| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Non-lethal weapon |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 22:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Andering J. REDDSON ( talk) |
| Mediator(s) | TransporterMan ( TALK) |
| Comment | Mediator's opinion appears to have been accepted by requesting editor. Closing as resolved, but will reopen if further discussion desired (contact me on my talk page, if so). |
Request details
Non-lethal weapon/Allegations of torture
The dispute is the use of Amnesty International as a source for the Allegations of torture section on Non-Lethal Weap page. Wikipedia itself acknowledges that AI is NOT an unbiased source, and therefore anything referencing them must be removed as biased; It’s like asking HITLER to write on the NaZI Party (assuming he was alive, of course). There are actually MORE disputes, but at this time I want to overcome one mountain at a time. Andering J REDDSON
Who is involved?
- User:Andering J. REDDSON (myself)
- User:Berean Hunter ( notification)
- User:Binksternet ( notification)
- User:Marcus Qwertyus (may not care about this) ( notification)
- User:AlexandrDmitri (also may not care about this) ( notification)
Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
- Andering J. REDDSON ( talk) 22:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the dispute?
Andy REDDSON: AI’s bias is very well documented; They must be removed. I myself said if a reputable source said the exact same thing, that would be different (just because I don’t personally know of one doesn’t mean they don’t exist; the FBI might have a similar report). I DID try to resolve this matter, but was accused of doing a “driveby.” At that point I removed the offending material myself, but ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►, Binksternet, and Marcus Qwertyus simply revert it back and now I’ve been accuse of starting a edit war.
The entire section is inappropriate and biased, however the overwhelming biased passage is Amnesty International in 1997 released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture. The repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on a human may be considered cruel, if not torture by itself. Such use is likely to be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.
What would you like to change about this?
Simply removing that piece would rectify this matter.
How do you think we can help?
Correct the problem.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
Discussion
Here I’d like to apologize if I didn’t get this perfectly right; I’m struggling to understand how to do this. A REDDSON
- I have fixed some of the technical deficiencies in the request and notified the other users involved. Many organizations have biases in their interpretations of facts, both claimed and admitted, but most of those can still be trusted to report the facts correctly. — Jeff G. ツ 14:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) A REDDSON did you not read Request for mediation and Request For Mediation Removal ? Mlpearc powwow 15:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am mentioned here because I removed this request for clarification in my capacity as an Arbitration Committee clerk as 1) not a clarification on an existing case and 2) not ripe for arbitration. As I explained to the filing party, arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution, not the first, and I suggested other forms of dispute resolution. As such, I am not an involved party to this request for mediation and my lack of participation here should not be considered as a barrier for this request for mediation to progress; I indeed encourage this dispute to be resolved at this stage of the WP:DR process. Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I admit, I screwed that up. A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Does this edit satisfy everyone? Marcus Qwertyus 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- No. the offending section (refrencing AI's position statement) is still included.
This version does not contain the biased material; If another (unbiased) source for the same conclusion is found, I can get behind that. It's not the wording, it's the source; Another (unbiased) source with the same conclusion could be used, if it can be found. A REDDSON — Preceding
undated comment added 05:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Mediation is incorrect process here. If Amnesty International is questionable in Reddson's mind then he should pose the question as to whether it is considered reliable on Wikipedia at the
reliable sources noticeboard.
Noted here in the board archives, it has been stated that it is...but he is free to ask again.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)- ...and for the record, I've never reverted Reddson's removal of the AI material despite what he wrote above. I have removed his driveby npov tagging.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- ...and for the record, I've never reverted Reddson's removal of the AI material despite what he wrote above. I have removed his driveby npov tagging.
- Mediation is incorrect process here. If Amnesty International is questionable in Reddson's mind then he should pose the question as to whether it is considered reliable on Wikipedia at the
reliable sources noticeboard.
Noted here in the board archives, it has been stated that it is...but he is free to ask again.
Is it normal to use a attribute a source if that source is questionable? Xavexgoem ( talk) 20:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am a neutral in this dispute and a mediator considering whether or not to adopt this case. I take it that [ this edit] defines the dispute. I also take it that there is no dispute over the issue of whether or not the reference to the Amnesty International report reverted in that edit correctly states, without interpretation, synthesis, or analysis, what that report says. The only issue, as I see it, is whether that reference can be used because, it is alleged, Amnesty is a biased source. Are all three of those points correct? (I am in no way "reserving" or "taking" this request at this point in time and any other mediator who cares to do so should feel free to proceed.) Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you have pared the argument down to its kernel. This dispute by Reddson is too small for MedCab, in my opinion. Reddson is disruptive, unable to put forward a cogent argument, and unable to recognize consensus which has been achieved against his ideas.
