Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-29 Enhanced interrogation techniques

What's going on?
Arkon

 BuboTitan

Against the will of several other Wiki users, Nescio insists on inserting a Blogger, Andrew Sullivan, into the article as a source. Problem is, there is no basis upon which Andrew Sullivan could be considered a "reliable source", except for maybe digging out the phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung". Yes, he's fairly famous, but that is irrelevant. He is not a recognized authority on the subject, and has no relevant experience or training (nor has he claimed it). He is not a lawyer, a doctor, an interrogator, CIA employee, torture victim, military member, or any other related profession. He has never even worked as a journalist. He went straight from college to editing magazines then to opinion writing. And his blog, like all others, are "self published sources" and so not considered reliable for Wiki WP:RS Even Sullivan himself admits he's "just a writer" (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/post-stephanopo.html). Nescio insists that since Sullivan has previously been published in the Sunday Times, that makes him legit. But that article, like his blog, was an opinion piece.

Nescio

At Enhanced interrogation techniques there is a section describing the similarity with [Gestapo techniques]. This was suggested by Andrew Sullivan. Despite the fact that we have an article in the Sunday Times written by him, despite the fact he is a well-known political commentator, despite the fact that we have other sources mentioning his name, people insist the article cannot say that Andrew Sullivan thinks there is a similarity between these techniques.

For details see the talk page where no valid argument has been presented for disallowing what numerous sources say.
 * The page has been protected following the repeated removal of sourced information while awaiting dispute resoltion.

What would you like to change about that?
Arkon

 BuboTitan
 * 1) Keep Sullivan out of the article except possibly for simply saying he is famous and has helped heightened attention to the issue, or some such. He should not be used as a source for actual interrogation techniques whatsoever.
 * 2) Another possible solution is to merge the article with torture. The line between the two is ill-defined, and even the legit sources in the enhanced interrogation techniques article right now are very, very weak. But if you are going to keep this as a stand-alone article, then it should be as strong as possible. Adding in bloggers as references doesn't help.

Nescio
 * 1) Simply allow WP to say what numerous sources say: Andrew Sullivan thinks .....
 * 2) If that is not possible then clarify why it should not be allowed to cite numerous sources.
 * 3) Clarify why the Sunday Times fails WP:RS.

Mediator notes
I'll be taking this case. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Moved from responses in above sections &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to above comment by BuboTitan.
 * 1) Nowhere is Sullivan presented as "expert," and as such the observation he is not an expert is irrelevant.
 * 2) Where in WP is it mandated that sources are experts, i.e. are journalists experts with a degree in the topic they write about?
 * 3) Sullivan is an established political commentator and to claim that well-known commentators somehow fail WP:RS is an absolute fallacious statement. Please read the page again!
 * 4) Sullivan wrote an article for the Sunday Times and BuboTitan insists that even that article, although I fail to see how the Times can be considered unacceptable, cannot be used as source. Reason: Sullivan wrote it.
 * 5) It would seem the principal argument here is "anything Sullivan writes is unacceptable." By that logic we could have a hypothetical WH statement written by Sullivan, or articles written for the NYT, WaPo, Der Spiegel, Le Monde et cetera, being denied as source because "anything Sullivan writes is unacceptable."
 * 6) When we have other sources mentioning Sullivan on what ground should we exlude that information from WP? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton

Note: reponding to BuboTitan 1 Sullivan is not used as source for the techniques used, 2 the merge bit has been addressed and denied. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton


 * Nescio, an opinion piece in the Sunday Times or anywhere else is still an opinion piece. Also, I'm not going to waste time here rehashing the same debate from the article's talk page, with the same points that you have chosen to ignore. I will just quote from wiki's policies on [Self Published Sources]. Whether or not Sullivan is an expert is highly relevant:


 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.


 * Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Amen. BuboTitan (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First proposal: "Blogger Andrew Sullivan thinks..."
OK, I'm gonna start off now, and Arkon might join in later if he wishes. After reading through your statements here, I've noticed that both of you (in your first point) are willing to have Sullivan mentioned in the article, but with varying levels of authority given to what he says. If he calls himself "just a writer/blogger/whatever", why not say "blogger Andrew Sullivan thinks..." in the article? Comments/opinions? &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the protected version:
 * H. Candace Gorman (a lawyer representing several detainees in Guantanamo Bay), Andrew Sullivan (blogger, political commentator and former editor of The New Republic), and Lou Dubose claim that "enhanced interrogation" bears remarkable resemblance to the techniques the Gestapo called "Verschärfte Vernehmung," for which some of them faced prosecution in Norway after World War II and were "found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death." (emphasis mine)

You may find that at this time the article identifies Sullivan as "blogger, political commentator and former editor of The New Republic." For some very important reason people insist this sentence somehow might confuse the reader into thinking that Sullivan "the expert" is commenting. Apparently it is unclear to the reader that this is merely the opinion (Sullivan et al "claim") by a "blogger, political commentator and former editor of The New Republic."

