Talk:Steven Fishman

Richardson
Just what is being objected to here? It was the strategy of Fishman's attorney to introduce the theory of coercive persuasion in court. Ofshe and Singer explicitly raised the Fishman case in their own lawsuit. No mind-reading involved. WillOakland (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That it was the intent of Fishman's defense to present the theory of coercive persuasion is supported. That it was part of a larger agenda by Ofshe and Singer, and that that agenda was dealt a major setback when they were not heard in this case ("... the court's admissibility ruling came as a setback to American critics of cults...") is original research. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no mention of an "agenda" by Ofshe and Singer, only that they made particular arguments in several cases, this being one. Richardson is the editor of the book. The specific article was written by Anthony himself, is itself cited, and was reviewed for publication.
 * p. 133: "Anthony has used this argument to assist lawyers to prepare motions in limine, requesting the court not to admit the brainwashing testimony of Singer and Ofshe and other witnesses in approximately 40 cases. ... In a number of cases, the attempts to exclude Singer's testimony have been successful, and in two cases Ofshe's testimony was also excluded by the court prior to trial.
 * p. 134: "In one key case (US v. Fishman) a federal judge ruled that the Singer-Ofshe cultic brainwashing testimony was not accurately based on its claimed theoretical foundation. ... Thus, Fishman and other decisions ... excluded Singer's and Ofshe's theories as a basis for testimony and endorsed the point of view expressed in this article that cultic brainwashing theory is not based on an accepted scientific foundation."


 * Please remove the cite tags at once. There is no claim that needs to be cited further. It's not original research because I didn't come up with it. Anthony did. WillOakland (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "remove the cite tags at once"? I didn't restore them.  If they are there now, they must have been restored by someone else who sees the inherent absurdity of citing an article by Anthony to support a claim about what the intent of Ofshe and Anthony was. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, since you've been following me around, excuse me if I get a bit mixed up as to what has been reverted and what hasn't. As I said, the article by Anthony was cited (to legal documents etc.), reviewed, and published. To the extent that I used slightly different wording, it was to present a neutral POV. WillOakland (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that me "following you around" is a figment of your imagination. Obviously we are interested in many of the same subjects, and I have become aware of many of your edits upon those subjects, but far from "following you around", I have never so much as checked your "Special:Contributions" page.  As far as presenting a neutral POV, I'm afraid that disguising or downplaying the degree to which a POV is being provided by a decidedly non-neutral party is not the same thing. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RFW
Please read Articles_for_deletion/Religious_Freedom_Watch_(2nd_nomination) (and other places) Any attempted use of this defamination site in a BLP article is going to have to pass through quite a gauntlet. AndroidCat (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That Fishman has given conflicting dates for when he started in Scientology is not in dispute. He acknowledges it here. As far as that is concerned, there is no BLP issue. WillOakland (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Use of the RFW site is certainly a BLP issue. AndroidCat (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: To exclude a birthdate as "original research" because only the subject's age in a particular year is known, is a rather novel reading of that policy. WillOakland (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the OR that I was refering to: " " Please tell that that's supposed to be a reference? AndroidCat (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit remarks
WillOakland, it is not helpful or civil to add edit remarks like "how about if you don't remove passages that aren't even cited to RFW?" and "really, if you're exclude elementary arithmetic as original research, then there's no need to mention the year at all." The edits from from 24.19.30.211 (this you, yes?) contained a repeated attempt to reinsert a BLP-violation site and a non-reference reference. Rather than picking through it, I rolled it back with the suggestion to take it step-by-step to the talk page, and posted why I objected to RFW. Mellow. AndroidCat (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steven Fishman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517051016/http://www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/aff_rd.html to http://www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/aff_rd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)