Talk:Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Motive?[edit]

The article makes absolutely no mention of the alleged motive for this crime! Can we get this in here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd settle for a single statement in the entire piece which seemed to make any actual reasonable sense. Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were just trying to become Roland the Headless Thompson Gunners. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

their motive has never been discussed in any of the news media properly. there needs to be more about why they were there in the first place. for instance, they deny setting up a PSC in Congo but admit to tourism, looking for business opportunities. they were nowhere near to setting up a company but were quite possibly after freelance security work in the country.

more needs to be put in about the evidence used, particularly the use of text messages by prosecution.

it needs to be stated that the UN uniforms etc were recovered from a lock-up in Kampala and were not taken into the Congo. All of this is on dagbladet and also in interviews conducted with the pair.

Also, whilst on the run in the jungle Moland was shot at by an armed group, which does contribute to their side of the story. photographs were recovered from his phone showing bullet holes in a variety of his equipment (again dagbladet news) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.17.187 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

What the hell is this?? Monkeys?? Bonzostar (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Congolese called monkeys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.170.133 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous racist remarks throughout this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.150.33 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was vandalised for some minutes. It has been fixed now. Rettetast (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from the references i get it the original source of this article is norwegian or related to that nation, thx for the article anyhow.24.132.171.225 (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

read some french[edit]

well my contribution to talks being lost i'll redo it. (i would think norge^^)

i made an extract fyeo, of what the french media all mentions, so here it is again. french media mention : fire arms for war, smuggle of arms, , witnesses, congolese media in french mention: continual presence of norwegians, (immediatly/long) ahead the proces, a trip through war torn nations, a coded message, telling them not to mention names for the security of "the others<", they mention the struggle they think foreigners are "still/contrary to arrangements(?)" interfering in, the importance of a zero tolerance policy that stretches colour or nation, that they had a picture of a naked woman in their collective hotelroom(), cd's with the pictures of their militairy training / career(;), there's a little more i don't quite understand, next they also stand accused of "smoking marihuana in a forest" wich gives the whole a surrealistic touch.24.132.171.225 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

500 billion dollars[edit]

In first paragraph I found 500 billion dollars (500 000 000 000$). It's, incredible it is entire Norway's GDP in one year and two months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactiv fallout (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is a typo. they were supposed to pay $250m plus the $60m according to dagbladet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.17.187 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The $500 billion figure wasn't supported by its source, so I removed it. wodup 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i understand the rest is much less then the 60m. but generous to congolese life standard.24.132.171.225 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty in Congo[edit]

One of the sources provided (Google / AFP) in the article states that the Death Penalty is no longer applied in Congo and that death sentences are always commuted to life in prison. Curiously, this is not said in the article. To have the situation look more outrageous and dramatic ? Hektor (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speculative --84.209.108.196 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the kinshasa blog in french, that is used as a source by french newsoutlets actually says it is rarely executed and usually in prison commuted to a lifelong sentence, if still then by militairy firing squad (wich source appears to consider relatively humane). so perhaps that is why it is not in the article. what do you think happens when you have hirelings and desperates running rampant still? in a post war situation where there have been major inflictions on human rights? if we took it seriously we would be better informed.24.132.171.225 (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited removal of text by donkeytail1[edit]