Binksternet (
talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- (3 points): A correct cite? Yes. Of good quality (not WP:OR) reporting? Yes. Of a citation whose permissibility (potentially biased source) is questionable? Yes.
- I agree with Binksternet that this appears to be the crux of the matter. I do believe that part of the reason for the dispute is there is a kernal of truth within AI's statement, although it is presented in a misleading fashion (here, note the difference between the article's title and the actual details that carry the additional stipulation of additional applications). AFAIC, this serves to illustrate how Amnesty International isn't necessarily being factually neutral, which adds credence to them being an unreliable reference source.
- In conclusion, I can see some value in editorially including AI's quote if we desire a concrete example of alarmism or other political agendas that exploit this topic. However, for how it was intended, it clearly doesn't belong because all it is really doing is introducting the concept of item misuse, which is indisputably not unique to this topic only.
-hh (
talk) 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- “(T)here is a kernal of truth within AI's statement, although it is presented in a misleading fashion.” No, there is a pearl of a lie; A grain of truth in many, many layers of outright lies, distortions, and misrepresentations, compounded by out-of-context quoting (which is considered a form of plagiarism). Other potential sources were presented elsewhere, and of them the only one I could really get behind is some UN reports (if the original report itself is referenced). It’s not the FBI, Scotland Yard, or similar (I know there was a report by the FBI describing misuses of non-lethal as a “crutch” by LE Personnel that might have addressed that, but having never seen the report I could not say for sure it would). At that, I am ok with leaving the first part; But the references to AI’s material is the objectionable part. Removing that, by itself, drops the matter as moot.
As to the claim that Mediation is the “incorrect process” I tried and rather than address the issue multiple baseless allegations were made against me. On that note, “consensus” in this matter is very much in my favor; AI is not considered a neutral party. They have an agenda, and they’ve been working it for many decades now. On another related matter, the “misuse” versus “torture” should be split off from one another, but as this is the first it has been brought up I submit it should be tabled for the time being. (Apologies on the tardiness of this reply, but I was on my Drill weekend, and was only now made aware of this.) A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)- "Kernal of Truth" vs "Pearl of a Lie" ... both are linguistic cliches not worth debating the semantics of choosing between them, since what's really important is that either choice makes it clear that the citation contains both truths and untruths to be separated. Objectivity, we want to avoid citing untruths; this very well may necessitate commenting on misuse as a distict subtopic. -hh ( talk) 14:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- “(T)here is a kernal of truth within AI's statement, although it is presented in a misleading fashion.” No, there is a pearl of a lie; A grain of truth in many, many layers of outright lies, distortions, and misrepresentations, compounded by out-of-context quoting (which is considered a form of plagiarism). Other potential sources were presented elsewhere, and of them the only one I could really get behind is some UN reports (if the original report itself is referenced). It’s not the FBI, Scotland Yard, or similar (I know there was a report by the FBI describing misuses of non-lethal as a “crutch” by LE Personnel that might have addressed that, but having never seen the report I could not say for sure it would). At that, I am ok with leaving the first part; But the references to AI’s material is the objectionable part. Removing that, by itself, drops the matter as moot.
- Yes, I think you have pared the argument down to its kernel. This dispute by Reddson is too small for MedCab, in my opinion. Reddson is disruptive, unable to put forward a cogent argument, and unable to recognize consensus which has been achieved against his ideas.
Binksternet (
talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sources citing the Amnesty International paper
I hold that a paper cited by other scholarly and professional authors picks up legitimacy. Here is a list of papers that cite the AI study:
- "The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of-Force Events", in American Journal of Public Health, written by John M. MacDonald, PhD, Robert J. Kaminski, PhD and Michael R. Smith, JD, PhD. John M. MacDonald is with the Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Robert J. Kaminski is with the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia. "At the time of this study, Michael R. Smith was with the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia."
- "The impact of conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries", in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, written by Michael R. Smith, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA), Robert J. Kaminski, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA), Jeffrey Rojek, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA), Geoffrey P. Alpert, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA), Jason Mathis, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA)
- "A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice", written by Michael R. Smith, J.D., Ph.D., Robert J. Kaminski, Ph.D., Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D., Lorie A. Fridell, Ph.D., John MacDonald, Ph.D., Bruce Kubu.
