Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) →Discussion: re Seriajoepsycho |
Joe Bodacious (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
Further to the above, I have a simple — and (hopefully) non-controversial — question to ask all parties to this mediation, which I hope will go some way to finding out what we need to do about this dispute. The question is as follows: |
Further to the above, I have a simple — and (hopefully) non-controversial — question to ask all parties to this mediation, which I hope will go some way to finding out what we need to do about this dispute. The question is as follows: |
||
: '''From your perspective, and bearing in mind the policies mentioned above, what about the current [[Schiller Institute]] article <u>does not</u> align with Wikipedia policy on [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] and [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]?''' |
: '''From your perspective, and bearing in mind the policies mentioned above, what about the current [[Schiller Institute]] article <u>does not</u> align with Wikipedia policy on [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] and [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]?''' |
||
::I'm not sure what sort of formatting you prefer. I'm answering here, but if you wish to move my comments to another section, that's fine. There is a section now at [[Talk:Schiller Institute#Newsnight]] where an uninvolved editor expresses his view that the material sourced to the Chip Berlet interview on BBC fails WP:V. I agree, but there is a bigger issue to discuss here. Chip Berlet's theories of "coded" antisemitism and "echoes" of antisemitism (which boils down to his [[Guilt by association]] technique, which has been criticized in reliable sources) are, to my mind, examples of fringe theories, and should be given minimal weight for that reason. One seemingly intractable issue between myself and Binksternet is that Binksternet insists that Berlet and some of his co-thinkers should be regarded as the definitive experts on LaRouche. My view is that Berlet, who is a college drop-out, has no scientific credentials of the sort that Wikipedia looks for in an expert source, and has simply been promoted by LaRouche's political opponents for the purposes of containing LaRouche's political influence. As [[Alexander Cockburn]] put it, Berlet has "made a career out of anathematizing LaRouche." I think that Wikipedia would want to avoid providing a platform for warring political factions to snipe at one another ([[WP:SOAP]].) |
|||
::I as well have gone back and looked at some of the old LaRouche-article disputes. Both Berlet and Dennis King had Wikipedia user accounts, and were constantly involved in content disputes where they were citing themselves. I think someone must have discouraged them from doing this, somewhere along the line. They both rely on arguments which could reasonably be described as conspiracy theorizing (example: Dennis King claims that certain photos of [[barred spiral galaxies]] and of [[Lawrence Livermore Laboratory]] [[plasmoid]] experiments which appeared in LaRouche's ''New Solidarity'' newspaper and ''Fusion'' magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest." This is something I found in an old version of [[Lyndon LaRouche]].) In addition to the question of [[WP:WEIGHT]] for theories which, as the moderator points out, can neither be proven nor disproven, I think that the BLP aspect cannot be overlooked. When there is an element of doubt about whether something belongs in Wikipedia, and it is also damaging to living persons, then under BLP we err on the side of caution. |
|||
::One additional issue I would like to raise: since the moderator as observed that all these LaRouche-related disputes are interrelated, I would like to propose that the issue being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Andrei_Fursov_quote_at_Lyndon_LaRouche]] be incorporated into this mediation. Thanks. [[User:Joe Bodacious|Joe Bodacious]] ([[User talk:Joe Bodacious|talk]]) 01:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
=== The next step === |
=== The next step === |
Revision as of 01:03, 14 July 2014
When can we get this started? I don't think Marek is going to sign on. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
location
Will this take place on this talk page or the main page?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Joe Bodacious, Serialjoepsycho, Waalkes, Binksternet, and Volunteer Marek: My apologies for the delay. It has taken awhile to line up a mediator. I believe that we've got one and I've sent him an email to see if he can begin. The mediation will take place on this page. Thank you for your patience. Sunray (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Mediator notes
- I'm making the following notes below to help me keep track of my research on the content issue described above, and also to provide a set of handy links to other similar article content and discussions. Please do feel free to add anything that's missing to the lists below — in fact, I'd positively encourage it. --Tristessa (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think your outline covers most of the article complaints.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for including COATRACK -- that one hadn't occurred to me, but it's appropriate. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think your outline covers most of the article complaints.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Last updated by: --Tristessa (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Skeleton outline of dispute
- Schiller Institute — main article for this RfM and principal current locus of dispute re. anti-semitism allegations
- Things to look into: WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPGROUP, WP:COATRACK, Wikipedia:PROFRINGE
- LaRouche movement
- Lyndon LaRouche
- Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement - some duplication of content with the above, similar loci of dispute
- Related mediation cases
- Last structured mediation was by the Mediation Cabal in 2006: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-26 LaRouche_intro
- Discussion re Mediation Cabal case here: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07
- We've never seen this dispute yet at the Mediation Committee so far.
