Talk:Michael Welner/Archive 3

Re: Paragraph on Fees

 * I am having a difficult time finding the asserted merit of this fees section that Mr.Grantevans2 brought up in the previous section. In general the paragraph is too long [WP:UNDUE]. Stewaj7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Second, including language such as “hired gun” is defamatory. Please note that Dr. Welner is a forensic professional with a reputation. Allowing the third party opinions from attorneys, who in fact were on the opposing side of Welner, do in fact create professional controversy and can cause potential harm to a semi-public figure. Use of this characterization is not informative and cannot it be substantiated. It has been said several times in our discussion and I reiterate it here, we should tread carefully when dealing with contentious material in a BLP. Another issue is that there have been a few objections to characterizing Dr. Welner as renowned[][][][][][] even when references list him as that, so if doing so is puffery the converse would be true for including a characterization as “hired gun” [WP:NPF].Stewaj7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * “Welner has encountered some attention for his fees, which have been termed "jaw dropping"[28][29](e.g. $242,996.74 for his work on the second Andrea Yates trial and $400,000. for his competency report on the Eliazabeth Smart kidnapper) as well as some criticism about his level of objectivity.”
 * One reporter’s characterization of Dr. Welner’s fees as “jaw dropping” should not be included here.  I think this is a bit of a weasel word. Forensic psycho-medical professionals are compensated for their work, which may appear to be draw dropping to the assistant who makes 30,000/year or the report who takes home 50,000/year. But relying on jaw dropping as if it were an accurate characterization I think is irresponsible editing.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * “His competency reports and testimony have been described by some as "advocacy, not an objective evaluation of facts."[29][30][31][32] . Stewaj7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference 29 – this is not a reliable source for such a contentious statement. The only criticism made in this article was by Christopher Conrad, who was a former prosecutor who resigned for his own political ambition, running for district attorneys against the sitting district attorney who had retained Dr. Welner on successful major cases. The statement political opponents make to gain votes are irrelevant to a biographical page for Dr. Welner. Furthermore, the comments made do not directly criticize Dr. Welner fee’s, but rather the governments allocation of funds. Generalizing the criticism to Dr. Welner, who was not target of the criticisms should be avoided.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference 30, 31 and 32 – These are all the same article reprinted on different sites. The article summarizes the objection of the defense to Welner’s report. Only one individual, as opposed to "some", made this claim. The criticisms from the opposing attorney in a case seem irrelevant for the BLP and a bit slanted due to the defenses own advocacy of their client. It is ironic because defense attorneys are paid to be advocates of their client whether they are guilty or innocent. Such third party opinion is not reliable to base a general statement about Welner’s objectivity or to insinuate that he is an advocate Based on this, I don’t think such a sentence should be included in the bio. Not exactly reliable and noteworthy. Not to mention that the judge or jury in this case referred to Welner's opinion as best practices[](Pg. 14)Stewaj7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the following quotes by - Brett Tolman (part of the prosecution team that retained Welner on the Mitchell case, referred to his testimony as "worth every penny".), Alex Neve (commented on Welner's opinions in the Khadr case stating, "I’ve rarely heard anything so over the top and outrageous. Clearly, this is a psychiatrist who has some strong ideological views".[34][35]) and Kevin Takata (said that Welner's expertise and abilities are valuable, "I can tell you that Dr. Welner is the best on the stand I've ever seen,")
 * This content from third parties seem to be inconsistent with what we are trying to accomplish here. In line with NPOV and other claims about puffery I think we should do as lawblogger recommended and reduce the use of third party opinions in the BLP. Otherwise, this sets the tone for making this an increasingly long BLP littered with quoted irrelevant opinions.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The comments by Christopher Conrad are addressed above.
 * “Defence attorney William H. Difenderfer questioned Welner's credentials, pointing out that his curriculum vitae lists 137 publications since 1993 and all but 23 of them are found in Welner's own online publications.”
 * It is laudable that Welner was able to maintain a successful forensic publication. The fact that he had written for his own publication is a fact and not a question. What is the point of including such a sentence?Stewaj7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * “He also accuses Welner of acting "more like a detective building a case than a psychiatrist evaluating a patient." Welner replied that thinking like a detective is in accordance with his training, and with regards to criticism that his publications have mainly appeared in his own journals, Welner acknowledges liking greater control over the editorial process of articles about his work. In the six murder trials in which Welner testified where insanity or mental infirmity were defenses, the prosecution has always won.[29]
 * This sentence is wordy and drawn out. For brevity, we should drop out most of this if not all. Second, the comment by Difenderfer is not an accusation. It is erroneous to characterize it as such. By including the comment suggests that Difenderfer is some sort of expert in the proper way that psychiatrist should act? Isn’t, there an investigative component to being a forensic psychiatrist just like there is to being a reporter or doctor or attorney. I think that this is another example how this paragraph is lacking in substance. All of this said, if it helps move things along, I agree with Lawblogger18's suggestion. But there are serious issues with the fees paragraph, which if revisited, must be addressed once the professional careers section is finalized.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Stewaj7 - See the bottom of the "Here's Where We Are" section for a synopsis of the consensus regarding how to move forward. Please hold off discussions on this issue for the time being. You will have the opportunity to continue sharing your viewpoints on this issue, along with the other editors, as we progress. Lawblogger18 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Publication Section
I would like to take a stab at the proposal of the Publication section. I will get this posted here for the editors to comment on asap. I also wanted to note, that in collecting my thoughts on this section, I was thinking it might be best to separate the Publications from the Media appearances, keeping academia and media consultation in their rightful places. Thoughts? Empirical9 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Empirical, it might be a bit of a skip ahead but thinking about it won't hurt. Perhaps you already plan to include these 3, but if not,I suggest you include info on The Forensic Panel ,The Forensic Echo and The Depravity Scale, for discussion purposes, in your writeup if you feel they should be included in the BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To Mr.Grantevans2 (talk), I am working through it now and feel that The Forensic Echo will definitely have a home, in my view, in the publications section. I had thoughts on the other sections, but, in general, felt that they might not need that much work, so was waiting to hear from the other editors on their thoughts on those sections, prior to inserting my editing thoughts. I also am thinking, for the Publication section, that ensuring well sourced (and from places outside The Forensic Panel website) publications are placed and discussed in a fashion that is complimentary but not peacockish is important and that is why I wanted to start on this, perhaps even while the other sections get worked out. Empirical9 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would only ask that you keep within the spirit of edits made thus far. We are making good progress and have really refined the BLP's content. I will be sure to check back in to see what you have proposed. What is going on with the Forensic Panel section?Stewaj7 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As one sees immediately upon going to its website, It is obviously a promotion/advertisement for Dr. Welner's services. So, it is at best a primary source and more objectively a promotional commercial entity, in my opinion. The Forensic Panel section should be deleted entirely, in my opinion. The BLP could,perhaps, include simply a sentence somewhere stating that Welner founded it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr.Grantevans2, you have been busy editing the BLP without discussion or consensus, after our painstaking efforts up to this point, I ask that you keep with our methodology for editing this page and get consensus before making changes. Including of a reference to appears to be informative only. There is no overt hyper linking or external link here. To use The Forensic Panel as an informative source about Dr. Welner or his practice, if limited, is not promotional. I think that too much is being read into this.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To Mr.Grantevans2 (talk), what gives? This BLP has been moving forward, with consensus for some time and now you take the opportunity to insert your own blatant misrepresentations and factual innacuracies in order to start yet another edit war. Why would you do this? If you have a proposed plan for The Depravity Scale section, put it on the talk page so that ALL editors can reach consensus. I am just about done with my proposition for the Presentations and Publication section and also the Media Consultation section, which of course will be put here for consensus before it is placed on the page nonchalantly. Let's not go down this road again folks Empirical9 (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Mention of WIEEO
Mr.Grantevans2: You have brought this section of the BLP up as an issue. I have reverted the changes that you made to the BLP prior to seeking consensus. Making changes unilaterally in the middle of the discussion can be disruptive. Therefore, I have included a section here for discussion. I ask that you play by the rules imposed by yourself and other editors and discuss changes to the BLP in this forum.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please tell us why, with secondary sourcing, this is notable enough for inclusion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Grantevans2: Because Welner is a member of the forensic science community, information about his research and scientific endeavors would seem to be important to include in a biography. While the source does not specifically reference "WIEEO" the ABCnews article does point out that Dr. Welner studies depraved behavior, specifically everyday evil. I think that the paragraph could be rewritten so as not to include use of the term WIEEO since the source is more general in that sense. But certainly a brief note about Dr. Welner's research, while it is not sensational or cause célèbre, I think is relevant. No? Suggestion: (Dr. Welner has also worked to refine criteria of what exactly constitutes everyday evil. The fourteen item inventory that he has developed includes traits such as "creatively causing suffering," "exploiting physical, mental, emotional vulnerability," and inspiring others to commit evil acts. The goal of the research in everyday evil is to help mental health professionals and ordinary individuals look out for warning signs of people capable of truly evil behavior and eventually, to help juries in civil cases decide when a defendant should be punished for "outrageous" actions in intentional torts.)Stewaj7 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Forensic Panel, Depravity Scale & Echo Section
If it is ok, I think we should continue discussion on the Echo and Depravity Scale here. A bit of history on the different view points...

