Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan/Archive2

Questions for involved users
Question Is using the Shupe article from CESNUR, including mention of dates, acceptable to both involved parties? If not, what is lacking from that citation? Vassyana 13:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like it, but I can live with it as it is now (with the dates, the word "two") and where it is now (at the beginning), so it is clear that these are not additional, new cases, but the same old ones. --Tilman 14:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment here, but it looks like an agreement has already been reached? Smee 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The last time I checked the criticism section there were comments trying to minimize the criticism. Comments stating that he does not do deprogramming anymore, or he did it during this time only, in the criticism section, is an attempt to simply minimize the criticism. Any rebuttals to a criticism should not be in the Criticism section John196920022001 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that Steve Hassan still does do involuntary deprogramming, feel free to insert them. --Tilman 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Question. What would you like to see in the Criticism section of the article? Is this an issue of WP:ATT, WP:NPOV or both? Vassyana 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * At first glance I would say both. Just look at the criticism section. There are statements minimizing criticisms. Tilman does not want RS included because they have been allegedly discredited. Disdredited by whom? The academic community? Who? I don't want rebutals to criticisms in the criticism section John196920022001 06:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rebuttals do belong in it, in the spirit of fairness. It is generally handled this way in wikipedia. When having read both sides, the reader can decide on his opinion. --Tilman 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Second. Smee 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


 * I will agree to close this issue now, if Tilman agrees to follow Wikipedia policy that CESNUR is an RS, and I can insert an CESNUR comment instead of my article. CESNUR is a scholarly RS, is subject to peer review process, despite whether we disagree with an article or not. John196920022001 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the short Shupe article text from CESNUR.org that has two short mentions of Hassan, with the dates; do not insert John's own work that is located on CESNUR.org. --Tilman 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am (still) agreeable with this proposal above by Tilman. It appears that John has changed his mind and is now not.  I had thought the mediation was over on this...  Smee 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Discussion
Previous Discussion. Let's start with a clean slate and work forward. We're all familiar with these points and they can be referenced by that link if needed. Vassyana 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In line with our mediators statement, I am going to attempt to assume good faith. For my first act, I am going to remove my adversarial posts to Tilman.


 * Tilman's comment was not a personal attack - it was a comment on the quality of the publication itself. Published material must suit WP:RS in order to be included as a citation.  Smee 09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


 * First, there is no policy in place yet on Wikipedia to verify your alleged academic credentials, and even if there was, your credentials would not necessarily have weight on whether or not something gets into an article. And that leads to Second, which is material cited must first have appeared in a published secondary source preferably, as per WP:RS.  Smee 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Academic conference proceedings would be a published secondary sourceJohn196920022001 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * proceedings are just a sort of protocol for people who couldn't attend, i.e. proves that it did take place. --Tilman 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Before I accept, I want something to be explained/clarified. In a discussion with the mediator, John said "I don't want to editwar with Tilman". Now the problems here probably started with the removal of an edit by John (not by me, but I would have done it too), referencing a paper by him, published on the cesnur website.

Now lets assume that John still would like to reinsert his paper. And then he reinserts it. I revert it for the reasons explained before. Is this a break of this "truce"? Or is it only if he reinserts it?

Another problem is that John and I seem to have a different understanding of what a "personal attack is". For example, I accused him of "propaganda" and of "lying by ommission" in the discussion about whether the dates (197x) should be inserted in a paragraph. He considers this language to be a personal attack; I don't, since it attacks the edit, not the person. I recently saw a discussion (can't remember where) where A accused B of "propagandizing". C then accused B of having made a personal attack; then D came up, and said that it was not. So its tricky.

John may be offended (correct me if I'm wrong) if he gets told that he is "not a reliable source per WP:RS". He may even consider this to be a personal attack. This is even more tricky, since this time, it does attack the wikipedia editor when he is a source himself, but I doubt it is a personal attack in the spirit of WP:NPA.

To summarize: I think that I am already following all what is mentioned in the "truce". However, I assume that John disagrees, and wants me to change my behaviour, and probably doesn't think that I am e.g. respecting the WP:NPA policy at this time. So my suggestion is that John mentions a few specific elements of my behaviour that he considers offensive, and examples how to change them. Or we'll be back here in a week.

I hope that the text above was polite. It certainly was intended to be. --Tilman 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to make a few points to clarify things. I do believe the comments about "propaganda" and of "lying by ommission" are personal attacks. You even said on this page "I accused him." That is a personal attack because you "accused" me. You are speaking to personalities, not just content. You need to speak to content, not personalities. Stating I am not an RS is a different story. That is not a personal attack. You also accused a research paper I wrote of not being of academic caliber. Considering that it is work in progress and was intially published by CESNUR, it is of academic caliber. The reading level is 12 grade level(High school) or above. My citations and references reflect an academic format. But now I do not know how to deal with the paper issue now because conflict of interest issues come into play. Anyway, that is all I have to say for now. Let me know if you need more clarification and need to work out these matters further. I will also do the same. Thanks John196920022001 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello John, my question is: how would you expect me to make my argument about ommitting the dates, without getting a "He's not respecting the truce, he's doing it again!" complaint from you. My problem is that I consider the text without the dates to be propaganda, and not a neutral text.

