Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan/Archive1

Archived Discussion
Archived Vassyana 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The question whether to use CESNUR or not is not really a "big" issue anymore. While I still consider CESNUR a rather poor-quality source (its just the site of an italian copyright attorney with "cults" as a hobby), I have made slight changes in the paragraph and have not deleted it anymore. I'm in a tricky position anyway, because I have used CESNUR as a source related to people who support CESNUR. So, people might argue that I can't have it both ways :) --Tilman 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The same applies to Anson Shupe (CESNUR is just the website). This is the guy who helped destroy the Cult Awareness Network and it was then taken over by scientology. Again, I haven't deleted thatanymore, since people can click on him and see his "track record". --Tilman 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A real issue is that John insists on a misleading presentation: he represents events that (allegely) happened 30 years ago as recent, by leaving out the dates. I explained this to him several times, he never responded and tried again to leave out the date, which I reverted. --Tilman 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How can it be misleading representation when those actual documents are dated. All they have to do is check the references. You want to make sure that these dates get included because you think they are not as wrong if they happened 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Atually Roselle made his statement about his deprogramming in the 1990s


 * Because it takes several clicks and some research to find the dates and you know this. I want to include the dates because it puts things into perspective. Something that he allegely did 30 years ago and then no more, doesn't have the same weight than when it happened yesterday. By refusing to include the dates, you insist on removing relevant information. --Tilman 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that I did not make any personal attack on John. I did however, accuse him of making a propaganda piece, and of having a personal axe to grind with Steve Hassan. --Tilman 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You accused me! That is a personal attack John196920022001 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha.


 * Btw, I am still waiting for an explanation why you insist on leaving the dates out, of these events that - if ever - happened 30 years ago. --Tilman 06:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The real issue is that Tilman is making  personal attacks on me just because some dates are left out. The article I referenced puts things in perspective. For example Tilman keeps calling my scholarly source "just the site of an italian copyright attorney with "cults" as a hobby." that is simply not true. scholars present papers at CESNUR conferences. John196920022001 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You insist on leaving the dates out, which is misleading. There is a big difference in doing something controversial now, or having done it 30 years ago.
 * My opinion about CESNUR is 1) factual 2) not a personal attack. Massimo Introvigne is indeed italian, and he is indeed a part time copyright attorney, and not a "scholar".
 * Scholars do also go to McDonalds for food and sometimes discuss papers with others there. That doesn't make McDonalds a university. In the discussion, another (I think "EmDee") has shown you why CESNUR is a rather dubious organisation. --Tilman 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not factual. Massimo Introvigne is a part-time professor at the Regina Apostolorum Rome, Italy. He is also a member of the "Sociology of Religion" group of the Italian Association of Sociology. You leave information outJohn196920022001 02:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in wikipedia. Although I've put a CN tag on the professor thing. It shows a lack of standards in Italy, since Introvigne is not a sociologist, but a copyright attorney. --Tilman 06:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am really getting sick of this member calling me a liar John196920022001 06:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not.
 * Btw, where and when did Introvigne get his sociology degree? --Tilman 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You did! You said I was "lying by omission" yesterday. Your reasons for making changes to things I have done are ridiculous. What is "propaganda by omission?" I never even heard such a term. John196920022001 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. That isn't the same. I did not call you a liar, I said that I don't have to be an expert on propaganda to see when someone is lying by ommission. (That an event happened 30 years ago, or that Hassan spoke out against forcible deprogramming right before the segment you were quoting against him). That is not the same as calling you a "liar". A "liar" is someone who usually/always lies. My comment was specifically about you removing the dates, which turns something into a propaganda piece.


 * If others think that such a language shouldn't be used in a discussion in wikipedia, then I'll stop. However me thinks you doth protest too much, and have a problem with people disagreeing with you. Usually, such WP:NPA warnings come quickly, and I haven't received one. Now I can of course abstain from using that l-word, but what about me using the p-word (propaganda), is this also a personal attack? What sort of disagreement/criticism do you accept at all?