Mr.Grantevans2 - the Forensic Panel is Welner's business venture; it generates income for him. The issue with the Depravity Scale is to ensure the Reader knows that the Scale's standards are defined by the public and not by medical professionals as one might assume. The forensic echo is a publication which stopped publishing 9 years ago. None of the 3 have much in the way of impartial secondary source references which have notable content. In my opinion all 3 of these enties are simply components of the Subject's business enterprises, which is just fine, but,imo, it should not take up any space at all in his BLP much like details of any 1 or 2 buildings that Donald Trump builds should not take up space in Trumps BLP. If consensus is that the top 2 entities deserve some mention, then they must be presented with a description which does not leave the Readers to assume they are arms-length(Panel) or Medically Professionally arrived at(Depravity Scale standards). The Forensic Echo simply is too outdated,inactive and non-notable to be included at all.

Emperical9 - The research is extremely important, however, and Dr. Welner speaks about it quite often in his media consultation appearances. Third, The Forensic Echo absolutely has importance and I stated to you and the other editors previously that I was going to remove it as its own section and subsume it under publications and presentations. Regardless of when it stopped publishing, Dr. Welner was publisher and editor-in-chief, absolutely important for a BLP.

Stewaj7 - It is important, before opining about The Depravity Scale research, to familiarize oneself with what it is. The Depravity scale is has been called many things as it has been discussed in several arena’s. But, who better to explain the research than the individual who has spearheaded it.
 * It seems that the main issue here is should there be a separate section for the Panel, Echo and Depravity Scale? If yes, what should the section look like. Thoughts?Stewaj7 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Forensic Echo
Please tell us why, with secondary sourcing, this is notable enough for inclusion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To reiterate again, The Publications and Presentations section I am preparing, which is just about complete (I am ensuring that it is concise and following the guidelines we have been working with thus far), will subsume The Forensic Echo so that it does not take up an entire section, but is adequately described for a BLP. While the section should not, I belive have secondary sourcing, but should only cite to the archive that is currently availble for readers to view, here are some sources  . Empirical9 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the subject of the BLP started and maintained a publication. The publication now appears to be an archive, but to me still seems like a notable achievement. It should not dominate the BLP; however, it seems that Emperical9 is consolidating Dr. Welner's academic career and publication history and offering citations. So I think we should see what Emperical9 comes up with. This may be a moot point.Stewaj7 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be away from this BLP for awhile
fyi, I want to severely reduce the time I spend on Wikipedia activity; and you guys seem to be doing really well now. So, don't wait for me if the rest of you agree on something, feel free to forge ahead. I am going to remove the NPOV tag now but obviously if anyoine else feels its still needed they might put it back. Best wishes, Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see it was a short sabbatical. Thanks for hanging in Mr.Grantevans2 until we completed this project. While the NPOV tag has been removed, work still needs to be done. Lets get this to a finish line so that we can all take a break eh?Stewaj7 (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Forensic Panel Section

 * In the interest of keeping the BLP in order and because no other editors have proposed this section yet, I'd like to propose the following for The Forensic Panel section. It is fully sourced, with outside sources and I believe it meets the standards we have been using:
 * In 1998, Dr. Welner developed the first system for peer-review of forensic consultation in the United States . The Forensic Panel, which he chairs, now features approximately 30 members in psychiatry, psychology, neuroradiology, emergency and critical care medicine, nursing, toxicology, and pathology. The peer-review system optimized by The Forensic Panel aims at maximizing evidence-driven diligence, safeguards objectivity, and promotes adherence to updated standards within forensic sciences . The Forensic Panel's peer-review has since established a reputation for its diligence and is recognized by virtue of its case list and roster of specialists as one of the most respected forensic practices in the world. Empirical9 (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This draft is almost entirely puffery and self-promotional PR jargon that is wildly inappropriate for a BLP. Three of the four proposed sources are not reliable sources and cannot be used in a BLP: two are blogs, another is a recently-launched educational directory web site. Fladrif (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I must completely disagree. The paragraph is descriptive of the practice created by Dr. Welner. How is it puffery? If it is fact, it is not puffery. I looked for sources that were outside of The Forensic Panel's page as I expected that those were not going to be allowed. If need be, I will look for other sources, as I'm sure you will critique, but not assist in that endeavor. Empirical9 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that I do not feel consensus is needed for this but for grammatical purposes I am capitalizing the word 'training' in the title 'Education and traning', which is currently lowercase - that is the only edit I am making to the page. Empirical9 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For that matter, I think the 'B' in Personal background should be capitalized, as well as the 'c' in Professional career. Any objections? Empirical9 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MOS. Per MOS:HEAD, only the first word is to be capitalized, unless subsequent words are proper nouns. Fladrif (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So how about this for the section?
 * In 1998, Dr. Welner developed the first system for peer-review of forensic consultation in the United States . The Forensic Panel, which he chairs now features approximately 30 members in psychiatry, psychology, neuroradiology, emergency and critical care medicine, nursing, toxicology, and pathology . The Forensic Panel's peer-review has since established a reputation for its diligence, its work having been noted in court to represent "best practices in forensic psychiatry and psychology" . Empirical9 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot use primary court documents nor transcripts as sources in a BLP. See WP:BLPPRIMARY That eliminates the Salt Lake Trib article, which is simply reprinting a transcript (of Welner testifying about himself), and the Mitchell decision in Utah. The Reason article makes no mention whatsoever of the Forensic Panel, so I am baffled as to why it is being cited as a source.  The "best practices" statement in the Mitchell decision makes no mention of the Forensic Panel, and your summary significanlty mispresents what it does say. Given these problematic sources and misuse of sources, I must insist please provide here a quote from the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse article, in context, for what you are proposing to use it for, as it is not available to me readily. This language continues to suffer from puffery: "first system for peer review" is Welner's claim about himself, not an independent assessment. The very use of the term "peer review" is puffery, as Forensic Panel's "peer review" process is not "peer review" in the sense that term is ordinarily used. "Established a reputation for its diligence": Sez who? If it had a reputation, that would be reported in independent, third party publications.


 * Let me make a suggestion. Cut this down to the salient points supportable by reliable independent sources without puffery: Welner founded and is chairman of the Forensic Panel. It has approximately 30 members in the various listed specialties and provides consultation in those specialties. If any of these people are prominent enough that they have their own BLPs, note those members individually. For 5 years it was publisher of the "Forensic Echo". That's pretty much it once you cut out the self-promotion. Fladrif (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, Dr. Welner is a person, not a an 'it' and it is not appropriate to refer to him as such when discussing his role as editor-in-chief of The Forensic Echo. I am exhausted at explaining that The Forensic Echo will be subsumed under the Publications section and so I will not do it any longer, please read the rest of this discussion page as you have not contributed in some time. Secondly, while trial transcripts may not be used, you clearly, once again, have no grasp of the person whose BLP we are editing here. The Forensic Panel is a forensic consulting practice Dr. Welner chairs and any work he contributes as the primary expert witness would be considered the work of The Forensic Panel. This is why only editors who have an understanding of the person whom they are editing the BLP of and the profession they work in should be involved. Third, 'The Forensic Panel' is all capital, it is the name of the practice. Fourth, if you read the 'Reason' article you will see that it says the following, "Welner, who has founded both a journal for the field and a peer-reviewed consultancy called the Forensic Panel, is one of 400 or so certified forensic psychiatrists whose job is to find out". Fifth, the requested quote from the Educator Sexual Abuse, include: "Litigation’s adversarial pull promotes distortion or exaggeration of symptoms. In an effort to control for these factors, a peer-review oversight process can be used to promote the level of diligence and objectivity in the findings. Such collegial oversight also expedites litigation to promote resolution." (p389). Sixth, the term 'peer review' is in no way puffery. It is what The Forensic Panel uses. How is that anything other than descriptive? If you read the trial transcript that we are not using, you will see that this was argued there too and a Federal judge noted that it was an argument of semantics. Not understadning a process doesn't make it a puff piece. Empirical9 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've about had it with the ad hominem attacks as well as with the eggshell skull sensibility. Forensic Echo was published by the Forensic Panel, was it not? Thus "it" was the publisher, though "he" was the editor. How do you twist that into an insult? Accusing other editors of ignorance is hardly helpful.  Suggesting that only editors "who have an understanding of the person...and of the profession" should be involved is not merely (i) wrong at the most fundamental level but (ii) raises all sorts of red flags about your own involvement as a SPA on this article.  Consider this a warning on both counts. All Wikipedia articles, and most especially BLP's must be based upon reliable, independent, secondary sources. We do not write articles, nor interpret sources, to reflect individual editors' personal understanding, sympathy for or antipathy against a subject. As for your continued misuse of sources, which is yet another problem, the quote you've provided is (i) out of context, and (ii) says nothing about the Forensic Panel, and does not say that it employs peer review oversight. Is there some other portion of the article that supports the proposed text? Your argument that Welner = Forensic Panel is a nonstarter.  We need actual sources, not individual editor's opinions and original research. Consider that another warning. Fladrif (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've mentioned multiple times that I've already prevailed against your SPA accusations and I'd appreciate if you would stop as you were told to by the administrators. As an editor who is working hard with others to propose sections, reach consensus and look for reliable sources, it is frustrating for another editor to only critique and 'warn' and not put in any actual work on the page. As for The Forensic Echo, again, no it was not put out by The Forensic Panel, it was published by Dr. Welner himself. It is a separate entity, established years before The Forensic Panel was created. I don't think my knowledge of him and The Forensic Panel should raise any red flags. I think we should all know alot about him at this point, don't you and therefore my calling you out on certain ignorance is absolutely appropriate when the rest of the editors have been working in harmony and all of a sudden you come on attacking any and all propositions for the sake of argument. Also, I'm not sure what the quotes are doing around the word nothing, but if we focus on the fact the (i) Dr. Welner is chairman of The Forensic Panel (ii) in The Forensic Panel, Dr. Welner created and first utilized peer-reviewed forensic consultation and (iii) the article is written by Dr. Welner about that peer review process - I think you can understand why I used it as a source. If there is a reason, outside of flagrant attacking and with actual editing in mind that you can propose that an article discussing the peer review process he created for the peer review consultation practice he created is not appropriate, I am all ears. But, only if there is an actual editing argument and not 'warnings' for no reason WP:IAR?. Empirical9 (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Emirical9 & Fladrif: without taking sides, the both of you need to stop bickering and slinging threats and accusations. Good progress has been made on this BLP and this back and forth is sucking the air out of the room. While it is each of your rights to disagree with each other, it would be helpful if you each at least acknowledged (i) that the other's disagreement is not a personal affront and (ii) the elements of the other editor's proposal to which you are in agreement. In short - presume good faith by the other and work positively in cooperation. Please find my proposal below. The first and third line is essentially Fladrif's proposal. However, given that peer review has differing applications within different industries and contexts (academic, scholarly, professional, medical etc.), I added a line which clarifies what peer review means in this context. I am open to (polite) thoughts.