Withe the above in mind I think the article currently does what you propose here. Your thoughts? Respectfully Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 13:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what's currently said, but I'd like to see what BuboTitan thinks about that whole idea... &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the main question is, why is Sullivan in that sentence at all? While you are at it, why not put in the opinions of Britney Spears or Paris Hilton on the issue? They have equal qualifications, and are famous too, in fact, much more famous than Sullivan. I'm being a little sarcastic, but you get the point. I don't object to a separate section or paragraph saying that Sullivan has written extensively about this issue (nor would I object to the same if people like Ms. Spears or Hilton had a published opinion on the issue), but the above sentence sandwiches him between two legitimate sources (although they barely qualify themselves- but that's another issue). Even mitigating it by calling him a "blogger" is confusing in this context. Sullivan is a good writer, and very opinionated but the article should be very careful against portraying him as a source.BuboTitan (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Well, the main question is, why is Sullivan in that sentence at all?" Because it is what numerous sources say and we are allowed to report what sources say. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And then we have a separate section discussing exactly the same thing but now only attributed to Sullivan. - Yes. In that case I am confused since there is no way I can see any possibility of readers not understanding Sullivan is not an expert. - We want to indicate that he's not an expert, but nonetheless has a strong, published opinion on the matter. Sorry if this didn't make that much sense beforehand. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nescio, what would you say to a separate section or paragraph noting the thoughts of people like Sullivan (separated from the thoughts of professionals etc.)? &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your question is. As I read your suggestion the following comes to mind:
 * You think the article should better identify who says what. In that case I am confused since there is no way I can see any possibility of readers not understanding Sullivan is not an expert.
 * You think we should have a section discussing the alleged similarity with the Gestapo techniques as mentioned by "experts" who explicitly refer to Sullivan as source for that idea. And then we have a separate section discussing exactly the same thing but now only attributed to Sullivan.
 * If the above is what you propose I think we should not adopt that notion as it sounds terribly illogical and confusing. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You think we should have a section discussing the alleged similarity with the Gestapo techniques as mentioned by "experts" who explicitly refer to Sullivan as source for that idea. - No.
 * Still unsure. As I read the current text it clearly states that Sullivan is a "blogger, political commentator and former editor of The New Republic." With that in mind I don't understand how that sentence does not "indicate that he's not an expert, but nonetheless has a strong, published opinion on the matter." Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would probably be safer and better for the article overall to take Sullivan out entirely. See my quote above from wiki's policy on self-published sources. There's got to be better sources to quote. If you need Sullivan to strengthen the article, then you are already in trouble. I don't see how it's relevant that some sources have quoted Sullivan in their articles. Experts quote people like Mark Twain or Shakespeare all the time - it doesn't make them sources themselves.BuboTitan (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, he is not used as source but mentioned since all the other sources explicitly refer to him. Nowhere in WP is it prohibited to present sourced information, i.e. Sullivan thinks.....~


 * As for quoting any writer, it is difficult to understand why I can say professor X discussed the sonnet "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" but am not allowed to mention the fact it was originally written by Shakespeare. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are advocating is the same defense that tabloid newspapers use. Headlines scream "ELVIS IS ALIVE", then in small print: "according to local man". Yes, it may be true that someone said "Elvis is alive" (I just did), but that doesn't mean the statement itself is true or that it should seriously be taken as a source. And your second point doesn't have anything to do with this situation. Sullivan is not an expert on torture, international law, or interrogations. Period. I see no point in repeating this over and over.BuboTitan (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not something is true is irrelevant. That is why we have articles on Intelligent Design, the Flat Earth and Alien abduction. If it is sourced we can use it. As you well know, a source being an expert is not mandated by policy. So, whether or not he is an expert is irrelevant too, i.e. I have yet to see you object to journalists as source. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One last time, since you don't seem to understand - read the policy I quoted above on self-published sources. It's only in the case of self-published sources (like blogs) where the source must be an expert in the field in order to be used (although it is still discouraged even then). Journalists don't have to be experts because (theoretically) publications fact-check their own articles.BuboTitan (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what you are saying is that although we have experts used as source (Lederman, Gorman and Horton) we are not allowed to use them, i.e. state they say Sullivan thinks .... Please point to the policy disallowing the use of legal experts and disallowing citing sources. You have failed to do so from the beginning of our discussin and as such I do not understand why you refuse to explain why we cannot present sourced material. While I repeatedly answer your questions you have never answered any of mine. In the interest of compromise you might start by explaining the following:
 * Do we have "legal experts" stating Sullivan says .......?
 * Does WP allow us to cite what sources say?
 * Does WP allow the use of verifiable information?
 * Since policy is so important I pointed you to ArbCom which felt the individuals cited (Lederman, Gorman and Horton) are acceptable as source."Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability."
 * Respectfully Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the first part of your complaint, see my answer below, and as for that policy, look at it again: "by the reputation of the author" Sullivan does not have a reputation of expertise nor has he claimed it.BuboTitan (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you repeatedly missed the fact that it is not Sullivan but actually Lederman, Gorman and Horton that are used as source. Interestingly Lederman, Gorman and Horton are experts and regularly write articles, i.e. "by the reputation of the author" refers to them and not ullivan. Please, from now on do not claim ullivan is the source, he is not. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of apparent ambiguous statements
The above discussion leads me to believe the current protected version makes readers think ullivan is an expert on this topic. To remedy the confusion I propose the following. "Marty Lederman (visiting Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and Attorney Advisor in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002), H. Candace Gorman (a lawyer representing several detainees in Guantanamo Bay), Arthur Bright (writing for The Christian Science Monitor), Scott Horton (a New York attorney known for his work in human rights law and the law of armed conflict) reported that Andrew Sullivan (blogger, political commentator and former editor of The New Republic) claimed that 'enhanced interrogation' bears remarkable resemblance to the techniques the Gestapo called 'Verschärfte Vernehmung,' for which some of them faced prosecution in Norway after World War II and were 'found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death.' (see article at end of this sction for refs)" Hopes this better describes Sullivan as being mentioned by the sources used, and that he is not an expert. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 18:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on the prose of that - the stuff in brackets should theoretically be explained in the article wlinked too anyway, so to make it more crisp, how about word it as;