- "Impact of CEW and Other Types of Force and Resistance on Officer and Suspect Injuries", Pathology and Law, written by Michael R. Smith, Robert J. Kaminski, Jeffrey Rojek, Geoffrey P. Alpert and Jason Mathis.
These very authoritative papers list the AI piece as a source. I have not read them, so I don't know the extent to which they quote AI's data or conclusions, or even whether they argue against the AI piece! I merely bring this list to the discussion to show that AI may be perfectly suitable as a source if other high quality sources cite it. Binksternet ( talk) 04:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. I could just as easily cite the KKK on a civil rights article and call them “unbiased.” (That the KKK’s bias is more obvious doesn’t change the degree of bias.) That AI was used for other article is equally not relevant; They wanted to use biased material that’s their right I suppose. I recently (last night) discovered the technical term for this situation, “ Confirmation Bias,” or the tendency to use sources that confirm what we want to believe, rather than what necessarily is true. In an ironic twist, the KKK and Mein Kampf have been cited in many legitimate documents. (Just saying.) A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- How irrelevant is it for you to throw a red herring into the discussion, introducing Mein Kampf or the KKK being cited by unnamed "legitimate documents"? My post was perfectly relevant. Above, I listed as authors real people with real scholarship such as University doctorates of criminology, and respected researchers of national renown. These people have examined the AI study, and it is likely that they have incorporated it. The next step is for someone to read the documents and see how much authority they assign to the AI study. If they cite it without reservation, so can we.
Binksternet (
talk) 04:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is a perfectly legitimate analogy; Using one kind of questionable source (KKK or HILTER) or another (Amnesty International). The red herring is to present that because X, Y, or Z uses a source for this, that, or the other thing, that that source applies to all uses. It doesn’t. At that, we don’t know how they used it (as you concede); They may well have used even that passage (the objectionable one) as an example of a falsehood; “Amnesty International would have you believe that these are “torture devices” because, quote, “(passage), when we have found that (their position)”…
If this were, say, an article about AI or about their work product (one of their publications), sure, the passage and the article it came from would have been perfectly acceptable.
This is more of the NLW pages supporters obstructionism under the pretext of “consensus” to present dis-information as “fact.” A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is a perfectly legitimate analogy; Using one kind of questionable source (KKK or HILTER) or another (Amnesty International). The red herring is to present that because X, Y, or Z uses a source for this, that, or the other thing, that that source applies to all uses. It doesn’t. At that, we don’t know how they used it (as you concede); They may well have used even that passage (the objectionable one) as an example of a falsehood; “Amnesty International would have you believe that these are “torture devices” because, quote, “(passage), when we have found that (their position)”…
- How irrelevant is it for you to throw a red herring into the discussion, introducing Mein Kampf or the KKK being cited by unnamed "legitimate documents"? My post was perfectly relevant. Above, I listed as authors real people with real scholarship such as University doctorates of criminology, and respected researchers of national renown. These people have examined the AI study, and it is likely that they have incorporated it. The next step is for someone to read the documents and see how much authority they assign to the AI study. If they cite it without reservation, so can we.
Binksternet (
talk) 04:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. The basic premise here from Biksternet appears IMO to be flawed, by his own "...but I have not read them..." disclaimer. Until we have systematically read each reference, we cannot make any claim for what that Author was saying about his references. In other words, it is indeterminate. -hh ( talk) 14:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is it not sufficient for the source to be directly attributed in prose? Xavexgoem ( talk) 07:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Xavexgoem, ¿would you be kind enough to explain to me what this means? Specifically, what might you propose? A REDDSON — Preceding
undated comment added 07:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's saying to follow the guideline at
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, that is, to clearly say where the study comes from, which we are doing in the article.
Binksternet (
talk) 08:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the general consensus on Wikipedia. Why is it not sufficient in this case?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 09:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Because the text in question was, in fact, in the document as claimed, but it has come up that it may have been taken out-of-context (personally I doubt it, but the statement was made). A second layer of ‘review’ would exaggerate this effect. If the UN Documents do exist, then they should be able to be seen (though through a mirror site, as mentioned previously). A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the general consensus on Wikipedia. Why is it not sufficient in this case?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 09:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's saying to follow the guideline at
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, that is, to clearly say where the study comes from, which we are doing in the article.
