Talk:Pat Kohli

The article starts "Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3." and is unclear about what 4.5.3.3 is and how it relates to Haifan Baha'i Faith or usenet. The 'computer scientist" element seems relevant to the next sentence, but not relevant to Patrick Kohli's faith or activities on usenet mentioned in the beginning of the first sentence. The problem arises from the fact that the first sentence includes a quotation from the first reference link, and the second and subsequent sentences of the first paragraph are copied and pasted from that first link.

The second paragraph appears to be simply copied from the DAU website. DAU is the Defense Acquisition University. This is a US military web site.

The third paragaph says that he has a consistent web presence, and does not cite a web site, or entries on other people's blogs, web chats, etc.

The second paragraph is indeed copied from the DAU website. That's what makes it a reliable source regarding Pat Kohli's involvement with the military.

There is a significant amount of archived newsgroup participation material available, which can be posted and referenced following consultation with other editors.

--Atomised 20:27, 5 February 2009 (EST)

The first comment is unsigned so thus irrelevant for future editings related to this article. Inclusion of material from sites maintained by the US military are acceptable and verifiable sources for SourceWatch. Note that SourceWatch is not Wikipedia and follows both more rigorous and more inclusive standards of source citation. There is nothing to preclude full quotation of a US military source for this or any other article. As for the second point, it has already been covered in the opening sentence. But if our occulted editor wishes to nitpick in a wikipedia-esque manner, I am happy to reiterate and underscore the point in the final paragraph a second time. --Wahid 23:43, 5 February 2009 (EST)

First reference reads "all rights reserved". Second reference is derived from a local paper which is copyright protected. http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/110905/38174-1.shtml. If you check with your sources, you might find these things out. --Owen 22:25, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Proposed deletion
I'm not persuaded that this page really belonbgs in SourceWatch and seems to be a spillover of some edit war over at Wikipedia -- unless there's some compelling reasong to keep it, I'd propose deleting it. --Bob Burton 04:40, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I categorically disagree with your reasons, and I believe you have not specified any viable reason whatsoever as to why this article should not be included. Please do so and I will support your decision. Failing that, I am restrating the article. --Wahid 23:04, 15 February 2009 (EST)

moving libel charges here
I moved the following from the article page, because it makes a serious allegation against Mr. Kohli ("libel and defamation") without clear or compelling evidence.

Looking at the other references used in this article, I would say they also don't meet our standard of authoritative sources (see Help:References). I encourage those who are working on this article and want to keep it on SourceWatch to try to better document their work, for example by using news articles. A personal website of an ex-adherent of a faith is not an authoritative source, nor are archived email discussions, where identities are not clear and screen names can be faked.

thanks,

Diane Farsetta 10:54, 4 March 2009 (EST)


 * On talk.religion.bahai Pat Kohli has been known to regularly employ libel and defamation tactics as a coercive tool to intimidate the critics and dissenters of the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition into silence

.

Hi Diane, the two major references in this piece are news articles. Second, we can substantiate and furnish prima facie evidence of the libel/defamation charges. I understand your position that there could be a liability issue with SW in inclusion of this material, but you also should be aware that these are statements of fact.

That stated, I'd like to address something else here. We went through a similar situation with Bob when this article first went up. After another editor weighed in, and I suggested Bob might have been contacted by these people and lobbied, Bob backed off. It appears that everytime I weigh on something with this article you guys get nervous, so I'd like to ask you, have you and SW been lobbied regarding this article? --Wahid 20:14, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Hi Diane,

Thanks for the advice. Would it be possible to get some further guidance regarding the proper use of usenet archives? I was actually looking through the referencing guidelines in preparing the references I added, but couldn't find specific rules. I realise this may be a tricky issue from a referencing point of view, but in the context of the way the Baha'i organization has conducted its seemingly censorious and coercive practices, much of this appears to have taken place in an online context (though I believe there are also official letters and other documents which could be referenced for this too). There is also substantial commentary from those who have been exposed to such practices, and in and of itself this may provide an interesting case study of specifically online attempts at censorship, if treated correctly? There is currently not a great deal written from an external perspective regarding these issues, as the Baha'i faith has received relatively little critical attention other than from within its own members/former members. However, again I believe this also suggests that if treated correctly, the evidence of specific online activities should and could be taken into consideration. It is also especially important to take into account the work of Susan Maneck as a visible and clearly identifiable online presence acting on behalf of the Baha'i organisation,

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Susan_Maneck

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ and Wisdom and Dissimulation in the Baha'i Faith: The Use and meaning of Hikmat in the Baha'i writings

"Hikmat & Taqiya, "wisdom" and dissimulation, key Baha'i concepts If you're unfamiliar with hikmat and taqiya in either a Muslim or Baha'i context, it's basically the "wisdom" of lying and dissimulating when necessary to protect yourself or the faith..... Outside observers should be especially careful and alert to Hikmat & Taqiya." http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/hikmatMENU.htm In terms of the personal website of the ex-adherent (http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/), the reference was initially placed as a gateway to other sources, as much as evidence from the person themselves (though I still believe aspects of Glaysher's commentary are valid and illuminating in this context). Perhaps I should isolate and highlight the relevant sources from this page, such as Professor Juan Cole (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Juan_Cole), and separate published works etc?

In the next few days, I hope to add some of the research I have been conducting to the Baha'i faith page, and its activities as a claimed NGO religious organisation. I hope you may follow this, as there is also an especially interesting (and unique) appeal case in progress at the moment regarding attempts by the Haifan arm of the Baha'i faith to trademark their name, and pursue action against other sects for trademark infringement. This obviously has important implications for an investigation of the NGO related activities of the organisation seeking to apply apparently corporate related laws to its identity as a religious body. Kind regards --Atomised 20:36, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Response
Thanks for your responses. Atomised, what you suggest -- adding more references from more points of view, including from respected academics like Juan Cole, would be very helpful. Right now, the article strikes me as weak, and the obviously serious charges of libel and defamation were added with insufficient documentation.

