Talk:Richard Ofshe

Expert witness
Some info about Mr. Ofshe's work as expert witness in the 1980's would be a good addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additions. Note that he worked closely on many cases with Singer. Adding some of these would be great. Do you know if he also co-witness with Singer in the Fishman case? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DIMPAC summary
How about if I copied the DIMPAC summary from Margaret Singer and adapted it for this page? I think (if I do say so myself) that it is a better summary. Tanaats 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a very good idea. Smeelgova 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Still, the lawsuit material belongs here as well, not just at DIMPAC. Ditto for the summary at Singer's article. Tanaats, would you like to summarize the lawsuit, or should I do it?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that stating "Singer and her professional associate, sociologist Richard Ofshe, subsequently sued the APA in 1992 for 'defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy' and lost in 1994. Singer and Ofshe were subsequently not accepted by judges as an expert witnesses in cases alleging brainwashing and mind control" would be enough for a summary. The lawsuit is then explained in detail in DIMPAC.  I don't think that further detail should go into the DIMPAC summary on any page that we put it into. The summary is already quite huge for a summary. Tanaats 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would work, Tanaas, just add the sources. We need all sources listed as per WP:V, even if it is a summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I'll go ahead and work on sourcing. Tanaats 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added some cites.
 * I don't have any cites for the first two paragraphs of the summary. And I'm not sure how to cite the "four rejections" other than by putting four cites on it.
 * I'll wait before adding cites to the Singer article. Tanaats 22:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The material about the RICO lawsuit is better presented here than at DIMPAC as it relates directly to Mr. Ofshe. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's present the whole chain of events at the DIMPAC article, and summarize it in other places. You want to basically have half the size of DIMPAC cut and pasted here.  Ofshe testifies in hundreds of cases - this is NOT that much emphasis of his life.  WP:BLP.  Respect, he's a living dude.  Smeelgova 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Concur. Tanaats 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Ofshe did not testify in the DIMPAC report, did he? What was his involvement on the resport? Was he a co-signatory, or just helped draft the report? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know the sources, but I think he was just an assistant to Dr. Singer. Even more reason why it is hugely over-emphasized already in the article and against WP:BLP.


 * If that is the case, we should remove the DIMPAC summary (leaving a wikilink, perhaps) and include only the material about the lawsuit, which he he was a plaintiff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a better idea. Requires a bit more discussion, but a better idea.  Smeelgova 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Maybe just this:


 * After the American Psychological Association's board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected a report presented by DIMPAC, stating that it lacked the scientific rigor and an evenhanded critical approach for an the imprimatur of the APA, Margaret Singer and Ofshe  sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy". The case was dismissed by the court in 1994 on the basis that the claims of defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy constituted a dispute over the application of the First Amendment to a public debate over  academic and professional matters; that the parties may be be described as the opposing camps in a longstanding debate over certain theories in the field of psychology, and that the plaintiffs could not establish deceit with reference to representations made to other parties in the  lawsuit.


 * In a further ruling, James R. Lamden ordered Ofshe and Singer to pay $80,000 in attorneys' fees under California's SLAPP suit law, which penalizes those who harass others for exercising their First Amendment rights. At that time, Singer and Ofshe declared their intention to sue Michael Flomenhaft, the lawyer  that represented them in the case, for malpractice.


 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see what that looks like in the article. We can always tweak it.  I make the changes.  Smeelgova 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Honors section
We need secondary sources for these. Some of these honors do not state who is the organization/institution that awarded these honors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a citation per honor, best if not from a self-published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again: One citation per honor. MAke it easier on the readers to verify the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please leave in these citations. They are useful for the reader, and they will be used later on to add additional material to the article.  Thank you.  Smeelgova 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Sourced numbered (3), (4), and (5) are self-published primary sources. We need better sources than that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We could certainly use better sources than that, yes. But in the meantime, these sources are find.  They were entered in official record in the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, so they are officially recognized credentials and honors.  Will remove tag.  Smeelgova 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Pulizer price?
Read Pulizer price: ''Public Service—for a distinguished example of meritorious public service by a newspaper through the use of its journalistic resources, which may include editorials, cartoons, and photographs, as well as reporting. Often thought of as the grand prize, the Public Service award is given to the newspaper, not to individuals, though individuals are often mentioned for their contributions.''