Binksternet (
talk) 08:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The Issue Is AI, Not Who Uses It
I could write an unfavorable article on the formation of the current state of Isræl, citing the background information thereof (and let’s be honest here, I’m referring to the deathcamps), and in that context cite Meif Kampf as part of the article. ¿Does this make HILTER (of all people) a reliable source? No. Even the pamphlet “The Eternal Jew”, which he cited as ‘proof’ of a Semitic conspiracy, is of highly questionable authenticity.
¿Does this mean I could cite Mein Kampf for other things? Yes (mental illness being one). But in context, its reliability and truthfulness is highly dubious.
The same basic situation presents here; A highly dubious source was used to justify extremist claims in what is supposed to be a reliable article.
AI’s neutrality issues are acknowledged by Wikipedia itself, and therefore there should be no dispute on this.
Furthermore: With the voracity that certain parties have prosecuted this matter, I highly suspect their motives for this having to get to this point, including that they have attempted to have this process ended before it is heard out, made baseless (that means false) allegations against me, and tried to derail the case by presenting other uses of the propaganda in question as proof of it’s “legitimacy.” This could have been taken care of over a month ago when I first rasied the objection in the effective talk page; I offered a perfectly legitimate alternative (using another source and removing the offending section in the interim). These was duely quashed. I was accused at that point of a driveby, so I took that as the green light to make the edit in question; This was reverted, and I was accused of waging an edit war. A REDDSON — Preceding
undated comment added 07:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Stop with the exaggerated references. Stay on topic. I will close this mediation otherwise and redirect all parties to AN/I.
Xavexgoem (
talk) 09:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I did go a bit off topic. I appologize. A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I am a few minutes early on this, but if I don't do it now, it will be 12-14 hours before I can say it so I hope no one has been waiting until the very last moment to join the discussion. I've taken a look at the arguments of the parties and the sources which they have cited. It seems to me that Amnesty International has long ago been accepted as an unbiased reliable source for facts which they report. In this case they are not being cited for fact, but for an opinion or, actually, two relevant opinions: first, that "use of pepper spray by police in California against peaceful protestors, including a 17-year old, is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of such deliberateness and severity that it is tantamount to torture" and, second, that they believe that "the USA has defied its solemn obligation under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment." The report in question, from which I've just quoted, is clearly sufficient as a reliable primary source for AI's opinion. The claims that the quotation should not be included because it is biased are no more valid than a claim that a statement of opinion by a political party about an opposing candidate should not be included merely because it is biased ("The acts in the candidates past make it clear that he does not deserve to be elected."). The mere fact that the organization is influential and generally considered to be a reliable source is enough to justify the inclusion of such a statement, so long as it is attributed under WP:RSOPINION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The fact that the report has been referenced in the sources cited by Binksternet, whether cited as a supporting or as a opposing view, further indicates that the opinion of AI is sufficiently important as not to merely be ignored, as is established by WP:USEBYOTHERS. In short, it is not the truth or falsity of those opinions which is important, but the fact that AI gave them, biased or not. I agree with Binksternet in his comments here that the position of the United Nations on the use of tasers as torture devices is better - though not firmly - established (the missing UN paper can be found as document A/63/44 on this page and says on page 32 that the U.N. Committee "is concerned that the use of these weapons causes severe pain constituting a form of torture") than the AI opinion on pepper spray, but I see no reason that both cannot be used in this section which is clearly labeled "Allegations of Torture". Both are sufficient sources to establish that the use of these devices have been alleged to legally constitute torture. In short, it is my opinion that existing Wikipedia policy allows the use of these sources so long as they are clearly attributed to the organizations which made them. Those who feel that the statements are biased are free to suggest opposing statements from other influential organizations, which will be evaluated at the time they are proposed, but the lack of those opposing opinions does not mandate the exclusion of the AI opinion until they can be provided. I would close by suggesting that if those opposed to the use of the AI report still feel that they would like to pursue this matter, the next best step would probably be a Request for comments to see if other editors support their view. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Now they’re stalling. The section was declared a violation of neutrality; User:TransporterMan gave something back to them so they could keep the propaganda in place, and now they’re trying to hide behind “acceptable sources” even after they’ve been presented. That I don’t understand how to put a citation in does NOT change the fact that it is here. A. J. REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Non-lethal weapon |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 22:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Andering J. REDDSON ( talk) |
| Mediator(s) | TransporterMan ( TALK) |
| Comment | Mediator's opinion appears to have been accepted by requesting editor. Closing as resolved, but will reopen if further discussion desired (contact me on my talk page, if so). |
Request details
Non-lethal weapon/Allegations of torture
The dispute is the use of Amnesty International as a source for the Allegations of torture section on Non-Lethal Weap page. Wikipedia itself acknowledges that AI is NOT an unbiased source, and therefore anything referencing them must be removed as biased; It’s like asking HITLER to write on the NaZI Party (assuming he was alive, of course). There are actually MORE disputes, but at this time I want to overcome one mountain at a time. Andering J REDDSON
Who is involved?