- Related arbitration cases
- At least 14 (!) ArbCom requests including enforcement, clarifications and RfArbs
- Cases
Less contentious isses
I do wonder there are less contentious issues that we could settle or politely discuss while waiting for the mediator?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not optimistic about it, without outside input. We could take it to the BLP, NPOB or Fringe Theories noticeboard. However, I just checked Tristessa's contribution history, and after two weeks of inactivity, there is a new edit for today, so maybe this mediation will now begin to move. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Mediation
Well, hello there, all of you! I am so sorry that it has taken me so long to help you with the dispute that you've been experiencing. This is for a number of reasons, not least that there was considerable research to be done in this case, and that I have also had off-Wikipedia commitments that have limited my availability. I am so sorry about the delay, but I do believe that I can help.
Introduction
I need not remind the participants here that the LaRouche-related articles have been a minefield of editing issues, marred by disputes relating to source reliability and point of view. In this regard, the article series mirrors many of the usual patterns encountered when writing about movements (of various shapes and sizes) that have ideological contention in their basis, whether rightly or wrongly (which is, I'd like to point out, both in the eye of the beholder and immaterial as far as writing an encyclopaedia article is concerned). I'd like you all to know that what you've experienced is by no means unusual — and it's OK to ask for help on such an article dispute as this, because that's what we're here for at the Mediation Committee. Nobody is wrong, or bad, for having a dispute on what should be included; it's just a problem that we have to, and will, solve.
Therefore, if everyone could be so kind as to take a position of intellectual detachment from the issues at question and look only at what needs to be done to produce an article suitable for encyclopaedic presentation of the facts, we will be well on our way to producing article content acceptable to all parties.
Further to my research on this case, I have made the decision that it was fruitless to consider merely the present dispute at hand as though it were in a vacuum. I felt that, having read through the discussions and issues that editors have raised with each other regarding the LaRouche topics, the issues experienced are highly interdependent between separate articles. This is complicated by the fact that the text across the LaRouche articles is also, in and of itself, interdependent. Shall we, then, start this mediation with the perspective that we can all understand that each editor may have a separate point of view on how Lyndon LaRouche's life, work, supporters and detractors are to be viewed in the public sphere, that is neither "right" or "wrong" but merely different from their view of the subject? May I invite you all to reflect upon the fact that our primary and overarching duty is towards producing a well-researched, high-quality series of articles on Wikipedia that present the most accurate WP:NPOV perspective to the external observer? In other words, can we agree that on Wikipedia — separately and independently of our lives and opinions — that we aim to be read, rather than to write?
With that in mind, let us proceed to the issues at hand.
Antisemitism: to be or not to be?
The core of the present dispute regarding Schiller Institute relates to the claim regarding antisemitic tendencies, that may or may not exist, in Lyndon LaRouche's public statements and political perspective; and, more specifically, whether the Institute has engaged in behaviours further to such a perspective. The trouble that we have with this claim is that it is virtually impossible to determine this factually in either direction. There have been certain sources in the articles, referenced inline with article content, that have claimed that Lyndon LaRouche has engaged in "coded antisemitism" (with various wording). This sort of thing always poses an interesting problem on Wikipedia, because a judgement has to be made as to whether there is sufficient weight in the source for such an opinion to be stated as a referenced fact (e.g. in "Wikipedia's voice" with the reference) versus the fact being stated that there is an opinion regarding the perspective. But, in the case of the LaRouche articles, determining that no antisemitism exists would essentially require proving a negative through a reliable source, or else having a reliable source that stated that such encoded antisemitism did not exist (which logically is impossible). Equally, presenting a case that antisemitism does exist would somehow require finding a reliable source that categorically identified some of LaRouche's opinions as being unequivocally antisemitic, an equally unlikely and impossible state of affairs. Trying to extrapolate this to the Schiller Institute makes it even more impossible to ascribe such tendencies without definitive statements.
This is the general pattern that has pervaded across disputed claims on this article's topic. So, is there academic consensus for a standpoint of describing Lyndon LaRouche as having made antisemitic statements? And, if so, are there sources to support the Schiller Institute also engaging in such a perspective?
Please read this extract from Wikipedia's reliable source policy, WP:RS#Uses_by_other_sources, and consider its impact:
How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.