Please provide source. Until then it is deleted as per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have provided many sources, and will provide many more. Hold on please on editing this article, I am actively editing it.  Will put up WIP.  Thank you.  Smeelgova 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * We do not need "many" sources. One reliable one will do, preferable if not self-published. If it is an honor, a link to the honor-given organization will dispel all disputes. Newspaper articles that write about Mr. Ofshe being a Pulitzer price winner, may have gotten than from his CV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I give you all the time you need, but note that "Pulitzer Prize -- For Public Service, 1979 (Shared with Light publication)" is not factually accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have specifically spelled out for the reader the situations regarding the Pulitzer Prize, so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Smeelgova 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

See The Point Reyes Light: "The Light earned the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. See also 1979_Pulitzer_Prize ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Ofshe's contributions in the official record: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. See all of the reputable citations I have given.  They all state the same thing - that Ofshe is a co-winner of the award, with Light.  Not that they were solely given the award.  Every single reputable source I have given labels him as a Pulitzer Prize Winner.  If it is good enough for them, it is good enough here.  And also - I request that you do not remove all of the citations - they will be useful sources of info later on for other parts of the article.  Thank you.  Smeelgova 05:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I am not asking that these citations are removed. What I am asiking is that you, as the editor that added these, provide at least one source per claimed honor. As it stands now, I do not know what refers to what. As for the Pulitzer, he did not received the Pulitzer, the newspaper that we worked for, The Point Reyes Light, did. I see no mentions of his name on the Pulitzer. I would argue that we need to be accurate, rather than parrot what may be factually incorrect material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have specifically spelled out for the reader the situations regarding the Pulitzer Prize, so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever. I have also added citations as to his awards/credentials, that have been entered as a part of official court records in Circuit Court in Florida.  Smeelgova 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * That is OK, as it illustrates the problematic created by newspapers  when they repeat what they read on CVs without checking the accuracy of statements in these (and newspapers are supposed to check their facts, oh well...) As for the sources for the other awards, the self-published sources are not sufficient, even if these are part of court records: these are statements by Ofshe, and this primary and self-published. Unless third party sources are found, these need to be deleted as per WP:BLP, and WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are reading WP:V incorrectly. This information was not published by the Subject itself, but rather entered into the official court record of the Circuit Court of Florida.  Thus, this is most certainly not a dubious source.  It is a matter of record.  Smeelgova 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Read you own sources, Smeelgova. That is Ofshe's CV, written by him. "Entered into the public record" has no meaning beyond that. It is still a self-published CV. Read what self-published means: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication." (WP:RS). I have removed the tag, so that you can take time and find better sources. I no secomdary sources are forthcoming, these will need to be deleted. Look what happened when we did some research about the Pulitzer price. It is good to do the necessary research to support assertions made in WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Expert testimony

 * Applying a Double Standard are we Jossi? How can primary sources for positive info about a Living Person be not okay, but primary sources for negative info about a Living Person be fine?  Hrm...  Try to find secondary sources for those court cases and "rejected" testimony that you added.  Otherwise, I will delete in a few days.  This is all your own original research, extrapolating what you see from primary sources.  Smeelgova 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * You are making a mistake. There is a difference between a "self-published" source, and a court record in which an expert gives testimony. If we have a section about expert testimony in this article, material related to that expert testimony is required to support that section, and the sources are court records in which such testimonies were recorded.