- User:Andering J. REDDSON (myself)
- User:Berean Hunter ( notification)
- User:Binksternet ( notification)
- User:Marcus Qwertyus (may not care about this) ( notification)
- User:AlexandrDmitri (also may not care about this) ( notification)
Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
- Andering J. REDDSON ( talk) 22:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the dispute?
Andy REDDSON: AI’s bias is very well documented; They must be removed. I myself said if a reputable source said the exact same thing, that would be different (just because I don’t personally know of one doesn’t mean they don’t exist; the FBI might have a similar report). I DID try to resolve this matter, but was accused of doing a “driveby.” At that point I removed the offending material myself, but ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►, Binksternet, and Marcus Qwertyus simply revert it back and now I’ve been accuse of starting a edit war.
The entire section is inappropriate and biased, however the overwhelming biased passage is Amnesty International in 1997 released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture. The repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on a human may be considered cruel, if not torture by itself. Such use is likely to be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.
What would you like to change about this?
Simply removing that piece would rectify this matter.
How do you think we can help?
Correct the problem.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
Discussion
Here I’d like to apologize if I didn’t get this perfectly right; I’m struggling to understand how to do this. A REDDSON
- I have fixed some of the technical deficiencies in the request and notified the other users involved. Many organizations have biases in their interpretations of facts, both claimed and admitted, but most of those can still be trusted to report the facts correctly. — Jeff G. ツ 14:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) A REDDSON did you not read Request for mediation and Request For Mediation Removal ? Mlpearc powwow 15:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am mentioned here because I removed this request for clarification in my capacity as an Arbitration Committee clerk as 1) not a clarification on an existing case and 2) not ripe for arbitration. As I explained to the filing party, arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution, not the first, and I suggested other forms of dispute resolution. As such, I am not an involved party to this request for mediation and my lack of participation here should not be considered as a barrier for this request for mediation to progress; I indeed encourage this dispute to be resolved at this stage of the WP:DR process. Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I admit, I screwed that up. A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Does this edit satisfy everyone? Marcus Qwertyus 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- No. the offending section (refrencing AI's position statement) is still included.
This version does not contain the biased material; If another (unbiased) source for the same conclusion is found, I can get behind that. It's not the wording, it's the source; Another (unbiased) source with the same conclusion could be used, if it can be found. A REDDSON — Preceding
undated comment added 05:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Mediation is incorrect process here. If Amnesty International is questionable in Reddson's mind then he should pose the question as to whether it is considered reliable on Wikipedia at the
reliable sources noticeboard.
Noted here in the board archives, it has been stated that it is...but he is free to ask again.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)- ...and for the record, I've never reverted Reddson's removal of the AI material despite what he wrote above. I have removed his driveby npov tagging.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- ...and for the record, I've never reverted Reddson's removal of the AI material despite what he wrote above. I have removed his driveby npov tagging.
- Mediation is incorrect process here. If Amnesty International is questionable in Reddson's mind then he should pose the question as to whether it is considered reliable on Wikipedia at the
reliable sources noticeboard.
Noted here in the board archives, it has been stated that it is...but he is free to ask again.
Is it normal to use a attribute a source if that source is questionable? Xavexgoem ( talk) 20:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am a neutral in this dispute and a mediator considering whether or not to adopt this case. I take it that [ this edit] defines the dispute. I also take it that there is no dispute over the issue of whether or not the reference to the Amnesty International report reverted in that edit correctly states, without interpretation, synthesis, or analysis, what that report says. The only issue, as I see it, is whether that reference can be used because, it is alleged, Amnesty is a biased source. Are all three of those points correct? (I am in no way "reserving" or "taking" this request at this point in time and any other mediator who cares to do so should feel free to proceed.) Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you have pared the argument down to its kernel. This dispute by Reddson is too small for MedCab, in my opinion. Reddson is disruptive, unable to put forward a cogent argument, and unable to recognize consensus which has been achieved against his ideas.
