Talk:Mario Joseph

Untitled

This permission includes GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Role in Duvalier trial

Two paragraphs were added discussing Joseph's role as a prosecutor in the Duvalier trial, but none of the sources discuss his involvement beyond an objection to the judge's ruling on whether human rights issues could be included. Is it possible to find more secondary sources on this? For now I've trimmed it down to just what the sources say. Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

POV text on UN cholera allegations

I've removed a few sentences seeking to make the case against the UN here. First, the phrasing of these sentences clearly comes from the POV that the UN has not dealt fairly with Haiti, rather than treating this as an open question. Second, giving a long list of misc sources (part of the US Congress, a New York Times editorial) condemning the UN implies a POV as well. Some of this could usefully be included in the cholera epidemic article itself, but there's no need to press the case in an article about Mario Joseph.

On a more general note, this article has had a lot of problems the last few days with information being added to the article to aggrandize Joseph; I'm not sure if this is different editors, or the same editor. I'm an admirer of Joseph, too, but WP:NPOV requires that we not skew the articles toward assuming that he's right in every case, and openly praising him. Khazar2 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to some comments left on my talk page [1] about this, I was indeed overhasty. The Huffington Post, New York Times, and Miami Herald sources still seem to me as I described above--not covering Joseph's lawsuit, and just evidence against the UN generally. (Perhaps I'm missing a mention of Joseph?) These sources would be fine for the cholera outbreak article, but in the context of an article on Joseph, they appear to me a clear attempt to make a legal case against the UN, rather than covering Mario Joseph in an encyclopedic way. But the Economist article at least covers the lawsuit, so I'll work that back in.

As for a few other concerns whether the Pulitzer Center article covers Joseph, obviously it does--it even mentions him in that sentence, for crying out loud. So I don't see any reason for that to be removed from the article. Other opinions would be welcome, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

COI concerns

I believe everything on this page has now been double-checked, but I wanted to note that for the past few years this article, like all IJDH-related articles, has had problems with at least one conflict-of-interest account working to promote and argue for its subject in a way that violates WP:NPOV. There appear to be several IJDH single-purpose accounts on Wikipedia for this purpose, so this article will bear watching in the future. Khazar2 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing promotional material

I've removed some more material that is either unsourced or sourced only to IJDH and affiliated entities. For some time there's been an effort by IJDH members to promote their cases and organization through Wikipedia, including the recent edits; I'd urge all the staff members involved there to stop. Please remember that the goal here is to build an encyclopedia, not provide free web advertising or help win a legal case. If you want to make suggestions for material to include, the best venue would be to do it through the talk page and let an uninvolved editor make the decision. You can see more about this policy at WP:COI. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

All the material I had included was correctly sourced. I appreciate you may need to remove information sourced to IJDH but there were also a number of external sources. I think that this page needs to be updated in certain areas and would be happy to discuss some potential edits here to ensure neutrality.Ecilasnevets (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, "Joseph succeeded in having the charges dropped by an appeals court, but Jean-Juste spent seven months in prison." wasn't sourced. IJDH head Brian Concannon is clearly not an independent source. Generally primary sources such as court documents shouldn't be used, like [2]. University press releases also aren't a very good indication that information is notable/significant enough to include in a biography, and I'm not sure that a CEPR blog passes muster either, though it's probably the best out of what you present here. You can read about Wikipedia's preference for secondary sourcing at WP:PRIMARY--better sources would be things like books, major newspapers, etc. that get fact-checked by someone besides the author.

But the bigger issue I want to call attention to here is the number of people from your office attempting to rewrite these articles. I've never seen anyone from IJDH add information that could be construed as negative about Joseph, for example, while plenty has been added that's positive about Joseph/BAI/IJDH and, worse, critical of their legal antagonists. I'd particularly point you all to the section in WP:COI about "Legal Antagonists": "If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case. Even a minor breach of neutrality in an article that is before the court could cause real-world harm." I'm actually an admirer of your organization--it's how I came to these articles in the first place--but you all really ought to stop this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to interfere with the process or promote the organization through this page. I just want to ensure that the page stays up to date with any new developments. In future, I will use the ‘Talk’ page to suggest any changes for the page and related pages and refrain from direct changes. I will also ensure that we consult and suggest more noteworthy sources. Thank you for drawing my attention to this issue.74.61.196.127 (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mario Joseph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304132409/http://ijdh.org/who_we_are/bai to http://ijdh.org/who_we_are/bai
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015170241/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR36/008/2005/en/a2db3136-d4c6-11dd-8a23-d58a49c0d652/amr360082005en.html to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR36/008/2005/en/a2db3136-d4c6-11dd-8a23-d58a49c0d652/amr360082005en.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120711131500/http://ijdh.org/projects/political-prisoners/yvon-neptune to http://ijdh.org/projects/political-prisoners/yvon-neptune

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)