"Experts Marty Lederman, H. Candace Gorman, Arthur Bright, Scott Horton have reported that blogger, political commentator and former editor of The New Republic Andrew Sullivan claimed that 'enhanced interrogation' bears remarkable resemblance to the techniques the Gestapo called 'Verschärfte Vernehmung,' for which some of them faced prosecution in Norway after World War II and were 'found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death.' (see article at end of this sction for refs)"
 * BuboTitan? &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to ask what would really be served by saying "source X says that Y said such and such"? If you were going to do that, you could simply quote Sullivan, link to it, and then you have much better verification that he said it. But the bottom line is, why mention Sullivan at all? It's just extra fluff in the article. Honestly, it's rather irrelevant if Gorman, Bright, quoted him. I'm sure those authors quoted a lot of people. He is not a source of information by training, by situation, by witnessing, by expertise, or by anything else.BuboTitan (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough WP is full of sentences stating source X claims that Y said .... hy that suddenly is not allowed escapes me. This usually is done to address WP:NPOV/WP:NOR concerns. What would be served? Hmm, could it be that we should apply policy which says when we have a source saying X we can present that in WP as: source says X? Example, a source says Intelligent Design is an alternative version of Creationism (X). (You will find such a statement in the article on ID). Instead of Intelligent Design is an alternative version of Creationism (X) we have a source saying Sulivan claims ..... (X) OF course, since we represent what sources say (X), and our sources say Sulivan claims ..... (X) there is no reason not to present what our sources say, i.e. Sulivan claims ....., unless we now ignore and object to WP-policy regarding verifiability. The bottom line is: do we accurately present all the information our sources supply, or do we filter sources by saying this I disagree with so eventhough it can be sourced WP is not allowed to mention it?


 * I support the trimmed version, thanks Dihydrogen Monoxide, the extra info I inserted was to ensure in no way one (editor) might misunderstand Sullivan is not used as source but merely referred to by experts.  Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved?
What amount of time would be reasonable before we can close this debate as resolved because the apparent oppsition to citing sources has been dropped/withdrawn? Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BuboTitan hasn't commented for about two weeks here now - if you went ahead and added the content as you wish to see it, and waited for a response (if any) we could work from there. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the article. Addhoc (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to try and add in your content now, and we'll leave this open for a bit to see if there are complaints. Thanks Addhoc. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> (Review) 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for helping out. Have done as you suggested. Will see what happens. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, diff. We'll give it, say, three days and see what happens. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Case closed as no reasonable objection was raised to the inserting of content. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm so in other words, Nescio gets a default judgement because some of us went on vacation for the holidays and no one else was here argue against him? It doesn't really matter if I responded quickly or not, because the use of Sullivan (and other bloggers) as sources is against wiki policy. Cut and dried. You can't change that. In trying to please all sides you have neglected to make a real decision, but rather approved a warmed-over version that still lumps him in with sources. This might be a moot point at the moment, because the page has rapidly changed in the last several days, but I'm going to take a hard look at it.BuboTitan (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you had said that you were on vacation we might have done something about that - from what was seen, it seemed you have given up on the case. &mdash; <b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b> 21:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

>> It seems to me there are two things at issue here. If a blogger notices that there seems to be a similarity between the practices of the US government and the NAZI Germany,that's his opinion. It may be true and it may not be. Now,if a university professor or lawyer or someone else who could reasonably be considered an expert agrees with it,then that is something that can be referenced in a Wikipedia article. An example might be "University of XYZ law professor John Smith,in his interview with Time Magazine in December of 2007 has stated that Brittney Spears suggestion that the US governments "enhanced interrogation" techniques bear a striking resemblance to the practices of NAZI Germany is certainly a correct interpretation of events that have transpired over the last 8 years" To simply say that John Smith believes there is a similarity between the two,ignores the source of the original statement. Certainly Brittany deserves credit for things she might say. (especially if by some miracle she actually said something worth reading. ;-) ) On the other hand,its completely irrelevant on a factual basis. On the other hand since John Smith believes it,that holds some hypothetical weight. In short, if hes the source of the idea,its certainly reasonable that he be credited with it. If your going to say that the similarity is real,then you need something more than his opinion to back it up.