Binksternet (
talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- (3 points): A correct cite? Yes. Of good quality (not WP:OR) reporting? Yes. Of a citation whose permissibility (potentially biased source) is questionable? Yes.
- I agree with Binksternet that this appears to be the crux of the matter. I do believe that part of the reason for the dispute is there is a kernal of truth within AI's statement, although it is presented in a misleading fashion (here, note the difference between the article's title and the actual details that carry the additional stipulation of additional applications). AFAIC, this serves to illustrate how Amnesty International isn't necessarily being factually neutral, which adds credence to them being an unreliable reference source.
- In conclusion, I can see some value in editorially including AI's quote if we desire a concrete example of alarmism or other political agendas that exploit this topic. However, for how it was intended, it clearly doesn't belong because all it is really doing is introducting the concept of item misuse, which is indisputably not unique to this topic only.
-hh (
talk) 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- “(T)here is a kernal of truth within AI's statement, although it is presented in a misleading fashion.” No, there is a pearl of a lie; A grain of truth in many, many layers of outright lies, distortions, and misrepresentations, compounded by out-of-context quoting (which is considered a form of plagiarism). Other potential sources were presented elsewhere, and of them the only one I could really get behind is some UN reports (if the original report itself is referenced). It’s not the FBI, Scotland Yard, or similar (I know there was a report by the FBI describing misuses of non-lethal as a “crutch” by LE Personnel that might have addressed that, but having never seen the report I could not say for sure it would). At that, I am ok with leaving the first part; But the references to AI’s material is the objectionable part. Removing that, by itself, drops the matter as moot.
As to the claim that Mediation is the “incorrect process” I tried and rather than address the issue multiple baseless allegations were made against me. On that note, “consensus” in this matter is very much in my favor; AI is not considered a neutral party. They have an agenda, and they’ve been working it for many decades now. On another related matter, the “misuse” versus “torture” should be split off from one another, but as this is the first it has been brought up I submit it should be tabled for the time being. (Apologies on the tardiness of this reply, but I was on my Drill weekend, and was only now made aware of this.) A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)- "Kernal of Truth" vs "Pearl of a Lie" ... both are linguistic cliches not worth debating the semantics of choosing between them, since what's really important is that either choice makes it clear that the citation contains both truths and untruths to be separated. Objectivity, we want to avoid citing untruths; this very well may necessitate commenting on misuse as a distict subtopic. -hh ( talk) 14:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- “(T)here is a kernal of truth within AI's statement, although it is presented in a misleading fashion.” No, there is a pearl of a lie; A grain of truth in many, many layers of outright lies, distortions, and misrepresentations, compounded by out-of-context quoting (which is considered a form of plagiarism). Other potential sources were presented elsewhere, and of them the only one I could really get behind is some UN reports (if the original report itself is referenced). It’s not the FBI, Scotland Yard, or similar (I know there was a report by the FBI describing misuses of non-lethal as a “crutch” by LE Personnel that might have addressed that, but having never seen the report I could not say for sure it would). At that, I am ok with leaving the first part; But the references to AI’s material is the objectionable part. Removing that, by itself, drops the matter as moot.
- Yes, I think you have pared the argument down to its kernel. This dispute by Reddson is too small for MedCab, in my opinion. Reddson is disruptive, unable to put forward a cogent argument, and unable to recognize consensus which has been achieved against his ideas.
Binksternet (
talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sources citing the Amnesty International paper
I hold that a paper cited by other scholarly and professional authors picks up legitimacy. Here is a list of papers that cite the AI study:
- "The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of-Force Events", in American Journal of Public Health, written by John M. MacDonald, PhD, Robert J. Kaminski, PhD and Michael R. Smith, JD, PhD. John M. MacDonald is with the Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Robert J. Kaminski is with the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia. "At the time of this study, Michael R. Smith was with the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia."
- "The impact of conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries", in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, written by Michael R. Smith, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA), Robert J. Kaminski, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA), Jeffrey Rojek, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA), Geoffrey P. Alpert, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA), Jason Mathis, (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA)
- "A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice", written by Michael R. Smith, J.D., Ph.D., Robert J. Kaminski, Ph.D., Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D., Lorie A. Fridell, Ph.D., John MacDonald, Ph.D., Bruce Kubu.
