Talk:Mohamed Nasheed/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

February 2012 resignation

The following line from the intro:

• Nasheed has stated in detail that these protesters had joined with "powerful networks of regime loyalists" to force his resignation in a coup d'etat...

...does not make much sense. As he was national leader, surely the allegiance of "regime loyalists" would have been to him. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

He means that they are loyal to the old regime which ruled the Maldives for the 30 years prior to his election. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean Maumoon Abdul Gayoom? That's not what it reads. I shall change it. Either way, it is another reason I deplore people's liberal use of the word "regime". Everything is a regime per se, not just former systems disagreeable to their detractors. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed this from the lede: "But it [Nasheed's statement that he was forced from office] is not true, he gave his resignation when it was asked. And he stated that he resigned for the good of the people and to avoid havoc in the country." This is clearly a matter of dispute at the moment. No source is cited. And it is defamatory, since it basically accuses him of lying. Neljack (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ubufili (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC) This article lacks important events that lead to Nasheed's resignation. I will see if I can put improvements. Perhaps this link would help http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/40124

Maldives ex-president Mohamed Nasheed was 'forced out'???

According to an article in the bbc, and i've just heard on CCTV news. this should be in the wiki article.Megatonman (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

References

2001 arrest

I've removed a section on Nasheed's 2001 arrest pending some citations to reliable sources. I don't particularly doubt its truth, but this is a WP:BLP and therefore needs good sourcing on criminal charges. Khazar2 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary years

This section remains badly unsourced, which is a shame given its importance to his biography. The corresponding article, 2005 Maldives civil unrest, was little help. Any assistance would be appreciated--let's finish up this important biography! Khazar2 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Disputed section

User:Aashraf2 and I have been essentially going back and forth over a few sections on this for several days, and while I've made some preliminary efforts to reach out to her/him at User Talk, I thought I'd also open the discussion explicitly here. There's a few key issues I object in in Aashraf's changes:

1. . Changing all references to Nasheed's resignation to "forced to resign". This is a controversial subject; one side argues that he resigned freely, another under duress. My proposed solution is to note that he resigned, and then add that he states it was under duress, which I think fairly captures the controversy.
2. . Adding duplicate sentences. A week ago this article had lengthy duplicate text under "Presidency" and "Resignation"--six full paragraphs that appeared identical. I'm not sure why Aashraf2 wants to restore these, but I see no reason to have this section repeated in full.
3. . Description of YouTube video. Insertion of "he was seen begging the Military to safeguard the Maldivian citizens" as if this is accepted fact, rather than a controversial statement by Nasheed's family (see the given source) [1].
4. . trumped-up. Insertion of POV "trumped-up" in the sentence "However, he was forced to leave office on a trumped up theft charge that the BBC describes as "widely condemned at the time as politically motivated"." Why not just let the BBC statement stand alone instead of stating "trumped-up" as settled fact?

There's too many changes here to get into every phrasing, but these are examples of what appear to me to be POV editing. I'd be glad for some other opinions, though, if I'm being too hard on this. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2

1. I cannot agree to put in that he resigned and then later on state that he claimed that it was under duress. Rather you could say that his resignation came about in dubious circumstances which is being currently subject to inquiries. If we can't verify it, then why put it as a fact that he resigned?

2. I agree, the lengthy paragraphs could be done away with. However, it is NOT a fact that he was a candidate of MDP Itthihad. Au contraire, Mohamed Nasheed was the running candidate for MDP and Mohamed Waheed Hassan was the candidate put forward on an MDP ticket from the Itthihaad. That is a given fact. From the way it is stated in the article, it reads as if Mohamed Nasheed is from the Itthihaad (coalition) which he is not. So that has to be changed accordingly.

3. Under the heading "Parliament", Mohamed Nasheed was forced along with many others to leave the Maldives due to the fact that they were politically tartgeted. That is not self-exile. They were forced into it. Most of them travelled to UK and other countries which granted them amnesty.

4. If you cannot agree to the youtube part then remove the part where you state that he was seen giving orders to the Military because again, sticking to your argument we don't know whether he was giving military orders.

