Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-12 John Money

Who are the involved parties?

 * User:Joie de Vivre
 * User:Alteripse
 * User:Jonathan Tweet

What's going on?
There is a content dispute at John Money. John Money was a psychologist and sexologist who conducted the case of David Reimer. This case is also known as the "John/Joan" case, these are the pseudonyms Milton Diamond used in a followup report. The dispute is to how notable the Reimer case is in terms of Money's career, and how much weight the Reimer case should be given in the article. Also disputed is how the outcome of that case impacted Money's career, but we haven't even gotten to that yet.

I added a few sentences to the lede about the Reimer case, with an inline link to the already-existing section on the Reimer case later in the article.( Alteripse reverted the additions with a comment on the Talk page disputing some of the additions.  I responded to the comment, and replaced only the content that Alteripse did not dispute, a very bare-bones descriptions of the Reimer case in the lede (with the link to the Reimer section).  Alteripse responded to this by writing a much longer description of the Reimer case in the lede..  I felt that this was not appropriate because there was already a section on the Reimer case in the article and much of the material was duplicated, that the writing quality was not as thorough as the existing section, and that it was without references. I stated these concerns and reverted to the bare-bones version so at least there would not be duplicate sections. Alteripse took offense to this criticism of the work and became angry and insulting. I attempted to communicate with them, but they made several more rude comments before I decided to contact the MedCab.

I think the issue here is that Alteripse (and now Limegreen) feel that this information is somehow defamatory or slanderous. Limegreen recently just deleted a reference to Milton Diamond's followup report on the Reimer case. Diamond reported what Money did not -- that the reassignment failed. I feel that it is not accurate to delete this information, and that we must report accurately on the Reimer case in the John Money article.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like to see the Reimer case fairly represented in the article. I do not want to have to listen to personal attacks while we resolve the content dispute.

Mediator response
Ok, What I want everyone to remember here is NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Being a troll doesn't solve anything, and to add to that fact, most trolls are unpleasant/scary. Personally, I don't feel that the Reimer case is in anyway defamatory or slanderous in any way towards John Money. The Reimer case should have play a small but significant role in the article, if indeed this made Mr. Money's career. Reporting that Mr. Reimer's SRS failed does have to do with the case and should be mentioned in passing in the article. There shouldn't be repeating sections, because that makes the article (or at least parts of it) redundant. I agree with Joie de Vivre; The information in the article is in no way slanderous and should be included. It is a valid part of Mr. Money's career that should be dealt with in the article. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk page! mcr616 Speak! 00:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

May I ask you to read the exchange? There was actually no disagreement over whether the Reimer case deserved prominent description, despite her misrepresentation so. The issue is over accuracy. I replaced a misleading sentence with a more accurate account, which she reverted with an accusation of inaccuracy but was not willing to point out the error nor back it up, then described my paragraph as "crude and poorly written"-- you may read it and decide how accurate and civil that description is. My "personal attack" in response to that was the word "well?" in a "tone" she didn't like. When she asked me what was wrong, I explained exactly what had offended me and in turn asked her again to point out the inaccuracy. I have no intention of engaging in a revert war with an editor not articulate or informed enough to argue facts or back up her assertions and accusations. My desired outcome is that she stop accusing people of trying to do something they are not, that she not remove additions as "inaccurate" but refuse to explain or provide reference, and that she learn the difference between objecting to this behavior and personal attacks. Today she has responded more constructively to exactly the same article correction by another editor and I would be happy to see her continue in that direction. alteripse 02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your tone to be condescending and your words about what I "learn", how I "respond" or what "direction" I take to be entirely inappropriate in reference to another equal party involved in a MedCab request. Your words and tone would be more appropriate for an RFC, if I were being reviewed and you were acting as an arbiter.  This MedCab case is not a review of my behavior.  It is a mediation of a content dispute, where you and I are equal parties.  You are not in a position of authority here.  What you are saying about me is entirely inappropriate in this environment.  Please stop.


