Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31 David Miscavige

Who are the involved parties?

 * User:AndroidCat
 * User:Fahrenheit451 yours truly.
 * User:HubcapD
 * User:Justanother
 * User:Leocomix
 * User:Misou
 * User:Raymond Hill
 * User:RookZERO
 * User:Shutterbug
 * User:Steve Dufour
 * User:Su-Jada
 * User:Wikipediatrix

--Fahrenheit451 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?
This article David Miscavige has had a great deal of edit warring recently. Discussions have often been uncivil and have escalated to situations elsewhere. An impartial party needs to bring the concerned editors together and resolve the disputed points in this article. --Fahrenheit451 04:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response
I would be willing to take up this case, and would like your approval. If it means anything, this would be my first MedCab case. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Arknascar44, I welcome you as a mediator for this article. This should give you some valid experience at mediation.--Fahrenheit451 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. For starters, could you please list the main parties involved in the dispute under the "Who are the involved parties" header. In this way, I will notify them of the mediation in progress here and get their input. Thanks,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arky, could you add a "discussion" section to the Agree/Disagree section. The premises set up here are so off the track that we should discuss first what the case is all about. Thanks. Shutterbug 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
I am willing to start this case. Yes, many people have not yet responded to talk page notifications, but I am sure they will come. For the time being, let's start to talk about some of this case's basic issues. Fahrenheit451, as the lister of this case, could you please provide a basic description below on the issues disputed on the talk page? I would also ask that no editors comment on what is written below until Fahrenheit451 has completed this, as this could end up causing some uneasiness among the case participants ;) Happy editing,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest edit war is over the inclusion or exclusion of this section:"*In 1983, former Scientologist Jesse Prince testified that Miscavige had ordered that various materials authored by L. Ron Hubbard be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office though the materials in question might have had fallen into the public domain. ." involving User:Wikipediatrix, User:Shutterbug, User:Steve Dufour, myself and User:RookZERO, the latter has been blocked.--Fahrenheit451 01:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. What was disputed about this statement?  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  02:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading over the discussions, it appears to me that those who want to include this citation claim that it is verifiable and reliably sourced.Those who want to exclude the citation claim that the deponant of the affidavit, Jesse Prince, is not reliable. --Fahrenheit451 03:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(F451, whatever "appears" to you, you give a false premise here. The debate was never about whether the Jesse writeup is verifiable. This is going to drag on for months here because of that. Shutterbug 18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Alright, let's see if we can reach a compromise. I will divide the issue into several parts, to which users can agree or disagree:

Sourcing of the statement
The section should be sourced with a primary source, namely court transcripts, to confirm the comment, as the articles used as the source contain no sourced information whatsoever pertaining to the affidavit.
 * Agree
 * Agreed. Jesse Prince is notable and affidavits are notarized by definition of an affidavit. That the statute of limitations have expired on a crime is irrelevant. --Fahrenheit451 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "affidavits are notarized by definition of an affidavit"? No, no, no. An affidavit is not notarized unless is gets notarized. And this one has not been. Shutterbug 07:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "A sworn statement in writing; a declaration in writing, signed and made upon oath before an authorized magistrate." All right, notarization is not part of the definition, but being signed and made upon oath is. Notarization could make it compliant, but notarization is not necessary, so the Prince affidavit is still a legitimate affidavit.--Fahrenheit451 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree


 * A mention in a secondary source, like a news story for instance, is needed to establish that the statement is important. Steve Dufour 14:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
This section should not be in there at all. It is a non-notable person, paid for anti-Scientology actions and with an axe to grind, stating something in a non-reliable (not notarized) document which on top of all is not related to this WP:BLP article. I consider the inclusion of this section as a mere attempt to smear David Miscavige and spread a rumor that he might have been involved some 20 years ago is something possibly not kosher even though no court was interested in it. Shutterbug 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this section is only about how the statement should be sourced. Here, we're assuming that if the statement was inserted into the article, it should be verified by a primary source. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  20:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. strictly bureaucratic, it seems. Well, how about my above request? Shutterbug 22:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shutterbug, WP:CIVIL applies here. Please regard it.--Fahrenheit451 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's OK. I can see where you're coming from, Shutterbug, in that I appear to be taking sides here. I apologize for appearing to do so. What I've written above is an example of a compromise. If you don't agree with it, then fair enough. A compromise, after all, should end up with all parties being reasonably satisfied, and if this is not the case, just say so, and I'll offer something else. However, let me explain my suggestion a bit further, and hope fully less like an arbitrator :)


