pinging specific editors under the expectation of getting a desired response. Might be harassment as well. In any case, I'm not sure the relevance of the Bell Pottinger scandal to this particular article, which isn't on the PR firm. I note that there is a half-sentence devoted to Bryden's accusation of corruption, then a paragraph about the response. I still find the article to be greatly inflated for the amount of source material available. It should probably be trimmed by about 50%. CorporateM (Talk) 01:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CM, if you want to invite neutral editors to give their opinion on the current state of the article a post at WP:BLPN would be the appropriate action.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that would be contacting editors who have participated in previous discussions on a closely related topic i.e. an appropriate notification. Not only has Dahabshiil also been accused of supporting the secessionist movement in Somaliland in underhanded ways, a Bell Pottinger public relations representative tried to "clean up" its Wikipedia page as well. That was the rep's only reason for editing that page in the first place, just like here. In case you hadn't noticed, one of those editors involved in the Bell Pottinger debacle also already edited this very page (viz. Geo Swan). Middayexpress (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it would have been really useful to know from the start that you too are a PR rep (as you revealed on your talk page). I see now that you mention this on your user page, but the conflict of interest policy stipulates that this interest should also be disclosed on the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that I have a conflict of interest. If you believe that to be the case, WP:COIN would be the place to voice your concerns. CorporateM (Talk) 20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. If you have a concern about an editor take it to their talk page or other appropriate forum. The article talk page is for content discussion only per WP:TALK.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I figured you'd say that. Unfortunately, WP:COI instructs that: "COI editing is strongly discouraged[...] COI editors causing disruption may be blocked[...] Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously[...] They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question". So yes, I'm afraid it's very much relevant to the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Seeing as two BLP posts and 1 COIN post have gone largely ignored without resolving the differences of opinion between editors, I started a post at ANI in the hopes of obtaining further engagement:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Matthew_Bryden CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how any differences in opinion can be resolved when at least one party apparently believes that a PR client's interests should be exclusively served over Wikipedia's interests. Middayexpress (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A lazy favor. Sum up the issues in bullet point

Would I be asking too much to ask that the issues on both sides be simplified and posted in a way that a lazy editor who will not read through what looks like a short history of the world of text. That way we can have a neutral opinion on what we are looking for --even if we are unfamiliar with the topic. Maybe this has been done, but as I said, I am too lazy to search for it. Esp after trying to understand the issue at ANI. --Inayity (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. To summarize, Bryden is Canadian political analyst. He is a Horn of Africa specialist and the UN's former Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG), a watchdog panel which had been set up to monitor violations of the 1992 arms embargo on Somalia. He was first appointed to the post in 2008 (back when the SEMG was known as the Monitoring Group on Somalia/SEG), and re-appointed in 2010 "despite objections from some quarters" [91]. Bryden was eventually dismissed from the SEMG last year after the "UN [had] received detailed complaints" about him [92]. A large part of the criticism surrounding him has concerned his support for the secessionist cause in the autonomous Somaliland region in northwestern Somalia. This is something that Bryden hasn't really tried to hide since he has written about it and also holds a Somaliland passport, a document not recognized by any country in the world [93]. In 2004, he also chaired and led a conference in London organized by the Somaliland International Recognition Action Group (SIRAG), an advocacy group seeking international recognition of the Somaliland region as an independent country [94]. Additionally, Bryden is married to a Somali woman from the Somaliland region, and the couple previously lived for several years in the regional capital Hargeisa with their children [95], [96]. These are the basic facts about the man. CorporateM and other users he pinged have argued that a lot of this and other material is poorly sourced (primary sources, editorials, etc.) and/or undue. On this basis, they have removed a lot of material on Bryden, both non-critical and critical, non-editorial and editorial, secondary and primary sources. This includes biographical info from Bryden's alma mater's alumni magazine ([97], [98], [99], [100]), a press release from the Somali government opposing his initial appointment to the SEG [101], independent journalist & lobby group criticism of Bryden's association with the secessionist cause in the Somaliland region ([102], [103]), and material on the Ambassador Hotel scandal in which Bryden was reportedly involved ([104], [105], [106]). You are invited to independently examine each of these various sources and decide on their own merits whether or not they are appropriate. You are of course also free to add additional references. Middayexpress (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Per appropriate notification, I should also mention that there's an ongoing discussion at the AN/I, where CorporateM has proposed a topic ban of me on this bio page. Several other users there have in return proposed that CorporateM should be topic banned from editing the article-space. I've voluntarily agreed to recuse myself to this talk page until the page cleanup is complete/issue is resolved. You are invited to weigh in there, as no member of or major contributor to the Horn of Africa project pages has yet done so. The projects weren't notified of that discussion until yesterday. Middayexpress (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Has a RS check been run on them? I am not sure about the archive.org stuff, but I do not see an issue with the news like Hiiraan. It is hard to render a proper verdict without spending considerable time with how the sources are being used. But I find it hard to see why ALL of them would be discounted. Obvious primary sources are not good. Blogs and other questionable are not good. I fear we might have to take it point by point. The problem is the current version is missing your contribution. This is why I sometimes prefer if people leave disputed stuff in place and tag it. I opposed the total ban (as I understand it) b/c how else can I understand the problems if an editor is not allowed to at least explain themselves on the TK page --Inayity (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of the material was retained (like Inner City Press' assertion that Bryden was removed/dismissed from the SEMG [107], [108]), but that's mainly because I insisted on it. However, a lot of other material, including the whole Ambassador Hotel affair, were removed. The archive.org links are repositories of Old Times back issues, which is the official alumni magazine of Bryden's alma mater the Upper Canada College. They are linked to from the university's website [109]. I agree that the page statements and referencing need to be examined point-by-point, line-by-line; this in fact is something I myself recommended earlier. I previously did that to some extent, so the page isn't as messy as it was; but it still needs some work. Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should start with the major issues first from a clean slate. With the participation of the other editors. At least get the major stuff out of the way which might pave the way for non-conflict editing.--Inayity (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. The major issues are:

• Whether or not it is appropriate to mention the fact that Bryden's initial appointment to the SEG in 2008 was opposed by the Somali government. This was previously mentioned, but removed on the grounds that it was referenced to a primary source; namely, a press statement from the Permanent Mission of the Somali Republic to the United Nations [110].
• Whether or not it is appropriate to mention the fact that Bryden's re-appointment to the panel in 2010 was again faced with objections from some quarters [111].
• The Ambassador Hotel scandal in which Bryden was reportedly involved. Although it resulted in the arrest, trial and imprisonment of several foreigners, the affair is not mentioned at all on the wiki page on the grounds that it is undue [112][113][114].
• Whether Bryden was dismissed from his position as the SEMG Coordinator or whether he stepped down. This is mentioned, but largely because I insisted on it. Inner City Press, which is accredited with the United Nations, reported from the UN headquaters on Bryden's dismissal as it was happening. It clearly indicates that Bryden was "removed" from the SEMG after after the "UN [had] received detailed complaints" about him [115][116]. However, one journalist from the non-UN accredited Pioneer Press agency reported after the fact that Bryden "stepped down" [117].
• The fact that the Somaliland passport, which Bryden voluntarily carries, is not recognized by any country in the world [118]. This was previously mentioned in the wiki page, but was removed on the grounds that it was editorializing.
• The fact that the UN arms embargo on Somalia, which Bryden and his SEMG oversaw and long sought to keep in place, was unanimously lifted in March 2013, following the passing of Resolution 2093 by the United Nations Security Council. This is mentioned, but only because I insisted on it. The argument was that it was off-topic and/or synthesis.

Please take your time and weigh these various major points. Middayexpress (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a link to their objections. As for the passport I think the page should focus on Bryden. The validity of the passport might not come into the relevance of this article. The article already says he was removed. so we can skip battles won.--Inayity (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bryden is alleged to support the secessionist movement in the Somaliland region. Voluntarily carrying a passport from the region's separatist authorities (a document not recognized as valid by any country [119]), when he could just as easily travel with a Canadian passport, is cited by his critics as an example of this. I think the problem here is the fact that the status of his Somaliland passport isn't mentioned in the bulleted link above, so it would require a separate source actually discussing this were it to be included. I agree about the retained material. What do you make of the other bulleted points of contention? Middayexpress (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Couple of things:

• The intro mentions the "2002 arms embargo in Somalia" but later in the article it says the "1992 arms embargo on Somalia" – 1992 is in fact the correct date, as this BBC article and this NYT article make clear.
• A related point: both these articles state that the arms embargo was 'partially lifted' or 'eased', rather than 'lifted', as the final sentence in the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea (SEMG) section says – that sentence doesn't appear to be adequately supported by the goobjoog.com article that is used as a reference. Both these points should be corrected. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair points. The arms embargo is indeed from 1992, so the 2002 assertion in the intro needs to be corrected. Goobjoog also appears to be paraphrasing the UNSC's statement from the day before on the adoption of Resolution 2111. It explains that "the 15-member body, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, extended the mandate of the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group", and that "the Council decided that until 6 March 2014, the arms embargo on Somalia would not apply to weapons, military equipment, training or advice intended to develop Somalia’s security forces" [120]. So the wiki sentence on the earlier Resolution 2093 should probably be amended to "the 15-member UN Security Council later also unanimously approved Resolution 2093 on March 6, 2013 to partially lift the 21-year arms embargo on Somalia for a period of one year". Middayexpress (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)