 * Dr. Welner is Chairman of The Forensic Panel, an organization established for peer-review of forensic consultation in the United States. The objective of peer review, pursuant to the protocols established by The Forensic Panel, is intended to minimize examiner bias by subjecting forensic assessment to the formal evaluation and scrutiny of peers, who critique the diligence, objectivity, and adherence to standards of the work.  .     The Forensic Panel is composed of over thirty practitioner members who provide forensic peer review in psychiatry, psychology, neuroradiology, emergency and critical care medicine, nursing, toxicology, and pathology.     Lawblogger18 (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To Empirical9; Please read this as a friendly "heads up"; and, another friendly suggestion, one that I give to myself often, just for a moment, be a bit humble about it all. Fladrif (talk)'s suggestion here at 16:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC) should be paid much attention to, I think. I believe his opinions are extremely well respected within Wikipedia, especially relating to what is or is not proper sourcing. If he or I take these matters to a noticeboard, its very likely Fladrif's assessment will be the prevailing one. It would be an error in deduction to extrapolate your successful arguments in thus far fending off editing restrictions related to your SPA status to expectations of successfully arguing anything at all to do with BLP sourcing,puffery etc. against the likes of Fladrif. He has been editing here for 3 years, so just think about it. By analogy only, what chance does a 1 topic intern have in prevailing, against an established Partner in a firm, in a moot court hearing (which a noticeboard is something like,I think)about the interpretation of broadly applying case law? So, imo its really only intelligent and strategic on your part to read carefully the suggestion that Fladrif put together for us at 16:56, 19 January 2011 and try your best to come up with something that fits within those parameters. I see his suggestion as a compromise because my opinion all along has been that the articles which mention the Forensic Panel and Echo are just promotional articles for his practice(business) which means,in my opinion, the Panel and Echo deserve no mention at all.


 * Fladrif's suggestion is:

"Welner founded and is chairman of the Forensic Panel. It has approximately 30 members in the various listed specialties and provides consultation in those specialties."( If any of these people are prominent enough that they have their own BLPs, note those members individually.) continue:"For 5 years it was publisher of the "Forensic Echo". "

and that is what I support, as a compromise. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering all options I think any would suffice. Considering the "average reader" - one can appreciate a description of The Forensic Panel as informative rather than promotional. I think of all the suggestions, Lawblogger18's version strips away extraneous content, includes an informative blurb about this peer review practice, which is supported by the reference, and maintains neutrality without being bland. I think Fladrif's version does not explain the forensic panel in a way that the reader can appreciate what it is or why it is included and Emperical9's version had some referencing issues. I will not suggest a version because I don't think we can do any better than Lawblogger18's recommendation as a compromise.Stewaj7 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the continued threats and accusations now that Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) has jumped back in to back up his colleague, I'd like to get back to our purpose here. Lawblogger18 (talk)'s suggestion makes the most sense, is not puffery and is sourced and concise. As I have exhaustively discussed, although seemingly have been ignored becuase I have been overwraught with threats from the other editors, The Forensic Echo was not published by The Forensic Panel, but by Dr. Welner himself. This is clear in the BLP as it stands now (which I agree needs to change) and from sources. The Forensic Echo began in 1996 and published until 2000, while Dr. Welner formed The Forensic Panel in 1998. Although he was editor-in-chief of The Forensic Echo and is currently Chairman of The Forensic Panel, they are not the same and cannot be assumed to be the same. This follows the same discussion I had with Fladriff yesterday and using her argument, Welner does not equal The Forensic Panel, then it is incorrect to write that The Forensic Panel published The Forensic Echo - it is factual innacuracy. Also, to reiterate, yet again and hopefully for the final time, The Forensic Echo should get a mention and does in the section I prepared for Publications (which has not been proposed yet because no consensus has been reached on this). Empirical9 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Grantevans: I think Fladrif's point was to "cut this down to the salient points supportable by reliable independent sources without puffery". I don't think that anyone is argueing that these are unreasonable notions. That is what I tried to do with the version I proposed. I took four points, which I thought were salient: 1. What the Forensic Panel does 2. Welner's position there 3. a general statement of what peer review is in context, and 4. the number/areas of members; and wrote them in a way that I thought was more or less boiled down. I got rid of the language which seem to raise most of the objections and tried to hit a neutral mark which would reach consensus between the editors. So we can get back on track, is it the points in the paragraph or the tone which is raising your objection? Lets sort it out, because I really thought this version would have hit the mark for everyone... Lawblogger18 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lawblogger, I think your progress/work is really good. I must defer to Fladrif's opinion (on the final wording)somewhat because imo, he really knows the sourcing/citation policies here, and the nuances thereof, so much better than I do. Whatever you and he can agree upon will be fine with me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Grantevans: Consensus means overall consensus and you shouldn't always defer to Fladriff. If that section works the best, I support it, minus the mention of The Forensic Echo, which was NOT published by The Forensic Panel, so that would be factually innacurate. But, I ask Fladrif (talk) and Mr.Grantevans2 (talk), where are the sources for this proposed section? We cannot move towards consensus on any section without proper sourcing. Without you providing them and their merit in this application - I maintain that Lawblogger's section is by far the most informative and concise, even better than the one I proposed and his points as to why he put in each part make perfect sense - and he sourced it. Empirical9 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not defer with regards to changes in the lede. Actually, by defering, I am trying to help create a consensus on Forensic Panel, because Fladrif seems willing to include some mention of the Panel and Echo whereas I would prefer that they be left out altogether. Why? Because I simply can not find, in my opinion, a truly detached reliable source which mentions them in a way that makes them notable enough for inclusion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well there is consensus among some and Mr.Grantevans2 has deferred to Fladrif. In general, if you raise objections on the discussion page, please then be attentive to this so that we might complete this tedious exercise. Fladrif: Lawblogger18 has proposed a section and to keep the peace, all are waiting patiently for your comments as all other parties have commented at this point. If you do not have anything to contribute or objections to raise please advise so that we can add Lawblogger18's paragraph and move on.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lawblogger's proposal is OK with me. Fladrif (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fladrif: I am sure you have other demands so thanks for checking in. I anticipate that there is more to come, but hopefully we are at the finish line with this. That said, if there are no further points to be made on this section, I would like to throw Lawblogger18's proposed paragraph up on the page as we appear to have consensus.Stewaj7 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad consensus has been reached on this section. I have a proposal ready for the Media section as soon as this section is up. Empirical9 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Lawblogger's proposal. Thank you Lawblogger. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

After looking at this for a week, I'd like to suggest what I hope all will agree is an appropriate change.