What appears to be the issue in the LaRouche articles is that this claim (amongst many others) falls into the same trap in supporting and opposing sources of being essentially opinions on his statements that are unreferenced in themselves towards concrete academic research. Therefore, we may well — if deemed to be notable for inclusion — state that a prominent person has stated an opinion in a certain direction, but we certainly cannot use such sources to conclude any outcome on a factual basis.
Undue weight?
This, then, brings us neatly to the question of what precisely is meant by "undue weight" on Wikipedia, as defined in WP:UNDUE. The section is as follows, in Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight, as referenced by the shortcut:
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. [..] Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
Perhaps on this basis, we can get to the substance of the issue, which is:
- Q1: Is the perspective under dispute, that particular statements by Lyndon LaRouche are antisemitic, prevalent in reliable sources?
- Q2: Can we say that any of the circumstances surrounding the Schiller Institute provide reliable sources regarding the Institute's alleged antisemitism, as far as Wikipedia's content standards are concerned?
From a perspective of solving this dispute, the latter is much more important.
Narrowing the dispute
I would like to draw the attention of the mediation parties to the fact that there seems to be a conflation between LaRouche's personal statements and opinions and the Schiller Institute itself. Though the Institute may well be affiliated to other organisations, and be dedicated towards the LaRouche movement, the allegations of antisemitism must be germane to the specific subject under consideration. In the case of this editorial dispute, that subject is the Schiller Institute, not the general issues over LaRouchian ideology. There does seem to be a certain issue in this area, as described by the essay WP:COATRACK, which I would advise all participants to read.
Moving forward
Further to the above, I have a simple — and (hopefully) non-controversial — question to ask all parties to this mediation, which I hope will go some way to finding out what we need to do about this dispute. The question is as follows:
- From your perspective, and bearing in mind the policies mentioned above, what about the current Schiller Institute article does not align with Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view?
- I'm not sure what sort of formatting you prefer. I'm answering here, but if you wish to move my comments to another section, that's fine. There is a section now at Talk:Schiller Institute#Newsnight where an uninvolved editor expresses his view that the material sourced to the Chip Berlet interview on BBC fails WP:V. I agree, but there is a bigger issue to discuss here. Chip Berlet's theories of "coded" antisemitism and "echoes" of antisemitism (which boils down to his Guilt by association technique, which has been criticized in reliable sources) are, to my mind, examples of fringe theories, and should be given minimal weight for that reason. One seemingly intractable issue between myself and Binksternet is that Binksternet insists that Berlet and some of his co-thinkers should be regarded as the definitive experts on LaRouche. My view is that Berlet, who is a college drop-out, has no scientific credentials of the sort that Wikipedia looks for in an expert source, and has simply been promoted by LaRouche's political opponents for the purposes of containing LaRouche's political influence. As Alexander Cockburn put it, Berlet has "made a career out of anathematizing LaRouche." I think that Wikipedia would want to avoid providing a platform for warring political factions to snipe at one another (WP:SOAP.)
- I as well have gone back and looked at some of the old LaRouche-article disputes. Both Berlet and Dennis King had Wikipedia user accounts, and were constantly involved in content disputes where they were citing themselves. I think someone must have discouraged them from doing this, somewhere along the line. They both rely on arguments which could reasonably be described as conspiracy theorizing (example: Dennis King claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest." This is something I found in an old version of Lyndon LaRouche.) In addition to the question of WP:WEIGHT for theories which, as the moderator points out, can neither be proven nor disproven, I think that the BLP aspect cannot be overlooked. When there is an element of doubt about whether something belongs in Wikipedia, and it is also damaging to living persons, then under BLP we err on the side of caution.
- One additional issue I would like to raise: since the moderator as observed that all these LaRouche-related disputes are interrelated, I would like to propose that the issue being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Andrei_Fursov_quote_at_Lyndon_LaRouche be incorporated into this mediation. Thanks. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The next step
I look forward to hearing from you, and please do not hesitate to ask any questions (or make any comments) that you have further to the above. --Tristessa (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Honestly I don't have a position on Schiller Institute or LaRouche. Before the RFC was posted on my talk page I had heard of neither. Trying remove the source on the basis that a youtube video was also linked made me suspicious. Two issues lumped together that I feel are separate. Upon review it came to mind that this article was a political minefield. I felt the two Pro-LaRouche editors did not give a clear and valid reason for removal of content as I looked further. That is very important here I feel for both sides. If there is any contention to any content pro-removal or pro-addition that it be clear direct and policy based.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Serialjoepsycho. May I summarise your perspective in stating that it was merely that you felt the YouTube source referenced did not conform to WP:RS for the claims made? If so, can I ask you specifically which claims were attributed to the YouTube video? --Tristessa (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)