 * A self-published source, on the other hand, in particular one that includes material that cannot be verified by other means, is not appropriate source for a BLP. You many need to re-read the respective policies of WP:V, and the guidelines about reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet the tag is perfectly appropriate, as it refers to primary sources. Please find secondary sources for the material you added, or I will remove it.  In the meantime, the tag can stay.  Smeelgova 15:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * No., Smeelgova. You will not delete properly sourced material, as it is not appropriate. Read the tag content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alone,'primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article."
 * The tag, is to tag articles that uses exclusively self-published and primary sources. That is not the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No., Smeelgova. You will not delete properly sourced material, as it is not appropriate. Please, do not use "command" grammar language to tell me what I will and will not do!!! I will not have it. Let us discuss on the talk page, but don't patronize me and talk down to me like that.  It is very unpolite.  As to the material, primary sources are clearly subject to POV interpretation.  Let's find secondary sources for this, I'm sure they are available.  I could quite as easily manipulate my own POV into other primary sources, I'm sure you would not want that.  Smeelgova 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I could respond in kind, Smeelgova, but prefer not to. Just read your own words: "Do this or I will do that". Not pleasant right?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha! No, not pleasant at all Jossi, but that is exactly the same language you used with me above with primary sources.  Double standards??? Why do you keep insisting on using this patronizing, demeaning language with me, and then not apologizing for it?  Please, I request that you treat me how you would want to be treated, and STOP trying to intimidate me with your "command" style of grammar!  Smeelgova 16:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I prefer not to respond, as I can see that you are too upset. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My wording was "Unless third party sources are found, these need to be deleted", that is a very different statement, as it implies a need to delete them, not a threat that I will delete them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From your edit summary: But, I still think that the sources for these are not sufficient. Giving a chance to editors to find better ones. Otherwise I will delete in a few days - Sounds like an ultimatum to me. And you still have not apologized for your intimidatory language.  That would certainly be in-line with your earlier peace offering.  I do not appreciate being spoken down to in the command form of grammar.  Smeelgova 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

In reading material widely available online, it seems that Dr. Ofshe is an expert on interrogation techniques, and that he has acted as an expert witness in hundreds of cases in which issues related to allegations of coerced testimony. If this is the area about which he is notable for, we need to expand on that aspect in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea! But probably best for everyone involved, if we do not do this by using primary sources.  This way we won't interpret things from the sources.  I propose we wipe the primary source material stuff and start over with secondary sources.  As I have said, I will do this unless secondary sources are provided soon.  As a gesture of good faith, if we do this, I will voluntarily remove the primary-sourced sections in the "Honors" section.  Smeelgova 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Sorry, Smeelgova, but that is not acceptable. These court records and affidavits are 100% compliant for an articvle about a person who is notable for these court records and affidavits. If you delete the material again, I will stop editing this article and ask for third party opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. But let's do that in the proper manner of an RFC, and not seeking third party opinions in other venues.  I still maintain that primary sources lets interpretation of your own POV in the door - whereas secondary sources do not.  Smeelgova 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I have placed an RfC, and will ask as many third-party opinions as I see fit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

confessions
Ofshe has done a lot of work about the reliability of confessions. Email me directly about articles (tilman at snafu dot de). Another thing is that his entire document collection on Synanon was destroyed in one of these regular California fires. I don't really have much time to edit, but I put this article on my watch list. --Tilman 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the little research I have done, I can see that there is quite a bit of controversy around his expert testimony. I have added some material to cover some of the cases in which his testimony was rejected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed material
This is the disputed material. If editors can find secondary sources for them, great. Otherwise, these need to go back until such time in which secondary sources may be found:


 * In the case of People v. Ladell Deangelo Brown, the Court of Appeal, Third District, California affirmed the conviction of the defendant and rejected Ofshe's opinion.


 * In the case of Staye v. Angel Torres, July 2006, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, rejected Torres' claim "that the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of interrogation expert, Dr. Richard Ofshe."


 * In the case of Harold Wayne Nichols v. Ricky Bell, Warden, the United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee rejected the Bell's claim that "trial counsel failed to properly debrief him to find evidence of coercion," and that "the coercive nature of the interrogation process was demonstrated through the testimony Dr. Richard Ofshe."


 * In the case The People v. Amy Marie Garvin, the defense offered expert testimony from Dr. Richard Ofshe who testified that "...Poorly trained interrogators use false "evidence ploys" in conjunction with inappropriate psychological "motivators" to coerce false confessions without knowing that the confessions are false. These interrogators focus only on producing a confession without thinking about the guilt or innocence of the person interrogated." The jury rejected this testimony and found the defendant guilty.