How and whether to cite usenet groups is a question I don't know the answer to, unfortunately. I'm not aware of any precedent on SW on the matter. I understand the groups are relevant to this article, but right now they're the main source of info and that's problematic. I might have missed it, but where is the confirmation that Kohli uses those particular screen names? That's a critical assertion, and it seems to rely on people in the group addressing him as "Pat." The link to that user's profile gives no indication as to his / her identity. Please keep in mind that you need to provide documentation for the assertions you make on SourceWatch, so that a skeptical reader without other knowledge of the subject matter is convinced.

As far as your questions, Wahid -- if something is a fact, then please provide the evidence. What Bob and I are both trying to do is to keep up the quality of SourceWatch articles by applying the same standards to this article that we do to any article. No one has lobbied us. If you respond to our requests by strengthening the article, then we'll be satisfied. But saying you "know" something to be true is not sufficient, for any reasonable standard. (And, on a minor point, I only see one source that looks like a news article, though it's actually a Navy press release.)

Simply put, you can't assert what you can't document is true. I understand that something may be true even if a news article hasn't been written about it, but in order to keep SourceWatch a reliable resource, we need to insist upon referencing standards. If that's not possible to do in this case, then SourceWatch isn't the forum you should be using to make those assertions. Thanks for understanding.

-- Diane Farsetta 10:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Hi Diane, it is precisely this completely unexplainable attitude of antagonism displayed by yourself to me right now that proves to me that in fact you and Bob were indeed lobbied by these people, whatever you are saying here otherwise -- especially when you are inviting me to leave when I have been making important contributions here and have given you absolutely no reason to say such a thing. This tells me that certain third parties have contacted you, have maintained contact with you and have proceeded to poison your mind with complete nonsense whereby you both allow yourselves this level of hostility to someone you don't even know and barely interacted with here. Or maybe it is the case that my Arabic sounding name might be bothering you? Add to this the fact that a well-known Bahai hack on USENET named Paul Hammond - who is suspected of being tied to an interested faction of the British Labor Party connected to the Bahai organization - is right now gratuitously linking your reponses here as a cheap point scoring tactic against myself, http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/01e30275655ff56e/bb8ab1d48b9d7983?lnk=raot#bb8ab1d48b9d7983

and I think we know the drill! If you wish to know more about me and what I am about, instead of listening to the libel, garbage and character assassination of third parties who are obviously trying to influence your decision, I suggest you speak to Michael Barker, who originally put me under the impression that your good self as well as this outfit here were immune from being leaned upon and manipulated by interested agendas, or forming erroneous impressions of people ostensibly standing on the same side of the bigger spectrum.

As for the sourced material, as I said, the evidence that Mr Kohli uses libel and defamation as political tool to silence political critics of the organization he belongs to is prima facie! I linked two items of that in the last sentence I put up, and it did not take 24 hours before you reverted it and Paul Hammond was reporting your reversal on USENET. I think you and I both know that in any court submission of evidentiary causes, there is strong evidence here based on Hammond's behavior in linking your responses and reporting it publically, that there is a reasonable doubt of collusion and influence in your final decision making - not to mention in the way you two are speaking to me from the get-go. Now I am not going anywhere, unless you throw me out (and which point we will really have a (problem), and I would like to work with you, so I say again, if you are being lobbied by third parties regarding this article - or even attorneys - kindly maintain your neutrality in the matter instead of coming after me. If you wish to discuss this privately, or anyone else from SW, I am happy to do so and you already have my email. --Wahid 21:34, 5 March 2009 (EST)

FYI (lobbying?)
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/01e30275655ff56e/830c5946e76e316d?lnk=raot#830c5946e76e316d "Should we send Diane Farsetta a fairly comprehensive list of YOUR usenet contributions and many aliases, so she knows EXACTLY whom she's dealing with?"

Personal Problem?
Wahid, it looks like you have a feud with this person. You've posted this link to TRB scores of times, pasting in the article. In January you suggested he speared himself in the groin, on TRB. |TRB -- Owen 20:25, 10 March 2009 (EST)

"Owen," it appears that you are in fact Pat Kohli himself under another alias, so your opinion in the matter is quite gratuitously irrelevant http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/e1a27acfdd0ee74a/09861e71db08f90b#09861e71db08f90b

It should be noted that on TRB you are even denying your identity as Pat Kohli while siging off as All_Bad and responding to the call of Pat Kohli. Others can supply the links here. But I'll supply this one, http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/1b2369ebfca0afd0/a4ad970daf25dc62#a4ad970daf25dc62

Furthermore, it is irrelevant how many times this article is being quoted elsewhere and correctly attributed back to SW. What is the point you are making, again? Personal problems or not does not detract an iota from the factuality of the information presented here about Pat Kohli. --Wahid 00:26, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi Owen. The issue of whether or not this article has any relationship to personal problems by any party is essentially irrelevant to the validity of its inclusion. I am also responsible for the content of this article, and am attempting to report the factual matters relevant to it in a way that is consistent with the material available on Pat Kohli, his relationship to the Baha'i organisation, and matters to do with specific types of internet based dialogue, censorship, propaganda and techniques of persuasion and coercion undertaken in various contexts by the Haifan Baha'i administration. So far, any material that has remained in the article is, in my opinion, valid. There may be referencing issues that need to be fixed for ease of access and for clarity regarding the context of the article, but the referenced material should remain acceptable, if presented in the correct way. Cheers --Atomised 02:23, 11 March 2009 (EDT)