 * 1) While the statement may not even be notable enough to include in the article, if it were included, it should be backed up by a primary source because it is a questionable and critical statement
 * 2) If the decision was ever made to include to statement in the article, the issue there would not be how reliable a source Mr. Prince was, but that the statement was actually made, which would be proven by a primary source
 * 3) Mr. Prince, for the purposes of this discussion, should be considered notable, if only just, as he has an article on Wikipedia and therefore has some degree (albeit small) of notability here.
 * 4) As long as the statement is presented in neutral terms, without favoring one side or another, which is up for debate, although it does not really sound accusatory, and can be sourced according to the above terms, it can be included, but only if we can agree if it is notable enough to include (I have no opinion on the subject)
 * Hope that clears things up a bit, and sorry I sounded burocratic earlier (it wasn't my intention, I assure you :)). Happy editing,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  00:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Arky, thanks for the explanation. I don't see a reason why I should assume Prince is in the article when he is not. His mere being quoted in the article is nonsense. You will need to understand this discussion really well (your first assignment is on the leader of Scientology article, right between two sniper fronts, congratulations). Prince is an ex-member who has worked as a paid witness for years, claiming all kinds of blunder, (he is not active against Scientology if not paid) and otherwise only known for being arrested for drug stuff. His inclusion in this article is a NPOV violation to start with, you understand? It does not matter what other ifs and buts you can think of. F451 of course knows all that but his agenda seems to say that the more negative on Miscavige the better. And some unfounded claim of no interest to anybody, brought to the world by a notorious liar and paid witness more than 20 years ago seems to be just right for this purpose. Calling a "mediation" on this is actually an abuse of Wikipedia processes. I can't find anything to mediate here. Shutterbug 06:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, your comment "F451 of course knows all that but his agenda seems to say that the more negative on Miscavige the better." violates WP:AGF. Your characterization of Jesse Prince is irrelevant and purely derogatory. You have shown your own POV against Prince: the "arrested for drug stuff" resulted in exoneration at trial. Not guilty. You refer to him as a "paid witness", "paid liar", and "notorious liar". Your comments above underscore the need for a mediation on this article. Thank you. --Fahrenheit451 07:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shutterbug, allow me to explain. Firstly, there is no editor in this debate that is not trying to do everything they can to improve the article. However, it may seem this way because everyone has a different opinion on how the article should be improved. No one is trying to smear Miscavige or put him in a negative light, and there are no agendas in play here. At Wikipedia, there are no "sides" that argue with each other to win content disputes, just editors. And, as editors, we all try to do our part to improve the encyclopedia, so while we may not see eye to eye on everything, we are all on the same side. We are all trying to make this a better place, and a more reliable compilation of human knowledge. We must understand, also, that in order to do this, we must debate and reach consensus on what edits to make, to satisfy everyone involved. Insults and anger only place us further and further away from consensus, and from our ultimate goal. In order to keep this moving forward, we need to state our opinions, acknowledge those of others, and come to a decision. Hope this helps a bit,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. Yes, that helps, thank you for reminding all of us of how this place actually should look like. I first thought "what planet is this guy on?" but then realized that you are actually talking about that Wikipedia which I had in mind when I started editing a while ago. So thanks for this reminder. Shutterbug 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Shutterbug, your response to Arky comes across as uncivil. Your statement, "thank you for reminding all of us" is a falsehood as he was addressing you. --Fahrenheit451 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliablility of Jesse Prince
The fact that Jesse Prince may or may not be reliable is irrelevant as it does not detract from the reliability of the affidavit if it is sourced by court transcripts, which would confirm it without doubt. This is because the issue is not whether or not the quote is a true statement, but that it was verifiably said if it is sourced.
 * Agree
 * I agree.--Fahrenheit451 04:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The document has very little to do with the subject of the article. Steve Dufour 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree

I too disagree. If a person's integrity and the validity of his information has been as seriously brought into question as Mr. Prince's the fact that he filed an affidavit in court or made a statement in the media simply does not make him a reliable source. There has to be somewhere where we draw the line. I personally feel the line should be drawn at a much higher standard of reliability. For example, I don't believe any Wikipedian would stoop to citing a tabloid newspaper or magazine as a reliable source for information. The fact that these mags get away with outright lies, simply because so many who are libeled don't want to spend the time and money to fight their lies in court, does not mean that the false information (Elvis and JFK sightings and all) are valid. I'm sure no one in this discussion would disagree with that. So why lower our standards to accepting someone like Mr. Prince as a source? Surely we can do better than that!Su-Jada 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * Comment: SuJada, you are positioning Jesse Prince, a former scientologist, with tabloid newspapers, which are two entirely different bodies of data. Your comparison is simply non-sequitur. You are entitled to your opinions, but let's stay with Wikipedia policy.--Fahrenheit451 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you would say this Fahrenheit451. You certainly aren't supporting the accuracy of Prince's statements, are you?  Haven't you read the Stacy Brooks affidavit in which she describes how she and Prince used to literally dream up "facts" and swear to them? Whether submitted to a court or turned in to a tabloid, invented facts are invented facts, and Prince's affidavits read like the "insider's true confessions about Princess Di" etc. that fill the racks at the counters of 7/11s, not just in the US but in the UK as well, more's the pity.  Invented information is invented information. (Similarities are similar) Su-Jada 05:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Su-Jada, and differences are different. Never read Brooks' affidavit, but how reliable is she? Furthermore, which "facts" were made up? Without specifying what was fabricated and what was not, her affidavit is meaningless. Suggest you look into the subject of critical thinking.--Fahrenheit451 22:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Steve, the compromise is about the reliability of Jesse Prince, not the relevancy of the document.--Fahrenheit451 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The reliability of Prince is relevant, for sure. This is covered in WP:RS and the only assurance that WP articles are not only filled with trivia, opinions and other trash. Shutterbug 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reliability of Jesse Prince not necessarily relevant here because, while the affidavit may or may not be true, the question is whether of not the statement was made. This needs to be verified if the statement is put in the article, because the current sourcing does not confirm this. Here, we are asking not how relevant to the article the statement is, but if the statement could be included based on a primary source (court transcripts). Also, we're not accepting the quote as factual or as a truthful statement, but determining whether or not it was actually said. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  20:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Arky, but I don't think you are supposed to take sides here. This is about the "reliability of Jesse Prince", or did somebody mistype something when setting this heading? Shutterbug 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your attention, Shutterbug, Arky is acting as a mediator here and is well within that purview. He is clearly not being an arbitrator.  Please clarify both definitions to resolve your misunderstanding.--Fahrenheit451 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, would it be possible that you take your nose out of comm cycles I have with other men? Shutterbug 07:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shutterbug, please abide by WP:CIVIL. I remind you that this discussion is for all involved parties to participate in. --Fahrenheit451 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so keep your manners in and don't interrupt other people's valid conversation with off-origin comments. Shutterbug 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, Shutterbug, I suggest that you stop violating WP:CIVIL as it is disruptive of this discussion.--Fahrenheit451 03:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Therefore...
Based on the above terms, the affidavit can be included only if it is sourced by a primary source. If this is not done, it can not be included, since it cannot be verified by the articles used as its source.
 * Agree

If a reliable secondary source had mentioned Mr. Prince's statements and thought that they were important in the story of Mr. Miscavige that could be mentioned in the article without citing the primary source. Steve Dufour 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree

Discussion

 * I have several objections to including the material: 1. The charge against Mr. Miscavige is too minor to be mentioned, it is not even illegal. 2. Anyone can sign an affidavit, but that does not make what is said true. 3. There seems to be an implication of greater wrongdoing by Mr. Miscavige, and this would be original research. Steve Dufour 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, it may be illegal, see Copyfraud, but the point is if the affidavit can be primary sourced, it can be included.--Fahrenheit451 04:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Prince's affidavit only accuses him of applying for copyrights for material that was in the public domian. When this came up before someone who knew about copyright law said that what he was said to have done was not illegal, but not effective either.  If the charge was to be expanded to copyfraud that seems like it would be original research since copyfraud was not mentioned in the affidavit. Steve Dufour 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, nobody is making that charge in the article. The someone who stated that it was not illegal was me, until I researched it and found that such an act is illegal.  I then rewrote and expanded the Copyfraud article.  Nevertheless, you are not addressing the proposed compromise.  Does it or does it not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines?--Fahrenheit451 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, the implication of greater wrongdoing you mentioned is an example of synthesis of information, which is against Wikipedia policy. Now, the only way this could apply here is the way it was presented earlier using articles as sources. This is because the original source said "this happened", "this happened", which means "this", which is original research. With court transcripts or something similar being used as a primary source, there would be no question as to whether or not the statement was said, thus passing WP:OR, WP:BLP, and WP:RS. Also, yes, the affidavit may well not be true, but this does not mean that it wasn't verifiably said by someone who has passed Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Finally, in the section, I do not see Mr. Prince's POV or opinion being pushed, just commented on from a neutral perspective. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  20:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is about Mr. Miscavige, not Mr. Prince. If you want to give the information that Mr. Prince said something 20 years ago maybe it should go in his own article.  Should the articles on Presidents Bush and Clinton include everything that anyone ever said about them? Steve Dufour 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, the affidavit describes actions done by Miscavige, so is relevant to the article. There is no attempt to include everything anyone ever said about Miscavige in this article. --Fahrenheit451 07:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if Mr. Prince is notable, this statement does not seem to be unless it has been mentioned in a newspaper story or other more reliable source. Steve Dufour 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The newspaper is not necessarily more reliable, it is just secondary and the affidavit is primary.--Fahrenheit451 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve makes a good point, though. Yes, through a primary source, the statement can be verified, but if no secondary sources cite it, it is verifiable but not notable (See WP:RS and WP:V). Therefore, if the statement has been reported on by "Reliable publications [which] are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight", the statement can remain. If not, I'm afraid that it is verifiable, but not important enough to be included. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide your opinions. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)