User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 2

Conspiracy theories and your namesake

If you can provide a WP:RS that someone other than PJH or his solicitor has stated that he was dismissed because of the letter to the The Guardian, then it might be appropropriate in the article. (If there were a reliable source that he was dismissed for that reason, it would clearly be appropriate.) So far, it hasn't been done. I admit that I haven't searched, but your insistence in including unsourced information about PJH is disturbing, in terms of WP:BLP and WP:COI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you will agree that the following extract from Decision №18957/92 by the European Commission on Human Rights is the required reliable source:

"On 5 December 1988 the applicant wrote a letter to The Guardian newspaper. It was published on 7 December 1988.In the letter the applicant accused the British Prime Minister of "self-righteous invective" in criticising the Belgian and Irish handling of a request by the United Kingdom for the extradition of an Irish citizen. The applicant referred to a decision made in 1984 to allow four South Africans remanded in custody on arms embargo charges to leave the United Kingdom after a South African Embassy official agreed to waive his diplomatic immunity and to stand surety for them. The four did not return to the United Kingdom. The applicant stated, inter alia, that "rumour has it that Mrs Thatcher was rather annoyed with the over-zealous officials who caused the four military personnel to be arrested in Britain. Rightly, she refused to accede to the South African embassy's demand for the case to be dropped but she was keen for the Embassy to know precisely how the legal hurdles governing their release and the return of their passports could be swiftly overcome.... Clearly, Mrs Thatcher wanted the....detainees safely out of UK jurisdiction, back in South Africa and off the agenda well before her June 1984 talks at Chequers with the two visiting Bothas." The applicant supplied his work address (Information Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office). From 7 December 1988 until 4 April 1989 the applicant was suspended on full pay. On 20 December 1988 the Head of the Personnel Policy Department submitted a formal complaint against the applicant in respect of the publication of the letter. On 21 March 1989, acting on the advice of the Disciplinary Board, whose view was that the applicant by publishing the letter had committed various disciplinary offences constituting breaches of the Diplomatic Service Regulations, the Secretary of State decided that the applicant should be called upon to resign or, failing that, be dismissed on 4 April 1989. During the course of the proceedings before the Board, the applicant had submitted, inter alia, that he had written the letter because he wanted his grievances to be known and did not wish to be dismissed quietly. He had refused to answer questions concerning the source of his information for the letter. On 22 March 1989 the applicant asked the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision. On 4 April 1989 the Secretary of State referred the matter to the No. 2 Diplomatic Service Appeal Board. On 5 May 1989 the Appeal Board met. The applicant presented his case before the Board. He was accompanied by his wife. He stated, inter alia, that he had written the letter in order to air his grievances and because of his fear of what might happen when the Official Secrets Act became law. He maintained his refusal to answer questions concerning the source of his information for the letter. He also stated that he did not think the letter breached any specific regulations. By letter dated 19 July 1989 the applicant was informed that the Appeal Board had concluded, inter alia, that in writing to The Guardian he had committed a serious disciplinary offence and that if he maintained his refusal to resign the Secretary of State would confirm his dismissal. On 2 August 1989 the applicant was dismissed."

I suggest that my Conspiracy theory entry should be revised as follows:

"* Patrick Haseldine (born 1942) - is a former British diplomat who was dismissed by the Thatcher government for writing a letter to The Guardian newspaper on 7 December 1988, and who subsequently assembled a dossier of evidence to incriminate apartheid South Africa for the 21 December 1988 Lockerbie bombing."

If you agree, please revise the entry accordingly.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't seem quite to cover the issue. It appears the ECHR agreed with HMG that someone in his position, with access to sensitive information, shouldn't be criticising the government. The source didn't say he was dismissed because of tjat criticism or the letter; the previous "box 5" report seemed adequate justification (to the ECHR) for that. There still seems no reference for the "dossier" statement, although I'm sure we can find one somewhere. (Again, it should be noted there are no references to the "dossier" section of Patrick Haseldine, either. It seems, at least a marginal application of WP:BLP, that it might be deleted.) I think the first sentence could be written:

"* Patrick Haseldine (born 1942) - is a former British diplomat who, having had a previous unsatisfactory performance review, was dismissed by the Thatcher government for writing a letter to The Guardian newspaper on 7 December 1988.

It would have been more helpful if you had noted this on Talk:Patrick Haseldine or the talk page of the article in question, as is proper under WP:COI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments.

In 1991, I applied to the ECHR for a ruling that my dismissal for writing to The Guardian constituted a breach of my Article 10 right to freedom of expression. In 1992, as the above Decision №18957/92 makes clear:

"The Commission notes that the applicant was dismissed as a result of the publication in a newspaper of a letter in which he expressed certain opinions on the then Prime Minister's attitude to South Africa. The Commission considers that the applicant's dismissal constituted an interference in the exercise of his freedom of expression."

