Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-24 Weatherman (organization)


 * Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Request details
I have attempted to add relevant, well sourced information to this article only to have it be removed. There has been an unsuccessful good faith attempt to resolve this dispute by discussion.

In dispute is the reliability of an account from an FBI agent who worked undercover as a member of the Weather Underground (organization). His statements on the activities of the group were captured in a television documentary, No Place To Hide, in 1982.

The dispute regarding inclusion of his testimony can be summarized as follows:

1) FBI agents aren't reliable, since J. Edgar Hoover had a file on communists. (Hoover died in 1972.)

My response: I disagree. You personally may lack confidence in the accuracy of the FBI or the police, who are routinely required to risk their lives in undercover assignments and then testify under oath. But your personal opinions are not relevant.

This information is consistent with Wikipedia policy and should be in the article.

2) Including this would violate WP:BLP. However, this is irrelevant since there are no specific living persons being cited in this testimony.

3) This references a primary source which WP:RS policy does not permit.

My response: I disagree. Here is the entire Wikipedia policy you reference: Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others. Whenever they are used, they must be used with extreme caution in order to avoid original research. Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction). Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Besides, what we have is an eyewitness account of something that the primary source said and it is being reported in a documentary which is a tertiary source. Therefore I believe the FBI agent could be considered a secondary source.

So including this information is definitely in accordance with Wikipedia policy no matter how you slice it, and it belongs in the article.

Who are the involved parties?
User:Freedom Fan, User:Scjessey, User:Wikidemon, User:Erik the Red 2

What's going on?
There is a group of editors who seem to be patrolling certain articles related to the current election. They consistently remove any information which fails to put their candidate in a favorable light, sometimes citing irrelevant Wikipedia policies.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like this and all notable information relevant to this article to be allowed if it is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Thanks for your help.

Discussion

 * premature - a single editor wants to promote highly derogatory material sourced to a single book giving a first-person account by one of the participants. Various other editors dispute the material as not reliably sourced and a possible BLP problem.  It has been 17 hours since this arose.  I don't see a dispute here, just normal consensus (or lack thereof).  Mediation would be a waste of time at this point.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, hold on a sec :-)
 * Question to requester: is the source fundamental? Is it derogatory? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The requester has not used any form of dispute resolution, nor even attempted to build any sort of consensus for what would be a highly contentious inclusion. I concur with Wikidemon's statement that this attempt at mediation is premature, and that the information lacks proper reliable sources. Given the reference by the requester to the election, it would appear that this is more to do with furthering the goals of a McCain campaign smear tactic than something for the good of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion has been quite extensive and no progress toward compromise is being made. The amount of time elapsed would appear irrelevant.  If I am mistaken, please cite the relevant Wikipedia policy.


 * I am not sure what is meant by "requester has not used any form of dispute resolution", since the discussion on the talk page, as well as what we are discussing here, is a standard part of the recommended Wikipedia dispute resolution process.


 * I am not certain what is meant by the term "fundamental", nor am I sure of the purpose of characterizing the information as "derogatory". Since the material does not deal with a statement about any particular living person, the WP:BLP would not apply.


 * I am pretty sure that Scjessey's preference of Presidential candidate is irrelevant. Furthermore, nothing in the article mentions any particular presidential candidate nor the current election cycle.  For the record, I am not affiliated with any political candidate.


 * The new information is verifiable and relevant, and therefore qualifies for inclusion in the article according to Wikipedia policies. I find no objective reason for censoring it.


 * Please open this case and rule on the admissibility of the information in question, so I can determine whether there is some misunderstanding of some Wikipedia policy, or whether we need to proceed with formal dispute resolution. Thank you.  Freedom Fan (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you need to submit a request for third opinion, or just wait a bit to see how other editors weigh in. Mediation requires all parties to agree, and as I understand it seeks to encourage parties to compromise rather than ruling on who wins.  I wouldn't mind some additional input if it can be done quickly with minimum fuss, but I don't see any reason to compromise right now on quality of sourcing nor do I want to get into a drawn-out process on something that I do not see as being worth extensive procedure.Wikidemon (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An RfC might be better for a content dispute, but don't go and pull one of those "uninvolved parties only" on us. I don't understand why Freedom Fan does not get why a primary source accusing living people (Ayers and Dohrn are, as far as I am aware, still living) of contemplating a mass murder on millions of people when their is not proof, no other source to back up this claim at all, is not acceptable for Wikipedia. From BLP: ''"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidencefor any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."'' We are not to be the ones to legitimize a sensationalist claim of attempted mass murder by publishing it in our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is real life, everyone. It's time to think of consequences. They are real. Erik the Red  2    02:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Request for postponement till after November, on the grounds that it will be a less heated environment then. --Barberio (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. There is no Wikipedia policy requiring that we schedule dispute resolutions to take current events into account. Although there are many disputes related to the current election, this information is from 1982; the source could not possibly have been influenced by today's events.