5. If we cannot agree on whether he was properly charged or not for the crime of theft, then the best alternative is to remove it altogether for we don't want both sides to be offended right? Why refer to what the BBC believes or refers to altogether?

6. Please read the press statement released by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives regarding the FACT that they met with the Chief Judge who was arrested. I am pasting the link here for your consideration. Be also mindful that the HRCM is a constitutionally incorporated State institution, so there word not mine. http://hrcm.org.mv/Activities_in_Relation_to_Ongoing_Unrests.aspx

7. If you can't agree to the fact the Military fired rubber bullets then I guess all the international and local media must be wrong? Including the coup government run newspaper? Here it is <http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/40938> It is not an allegation that they have used rubber bullets, it is a FACT.

8. Qasim Ibrahim resigned because he mismanaged Ministry of Home Affairs with which he was charged with <http://www.miadhu.com/2008/12/local-news/resignation-not-shameful-gasim-8650/> or you can see wikileaks <http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/12/08COLOMBO1106.html>

By not sticking to these facts your article appears to us as being very blatantly one sided, mis-informed and quite frankly a POV editing issue. I hope you will take them into consideration. Cheers. Ashraf2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashraf2 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I might be misinformed, but I assure you I don't have a point-of-view about this. If you'll look over this article and Waheed's, you'll see that I've spent the last 48 hours trying to find neutral ways to present the claims of both sides of this debate, as well as removing partisan-like language supporting both figures from both articles. Anyway, I appreciate that you're now willing to discuss your edits. Let me try to address these in the order you raise them.

1. It is a fact that Nasheed resigned; both sides agree on that. The area of disagreement is that Nasheed says he resigned with a gun to his head, and the military says he did so willingly. Presenting "forced to resign" as fact means that we are choosing one specific POV. Better, I think, to say that he resigned (the neutral and agreed-on part) and then present the willingly/unwillingly dispute.

2. Quite correct, and thank you for the catch! This is entirely my error. However, I still do not understand why you inserted six duplicate paragraphs to go along with this, and I'd appreciate it if you'd remove them now. As you've seen from the edit summaries and messages I've been leaving you for several days, this has been my largest area of disagreement with you, and I'm glad we have it resolved.

3. This appears to be a good change to me also, but this entire section is in serious need of sourcing, as I stated in a section above.

4. Both sides agree that he was giving orders to the military, right? One side argues that he was ordering the military to attack and other that he was ordering the military not to attack. It seemed to me to be a neutral phrasing, but I am okay with taking this part out entirely if you'd prefer.

5. It's not a question of removing information because one side might be "offended," but of representing what the reliable sources on a subject say. In this case, I found one reliable source that described the charges as "widely reported" to be fake, and so I have to represent it as I found it. The charges are widely believed to be fabricated, but not proven to be so.

6. I only removed the reference to the HRCM meeting the Justice because it seemed to me that that section was getting bogged down in extraneous detail--do you see this as an important detail to Nasheed's presidency, and if so, how so? I don't have any strong opinion about this.

7. First, please stop SHOUTING! You'll get a lot further on Wikipedia with more good will, believe me. =) The solution for this one is simple; if the international media all say that rubber bullets were fired, all we need to do is find a second source and I'm fine with pulling the "allegedly". The problem is, as you yourself point out, this is currently only sourced to the coup-friendly news source. This probably doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines for a reliable source. In any case, the denial of the President's office should still be included.

8. I don't have any strong opinions on Qasim Ibrahim, but it's important that we make clear the source of any allegations against him. He is a living person and therefore entitled to certain protections on Wikipedia. Those allegations can certainly be included, but they need a better source than the two you've provided here. The first [2] doesn't mention mismanagement at all, and the second [3] is a primary source. You can check with our reliable sources noticeboard which I've linked to you elsewhere, but I don't think Wikileaks by itself is enough to make an accusation of this caliber. Can you find it in an internationally-recognized news source--Xinhua, BBC, New York Times, etc.?