However, the ECHR Decision went on to say:

"In the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that, in view of the particular professional responsibilities incumbent on the applicant and the specific nature of his work, the United Kingdom authorities were reasonably justified in dismissing him. The interference with the applicant's exercise of his freedom of expression could therefore be regarded as necessary in a democratic society for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention."

The ECHR was not required to deal with the matter of my job appraisal and performance box markings at the FCO, and did not comment on them. Thus, I think you should remove "having had a previous unsatisfactory performance review" from your proposed first sentence.

I shall look for a suitable source for the "dossier" statement: this might take some time.

Meanwhile, would it be a good idea to transfer this whole section to my talk page, as you have suggested?PJHaseldine (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Content of Guardian letters

Have you considered moving the contents of User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 to an internet page or blog site? That way, you can say what you like without anyone on Wikipedia getting after you for POV/self-publishing/soapboxing, yet the content will still be available online for any Wiki editor that's interested. Most ISP's offer free web space - failing that, there are many sites available offering a free service... Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. I have no plans to move User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 which I regard as a valuable resource to be used by Wikipedia editors in improving a whole range of articles — not just the Patrick Haseldine article. I hope you will find it useful for that purpose.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow policies

See closing of MFD debate. Please follow wiki polices. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Rather than fighting about fair use violation, copyright violation, or improper use in BLP articles, I've requested IFD discussion. Please comment there, rather than on the image talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC) .

On the IfD page, you agreed that the licence for the image should revert to "PD-self" with the proviso that Richard Norton-Taylor's piece is blanked. This has been done, so would appreciate your bringing the IfD discussion to an appropriate end.PJHaseldine (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The result of the IfD discussion was keep.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

You have added bare external references to a number of articles recently. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style for examples of how to add a citation using the citation template. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers. If other editors have used citation templates in the article I'm editing, I usually follow suit.PJHaseldine (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Another COI edit

This is another COI edit - you agreed before to stay clear of edits about yourself. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For many months, I have waited in vain for Socrates2008, Deon Steyn or Arthur Rubin to correct my entry on the Conspiracy theory article. For example, what did you mean by describing me as an "FSO" official? I was therefore entitled to correct this mistake. Patience may well be a virtue, but there has to be a limit! Socrates2008 seems to have been somewhat premature in adding an inappropriate template to the article's talk page.--PJHaseldine (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The process for making changes when there is a conflict of interest, as you well know from our previous discussions, is raise your changes on the talk page of the article. I don't see that you've done this, indicating that you have violated the agreement reached with the administrators. Socrates2008 (Talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Correcting an obvious error in my entry as a conspiracy theorist and adding a reference do not amount to a conflict of interest. Your premature edit which added an inappropriate template to the article's talk page has been reverted by Arthur Rubin.--PJHaseldine (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Obvious error" is subjective - this is exactly why there are COI rules. Arthur Rubin doe does not have a COI over that article, so he's free to edit it as he chooses. Kindly refrain from editing articles about yourself, no matter how trivial, as no-one wants to drag the admins into this again. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Arthur Rubin reverted the premature edit by Socrates2008 here. Obviously, this has put Socrates' nose out of joint!--PJHaseldine (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Question re:the Dossier of Evidence

Dear Mr. Haseldine,

I do have a question re:the "Dossier of Evidence" allegedly implicating SA in the Lockerbie bombing. What did this comprise of? I have read your letters to the Guardian and they don't, IMHO implicate SA. I accept that certain SA politicians may have had something to gain and that one cheated death but this is not really evidence? Was there more? Whatever there was I would be interested to read it.

I accept this needs to be read in the context of the time (1989). I can also accept that maybe the British government did not cover all their leads. Since then there has been a Lockerbie trial and people have been convicted? So has Mr Haseldine changed his views since then?

Thank you D Baker --Biscuit1018 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Baker,

My initial "Dossier of Evidence" was compiled in the mid-1990s, and was submitted to UK authorities and the US embassy in London. It was updated and e-mailed in March 2000 to the prosecution and defence in advance of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial. You can read all about it here.

Following Megrahi's conviction at the trial in January 2001, the first appeal in February 2002 and the SCCRC reference in June 2007 for a second appeal, a lot more information about the apartheid South Africa connection has become available on the Internet. You will find the latest, lengthy and detailed evidence implicating SA in the Lockerbie bombing here ("Lockerbie Propositions"). My views are unchanged.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Patrick, I'm glad to see that you've taken the advice to publish your alternate theory on a blog, rather than here at Wikipedia. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I too am glad that you (and, presumably, your tag partner, Deon Steyn), have had to accept it as an "alternate theory" rather than as one of your "conspiracy theory" obsessions.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)