''Welner is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, an organization established for a multi-specialty forensic practice which employs peer-review of forensic consultation in the United States .[27] The objective of peer review, pursuant to the protocols established by The Forensic Panel, is intended to minimize examiner bias by subjecting forensic assessment to the formal evaluation and scrutiny of peers, who critique the diligence, objectivity, and adherence to standards of the work. [28][29] The Forensic Panel is composed of over thirty practitioner members who provide forensic consultation peer review in psychiatry, psychology, neuroradiology, emergency and critical care medicine, nursing, toxicology, and pathology.[30]''

I think that our focus of discussion on peer review got us off what it is that the Forensic Panel actually is: a forensic consulting practice. The peer review is something that it does internally when it is engaged in consultation; it is not an organization for peer review of others' work, which is what is inadvertentely implied by the current language. Also the bit about the US seems inappropriate since Welner has testified in Canada. Fladrif (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current wording, even though we all agreed to it, is not accurate enough. Also, somehow we omitted the fact that the Panel was founded/created by Welner. Perhaps we could add "Founder and" in front of Chairman? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Added "founder and" to the above suggested language Fladrif (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would only suggest that we the last sentence read, " The Forensic Panel is composed of over thirty practitioner members who provide forensic consultation and peer review in psychiatry, psychology, neuroradiology, emergency and critical care medicine, nursing, toxicology, and pathology.[30]".Stewaj7 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be sure that the wording changes are supported by the references.Thanks.Stewaj7 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The version that I'm suggesting is explicitly supported by the cited sources. My only concern about Stewaj7's suggestion above is whether it implies that every member is involved in providing peer review. That's what I would infer from the suggested language, but I can't find that explicitly in the sources provided. The sources state that every member's work is subject to review by two other members, (eg, from the trutv article "The Forensic Panel currently has thirty-five fully-vetted professionals on staff, in the behavioral sciences, pathology, toxicology, emergency medicine, and neuroradiology. At least two doctors peer-review any given case, examination, or report on which The Forensic Panel consults.") but that doesn't mean that every member acts as a peer reviewer, and we can't just assume that to be the case. Going through the pages on the Forensic Panel website, I don't see any statement that every professional on staff is involved in providing peer review. If you're insistent that the last sentence include something about peer review for the third time in the same paragraph, we could say "...who provide peer reviewed consultation....", but I think it would be unnecessarily repetitious overkill. Fladrif (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fladrif: I can appreciate your point here. Let us refrain from overkill.Stewaj7 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Media consultation, writings and commentary section

 * Forging ahead, my thoughts were that the next section should focus on the media and commentary Dr. Welner has provided, briefly - this seems to follow properly in the order, in my opinion. Looking forward to your comments:
 * Media Consultation, writings and commentary (this is how I believe the section should be titled)

Dr. Welner has been featured in network news coverage of major legal cases for a number of years. He has been a frequent guest on Larry King Live, , and his appearances have been cited in subsequent court opinion , such as his explanation for how a long-victimized teenager would willingly continue to submit to sexual abuse into adulthood.

Some of his more referenced comments have followed the Ft. Hood Massacre, white collar defendant Bernie Madoff , false confessor John Mark Karr and Craigslist Killer Phillip Markoff. Dr. Welner also interviewed serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin for a TruTV-Investigative Discovery Special that centered on the application of Dr. Welner’s Depravity Standard research.

Dr. Welner’s appearance in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings were notably credited by ABC News with changing the direction of news coverage. In the aftermath, Dr. Welner was invited to debate television coverage of mass shootings with NBC News Anchor Brian Williams and NBC News President Steve Capus on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

Currently, Dr. Welner consults to ABC News and appears most frequently on ABC News’ Good Morning America, providing extensive forensic psychiatry tutorials for ABC News.com readers that have covered topics ranging from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogations to Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation to domestic homicide. He is featured in the soon-to-be-released documentary, “Suicide Killers-Proliferation”. Empirical9 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot that we had this section to cover. My initial impressions are that it has been trimmed down quite a bit, possibly too much as it is clearly one of the more heavily and reliably sourced portions. The paragraph is missing internal links, particularly Bernie Madoff, Phillip Markoff and Joseph Paul Franklin, which is a small revision.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not providing the internal links. However, in the spirit of the editing thus far, I feel that the minimalism of this section is appropriate. Dr. Welner is a forensic psychiatrist first and media consultant second, no? Having this section be too long and drawn out will make the BLP move away from the npov we have worked hard to reach, in my opinion. What are your thoughts? Empirical9 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A few comments on sources. Some of these are fine; a few can't be used as sources on Wikipedia. The LKL transcript at the angelfire.com site can't be used; this is just somebody's webpage, not CNN, probably violating CNN's copyright, and there is no way of knowing whether this transcript is accurate or not. The MJJ2005.com is an internet discussion forum. It is not a reliable source, and cannot be used. The youtube video is not a reliable source, and can't be used in a BLP.  Second, a comment on use of sources. Much of this consists of stringing together primary sources, like transcripts, to support statements in the proposed text.  The article should instead rely upon secondary sources.  There is considerable stretching or misuse of some of these sources. It is inconceivable that a judge would cite, in an opinion, something Welner said in a TV interview. If a judge did that, it would almost certainly be grounds for mistrial. That can't be the case, and the the sources cited do not say that. I already noted above that the ABC news story on the VTech shootings does not say that Welner's statements affected media coverage; the headline says that, but not he text of the story itself, at most it speculates that that may have occured, and is basically quoting Welner for taking credit for it.  Nothing in the sources say that the listed cases are his "more referenced comments", that he appears "most frequently" on GMA or that he provides "extensive forensic psychiatry tutorials"; that is editor gloss not found in the sources. To support these statements, you need to find actual secondary sources. Finally, I agree that the length of this is inappropriate. I'd suggest cutting it down as follows:


 * Dr. Welner has frequently made media appearances, including on ABC News, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, the Oprah Winfrey Show, and Court TV/TruTV commenting on legal cases, including the Ft. Hood Massacre Bernie Madoff John Mark Karr Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogation Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation and Craigslist Killer Phillip Markoff . . Dr. Welner’s comments on media coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings  was speculated to have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage.
 * This still needs better sourcing. Fladrif (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oprah

 * Fladrif (talk) you have clearly become the voice of expertise on the subject of sourcing in this page and it is much appreciated, keeping us all within the Wiki guidelines and ensuring we are not posting a section that is not properly sourced. However, and please, without any accusations, I need to point out that your opinion on a judge's ability to quote a forensic psychiatrist in sentencing is factually innacurate and in this case, particularly as the citation I provided demonstrates the exact quote the judge used in the sentencing procedure, completely incorrect. As cited from the source I provided, "At the sentencing, the judge read a quote from forensic psychologist Dr. Michael Welner: "A skillful groomer, a skillful abuser, gets into the child's DNA and becomes a part of the child, and the child can't cast him off regardless of the age." . The second citation I offered is the interview that was conducted with Dr. Welner for ABC where Dr. Welner originally stated the above quotation . I would, with the input from other editors, be willing to work with a more concise version, but I think the version I provided is quite concise, considering the length it is at its current state on the page. I would also like to point out that if citations from Dr. Welner's appearances on Good Morning American stating that he is an ABC consultant, than how about this . Looking forward to input from others. Empirical9 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did not make myself clear. It would be unremarkable for a judge to cite what a witness says under oath, on the stand in his or her opinion. It would be completely out of bounds, however, for a judge to cite what some media personality said on TV to Larry King in an opinion. It isn't going to happen, and it didn't happen. But, that is what the proposed text said happened: He has been a frequent guest on Larry King Live and his appearances have been cited in subsequent court opinion, such as his explanation for how a long-victimized teenager would willingly continue to submit to sexual abuse into adulthood. The sources say no such thing. The judge is not citing Welner's statements on TV to Larry King or GMA in a sentencing opinion. The sources say that the judge is citing Welner's testimony in the case before him. See the difference? Fladrif (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect to the court citing Welner's opinion, the easy way to solve this is to find out whether Dr. Welner offered testimony or an opinion in the case of Daniel Kovarbasich. In my research thus far, it appears that he did not. The Oprah article says nothing about testimony being cited, rather that the judge read a quote. One can appreciate further that Welner is forensic psychiatrist or "psychologist" according to the Oprah reference who consults to the media; rather than a "media personality". In any event, I don't think it matters whether Fladrif thinks it couldn't happened or whether Emperical9 thinks it did. The sources reflects that the quote, which was said to by cited by the judge in the Korvarbasich case (see Oprah reference), was in fact offered while Welner was consulting to the media re: Vargas. Unless Mr. Fladrif can offer a source or evidence that supports his assertion that it was instead Welner's testimony being cited, I think this is a non issue. With respect to wording and the citations that are not appropriate, I think we can all resolve this and move on.Stewaj7 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What matters is what the reliable, independent, secondary sources say. The burden here is on Empiracal9 to show that the sources say what he claims they say. The burden is even higher per WP:REDFLAG because what is being suggested here as having happened would be reversible error had it actually happened. In fact, the sources don't support the proposed text at all. The Oprah article simply states that the judge quoted Welner (Setting aside that the Oprah show/magazine is most definitely not a reliable source for news on legal matters). It does not say where the quote was taken from. It certainly does not say that the quote was taken from a statement Welner made on TV. You state that "in fact" the statement was made by Welner regarding the Vargas case. I take it that the 20/20 video is supposed to be the source, but Welner did not make that statement in the clip. I've viewed it three times. It is not there. So the judge cannot be quoting that interview. What this is is original research on the part of whomever first came up with this language, that is impermissible per WP:NOR. There is no reliable independent secondary source that says that the Judge in Kovarbasich quoted something Welner said on TV about the Vargas case in his sentencing recommendation. Absent a reliable secondary source, this statement simply cannot be included in a BLP. Further the proposed text states the the Kovarbasich case is just one example of multiple times that Welner's TV appearances (referencing LKL specifically) have been cited in court decisions. Where are the sources for the other supposed incidents of this happening? Other than Wikipedia mirrors parroting what is already improperly in this article, there is no source for any of this. Fladrif (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that it was Stewaj7 who added this material to the article on Nov 24 It is original research that fails reliability. Whatever the source may have been for the quote reported by Oprah, it was demonstrably and indisputably not the 20/20 interview of Welner being cited, as he did not make that statement in that interview. Fladrif (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to catch up a bit and weigh in. What are the links for the references to the Larry King Show comments? When it comes to the Oprah Show, we may need to pass that by Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Also, this is where we really need to watch the puffery especially in regards to using as sources TV talk shows that conflate celebrity with news. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, the fact Welner is being referred to there as a "psychologist" shows the amateurish level of that source. Not sure about in the USA but in Canada there is a huge difference between a psychologist and psychiatrist.Just off the top, I would not want to include any article/show as a source which calls him a psycholigist as that I think is inaccurate and also indicates a level of unreliability of the rest of that article/source, it seems to me. What do others think about that? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, yet again with the consistent ridiculing, what happened to good faith? Now, I know that this source cannot be used, so I did not provide it, but for Fladrif (talk)'s education and for Mr.Grantevans2 (talk)'s education, I am providing a link to the actual sentencing of Daniel Kovarbasich . Because trial transcripts etc. cannot be cited, I had not previously provided it, but now that I face more accusations from Fladriff, please watch it and educate yourselves as the judge discussing watching Dr. Welner on 20/20. It hits in and around 18:20. Following sentencing, Daniel went on the Oprah Show and she then quoted the judge, citing Dr. Welner . Dr. Welner does state clearly in the 20/20 video that the abuser gets into the victims DNA and stays with them throughout adulthood, as the judge references. I don't appreciate being attacked, yet again, because a judge paraphrased Dr. Welner. Empirical9 (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Fladrif (talk), citing to your WP:BURDEN - did you read the part that says: "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." - instead of consistently attacking other editors, why not contribute in a meaningful way? Now, going through your other accusation, WP:RED FLAG the three things we as editors are supposed to account for are: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. 1. how exactly are The Oprah Show and 20/20 not maintream sources? 2. these opinions are in line with other opinions given by Dr. Welner on sexual abuse and no controversy was sparked by this, unless you can cite to one that I cannot find in the news, or consider your own issues with this a controversy 3. I haven't read of any conspiracy theory in relation to this. You are citing Wiki policy out of context, and it is being noted. Empirical9 (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one is being ridiculed, and no-one is being attacked. The Oprah article does not say that what was being quoted was said on TV. The language allegedly being quoted is not contained in the 20/20 broadcast. The judge in the video talks about something a Dr. Weiner said in a documentary, not Dr. Welner. Who is Dr. Weiner? The judge is no more "citing" the statement that he is apparently paraphrasing than he would be "citing" Shakespeare if he paraphrased something from Hamlet. As you correctly point out, the video can't be used in a BLP. Unless there is a reliable, independent secondary source, this material cannot be included in this article. And, were it properly sourced, we would get to a further point, whether it is sufficiently notable to be included in the article anyway. Also, you have made no answer to the question of what is your source to support the statement that things Welner said on LKL have been cited by courts. Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Empirical9, I wasn't meaning to be negative or ridiculing or anything like that and I thank you for providing the video link. I think we're all doing a pretty damn good job so far. I have to ask you, what are we to think when the judge clearly says "Weiner" not once but several times? Does the judge not know what Dr. Welner's name is? Please do not read this as if its ridicule or sarcastic; I listened to the section in the video and I truly do not know what to think about it or how it can help us with this BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reread all the comments above on the media section and come to the opinion thatFladrif's proposal is what I support:


 * Dr. Welner has frequently made media appearances, including on ABC News, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, the Oprah Winfrey Show, and Court TV/TruTV commenting on legal cases, including the Ft. Hood Massacre [132] Bernie Madoff [133]John Mark Karr [134] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogation [135]Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation [136] and Craigslist Killer Phillip Markoff [137].[138]. Dr. Welner’s comments on media coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings [139] [140] was speculated to have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage [141][142].


 * To add to the sourcing reasons given by Fladrif (for excluding much of the other content) is that these talk shows are awful sources of any kind for an encyclopedia. In my view they are mostly self promoting(Dr. Oz on Oprah) and reciprocally promotional vehicles (we'll put your "star" on our network if you put our star on your network). Just look at all of the spin off shows coming out of Oprah's "educational" segments: Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil being 2. For this reason I am opposed to including any content in this BLP which relies upon any connection to celebrity focused talk shows. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) - what happened to NPOV? Your personal opinions about The Oprah Show are not appropriate for this page and I'm sure you can find another forum to air those concerns. In that same vein, following the Virginia Tech shootings, when Dr. Welner appeared on The Oprah Show to debate televesion coverage of mass shootings, I'm sure NBC News Anchor Brian Williams and NBC News President Steve Capus, whom he debated with, would disagree with you that this show does not have important social, media and political standings . Empirical9 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of talking in circles here and personal opinions which confound the issue at hand, which is whether the Oprah reference to a judge quoting Welner is reliable and verifiable of. Period end of story. Thank you Fladrif for pointing out that I initially inserted this content...evidence that there is some difference in opinion about whether the content is supported by the sources or not. It does not seem independent research or a leap to note that Dr. Welner was first and singularly quoted here in the Vargas piece and then the Oprah article says that a judge used that exact quote in his opinion. Others disagree. To get an objective outside point of view, I encourage we take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There is no need to squabble over it - a fresh perspective would be helpful. As for sourcing issues related to sources that include trial transcripts, blogs or youtube, I think once can clean this up in the section without stripping it down and leaving out some notable content. May Fladrif can take another crack at it, or I could. More to come...Stewaj7 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As you wish. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Fladrif (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Catching up on the discussion, I believe the editors are talking through each other.  Here are my thoughts on a few of the issues:


 * Issue #1:  Empirical’s proposed language seems to infer that the Judge presiding over the Kavarbasich case based a legal opinion on Welner’s appearance on Larry King or 20/20.   An objection has arisen based on the fact there is no source which specifically makes this link.    I think this objection has merit, as the Judge does not state that he saw Welner on 20/20.   However, the Judge does specifically say that he saw Welner on a documentary (which is a form of media appearance).  Notwithstanding, per the below I believe this issue will shortly be moot.


 * Issue #2:  This is really just a passing issue, but  the question has been raised as to whether a judge would ever base an opinion on a television interview.   It has counter-asserted that the judge did indeed base an opinion on Welner’s media appearance, as self evident in the video link for the hearing.   Fortunately or unfortunately, each of the parties are equally correct and incorrect on this issue.   A Judges would never incorporate a television episode or a documentary into the black letter analysis of the law, but they do certainly include many an unusual reference in the obiter dictum and/or in the explanation of how they applied their judicial discretion and/or interpretation to the law.  Court opinions are filled with references to literature, movies, rural wisdom, etc.    If you think I am kidding, check out this opinion (http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.pdf) in which “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” is referenced by the Supreme Court of Texas .   More importantly, there are circumstances in which a Judge is very much permitted to consider factors outside of those set forth by the legislature (i.e. black letter law).  Indeed the judge in the Daniel Kovarbasich sentencing specifically states (a bit past the 12 minute mark) that "revised code 29-29-12" permits him to consider any factors outside of those set forth by the legislature to consider whether this crime is more or less serious than similar crimes and/or whether recidivism is likely.  Again, I think this issue will also be moot, but I just wanted to throw in a few thoughts on the subject.


 * Issue #3:    An objection has been raised to the use of transcripts for purposes of proper references/citations.    Fladrif: You are the senior statesman on this issue.  However, it seems to me that the prohibition on using transcripts (and other primary sources) is directly related to the prohibition on doing original research.   On this occasion, Empirical was not using the transcript (as a primary source) to support an assertion and/or original research.   Rather, she is using the transcript to support a secondary source (Oprah), which without such support may be deemed unreliable.  As such, it seems to me that the use of a primary source in this context does not offend the prohibition against original research – rather, it supports the objective of seeking reliability.


 * Issue #4:  The question has been raised as to whether Oprah is a reliable source.    I don’t think that an Oprah article  is an equivalently reliable source as a Washington Post article.   However, the question is whether it is a sufficiently reliable source when coupled with primary material, per the above.   This question, however, I think will be moot by tonight (per the below).


 * If everyone can wait until this evening, I think that I can put a paragraph together that would make everyone happy and exclude both the Oprah issue and the opinion issue.  I don't want to get sidetracked into a never-ending debate on whether Oprah is proper sourcing, and if we can agree to just shut down that issue for the next few hours until I put up a suggested version, I think we will save countless people time debating an issue that will become moot in short order.   Lawblogger18 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is possible that other comments may be filed, it would appear that the unanimous assessment of univolved editors at RSN, including one former Admin, and one current ArbCom member, that Oprah cannot be used as a source, moots our discussion of the Kavarbasich sentencing. Fladrif (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto that. The RSN assessment completely rules out Oprah as a source. I look forward to seeing Lawblogger's new paragraph. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I am running late. I am working on it tonight. Lawblogger18 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope all had a good weekend. Lawblogger18, how are we doing? I am eager to see your suggested paragraph.Stewaj7 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Va Tech
Sorry for the delay. I tried to eliminate areas of disagreement between the editors by (i) including some of the language that seemed important to some of the editors, while (ii) excluding language that seemed promotional or impermissible with the current citing available. I hope this strikes a balance which is acceptable to everyone.