 * that is the whole point. The discussion is about content, no a person or affiliations. That is considered a personal attack John196920022001 09:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand you. So, you do mind that I use the l-word when I accuse you of distorting something so that it looks completely different. OK, understood. What about the p-word. Can I use that one, when I think you're doing propaganda? I don't consider this a personal attack - since it is about your text, not you as a person. An attack on you as a person would be e.g. calling you names, attacking your beliefs in connection with youself, making fun of your looks, things like that. --Tilman 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The expression "propaganda by omission" seems to be widely used . Here's a good example: : The work on propaganda mirrors the process of manipulation, which uses distorsion, displacement of enphasis, saturation of data, omission, ambiguous or equivocal expression, censorship, incomplete information or information out of context and random association of concepts, amongst others. But let me give another example of a lie by omission. Lets say that some guy, lets name him Rick, is portrayed as "arrested for kidnapping", without telling that he was tried and aquitted years ago. IMO, there is a simple test whether something is Propaganda: would you get the same impact by telling the WHOLE truth? If no, then it is Propaganda. --Tilman 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Widely used where? What a sweeping generalization. And You forgot the Rick Ross Civil trial which eventually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. You accuse Massimo on not being a real scholar when he is a shcolar, and yet Rick Ross has no academic training whatsoever. John196920022001 06:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * About propaganda by omission: please click on the link. About "scholar" Massimo: I am still waiting about where he studied sociology.


 * John, can we please move on? Or do you enjoy wasting lifetime by debating with me so much? The Cesnur/Shupe text is in the article. I don't like it, but it doesn't matter really much - the rest of the segment deals with this too, and is far more detailed. What about you? Can you live with the current version, and if not, what would you like to change? --Tilman 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the  best thing you have said during this whole issue. Next, don't accuse me of wasting time because "it takes two to tango." I am almost OK with the current version. Unless you have a better explanation that just because it happened 30 years ago makes it not as bad, I want to the dates removed. The links to those documents provide the dates on those documents so there is no "lying by ommission" as you claim. Also one of those incidents 30 years ago was later given as a sworn affadavit made in the 1990s. That is a little more recent. I also want my statement from my research article put back in. They are academic, and therefore are considered a reliable source. The claim that CESNUR is not really academic in not founded because academics present papers at CESNUR conference. In the academic community CESNUR is just as subject to academic peer review any any other person or academic group, but dismissing it just because it is CESNUR is wrong. I  do not agree with everything CESNUR says, but they are still an academic community. I await your reply John196920022001 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I insist on having the dates in. That the affidavit came 15 years later does not make it very reliable, btw.
 * 2) I insist that your statement is kept out. You're not a reliable source (not a journalist, academic researcher, or known cult expert) - as I understand, you're a student; the statement about Hassan is out of context, as explained by EmDee; and it is poor style to quote oneself. Please discuss this in the discussion page. This here is just about problems with me. --Tilman 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is just about problems with you then why did you mention the Shupe/CESNUR article a little while ago. You said, "Can you live with the current version, and if not, what would you like to change?" Now you are telling me "[t]his here is just about problems with [you]." If this is just about problems about  you then why did you ask what would I like to change earlier? I simply answered your question about what I wanted to change. Now you are telling me something else.John196920022001 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right, I wrote this just after getting up. Anyway, I'd like to close this discussion, since it is basically a content dispute, and it should be discussed on the discussion page, and its wasting both of our time. I'd also appreciate a comment by Snowolf. --Tilman 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion is not closed until you agree to follow Wikipedia policy and not your personal opinions about a group. CESNUR is a RS. In your camp, there is the International Cultic Studies Association's (formerly American Family Foundation) Cultic Studies Journal (CSJ). My opinion of them is not very favorable, but CSJ is still a scholarly journal, hence a RS. My opinions are irrelevant. Please see the Compromise Offer section. I may make a mediation offer soon John196920022001 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sorry I didn't comment here yet, but I was moving my pc from one house to another. I've read nearly everything you've written, but I'm sorry, I have to retire from this mediation. Even if I don't think it clouds my judgment, I've have issues with Mr. Introvigne in the real life, even if unrelated to what we're discussing. So, I have to say that probably I couldn't be a good mediator if I'm in someway personal involved. I'm really sorry, I hope another mediator will take the case, but my personal vision of COI is really strict.  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)