--Tilman 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then bring up policy NPA. Propoganda is such a loaded, charged word. If I accused you of lying or some type of deceit, how would you react? John196920022001 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Accusing some of "lying by ommission" probably does fall under WP:NPA. An accusation of "propaganda" may or may not apply, but it could fall under WP:DICK. I do not think the issue is your opinion of the sources involved, or of the potential conflict of interest. Rather, it is the comments which are potentially polemical or inflammatory. The truce simply asks for cool heads, civil tongues and an avoidance of disruptive edit wars. I hope that helps clarify. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to address them. Vassyana 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wrote those comments with a "cool head". However, I'm willing to accept that John considers these to hurt him personally. So I'm searching for a way so that I can make my argument clear without hurting him.
 * As I said, John never engaged in an editwar. Rather, he's quickly been offended. I do - a little bit - understand this, I've been attacked by scientologists for 15 years so I have a skin as thick as an elephant, unlike ordinary people. My point here is that it isn't enough to just say "truce", I need an actual solution so that I can make my arguments without John feeling "personally" offended. --Tilman 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's actually very simple, Tilman, speak to content, not personalities. The issue with the comments made about me, is that my ethics has been questioned. Part of this issue I think stems from things outside Wikupedia. You are in a camp of people that has prejoritively been called "anticultists." I am in a camp of people that has prejoritively been called "cult apologists." If you need to discuss an issue with me personally go to my personal discussion page. I think that is policy. This is all I have to say for now. This bickering by us and other editors over these issues is hurting Wikiipedia. It has to stop John196920022001 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I did write about the content, which I called "propaganda". That, you considered to be a personal attack.
 * Again, I ask you, how would you rewrite my argument in a way that you might still disagree, but not feel personally offended? --Tilman 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are my suggestions. Our choice of words can have as much effect as the substance of what is being said. There is almost always a way to phrase a strongly-worded criticism in more constructive and less confrontational fashion. Instead of calling something "propaganda", instead detail why it is POV-pushing and what errors are in the edit. Instead of saying something is "lying by omission", instead point out the undue weight and what context is missing and/or what facts are omitted. I understand edit summaries are limited, however one could instead say "potential POV problems, see talk page discussion", or "missing context, see talk page comments", respectively. Thoughts? Vassyana 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Using Wikipedia language would certainly help. Tilman, when you made those statements a few weeks ago, which were not Wikipedia language, I thought (and still do) that your reasons were not based on Wikipedia policies. I hope this further clarifies things John196920022001 11:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana, as regards use of language. I think Tilman was unjustified in accusing John of  "lying by omission" and "propoganda". There are better ways to make criticisms of the article's content, while stopping short of accusing someone of 'lying', which does seem like a personal attack to me. Eg. "missing context" is better than "lying by omission".

A lie is an intentional false statement. A statement can be unintentionally wrong or misleading for any number of reasons, so it is better to address the reason(s) why you consider the statement misleading, rather than trying to guess at a person's motives for making a questionable statement.

Perhaps there should be a Wikipedia page on 'Polite but effective criticism', with handy phrases such as 'missing context', 'economical with the truth', etc.

At the same time, John does seem to personalise the issues sometimes too. Eg he wrote on the talk page:

'... I am also a member of the academic community as a graduate level student. By definition, I am an RS and the only credible way to call attention to me is to cite another RS that specifically mentions my research, but not to consider me an RS just because of one affiliation is biased and simply wrongJohn196920022001 05:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)'

I don't think anyone can justifiably claim ' By definition, I am an RS'. No individual can be a RS, only material they have written and which has *also* been published in peer reviewed media can be cited as a reliable source. There may be some truth in Tilman's suggestion that John can be a bit prickly sometimes and inclined to take things too personally.

The field of cults/NRMs is highly contentious, and as John said, broadly split into two mutually hostile camps, the so-called 'cult apologists' and the 'anti-cultists'. (I'm personally of the latter camp). Both camps are no doubt sincere in their opinions. Protagonists from both camps inevitably have some bias. Pure objectivity is probably impossible, or no more possible than a pure vacumn (or absence of bias) in physics. In other words, no source is 100% reliable, there is almost always some (presumably unintentional) bias.

CESNUR counts as a (more-or-less) reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them, but equally, some (more-or-less) reliable sources such as scholars Stephen A. Kent and Raffaella Di Marzio 'consider CESNUR's representation of the brainwashing controversy one-sided, polemical and sometimes without scholarly value.' 

No statement, even from a RS, should be considered immune from questioning or criticism. But that questioning or criticism should choose its words carefully, lest it be interpreted as a personal attack. And those that feel they have been personally attacked, should consider the possibility that no such attack was really intended, its just that people have strong feelings on certain subjects, and sometimes let their heart rule their head.

Also, speaking as someone who has occassionally been flamed on Wikipedia, I reckon its best not to respond oneself, but to wait and hope that another editor comes forward and reproves the flamer for making ad-hominem attacks, which they quite likely will. A reproach from a third party is much more likely to shut the flamer up, responding oneself just encourages them. Sometimes a dignified silence is the best tactic in such circumstances.

That's my opinion anyway, though I'm not a RS ;) EmmDee 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input EmmDee. John196920022001 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)