 * Dr. Welner has been a contributor to network news including ABC, CBS, and BBC and to programs such as Larry King Live, on issues relating to forensic psychiatry and criminal behavior, such as the Ft. Hood shooting, white collar defendant Bernie Madoff , false confessor John Mark Karr , the Craigslist Killer Phillip Markoff , and the Virginia Tech massacre  .   He drew considerable media attention when his remarks on ABC News’ Good Morning Americaregarding media coverage of the Virginia Tech rampage  both prompted news networks to remove the killer's video confession and digital photographs from their news pages [44][45] and sparked a media backlash which may have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage.


 * Dr. Welner, is currently an ABC News Consultant, featured on Good Morning America, 20/20 , and Nightline . He has provided forensic psychiatry tutorials for ABC News.com that have covered topics including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogations , Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation and domestic homicide . Lawblogger18 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is any reliable source that Welner's comments on the VaTech killings actually affected media coverage or triggered any backlash; at best there is speculation as reflected in the ABC source. Also, per WP:RSN Oprah can't be used as a source. Also, I would add that Welner's media profile started with his role as Ross Perot's spokesman. Fladrif (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ABC News states: "Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner's appearance on 'Good Morning America' in which he criticized the news media for showing Virginia Tech killer Seung-hui Cho's video manifesto, may have changed the direction of the news coverage" .   If the issue is the phrase "sparked a backlash", lets replace it with the phrase "sparked a debate" -- which is more in line with the ABC article.  We can kill the Oprah citation, I don't think we need it.   As such, the sub-section would read: "He drew considerable media attention when his remarks on ABC News’ Good Morning America regarding media coverage of the Virginia Tech rampage  both prompted news networks to remove the killer's video confession and digital photographs from their news pages [44][45] and sparked a debate which may have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage "   Do you have a citation for the Perot work I could look at?  Lawblogger18 (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote from the ABC story does not state that Welner's comments "prompted news networks to remove the killer's video confession and digital photographs from their news pages", it merely speculates that it may have affected media coverage. On the other point, "sparked a debate" is probably more accurate. I would be OK if the paragraph read:
 * He drew considerable media attention when his remarks on ABC News’ Good Morning America regarding media coverage of the Virginia Tech rampage sparked a debate which may have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage 
 * One other thing: Characterizing his comments on various cases in which he is not professionally involved for ABC as having "provided forensic psychiatry tutorials" looks like a case of putting caviar on a hotdog. Words like "commented" or "opined" are more accurate and neutral.  They are hardly tutorials.  Fladrif (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My request is that we not belabor this process and quibble over wording preferences. "Provided forensic psychiatry tutorials" vs. "Provided forensic psychiatry commentary" I think is trivial. Either or will suffice. It looks like we have some agreement regarding the sentence up for discussion, He drew considerable media attention when his remarks on ABC News’ Good Morning America regarding media coverage of the Virginia Tech rampage sparked a debate which may have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage  I think "which is suggested to have" reads better than "which may have", but I am fine either way.Stewaj7 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perot & UWSA

 * This is the only reference I can find for Welner's involvement with the Perot campaign . It is from a newspaper and does not appear notable to me to appear in a BLP. In fact, the few sentences currently in the BLP regarding this area are without sourcing whatsoever, but remained seemingly uncontested. IMO, the media section, as it is currently proposed relates to Dr. Welner's contributions to his field of work and this newspaper article would not contribute to the BLP but would add unneeded fluff and content. I can consent to Lawblogger18 (talk) proposal as it stands, with the removal of the Oprah citation. Empirical9 (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are more references than that. Transcript of Welner appearing on NPR's "All Things Considered" Oct 2, 1992Jerusalem Post Oct 22, 19912Rocky Mountain News Nov 3, 1993 Newsday November 5, 1993  Miami Herald November 17, 1993  Albany Daily Gazette Dec 19, 1993  Austin American Statesman August 14, 1995  It seems to me that Welner's role as Perot's NY media spokesman attracted considerable local, national and even international news coverage, and was the first thing that he did that garnered  media attention.  This is not like debating whether or not one would include in an article "Dr X is a registered Republican/Democrat/Peoples Socialist/etc..."; he played a prominent role in local and national politics on behalf of Perot for several years.  It is absolutely critical to the completeness of this BLP that the information be included. Given that his role was a media chairman of the campaign, the media section of this article seems to me to be the appropriate place to put it. Fladrif (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawblogger18: I appreciate your objective suggestion. It is well sourced and to the point. Fladrif's concern with assigning unsupported significance to Dr. Welner's consultation on VT is understood. However, Lawblogger18 has provided a valid references from ABC, which is a reliable source. I wont quibble over "sparked a debate", "sparked a backlash" or "suggested to have changed the direction of the news coverage" - I think that the reference allows for any of them. With respect to Fladrif's recommendation re: Perot, I think such mention requires fuller clarification and a reliable source. Emperical9's reference does not support the content "Welner's media profile started with his role as Ross Perot's spokesman". Fladrif's sources help with elaboration, but one must avoid independent research. Please show me exactly where the references support the proposed content. All this said, I think Lawblogger18 delivered on his/her end to provide a paragraph that strikes a balance NPOV-gold-standard and it sets a high standard re: referencing. I am ok with adding it and moving on.Stewaj7 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Fladrif: I hate the political outing potential for this, but I hear what you are saying. Give me a day to see what other citations are out there. The ones you have provided mostly reference him as a supporter of Perot's. The only one that makes reference to him as a media director of NY State's Perot organization is Albany Daily Gazette; and even that one references him as a primarily Psychiatrist before also referencing him as a media director (which makes me believe that he solely worked among the unpaid volunteer/supporter group (United We Stand).   I don't see anything yet which references him as a "media chairman of the campaign" (who seems to be a guy named James Squires ) or that Welner held that position for a couple of years.  I will see what else I can find and post my findings sometime tomorrow.  Lawblogger18 (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I confess to bafflement. Political outing? This is not like someone went through voter registration records and discovered "Aha! John Doe is a registered X." "A supporter of Perot's"? Multiple reliable sources state, that Welner had an official role in the the Perot campaign in 1992-1993 and 1995: Newsday said he was "media relations coordinator" for Perot; Rocky Mountain News said he was "New York UWSA media coordinator"; the identical term is used in the 1995 Congressional Quarterly "Guide to Current American Government" Jerusalem Post says he was "New York State spokesman for the Perot campaign" The sources show him issuing press releases on behalf of the campaign, speaking publically and with reporters, appearing on panels, being interviewed on radio and for other media, authoring memos to plan and coordinate nation-wide events, etc...This isn't just something being reported in local media, it was widely reported in prominent national and international media. It is clearly notable and should be included in this BLP. May I suggest
 * During 1992-1993 and 1995, Welner served as New York media coordinator and spokesman for Ross Perot's presidential campaign and Perot's United We Stand America party.
 * citing the sources I've noted above.Fladrif (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems acceptable to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Please take this as what it is which is simply a matter for discussion. I am not trying to impede our progress nor am I insisting on anything at all. But despite Lawblogger's fantastic work, the BLP is just reading too much like a resume written about a very benign and passive professional. Welner's published opinions according to many reliably sourced accounts, both secondary and primary, have really been distinctib in several different areas, including terrorism, islamo-chaos, and execution for mentally deficient murderers, which are referenced in the text below from a previous version. Some of this content should be in the BLP I think. I also andparticularly feel that some of the content of this Houston Chronicle article belongs in the BLP.

"Dr. Welner’s chapter titled “Psychopathy, Media and the Psychology at the Root of Terrorism” details terrorism's connection with psychopathy and the effects of media on terrorist actions and public opinion.[37] In this chapter, Dr. Welner notes, “The news media’s abandonment of focus on fact for the sympathies of its reporters has nurtured ambiguity into contemporary understanding of the definition of terrorism. The byproduct of this whitewashing has included attaching moral equivalence between terror and the actions of terrorists’ targets; or, validating such terror as an acceptable stimulus to change (pg 1).” In this analysis, Dr. Welner also distinguishes the personalities exhibited in the hierarchies of terror organizations. He writes, “the most successful leaders of terrorism organizations are often examples of psychopathy (pg 5),” and, “he is distinguished by his ability to hold others under his sway, with the charisma of his personal appeal, the power of his communication, and his exquisite capacity to manipulate (pg 6).” Welner identifies several leaders, including Osama bin Laden, as psychopaths, with most attention (3 pages) devoted to Yasser Arafat, "Yasser Arafat is a stunningly vivid study in psychopathy, and the life cycle of the psychopath as terrorist leader (pg 7)." Welner opines that “terror’s end will result from the community that rejects the illusion of its paralysis that terrorists strive to orchestrate (pg 22)".[37]

Dr. Welner was invited to present testimony before the Pennsylvania and Texas State Senate Judiciary Committees on mental retardation and the death penalty. His testimony proved decisive,[citation needed] as hotly contested legislation ultimately gained strong bipartisan support for Dr. Welner's position." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Upon re-reading the above 2 paragraphs, it occurrs to me that there may not be available secondary sources which would meet with the standards which Fladrif is employing; since I have deferred to him on other matters of sourcing I will need to here as well, so I look forward to his opinion. I do feel the Houston Chronicle article is a reliable source and that the content there not only about fees but also about peer review, inappropriate billing and the integrity of Welner's testimony are notable enough for inclusion somewhere.