 * In the case of State of Florida vs Nathan Brinkley,the Judge denied the defendant's motion to suppress his confession based on Ofshe' expert witness testimony. In his decision the judge found that Ofshe's testimony lacked credibility. After reading the transcript of Ofshe's interview of the defendant, the court found that "Dr. Ofshe did, in fact, ask the defendant numerous leading questions, and that he did indeed suggest to the defendant that he was bated, coerced and improperly motivated during the interview."

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of The People of the State of California vs. Amy Marie Garvin, Ofshe's testimony was rejected by the jury.
 * I will try to go over these cases, if you can provide more hyperlinks for the other cases as well. But it is clear from a quick perusal of the above text that you have selectively picked certain types of leading quotes... Smeelgova 17:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I am already looking over this last case you have provided, where you claim that Ofshe's testimony was "rejected by the jury." - I am not seeing this. In fact, it looks like extra questions were asked of the jury, and most of the opposing counsel's objections were all overruled!  Clearly there is dangerously high potential for POV pushing with these sources.  Smeelgova 17:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * These summaries are not mine. These are compiled from the John E. Reid & Associated institute website. So, maybe these are no primary sources after all... The link is in the EL section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly if the summaries are from a reputable secondary source then that would probably be okay. But do you mean this link John E. Reid & Associates ??  I could not find the text of the "summaries" you have cited above, just links to actual primary sources testimony.  Smeelgova 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Hrm, I think you must mean this Summary of Testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe, but oddly enough, the text is all weird and there are random characters all over the place. Does not seem like a reputable secondary source at all - just some independent company's proprietary stuff.  I will attempt to make heads or tails of this.  Smeelgova 17:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * On the one hand, these are not necessarily the best reliable sources, and primary sources leave open the angle of POV pushing/interpretation at the least. On the other hand, it is clear that Ofshe's testimony is not always accepted, and does not always have wonderful outcomes.  On the other hand, it is evident that he has testified to some success in many, many other cases.  On the other hand, we should probably include more of these cases - especially the very high-level press notable ones.  On the other hand, I also propose to make some sort of summary mention that Ofshe's testimony is not always accepted, and in X number of cases, was either rejected or had resultant negative outcomes - and then simply cite these cases briefly.  "On the other hand - there is no other hand!" (quoting a funny play)  That is my proposal.  Smeelgova 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Oh, I see, you must mean this Critics Corner - Why is this section entitled: "Critics Corner"??? That seems fishy and POV. Let's try to find better secondary summary sources.  Smeelgova 18:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Critics Corner: Interrogation - "Richard Ofshe claims that the Reid Technique teaches investigators how to elicit false confessions through the use of what he terms the accident scenario. He cites page 103 of our text Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 3rd ed. Inbau, F., Reid, J. & Buckley, J., 1986 Williams and Wilkins." - Looks like Reid and Ofshe really do not like each other. Reid devotes three full pages of his website to just combatting Ofshe.  It could be argued that his website is an Ofshe attack site.  WP:BLP - This is not a neutral, reputable or reliable secondary source - and it is now clear to me that Reid is drawing his own POV pushing conclusions from primary source documents.  Jossi, I apologize for assuming that it was you who was drawing the POV conclusions from primary source documents, but it looks like this guy Reid is not a reliable source, Reid and Ofshe clearly have a beef with each other.  Smeelgova 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Excellent. A significant viewpoint, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