Thanks again for your willingness to discuss; I'm confident we can work together to make this article better.Khazar2 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as we're looking at contested sections, one more paragraph that will need a reliable source is this:

"On 8 February 2012, the Maldivian Democratic Party convened an emergency executive meeting and announced for all its members across the country to go into streets in protests. President Mohamed Nasheed led the protests to Republic Square, before his march reached Republic Square protesters were dispersed brutally by Maldives Police Service." In particular, the "brutally" will need to be put in quotation marks and attributed to a particular source. Khazar2 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

__________________________________ Khazar2

1. Once again, please let me re-iterate the fact that MDP did not accept to the fact that he just "resigned". When one portrays that President Nasheed has resigned, one is making a concluding statement against a head of state whose legitimacy has been compromised and that risks the article being libelous in nature. The most damning piece of evidence was the fact that the Senior Political Advisor to Waheed admitting publicly that it was a coup. And once again I cannot give you a better source than from the newspaper Haveeru which has a history of being backed by the current government. Why would their own news propagating machine admit to the fact if that is not true? Its in English by the way <http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/40525> Furthermore, MP's in other countries have called it a coup d'etat Furthermore, the EU has released a press briefing on agreeent that there are doubts as to the transfer of power So, unless we can say something along the lines of "Mr. Nasheed was the 4th president of the Maldives till he suddenly stepped down on the 7th of February 2012. The ruling party MDP has claimed it to be a military coup d'etat where President Nasheed was forced to resign at gun-point, whilst the opposition has denied it" this article will be portrayed as being mis-informed.

2. I am glad we managed to get that re-paragraphing dispute out of the way as well. So, it would make a whole lot more sense if we can make the changes according to the fact that Nasheed was the MDP candidate running for Presidency and Waheed was his running mate on an MDP ticket from the coaltion.

3. Agree, keep it as it is that Mr. Nasheed was in self-exile. I am ok with that. All sources I have looked up cite it like that too. So thank you for pointing that out.

4. No, once again one side said that he was giving orders to the military to go out and attack the protesters, whilst the other side argued that he was asking/literally begging them to safe-guard the Maldivian citizens. We cannot portray it as he was giving military orders. Since we cannot say for a fact what actually happed, I suggest we keep it to the fact that he was seen inside the Military headquarters in the early hours of the morning and then leave it at that. Local and international inquiries are being made into it and since you would rather not rely on youtube video's, the best option might just be that to say he was seen in the military headquarters. Ubufili (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC) from what I saw he had control of Military upto his resignation. But not Maldives Police.

5. I suggest that we say that the "BBC and other news sources" describes Mohamed Nasheed's theft charges being laid as being widely politically motivated. However, why the need for inverted commas? It makes it look as if the news sources are involved in a sort of conspiracy. I will give you all the sources here. I believe that would appear to be more reliable and accurate to readers. P.S. We need to do something about the reference numbering.

6. I do see the reference to HRCM as a very strong point in this article. Remember, the whole "uproar" was orchestrated in the name of releasing the judge, on the belief that his place of detention was unknown to the public. It is misconception to state that his place of detention was unknown to the public or kept a secret by the military or police because the Human Rights Commission was in fact in touch with him at his place of detention and this fact has been published for the public to see on their website. So, if a constitutionally formed State institution issues a press brief to that effect, it must be reliable and therefore necessary.

7.I think we misunderstood each other here. The reason why I cited the coup-sponsored source was to drive home the point that the coup government accepts the fact that rubber bullets were fired. They never denied it and this is reinforced by the fact that they published it in their newspaper. As far as outside unbiased sources go here they are <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10080497> Every single one of the international news report states that rubber bullets were fired, so it is not an allegation but a fact. Hope you would agree to that. I'm ok in including that the Presidents office cited as denying this.

8. As for the resignation of Qasim Ibrahim from the Home Ministry, it is only DhivehiObserver and other local Maldivians news sources state that. However, the reason for his resignation is again disputed in each article. It might be more accurate to state that he resigned instead of him citing "lack of transparency", because in the articles he also says that he is still willing to work with the coalition government of that time.

9. As for the last paragraph of disputation, it is directly connected to Point 8. The firing of the rubber bullets. So the sources are all there.

I hope the changes are made quickly in accordance with the sources.