I will show exactly the content I am referring to but it is important to note that Welner has encountered similar criticsms regarding his involvement in several other cases so this is not just a 1 off situation;

here is what I am talking about within the Houston Chronicle article:


 * 1:


 * "But defense attorney Wendell Odom brought out during the trial that Welner's idea of "peer review" differs considerably from that of academic journals. But, as Odom brought out, Welner himself hires his "peer reviewers." Simply put, employees and employers are not "peers." This arrangement, said juror Olson, "really compromised his integrity."

Comment This(above) should be included in the Forensic Panel section.
 * 2: Juror's comments:


 * "Most of us really felt that he did more harm than good to the prosecution's case," Olson said, adding, "Several of us concluded that his analysis of 'the ultimate opinion' was built backwards: He started with the answer and then built his conclusion going back."
 * 3:Juror's comments:


 * "There was testimony by a defense witness, Joe Porto, who is an assistant U.S. attorney, that showed that Dr. Welner had contacted the defense team in 2001 wanting to work for them, not the prosecution," she said. "That put a shadow over his testimony, in my opinion."
 * 4:


 * "Once prosecutors Joe Owmby and Kaylynn Williford learned that Welner hired the seven "peer reviewers" he used in the case, they asked about the fee arrangement. It turns out he billed Harris County $350 an hour for their time but took $75 of each "peer's" hourly pay for himself. The DA's office refused to pay Welner that mark-up, saving about $8,200."

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First, no consensus was reached on the Perot sentence so I removed it from the page. You are causing an extreme disservice to the editorial progress fo this BLP by adding content without proper consensus. Also, what is your reasoning for placing it as the first sentence? I am extremely unclear as to how these references even register with this section as 1. they are all abstracts of articles and almost all of them do not mention Dr. Welner. 2. this is a BLP about a forensic psychiatrist. If you think it fitting to remove the content of numerous amounts of casework and media appearances, how is it fitting to include one poorly written sentence on Ross Perot? Please advise. Empirical9 (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, before you go diving elsewhere Mr.Grantevans2 (talk), keep in mind that 1. consensus still needs to be reached on this section and 2. there are two more sections for us to get through. We have to solidify this section and then discuss The Depravity Standard and other research, which I am sure will be interesting and finally Publications. There is still more to go here, let's not lose momentum by acting inappropriately and holding ourselves as editors up to lower standards than we hold our fellow editors. Empirical9 (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A full week went by with no on raising any substantive objection. I still don't see a substative objection. It is simply false that these sources don't mention Welner. They all explicitly are about his involvement in the Perot campaign and UWSA party. This should go first because it is chronologically first -- it would appear that Welner's affinity for the media originated with his role as media coordinator and spokesman for Perot, but that is not a conclusion we need to make ourselves. It is simply a non-starter to argue that because he's a forensic psychiatrist that his widely-reported and reliably sourced involvement in politics is somehow something that should get ignored.  Consensus does not get to override Wikipedia policy, nor does it allow deletion of reliably-sourced information that has been so widely and authoritatively documented. Fladrif (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Welner has been shown through Reliable Sources to be much more than just a forensic psychiatrist and his forays into politics and media are quite notable for inclusion in the BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Never in the history of this BLP have two editors, working in conjunction with each other and only deferring to each others opinions, been able to reach consensus on a section on their own. Please stop violating the rules set out by you in particular, Fladrif (talk), when we began re-editing this page. While it has taken him some time, Lawblogger18 (talk) asked for time to go through your supposed references. Interesting that you needed to post the section, with no consensus, without waiting for his response. I have checked your references multiple times. Without paying for the articles,, , and do not mention Welner. The following does not state anything about him being a media coordinator , leaving you with three possibly decent references , , . For someone so interested in Wiki referencing, you certainly do not follow the policy. Empirical9 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you forgot, the only reason I am wasting my time with this article is because of your own tag-team attempts to WP:OWN this article along with Stewaj7, so before you make comments about a pair of editors trying to force consensus, take a hard look in the mirror. Pot, meet kettle. Before you make statements about what sources do and do not say, you might try actually reading them. Never rely on abstracts of a source. Actually read it.  If you bothered to do so, you'd understand that your claim that the sources I've cited don't mention Welner is patently false. Familiarize yourself with WP:SOURCEACCESS before you make baseless accusations. Let me suggest that you widen your horizons at Wikipedia more broadly than this single article, and then perhaps you would have even a small inking of what the policies you so glibly cite actually mean and how they work in actual practice. Fladrif (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been a full week -- its only been three days since Grantevans2 added his viewpoint. I see points of view on this issue, but here are some of the issues that immediately strike me.
 * Citations: Most of the citations provided by Fladrif require payment to access or view the article.   These include the Jerusalem Post citation (the abstract references him as an associate professor at NYU Medical Center and New York spokesman for the Perot campaign), the Rocky Mountain News citation (No reference to Welner in the abstract), the Newsday citation (no reference of Welner in the abstract), Austin American Statesman (no reference to Welner in the abstract).   Fladrif:  How are you getting access to these articles?  Could you post the full articles so we can review the basis of your conclusions?
 * Title and Function with Perot: Of the abstracts or articles that do reference him there are conflicting references to his title, with some referencing him as a spokesman and others referencing him as a coordinator.  Fladrif attempts to reconcile this conflict by simply referencing him as both, but I don't think you can reconcile conflicting references by simply deciding that he held two roles, especially given the fact that no citation I have access to references him as having both roles.
 * Tone misleading: The manner in which the current statement reads, seems to imply that he served within a professional capacity as some polished media spin doctor.  This is unlikely given (i) United We Stand America was almost exclusively a volunteer organization, and (ii) of the abstracts or articles I can access, he is most often referenced first as a psychiatrist and then as a spokesperson.
 * Political Outing: I wanted to clear up an issue that I raised previously and explain further why it strikes a nerve with me.   I noted that I was worried that including information which references political leaning was a subtle form of political outing.  The response I received was that the objective of the paragraph was primarily to reference Welner's experience with the Media (and that the political reference with simply a necessary byproduct of the appropriate reference).  I spent many years in a corner of the US where people where often and openly ostracized if they had non-conforming political viewpoints, and will apologize in advance if I am overly sensitive to this issue.   However, I worry about places like Wikipedia devolving into platforms for issues with political charge, with items of political or social paint being  subtly wrapping it in pseudo context as a means of justification.   As an aside, Larry Sanger, the co-creator of Wikipedia, left the project due to "a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in the project" .   I think it’s up to each of us (myself included) to ensure that we don't consciously or unconsciously embed our own political leanings within the overall tone or construction of the BLP.   Not looking to kick up a dust storm with this.  I am just stating a general concern.
 * My suggestion (which I hope strikes a balance for all the editors):
 * Dr. Welner has been a contributor to network news including ABC, CBS, and BBC and to programs such as Larry King Live, on issues relating to forensic psychiatry and criminal behavior, such as the Ft. Hood shooting, white collar defendant Bernie Madoff , false confessor John Mark Karr , the Craigslist Killer Phillip Markoff , and the Virginia Tech massacre  . He drew considerable media attention when his remarks on ABC News’ Good Morning America regarding media coverage of the Virginia Tech rampage  sparked a discussion which may have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage . {Note:  This language was agreed upon and in the current version)


 * Dr. Welner, is currently an ABC News Consultant, featured on Good Morning America, 20/20 , and Nightline . He has provided contributed to ABC News.com on topics including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogations , Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation and domestic homicide . (note: This language was agreed upon, subject to Fladrif's objection to certain wording which I corrected per his suggestion)


 * In 1992 and 1993, Dr. Welner was a nationally visible spokesperson for the Ross Perot election campaign and the citizen action organization United We Stand America, advocating lobbying reform and rejection of NAFTA. . During the 1992 election campaign, Dr. Welner debated candidates’ representatives in support of Ross Perot’s presidential bid . Lawblogger18 (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can consent to this section. However, I have some basic grammatical and Wiki changes to make. Here they are:


 * Dr. Welner has been a contributor to network news including ABC, CBS, and BBC and to programs such as Larry King Live, on issues relating to forensic psychiatry and criminal behavior, such as the Ft. Hood shooting, white collar defendant Bernie Madoff , false confessor John Mark Karr , the Craigslist Killer Phillip Markoff , and the Virginia Tech massacre . He drew considerable media attention when his remarks on ABC News’ Good Morning America regarding media coverage of the Virginia Tech rampage  sparked a discussion which may have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage.


 * Dr. Welner, is currently an ABC News Consultant, featured on Good Morning America, 20/20 , and Nightline . He has provided contributed to ABC News.com on topics including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogations , Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation and domestic homicide.