John E. Reid and Associates

 * I found a reputable secondary source for this, The San-Diego Tribune. I have added information to a new section, and incorporated the Reid site's rebuttal and criticism of the Ofshe/Leo methodology into this section.  Smeelgova 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * FYI, I found some other reputable secondary sources, but I do not want to pay for them online, and it would take time to find other methods of getting copies. But suffice it to say there is plenty of secondary sourced info on this interrogation debate, that we do not need to bring primary sources into this - especially after that lengthy new section I have added.  I will provide you with some of the citations you might find interesting below.  This shows that we can use secondary sources instead.  Smeelgova 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Reid's comments and references are secondary sources, Smeelogva. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not reliable or reputable ones. They are clearly biased and those Web pages were clearly created only to attack Ofshe's reputation.  WP:BLP.  The cites of the cases can stay, but I am extremely uncomfortable with leaving in the POV biased characterizations about those cases by Reid.  Smeelgova 20:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * On which basis are you saying that these are nor reputable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying they are not reputable as to the actual existence and facts of those cases. But not as to their personal POV biased characterization about the cases. Smeelgova 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Exactly. That is what we do in Wikipedia articles, describe any significant POVs, and attribute them to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is what I did above in the entire new section. I thought that you would be happy that I was writing for the enemy.  Let's leave it the way it is, let the reader read the cases, and draw their own conclusions.  I already wrote that the outcomes were not favorable.  We do not need to draw in Reid's biased inferences.  Smeelgova 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Interesting citations on interrogation debate:
 * "Taped Confessions so Flawed They're Worthless, Expert Says", Miami Herald, Jun 15, 2001 - mentions the Ofshe / John E. Reid and Associates / Joseph Buckley debate.
 * "Suspects' False Confessions Ignite Interrogation Debate", Miami Herald, Jun 14, 2001 - yes, same paper, different article, also deals with similar issues
 * " 'Nova' Turns Spotlight on 'UFO Kidnappings' ", Boston Globe, Feb 27, 1996 - "Curiously, two of the rebutters, Elizabeth Loftus and Richard Ofshe, are also prominent figures in another raging controvery"...
 * "Defense tries to discredit police Expert testifies officers", Fresno Bee, Nov 17, 2004


 * Interesting unrelated citation on Synanon
 * "Synanon Told to Pay Professor $500,000", San Jose Mercury News, Dec 13, 1986

Article intro
The article intro needs to summarize the article as per WP:LEAD. As it stands now, it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A good point. However, I am sure that we can find much more sources to expand the rest of the article first.  Then, there will be lots more to summarize.  Smeelgova 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

RfC

 * 1) Can primary sources such as court records and affidavits of an expert witness testimony, be used as sources for an article about a person who one of his areas of notability is being an expert witness?
 * 2) If plenty of secondary sources can be found, should editors strive to use them instead, and not risk inferring personal POV judgements from primary sourced material?
 * 3) If secondary sources exist (which it is not certain at this point), should the material based on court records and affidavits be deleted from the article while editors are attempting to find these secondary sources?


 * Comments by involved editors


 * Smeelgova keeps deleting properly sourced material relevant to this person notability, based upon a mistaken premise of primary sources not being good sources in this case. This is the diff. It includes six cases, meticulously sourced and cited, in which Dr. Ofshe's testimony was rejected by the courts. If secondary sources can be found for these rejected testimonies, great. But in this case, lack of secondary sources does not warrant the deletion of the lawsuits, affidavits and judges decisions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Jossi refuses to even attempt to find the information he is looking for (instances in which Ofshe's testimony was not allowed, or had negative consequences as a direct result of his testimony) in reputable secondary sources. I have done a quick perusal and there are literally probably hundreds of places to find good secondary sources.  I feel that any attempt by Jossi to use primary sources, will result in POV-pushing of a negative POV towards Ofshe.  Keep in mind that Ofshe is a living person.  Should we not at least try to first find more information from secondary sources, before jumping to primary sources and risking POV interpretations from those sources??? Smeelgova 16:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * In response to the point below, I have already found instances where Ofshe's testimony did not have favorable outcomes, in reliable Secondary Sources. I am putting these into the article myself, as a show of good faith.  Indeed, as we can definitely find the negative POV information that Jossi is looking for in Secondary Sources - there should be no real conflict here.  Smeelgova 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Note from Smeelgova
 * NOTE: to other people coming to this page from RFC... User:Jossi and myself have removed this article page from our watchlists.  We seem to have come to a consensus on this issue.  This is the consensus (I think), or at least the last kind of stability:


 * I have will not contest the addition and inclusion of the six cases discussed above, now located in the subsection "John E. Reid and Associates' critique".
 * Jossi will allow the information as stated about those cases to remain the way it is at the moment of this edit. To clarify, at first, Jossi had copied the text summarizing these cases directly from the "John E. Reid and Associates" Web site.  I think it is undisputed that at the very least Reid and Ofshe/Leo have academic/professional conflict with each other.  Therefore, it is alright to allow information about the strict existence of these cases and unfavorable outcomes, but as they stand now, I removed some of what I believe to be the POV language about the cases, which was inferred by Reid.  (I had mistakenly and I apologize believed that this inference had come from Jossi).  At any rate, we both won't have this page on our watchlist, so other editors can see these comments and hopefully infer what they will.  I truly am glad that (I hope) we have come to some sort of compromise/consensus.  Actually, not just on this contentious issue from earlier, but also on the summary in the section "DIMPAC task force", which (at the moment) I think is fine.  Smeelgova 05:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Responses to RfC


 * It sounds like Josi is willing to allow the primary sources to be replaced by verifiable secondary sources. If Smeelgove has found verifiablesecondary sources, I do not see any actual conflict.  That said, the policy allows the use of primary sources when no original generalization, synthetic, analytical, interpretive, or explanatory claim is being made.  Is Smeelgove saying that Jossi is using the primary source material in one of these ways?  I repeat, given the two comments above, this nevertheless seems like a moot question. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are always preferable and when we do use primary sources we have to abide by the limits on their use, which Slrubenstein has done a good job of describing. -Will Beback · † · 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This can be over-emphasized. WP uses quotations when appropriate, because it is more objective to let people speak in their own words than to attempt a paraphrase; the fairness of summary or paraphrase can always be debated, while a documented quote cannot. Similarly with primary sources. The fairness issue here is in the selection, placement, and use of these sources, for even direct quotations or excepts can be used to express a POV. DGG 00:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Synanon
The article mentions synanon in connection with an award, but doesn't mention synanon elsewhere. So what was it about? A false confession about synanon? Or research of Synanon as a cult? --Tilman 07:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question. Shall have to look into this and try to find some sourced citations from reputable secondary sources on it...  Smee 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Synanon scared off the major newspapers and no one was covering them. The tiny Point Reyes Light of Marin County filled in and did a great job of reporting on the group. It's the paper that got the award, but Oshe was apparently one of their lead reporters on this topic. -Will Beback · † · 07:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Thanks!  Now to find some reputable secondary sourced citations and add that to the article...  Smee 07:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
 * They scared off NBC as well:

An additional article with a paragraph on Ofshe/Synanon battles. (Difficult to work in without creating a tiny new section that would stick out like a bump): AndroidCat (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem edits by 68.127.184.215
A number of edits were recently done from IP address 68.127.184.215, apparently signed by Richard Ofshe, that should be reviewed. AndroidCat (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I left notes on the IPs' talk pages about editing from an IP address, citing proper sources, and pages to read about WP:COI/WP:SELFPUB. Until/unless the IPs become more active/involved in the article, not sure what else there is to do here, though at some point if that becomes the case, could be something that WP:COIN could deal with. Cirt (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reid section removed
I have removed the entire Reid section of this article - the sources consisted entirely of self-published material and primary sources, which are unacceptable for a criticism section of a BLP. If somebody wishes to create an actually neutral overview of this supposed controversy that depends on secondary sources that actually establish its importance, I encourage them to do so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Clear cut original research removed
I have removed a clear cut case of original research (specifically WP:Original synthesis) here ). The claim need to be sourced to a reliably secondary source which says there's no evidence, not the transcript of the confession Nil Einne (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Marty Tankleff
His article mentions his convincted was overturned but doesn't mention why or whether Ofshe's had any role. It's likely of relevance here whatever the case Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dueling POVs
We have one making the article a puff piece for Ofshe (with an Ofshe log in used for no other editing) in February and an IP editor recently attacking everything he said. NPOV wording and gutting of the article would help. Just talking about this in minute detail has both sides riled up. Wikipedia should not be a proponent of either side. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 28

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Richard Ofshe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150215091752/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/index_1.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/index_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)