Aasharaf2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashraf2 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aasharaf2, Thanks for your response. It sounds like we're rapidly reaching consensus here--thanks for being so generous in working with me on this. Being a non-Maldivian is helpful in some ways in writing this (it means I'm not caught up with one side of the conflict), but it also means I'm making my share of stupid errors.

I probably won't be able to do much with this over the next two days, as I'm very involved in updating the 2012 insurgency in northern Mali article. But you should feel free to keep making changes per what you've proposed above. I think we're in agreement on all major points now, though I will want to give a closer read later. I'd still argue that "he resigned" is neutral language here (it's widely described this way in international media, for example), but your proposed compromise of "suddenly stepped down" is fine with me also--anything that leaves both interpretations open. Let me try to come back to this one on Tuesday or Wednesday--sorry I can't do it sooner! Khazar2 (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2

I am not a Maldivian myself. But thank you for your cooperation too. I have friends from Maldives with whom I am directly in contact with who keep me regularly updated. Anyway, good luck with the report on Mali and I shall keep on with this present article. You can read it later on and let me know how it goes ok? Best of luck and wishes. Aashraf2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashraf2 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your edits look great. I've made some more changes, but more for new issues than the part that you worked on. One paragraph I removed because it dealt with criminal charges and appeared to have no source.[4] I also modified the lead section heavily to try to match the guidelines in WP:LEAD--I added content about other parts of Nasheed's life, including his long work opposing Gayoom, and his involvement in other controversies/protests. I also removed many citations not because they were wrong, but only because they are not needed for the lead section (which summarizes the material that appears in more detail elsewhere). I also modified the "brutally dispersed" protest paragraph to make the source of the "brutally" allegation clear. Finally, I cleaned up the external links section, which was out of date. Do my edits look okay to you? Thanks again for your contributions to this one... I think it's improving fast. Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Lead section-- "at gunpoint"

The "at gunpoint" accusation has gone in and out of the lead section. I thought we could discuss it here.

I think it's a useful quotation to include--it was an accusation reported around the world, and in fact, is probably the thing Nasheed is most famous for outside of the Maldives. But I do think we need to balance it with a quotation from Waheed or another opponent of Nasheed's so that we don't unbalance the article. In the latest version (written by me, I think), we have two-and-a-half sentences supporting the coup version, and only one half sentence supporting the "voluntary" version. I don't think this fairly captures the controversy. Any suggestions for an appropriate quote from Waheed, or another detail to include? Khazar2 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

New Version ____________

I think your edit looks great as it is and captures what the real situation was. I agree that removing the criminal charges was ok as the source itself wasn't there. Lead section looks fine to me. It is much more clearer in terms of facts that everyone knows and appears unbiased. As to the "at gunpoint" quotation - the term was used by Nasheed to depict that he was given a choice to either resign or the army would start a blood bath on the streets. But, neither Waheed nor the army has denied to the statement of Nasheed of forcing him to resign at "gun-point". I have tried looking up and searching for anything that Waheed may have said denying this, but the only thing that comes up is the fact that he denies that it was a coup.

Another issue with me is the fact that you have quoted from the Daily Telegraph? that he is a great "Anglophile and an ardent fan of the Queen". But did Nasheed himself say that??? I am not too comfortable with that sentence being portrayed like that. True, Maldivian ties with the British have been very strong but to go that far does not sound factually correct.

One last bit that you can include in the commentary is the fact that though MDP is seeking international assistance and pressure in holding elections by asking the Commonwealth to suspend Maldives (and you have included that there in the article), Waheed's government has lashed out at the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) who has suspended Maldives from CMAG and called for early elections as being "biased" and actually threatened to remove Maldives from the Commonwealth if they did not stop interefering with Waheed's government. This has been issued by a statment from former dictator's daughter who is now in the Foreign Ministry. Now understand that Maldives has been a Commonwealth country since July 1965!! So this is a very very significant part of the Maldivian history in its relation with the Commonwealth. Therefore if we have quoted an article saying that Nasheed has asked for Maldives to be expelled from the Commonwealth, then the other side of the picture, from the opposition ought to be portrayed here as well. I am sending you the sources here. http://www.haveeru.com.mv/national_unity_roadmap/40870 http://www.haveeru.com.mv/national_unity_roadmap/40859 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17353230 http://minivannews.com/politics/government-dismisses-commonwealths-biased-early-election-calls-fears-civil-war-33454 http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3006938.ece</ref>