 * Also, I do not agree with your use of gendered pronouns when referencing me. I have not disclosed my gender on Wikipedia and I have no plans to do so.  Joie de Vivre 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify that I did, in fact, not remove a reference in the diff provided by Joie de Vivre. I changed the formatting of the reference and deleted some unsourced information. The article did contain some potentially slanderous unsourced material, removed in that same diff; such as Money's decision to cover up the facts of the case largely discredited him in the medical community. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of Money "deciding" to engage in a "cover-up". It is certainly true that Money's theory failed in this case, is generally no longer regarded as true, and there is evidence that Money himself no longer subscribed to his prior theory later in life. See my argument here . --Limegreen 04:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for saying you removed it. I saw that the URL was gone, and thought the reference was gone. I didn't recognize the PubMed number, becuase didn't know you could include them in that way.  Sorry about that. Joie de Vivre 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that the "covering up" bit was there before I touched this article. Joie de Vivre 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, what would be really helpful here is for everyone to drop the sarcasm when leaving notes on talk pages. Reviewing the other points left by Alteripse, I can see now that the comment left by Joie De Vivre on the talk page was a bit snobbish. Remember, Be civil!. Everyone here wants to contribute in the best way that they can. If the sentence IS inaccurate, then by all means remove it. What I'm seeing, now that I have both sides of the story, is that Alteripse's paragraph was fine. I didn't find it "crude" or "poorly written". It seems what we have here is just a case of a user disregarding all contributions except his/her own. The comment about Money "covering up" the facts is unsourced and probably untrue. That should be left out of the article. After reading and rereading everything again, I'm finding that Alteripse and Limegreen are right. My solution is leave the "covering up" fact out of the article because it's unsourced and most likely untrue, put Alteripse's sentence/paragraph back in the article, and just keep a watch on any changes made by Joie De Vivre. I just dealt with basically the same issue over at The Black Parade, and I've found that if you don't feed the troll and engage it civilly, it will go away. If Joie De Vivre keeps attacking your contributions and your character, report him/her. We have to keep an NPOV in every article, and this user is adding information that seems very biased and POV. If you have any questions, leave one on my talk page. mcr616 Speak! 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. I have not made one single rude comment about Alteripse.  I don't think my comment was "snobbish", if anything I was just keeping it short because they had already been rude and angry at that point.  And I don't think that arguing against the wholesale removal of references (information) is "trollish".  I am extremely disappointed that my concerns would be dismissed and a person who was rude not held accountable for that.  16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * JdV, your comment on AI's "poor" writing was over the line. The reference to a coverup should be left off until you or I can find a reference. Your responses to AI should have been more civil. You have the advantage of being right, and with that advantage comes a responsibility to be patient and to source information with discipline. That said, AI repeatedly pushes a pro-Money, pro-nurture POV, here and on sexual differentiation. For instance, AI says "[Money] lost touch with the family before the child reached adolescence," when the fact is the Reimer threatened to kill himself if forced to see Money again. Why does AI choose such a vague version of this fact? Looks like POV to me. AI is aggressive in defending their POV. JdV did not live up to WP's standards of civility. It's not an unusual conflict and I'm surprised it went to mediation. Jonathan Tweet 17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "My solution is leave the "covering up" fact out of the article because it's unsourced and most likely untrue." FWIW, some version of the coverup allegation is true, but it does need to be sourced. Did Money "cover up"? Or did he "neglect to report facts that would have thrown his false theory into doubt"? When JdV or I gets the reference we need, we'll be able to figure out just what wording to use.

OK, well I think we're all set here. My suggestions are 1.) Keep alteripse's paragraph, maybe modify it to include some of Joie de Vivre's information and 2.) Remove the sentence about the cover up until it can be properly sourced. Thanks to everyone who commented and helped out with the mediation! mcr616 Speak! 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold on a sec, which paragraph do you mean? My initial concern was with Alteripse duplicating information in the lede, do you mean to reinstate it?  Joie de Vivre 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No what I mean is keep his information somewhere in the article. It shouldn't be duplicated because that would make the latter information redundant. mcr616 Speak! 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)