As I said to you, the burden of proof is on you. Do you not know how to use a talkpage? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one thinks there is a misquote, rather than entering into an editting war, it might be more constructive to try to simply correct the quotation. I have read the Swedish article and, hopefully, my edit now better reflects what Ryden actually said. Whether it's NPOV or not, someone else can decide. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting the quotation, Wikipeterproject. I have repeatedly asked donkeytail1 to come to the talkpage, the single purpose editor will not. The facts are that Pernilla Rydén was quoted by Dagens Nyheter on September 9, 2009, it's now a matter of public record and the SPA has given no proof to the claim that the inclusion of the name is hurting anyone. I am therefore seeking 3O on this one. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on WP:3O. There's no reason to remove the name from the article - whether a person wants information on themselves on Wikipedia is irrelevant, and including the person's name adds verifiability to the article. If User:donkeytail1 can provide a citation for a retraction of the statement, that should also be included in the article ("However, she later retracted the statement, saying..."). I suggest contacting an administrator. For the record, All of the user's edits have been to the statement in question (and in fact violated WP:3RR yesterday [1][2][3][4][5]) MildlyMadContribs 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mildly, I am submitting this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as there is just to way to make the SPA come to the table on this one. I believe the user could have a conflict of interest, else why be so persistent in the removal. An admin has to look at this. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that clear cut. WP:BLPNAME: "Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals ... There is a presumption against using [such], even if the names have already appeared in the media". Either way, we can't take donkeytail1's word that he represents Rydén, and the edit warring is not acceptable. I suggest that Rydén or her representative verify their identity through OTRS, if they wish to pursue this issue further. See WP:BLPSELF for contact information. decltype (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wouldn't recommend seeking page protection at this time. An administrator has already warned the user. Any further disruption will result in that user being blocked, thus eliminating the need for the page to be protected. decltype (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how can i proof i represent ryden?she can write to editor if one wants from her official email.Why would I have any other motives to just remove her name from the article?dont relly see it.let me know how she can contact the editor of this article or whomever is responsible to state her opinion.I really dont think that her name is adding any value to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeytail1 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting the contact information on your talk page. decltype (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giving donkeytail1 the benefit of the doubt, I have added a phrase to indicate that the quote was reported in Dagens Nyheter. The sentence is not an fact that can't be disputed. A side issue - I don't know whether someone not wanting to be quoted is enough reason, in itself, to exclude something from Wikipedia. An encyclopedia should not be censored as such. Wikipedia's policies seek to ensure that information is accurate and NPOV and can be supported by a reliable source. It doesn't say anything (as far as I know) about an individual not wanting to be quoted. In this case, if Ryden really has a problem with the quote, she ought to be taking action against Dagens Nyheter. If something is published in a reliable source that counters the quote, we can (and should) include it in the article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be policy justification for removing the name, even if it is already published, per WP:BLPNAME. See above. I am listing this at WP:BLPN for further input. decltype (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your concern (and good call on the OTRS!). For the sake of the debate, I'll also point out WP:WELLKNOWN: "In the case of significant public figures... [i]f an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." MildlyMadContribs 20:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ryden is neither well known or semi known.neither mentioning her name is relative that this article would lose its meaning or credibility.She already contacted DN in the case and is just asking not to be mentioned on wiki.leave the ling to the article that has been publish if its so relevant but remove her name.some people due to various reasons want to keep their privacy.i really dont understand such spite and persistence in this completely minor significance for this issue and this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeytail1 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MildlyMad...that's exactly what I was trying to say. I note the policy on publishing names and further not that the policy requires particular care in doing so. We could rewrite the paragraph to state something alomg the lines of, "a former UN advisor was quoted as saying..." That should make everone happy, should it not? If there are no objections, I'll make the change... Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Donkeytail1: It's not about spite, but about the policies that make Wikipedia a success. What an individual likes isn't relevant, as such, even if that's harsh. There are probably lots of things written about people in Wikipedia that they don't like. But it's the agreed policies that should guide what is included and excluded. Wikipedia mandates that extreme care should be used when quoting people and writing about people - especially living people. If this care is applied, then an inclusion of a quote is justified, even if the individual doesn't like it. But, perhaps, my previous suggestion can resolve this. What do you think? Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is what i was editing today but name kept popping back. i think that will resolve it.thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeytail1 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the name adds nothing to my understanding of the article subject, and for those who need to know the name, the linked reference is suitable. In this case the right to privacy of the individual outweighs any encyclopedic value from retaining the name. Kevin (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for resolving this matter.is there a possiblity if rydens name is googled wiki and this article doesnt come up?thanx --Donkeytail1 (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this will correct itself when Google re-indexes the article. This talk page is not indexed by Google. decltype (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved?[edit]

Green tickY I have received an e-mail from Pernilla Rydén, that confirms that she does in fact want this information to be removed from the article, and has taken steps to have the misquotes in Dagens Nyheter redacted. It seems like we have consensus here that her name need not be included in the article, so I believe the issue is mostly resolved? decltype (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indeed i have seen the mail and please remove all misqoted sentences since she wrote to you what she actually said.also if possible remove tag to wikipedia so googling of her name does not lead to this page.thanx..--Donkeytail1 (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reply I received from Rydén indicated that she was satisfied with the changes that has been made, and did not wish to pursue this further. Nothing can be done about google at the moment. They have stored an older version of the page in their cache. It will disappear when they re-index the page. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good case closed.wish this unnecessary drama didn't happened.hope its lesson learned for all.good luck and thank you --Donkeytail1 (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenaries or security contractors[edit]

Since it cannot be verified that the parties here actually operated as mercenaries, e.g. it appears they never participated in armed conflicts for any national entitiy or aimed to do so, I have removed this characteristic from the article. The term "mercenary" usually carries negative connotations. A more proper term is "security contractors". While some journalists referred to these guys as mercenaries, this does not make it an encyclopedic fact. Keanu (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this article: the article has been split into 3 different topics/articles.[edit]

I have requested that this article be deleted, because we already have an article about their trial, and we already have an article about each of the 2 persons convicted of the murder.--Solotaig (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We did not have articles about the individuals until this morning. Joshua French was previously and is again a redirect to this article. Also, because of licensing concerns, we cannot delete this article; we would need to preserve its edit history, even if it were split across three articles. —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been moved to [6].--Solotaig (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article?[edit]

Regarding the above: should the article be broken into three separate articles about French, Moland, and the trial? Myself, I don't see enough notability for either of the individuals to have their own articles; instead, a single article about the group or their trial should suffice. —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we await the outcome of the discussion at [7], since one of the suggestions there is to merge this article into 3 other existing articles. --Solotaig (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trial_and_conviction_of_Joshua_French_and_Tjostolv_Moland&oldid=1206812326"