Maldives suspended by CMAG - http://ibnlive.in.com/news/commonwealth-ministerial-group-suspends-maldives/232817-2.html

Waheed's Spoke Person to re-consider Maldives to be in the Commonwealth - http://minivannews.com/politics/maldives-may-reconsider-commonwealth-membership-33496

I think it is absolutely crucial to include these facts if we want to be clear about the stand-point of the current regime. _____________________________________________

- Awards and Honours-

This just came in and I have updated the article accordingly. Mohamed Nasheed has been awarded an Honorary Fellowship from Liverpool John Moores University in recognition of the role he played in spear-heading the democracy movement in his country and which led to his imprisonment, to solitary confinement, and to torture. Source - http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/Alumni/index_122810.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashraf2 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

- Correction -

I have taken the liberty of rephrasing the quote "great Anglophile and an ardent fan of the Queen" to "Mohamed Nasheed has been attracting a lot of support from the British government". Hope that sounds ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashraf2 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the gunpoint quotation needed to go back in. I've tried to better balance this section by giving Waheed his own sentence. Referring to the "supporters in other countries" of both men perhaps overcomplicates this section.

I'm fine with cutting the Anglophile quote if you like; I just thought it was interesting. But until we see it in a second source, it's fine with me to cut it.

The award addition is a nice touch.

The Commonwealth issue is a trickier one. Can we find a source besides minivan news that states that Maldives is considering leaving the Commonwealth? Ideally, I would like to find a neutral, non-Maldives news source that is reporting this. The problem I see there is that the quotation the reporter provides is rewritten by the reporter himself. "We would have to reconsider our position [on Commonwealth membership]." Perhaps they just meant reconsidering their position on elections? It's a big claim, which means we need a very solid source. I would like to confirm before adding this detail. I did think the Commonwealth panel you linked to at the BBC was a very useful addition--I've worked it into the "resignation" section. I think that's it for now! Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

foreign spelling of name

In the first sentence, I only see a series of squares where his name should be showing up in his native language. I don't have problems seeing names in other foreign alphabets. Is there something wrong with the encoding or is the issue on my end?—Zujine|talk 18:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see it on my browser. It's possible you just don't have Maldivian language support, as it's one of the world's smaller national languages. (Frankly, I'm surprised I have it.) Khazar2 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Khazar, I'm going to see what other languages I'm missing. I usually don't have any problems, but perhaps Maldivian pushed the obscurity buck. —Zujine|talk 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

2003 Civil Unrest

The lede states that he triggered the 2003 Civil Unrest with a call for an autopsy of Evan Naseem. I think that the death of Evan Naseem caused the unrest, not Nasheed's call for an autopsy. Nasheed may have added legitimacy and fuel to the outrage over the incident, but I don't think it is appropriate to say he triggered it. How much of a role did he play in the genesis of the 2003 events? —Zujine|talk 17:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I wrote that sentence, and you're right that that may well be overstated. My sole source is here.[5] I had no immediate luck finding more information from reliable sources, but I'd be glad to see this revised/revisited. Khazar2 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Half Truth?

Since Wikipedia is an unbiased source for information, we should also address his critics opinion about him. I stumbled across this article which has done plenty of research on both sides of him. Its a reputed Sri Lankan Daily.

http://sundaytimes.lk/120212/Columns/political.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubufili (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think tagging the whole article as POV because it doesn't include a quotation from this Sri Lankan newspaper yet may be an mild overreaction, but I'd be fine with seeing a bit of this integrated into the article--looks like useful stuff. Thanks for the find! Khazar2 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick note of caution: looking at that again, it appears that this is labelled as a "column" (an op-ed) rather than an article. It's still useful to mention that a Sri Lankan newspaper criticized Nasheed's rule as autocratic (or whatever phrasing best represents the column), but I think we should be careful not to give this more weight than any other single person's statement on Nasheed. Khazar2 (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it's been ten days without response, I've gone ahead and removed the tag per the instructions at Template:NPOV. I'd be happy to resume this discussion if you return in the future, though. Khazar2 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Paid article by PR Companies