- "Impact of CEW and Other Types of Force and Resistance on Officer and Suspect Injuries", Pathology and Law, written by Michael R. Smith, Robert J. Kaminski, Jeffrey Rojek, Geoffrey P. Alpert and Jason Mathis.
These very authoritative papers list the AI piece as a source. I have not read them, so I don't know the extent to which they quote AI's data or conclusions, or even whether they argue against the AI piece! I merely bring this list to the discussion to show that AI may be perfectly suitable as a source if other high quality sources cite it. Binksternet ( talk) 04:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. I could just as easily cite the KKK on a civil rights article and call them “unbiased.” (That the KKK’s bias is more obvious doesn’t change the degree of bias.) That AI was used for other article is equally not relevant; They wanted to use biased material that’s their right I suppose. I recently (last night) discovered the technical term for this situation, “ Confirmation Bias,” or the tendency to use sources that confirm what we want to believe, rather than what necessarily is true. In an ironic twist, the KKK and Mein Kampf have been cited in many legitimate documents. (Just saying.) A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- How irrelevant is it for you to throw a red herring into the discussion, introducing Mein Kampf or the KKK being cited by unnamed "legitimate documents"? My post was perfectly relevant. Above, I listed as authors real people with real scholarship such as University doctorates of criminology, and respected researchers of national renown. These people have examined the AI study, and it is likely that they have incorporated it. The next step is for someone to read the documents and see how much authority they assign to the AI study. If they cite it without reservation, so can we.
Binksternet (
talk) 04:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is a perfectly legitimate analogy; Using one kind of questionable source (KKK or HILTER) or another (Amnesty International). The red herring is to present that because X, Y, or Z uses a source for this, that, or the other thing, that that source applies to all uses. It doesn’t. At that, we don’t know how they used it (as you concede); They may well have used even that passage (the objectionable one) as an example of a falsehood; “Amnesty International would have you believe that these are “torture devices” because, quote, “(passage), when we have found that (their position)”…
If this were, say, an article about AI or about their work product (one of their publications), sure, the passage and the article it came from would have been perfectly acceptable.
This is more of the NLW pages supporters obstructionism under the pretext of “consensus” to present dis-information as “fact.” A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is a perfectly legitimate analogy; Using one kind of questionable source (KKK or HILTER) or another (Amnesty International). The red herring is to present that because X, Y, or Z uses a source for this, that, or the other thing, that that source applies to all uses. It doesn’t. At that, we don’t know how they used it (as you concede); They may well have used even that passage (the objectionable one) as an example of a falsehood; “Amnesty International would have you believe that these are “torture devices” because, quote, “(passage), when we have found that (their position)”…
- How irrelevant is it for you to throw a red herring into the discussion, introducing Mein Kampf or the KKK being cited by unnamed "legitimate documents"? My post was perfectly relevant. Above, I listed as authors real people with real scholarship such as University doctorates of criminology, and respected researchers of national renown. These people have examined the AI study, and it is likely that they have incorporated it. The next step is for someone to read the documents and see how much authority they assign to the AI study. If they cite it without reservation, so can we.
Binksternet (
talk) 04:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. The basic premise here from Biksternet appears IMO to be flawed, by his own "...but I have not read them..." disclaimer. Until we have systematically read each reference, we cannot make any claim for what that Author was saying about his references. In other words, it is indeterminate. -hh ( talk) 14:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is it not sufficient for the source to be directly attributed in prose? Xavexgoem ( talk) 07:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Xavexgoem, ¿would you be kind enough to explain to me what this means? Specifically, what might you propose? A REDDSON — Preceding
undated comment added 07:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's saying to follow the guideline at
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, that is, to clearly say where the study comes from, which we are doing in the article.
Binksternet (
talk) 08:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the general consensus on Wikipedia. Why is it not sufficient in this case?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 09:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Because the text in question was, in fact, in the document as claimed, but it has come up that it may have been taken out-of-context (personally I doubt it, but the statement was made). A second layer of ‘review’ would exaggerate this effect. If the UN Documents do exist, then they should be able to be seen (though through a mirror site, as mentioned previously). A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the general consensus on Wikipedia. Why is it not sufficient in this case?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 09:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's saying to follow the guideline at
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, that is, to clearly say where the study comes from, which we are doing in the article.