As has already been established, the WP:BLP policy is not relevant, since no specific living persons were named by the source. Since this material is verifiable and relevant it meets Wikipedia standards and should be included in the article, regardless of any particular editor's political disposition. Freedom Fan (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the source fundamental to the article? Is it derogatory? Is there a better source? I'd appreciate an explanation as to why everyone seems to think that this is such a big issue. I haven't read over the history nor much of the talk; enlighten me ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the history. First, a quick introduction of Larry Grathwhol.
 * Larry Grathwohl was a informant paid by the FBI for his testimony, and has made several claims about the actions of the Weathermen group and it's individual members. Please note, the distinction between 'informant' and 'agent'. As far as I can tell, Larry Grathwohl has never been an FBI Agent, or a full time employee of that agency. In the congressional hearings on the Weathermen investigation, Grathwhol was offered as a 'star witness' of sorts by the FBI to give evidence.
 * It is important also, to note that Larry Grathwohl's entire testimony, and published statements on the Weathermen are based entirely on heresay and claims of what he heard others say. I have seen no other evidence, such as tape recordings, documents he obtained, or even evidence to show he was at the meetings he claims to have been at.
 * Grathwohl published or produced a collection of Weathermen related books and documentaries during the late 70s and 80s, he makes various accusations against either specific members of, or unnamed members of the Weathermen. Again, there is little evidence beyond heresay and speculation that backs up these claims, and no investigation of the claims has resulted in criminal charges.
 * Now, as to the article.
 * During the last few months, there have been efforts by various editors to give weight Grathwohl as an authoritive source on the activities of the Weathermen, particularly in regards to his attribution of incidents not claimed by the Weathermen which caused loss of life, and the claim by Grathwohl that the Weathermen planned the systematic extermination of 25 million people through 're-education camps'.
 * Several people, myself included, have pointed out that Grathwohl's testimony and claims are heresey mixed with speculation, and come from an unreliable source. And the use of Grathwohl as a source has been limited in line with the living person's biograpy policy to ensure that we are careful in handling of accusations against living people. --Barberio (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The elephant in the room is that the recent attempts to disparage the Weathermen and its members as terrorists, murderers, communists, etc., is tied to an attempt to disparage Barack Obama as a "friend" of "unrepentant terrorists". The push to add this material to Wikipedia has coincided with the off-Wikipedia push about this material in blogs, op eds, and more recently, campaign pieces.  Those pushing this material tend to push other anti-Obama content.  Although the issue is ultimately about the Weathermen, not Obama, evidence of a POV agenda does suggest we give careful scrutiny to the verifiability, reliability, weight, etc., of the material proposed for inclusion.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First let's examine the phrase "attempts to disparage the Weathermen and its members as terrorists, murderers, communists". Is there really any dispute that these words accurately characterize the Weathermen?  Perhaps you should actually re-read the article in question, assuming you have done so already.


 * To this day, none of the Weathermen deny or denounce their laundry list of bombings; they are proud of their efforts in which several people were maimed or died. Their effort to bomb the servicemen's dance would have murdered more innocents than McVeigh did in Oklahoma city, except that the members were incompetent and accidentally blew up themselves instead.


 * Why would anyone possibly defend these actions or attempt to disguise the stated goals of the Weathermen? I would submit that the "elephant in the room" is the blatant attempt to delay and/or suppress verifiable, relevant information from Wikipedia for transparently political purposes.  This approach is especially ridiculous given that there is every indication that the upcoming election will be determined in a landslide.  Furthermore, there is nothing to tie this material from 1982 to today's Presidential election.


 * Second, there is no basis for applying the stringent WP:BLP policy, since no specific living persons are named in the testimony.


 * Third, there is no evidence to suggest that Grathwohl's testimony, nor the well-regarded "No Place To Hide" documentary series is unreliable. But at least it appears that we have been able to dispense with the "primary, secondary, tertiary" source smokescreen; so that's progress I suppose.


 * Fourth, this testimony is entirely consistent with the stated goals of the Weathermen. Just re-read the Wikipedia article; the Weathermen's manifesto, "Prairie Fire" explicitly states their objective at the very beginning:  They were committed to using deadly force to overthrow the democratically elected government of the U.S. in order to establish a Marxist utopia.  If successful, what would happen to large groups of people who objected to having all their property stolen and then forced to become slaves of the state?  Clearly, twentieth century history repeatedly shows that this approach only succeeds by imprisoning and exterminating political opponents on a massive scale.  What would fly in the face of all logic, would be to suggest that the Weathermen were just a bunch of crazies with no particular objective, who enjoyed blowing up things.


 * So yes, I suppose you could say that these facts are "fundamental to the article" and "derogatory", as if such challenges were relevant somehow. Once again, since this material is verifiable and relevant it meets Wikipedia standards and should be included in the article, regardless of any particular editor's political disposition.  Thank you.  Freedom Fan (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nuh-uh. Your opinion on whomever or whatever has no bearing on any article; same goes for any other editor. If you're not willing to compromise (and it's looking like you're not), then medcab can't help. Prove me wrong... otherwise, I'm closing this, and escalation is looking like an option for the frustrated (I can't prevent that even here, but mediation is supposed to help. It's never premature). So prove me wrong :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC) WP:RECENTISM is your guiding light here. Read it ;-)


 * Agreed. The mere opinions of editors are driving this discussion, since obviously there is no Wikipedia policy which suggests that this information should be censored.  I submit that your new argument regarding WP:Recentism is also irrelevant since the material in question originated in 1982.  Obviously the plans that the Weathermen had for their end game are extraordinarily relevant to the article.


 * While there is no attempt on either side to compromise, I have not heard any suggestions regarding what form such a compromise would take, so let's close this and start an appeal to the next level. Thanks for your help.  Freedom Fan (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)