 * In 1992 and 1993, Dr. Welner was a nationally visible spokesperson for the Ross Perot election campaign and the citizen action organization United We Stand America, advocating lobbying reform and rejection of NAFTA . During the 1992 election campaign, Dr. Welner debated candidates’ representatives in support of Ross Perot’s presidential bid . Empirical9 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the following sentence in the above needs a correction: "He has provided contributed to ABC News.com on topics including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogations, Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation and domestic homicide ." - It says, "provided contributed". How about just 'contributed'? So it would read, "He has contributed to ABC News.com on topics including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogations , Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation and domestic homicide ." Empirical9 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, a lot has transpired this week already. Lawblogger19: you have taken a very good look at the proposed media section and I appreciate most if not all of your points. We are all clearly sensitive to tone and neutrality, so I hope we will all tread carefully. Since the content of the other paragraphs for the media section have been all but resolved, I support the inclusion of what Lawblogger19 has recommended.Stewaj7 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with the formulation of paragraph 3, and also believe that it should come first because it is chronologically first, but that is not critical. Multiple reliable sources specifically identify Welner as Perot's and USWA's NY media coordinator, including Congressional Quarterly. Sources show that he was USWA's media coordinator at least as late as 1995. Other sources identify him as a spokesman for Perot and UWSA. Those are not inconsistencies.  It's not my problem that some of these sources are paywalled. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Arguing that it is misleading to report Welner's title because, according to an editor's unsourced assertion that Welner may have been a volunteer just strikes me as absurd. It doesn't matter whether he was paid or not. It doesn't matter if he maintained his medical practice or not. He was an official in the organization, and that role was sufficiently notable to have been reported in the national and international press. We need to accurately reflect what independent, reliable sources actually say about the subject. Fladrif (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you don't see it as "your problem" that these sites require paying for references - but how can us editors determine whehter you are providing any applicable materials when they are not accessible? In that vein, when you once could not view an article I had cited, you asked me to submit to you all of the quotes that I felt were applicable and I did because, for the sake of good faith and for working together to edit this page, it was the right thing to do - not to just get flagrantly angry in a comment and push a POV. Now, you want to hide behind WP:SOURCEACCESS but you are still under WP:PROVEIT. Because we have all agreed to this editing process, we have not all determined that these sources you claim say what they say so they are not yet proven to be reliable. If you can shoot down sources other editors propose, we also have that same luxury. For now, all arguments against your opinion make perfect sense because you have not properly supported yours. When you do, it would be a different discussion. Also, please remove your personal political affiliations from this because they are clearly showing through as your are becoming highly argumentative based around this one thing when your main point is generally to keep most relevant material out of this BLP. It seems your true POV is starting to show. Empirical9 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read WP:SOURCEACCESS? Apparently not. There are multiple ways for you to confirm what the paywalled articles say. You could pay. You could go to a library. You could even, if you're not inclined to do any of those things, search Google and at least read the short excerpts at the hits. Most tellingly, you have made no argument, because there is no argument, that the text I have proposed is innacurate or misleading based on the sources that you admit that you can read. Your baseless accusations are a blatant continuation of the very misconduct that has gotten you and Stewaj7 repeatedly warned by administrators. Fladrif (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I did read WP:SOURCEACCESS but do you forget WP:BURDEN? When I once proposed an article citation that you could not gain access to without paying, you asked me to provide you with the sections of that article that were relevant because I was under WP:BURDEN - AND I DID. The extreme lengths you are going to here to argue against providing the other editors here who are merely trying to vet your sources makes me wonder what those sources actually say. Instead of making continuous arguments, just play fair, like everyone else has done with you and your continued and repeated contentions and arguments for every sentence in this BLP and provide us with the relevance in the citations we cannot access. Specifically,, , and do not mention Welner in their previews. The following does not state anything about him being a media coordinator . Without even addressing the unneeded and unprecedented attitude you have attacked this page with this past week in getting this section finalized, please realize that while I can speak only for myself, I have been assuming good faith throughout this editing. Please get back to the task at hand instead of slowing down progress with tirades that are unnecessary. Empirical9 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You can access the sources; you simply choose not to. You also simply choose to not even look at the ghits. "I don't see it in the abstract" doesn't cut it.
 * Do you deny that Congressional Quarterly stated: "Those who voted for the budget and will vote for NAFTA, we will target them," says Michael Welner, the New York UWSA media coordinator."Current American Government", Congressional Quarterly 1995 p 52?
 * Do you deny that the Rocky Mountain News said the same thing? "Patriots set their sights on Perot", Rocky Mountain News (November 7, 1993), and sourced the story to the Congressional Quarterly?
 * Do you deny that Newsday's article on the Perot/UWSA NAFTA "vigils"Firestone, David, "Memo bares Perot unit's vigil plan", Newsday (November 5, 1993) p21 states that "The memo was written by Dr Michael Welner the media relations coordinator for the New York State chapter of United We Stand America"
 * You really claim that "Perot supporter says we should sacrifice", All Things Considered, National Public Radio (October 2, 1992) "do not mention Welner in their previews"? You didn't bother to even click the "Sample" button on the page! It says in black and white: Ross Perot's plans for taxes and budget cuts would be painful indeed. His most ardent supporters will have to face the severe changes he has in mind. One of them, Michael Welner, is a psychiatrist living in New York City. Welner says, yes, he agrees, Americans will have to make sacrifices, but some of them will simply force us to do what people elsewhere already have to do.
 * Do you deny that the Daily Gazette stated that Welner was "media director of the state Perot organization"?Clements, Ian, "State, local Perot backers prepare to bolster support, address issues" Sunday Gazette (Schenectady NY) (December 19, 1993)A1
 * Leaving aside what you could find without paying just using Google, if you even bothered to click on the links I provided to you, which renders the balance of your claims equally falsifiable, you still haven't answered my fundamental question: What in my proposed language do you think is inaccurate or misleading in light of the sources that you admit that you can access? Do you have any plausible claim that any of these sources are not reliable sources? Fladrif (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the real issue here is getting lost. Fladrif: I am glad you took the time to highlight the more difficult to find passages of references that you recommend. It seems that this was what editors were asking for initially. While the request may be chafing, it subjected you to similar scrutiny to which you have subjected others. But all in good faith. Lawblogger19 has raised other concerns with Fladrif's recommended paragraph beyond references and and Fladrif you disagree with the wording and position of the last paragraph in the section:
 * "In 1992 and 1993, Dr. Welner was a nationally visible spokesperson for the Ross Perot election campaign and the citizen action organization United We Stand America, advocating lobbying reform and rejection of NAFTA . During the 1992 election campaign, Dr. Welner debated candidates’ representatives in support of Ross Perot’s presidential bid ."

So lets move to a resolutions that quiets as many concerns as possible.
 * I recommend that the paragraph stay as the third paragraph because it is chronologically the least recent and it seem that readers will appreciate engage the most recent information first. That said, can we make the middle paragraph the first.
 * I would ask that Fladrif articulate his issues with the wording of the paragraph? Certainly, additional citations can be added, particularly those that Emperical9 has taken the time to vet. But, if this is the crux of the issue, I think that we can move forward in this vein.
 * Lawblogger19 & Mr.Grantevans2: any thoughts?Stewaj7 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Welner must be identified and recognised as Perot's and USWA's NY media coordinator and spokesman. That's a must. Perot was a major political influence and Welner's top level positions(NY media coordinator and spokesman) in that campaign must be recognised. To leave them out would be to cherry pick Welner's achievements retroactively for BLP inclusion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much debate left here. I noted a few issues that concerned me, but anticipating that others had differing viewpoints, I suggested a version that was inclusive of those viewpoints.  I don't think anyone is objecting to mention of the Perot stuff.  Most of the back and forth related to whether the proper citation should include paylocked cites, and although I don't know if we have agreement on that issue, it may be irrelevant because there is sufficient citation without including those referencing the paylocked sites.  With respect to whether he should be referenced as a media coordinator or a spokesperson, my initial position was that he should be referenced as a spokesperson (because the differeing references to his title in different sources).  However, I can live with adding the media coordinator title.   Unless someone indicates otherwise, I think we have consensus with the following version.  I can also live with including the additional paylock citations, so feel free to add them to the below:


 * Dr. Welner has been a contributor to network news including ABC, CBS, and BBC and to programs such as Larry King Live, on issues relating to forensic psychiatry and criminal behavior, such as the Ft. Hood shooting, white collar defendant Bernie Madoff , false confessor John Mark Karr , the Craigslist Killer Phillip Markoff , and the Virginia Tech massacre . He drew considerable media attention when his remarks on ABC News’ Good Morning America regarding media coverage of the Virginia Tech rampage  sparked a discussion which may have affected the direction of subsequent news coverage.


 * Dr. Welner, is currently an ABC News Consultant, featured on Good Morning America, 20/20 , and Nightline . He has contributed to ABC News.com on topics including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogations , Anna Nicole Smith’s death investigation and domestic homicide.


 * In 1992 and 1993, Dr. Welner was a nationally visible media coordinator and spokesperson for the Ross Perot election campaign and the citizen action organization United We Stand America, advocating lobbying reform and rejection of NAFTA . During the 1992 election campaign, Dr. Welner debated candidates’ representatives in support of Ross Perot’s presidential bid . Lawblogger18 (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, its ok with me. If you wish to leave out "advocating lobbying reform and rejection of NAFTA" I think that would be better because Readers can look up the actual platform, but leaving in is is also ok with me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) - I consent to the proposal and hope we can move on to the next section. Empirical9 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Grantevans2 and Empirical9 that we need not get into the Perot/UWSA platform or specific issues. Otherwise, we'll start arguing over whether to mention everything else on the platform that he discussed. Based on three of us agreeing, I'm going to strike that phrase. If Lawblogger19 and Stewaj7 strongly object, we can discuss further. Otherwise, let's move on. Fladrif (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawblogger19, I am fine with what you have proposed above.Stewaj7 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I will post it up. Lawblogger18 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing, the first footnote doesn't work, it says "session timed out". I added some other cites in substitution. If anyone wants to add or subtract from those, I don't really care. Fladrif (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)