Binksternet (
talk) 08:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The Issue Is AI, Not Who Uses It
I could write an unfavorable article on the formation of the current state of Isræl, citing the background information thereof (and let’s be honest here, I’m referring to the deathcamps), and in that context cite Meif Kampf as part of the article. ¿Does this make HILTER (of all people) a reliable source? No. Even the pamphlet “The Eternal Jew”, which he cited as ‘proof’ of a Semitic conspiracy, is of highly questionable authenticity.
¿Does this mean I could cite Mein Kampf for other things? Yes (mental illness being one). But in context, its reliability and truthfulness is highly dubious.
The same basic situation presents here; A highly dubious source was used to justify extremist claims in what is supposed to be a reliable article.
AI’s neutrality issues are acknowledged by Wikipedia itself, and therefore there should be no dispute on this.
Furthermore: With the voracity that certain parties have prosecuted this matter, I highly suspect their motives for this having to get to this point, including that they have attempted to have this process ended before it is heard out, made baseless (that means false) allegations against me, and tried to derail the case by presenting other uses of the propaganda in question as proof of it’s “legitimacy.” This could have been taken care of over a month ago when I first rasied the objection in the effective talk page; I offered a perfectly legitimate alternative (using another source and removing the offending section in the interim). These was duely quashed. I was accused at that point of a driveby, so I took that as the green light to make the edit in question; This was reverted, and I was accused of waging an edit war. A REDDSON — Preceding
undated comment added 07:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Stop with the exaggerated references. Stay on topic. I will close this mediation otherwise and redirect all parties to AN/I.
Xavexgoem (
talk) 09:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I did go a bit off topic. I appologize. A REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I am a few minutes early on this, but if I don't do it now, it will be 12-14 hours before I can say it so I hope no one has been waiting until the very last moment to join the discussion. I've taken a look at the arguments of the parties and the sources which they have cited. It seems to me that Amnesty International has long ago been accepted as an unbiased reliable source for facts which they report. In this case they are not being cited for fact, but for an opinion or, actually, two relevant opinions: first, that "use of pepper spray by police in California against peaceful protestors, including a 17-year old, is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of such deliberateness and severity that it is tantamount to torture" and, second, that they believe that "the USA has defied its solemn obligation under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment." The report in question, from which I've just quoted, is clearly sufficient as a reliable primary source for AI's opinion. The claims that the quotation should not be included because it is biased are no more valid than a claim that a statement of opinion by a political party about an opposing candidate should not be included merely because it is biased ("The acts in the candidates past make it clear that he does not deserve to be elected."). The mere fact that the organization is influential and generally considered to be a reliable source is enough to justify the inclusion of such a statement, so long as it is attributed under WP:RSOPINION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The fact that the report has been referenced in the sources cited by Binksternet, whether cited as a supporting or as a opposing view, further indicates that the opinion of AI is sufficiently important as not to merely be ignored, as is established by WP:USEBYOTHERS. In short, it is not the truth or falsity of those opinions which is important, but the fact that AI gave them, biased or not. I agree with Binksternet in his comments here that the position of the United Nations on the use of tasers as torture devices is better - though not firmly - established (the missing UN paper can be found as document A/63/44 on this page and says on page 32 that the U.N. Committee "is concerned that the use of these weapons causes severe pain constituting a form of torture") than the AI opinion on pepper spray, but I see no reason that both cannot be used in this section which is clearly labeled "Allegations of Torture". Both are sufficient sources to establish that the use of these devices have been alleged to legally constitute torture. In short, it is my opinion that existing Wikipedia policy allows the use of these sources so long as they are clearly attributed to the organizations which made them. Those who feel that the statements are biased are free to suggest opposing statements from other influential organizations, which will be evaluated at the time they are proposed, but the lack of those opposing opinions does not mandate the exclusion of the AI opinion until they can be provided. I would close by suggesting that if those opposed to the use of the AI report still feel that they would like to pursue this matter, the next best step would probably be a Request for comments to see if other editors support their view. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Now they’re stalling. The section was declared a violation of neutrality; User:TransporterMan gave something back to them so they could keep the propaganda in place, and now they’re trying to hide behind “acceptable sources” even after they’ve been presented. That I don’t understand how to put a citation in does NOT change the fact that it is here. A. J. REDDSON — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)