It is very surprising to have an article of this quality on Wikipedia. Looks to me like well written article by PR agents to portray him as Nelson Mandela, which is a shame to all South Africans and Mandela's legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.148.95 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation--can you explain more specifically why you feel that way? I'm one of this article's primary authors, and I can promise you I'm not a paid agent. Two sources are already given here, and if you type "Mandela of the Maldives" into Google, you'll see that it's a common nickname for Nasheed. The first three pages of Google hits include The Independent, The Daily Mail, The Hindu, Foreign Policy, the Times of India, the London Times, and the Washington Post all mentioning this nickname.

An important principle on Wikipedia is to accept good faith. Once you've taken a moment to read over that policy, can you point out more specifically parts of the article you think could be better sourced, or re-written? Khazar2 (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not surprising you are the primary author. He is a notable politician in his country & this article doesn't have any opinion of his critics. And also most articles which you have edited is specially of street activists like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.148.110 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The article does appear to me to include the opinions of critics, as in these paragraphs which note both domestic and international criticism of the legality of his arrest of Abdulla Mohamed:

An opposition alliance (Madhanee Ithihaad) was formed on December 2011, including all the parties that supported the President in his 2008 presidential race. Those parties included Gaumee Party, Jumhoory Party, and Adhaalath Party. On 23 December, the capital city saw major opposition protests against Nasheed and his government.[30] Former cabinet minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed was repeatedly summoned to the police station in connection with the protests, at one point being detained at Dhoonidhoo, a Maldivian prison island. Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed ordered his release, but according to the police his non-compliance with their on-going investigations[31] against him led in turn to his being arrested by members of the Maldives National Defense Force.[32]

Due to the arrest of the judge the opposition parties' protests gained momentum and demanded Judge Abdulla Mohamed's immediate release. During the detention of the judge, the HRCM was able to visit him in his place of detention, a military training base, and confirm his safety.[33] Opposition leaders also called for an independent investigation into the constitutionality of the arrest, a call echoed by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives,[34] the Judicial Services Commission,[35] the Prosecutor General’s Office,[36] the International Commission of Jurists,[37] Amnesty International,[1] and the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner.[38] Military and police rejected the orders by High Court to release Abdulla Mohamed.[36]

Or this:

On 1 April 2012, Nasheed stated that he was unsure of the official charges against him in the Maldives: "One time they said it was terrorism, another time they said it was acting against the constitution, another time they said it was alcohol."[1] In September, Nasheed was put on trial for abuse of power for his actions in arresting Abdulla Mohamed;[54] however, his trial was cancelled without explanation.[55]

On 8 April, Nasheed was arrested after violating a court order not to leave Malé Atoll, the island on which the Maldivian capital is located.[56] He was detained overnight and then released on the condition that he answer questions about his alleged abuse of presidential powers within 25 days.[57]

Or this:

The Maldives' National Commission of Inquiry, appointed to investigate the matter, found that there was no evidence to support Nasheed's version of events. The US State Department and the Commonwealth of Nations Secretary Kamalesh Sharma welcomed the release of the report, and called on Maldivians to abide by its decision.[47]

What do you feel is still being excluded? Please be specific, and provide reliable sources. Khazar2 (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Handpicked sources mostly Opinion column articles

115.84.148.56 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Lots of careful research needed to present a neutral perspective adhering to Wikipedia guidelines.

In what way to you see the sources as "handpicked"? Which sources are opinion columns? The sources seem to me to present a range of views on Nasheed from a variety of international sources. That said, I'm glad to listen to a proposal to improve the article if you have one... what sources do you think should be included or removed? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag for now per the instructions at Template:POV:

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."

I'm still happy to address your concerns if you can be more specific in the problems you see here, but without a more detailed comment than "Lots of careful research needed to present a neutral perspective adhering to Wikipedia guidelines", I'm not sure where to start. Very few of the sources seem to be opinion columns, and a range of views are discussed, from a number of publications. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)