Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Steven Alan Hassan State: Closed Requested By: John196920022001 (talk · contribs) Other Parties: tilman (talk · contribs), Smee (talk · contribs) Mediated By: Vassyana (talk · contribs) Comments: Article now stable. No further need for mediator assistance.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.2.1 Statement 1.3 Truce 1.3.1 Participants 1.4 Request 1.4.1 Completed drafts 1.5 Acceptance of Mediation 1.6 Archives 1.7 Compromise offers 1.8 Discussion 1.8.1 Proposed changes 2 Proposal from John

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: John196920022001 08:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

... Steve Alan Hassan, Talk:Steven Hassan

Who's involved?

... User: tilman, User: john196920022001

What's going on?

...Tilman changes my RS citation because he personally thinks it is questionable, and my way of citing is propoganda (please see discussion). Persona attack against me and my citations. It got me to respond in kind there for a while. The personal attacks have got to stop

What would you like to change about that?

... Want the attacks on me to stop, and for Tilman to used Wikipedia policy when making changes, not personal opinion

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

... john196920022001@yahoo.com

[edit] Mediator response

Case reopened per requestor. Contacting involved users. Vassyana 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Requests made of participants. Subpages made for draft editing of disputed section. Hold requested on editing disputed section of article. Vassyana 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement

I must strongly request the following:

1. Assume good faith. Assumptions of bad faith will not lead to an agreeable solution. Please assume the other editors are acting in a good faith effort to adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
2. In this mediation, I must strongly urge all involved editors to read and adhere to WP:COOL and WP:NAM. They are not policies or guidelines, but are central principles to a succesful mediation.
3. Please refrain from editing the section under dispute at the main article until this mediation is resolved.

Thank you for your understanding. Vassyana 12:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truce

This is an active truce.

1. No personal attacks. All parties agree to refrain from insults and personal attacks on other editors, either directly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Personal attacks instigate more conflict.
2. Focus on content. All parties agree to refrain from commenting on other editors and instead focus on commenting on the content. We need to keep a cool head, be courteous and work towards improving Wikipedia.
3. No outside battles. All parties agree to avoid edit wars with other participants, even outside of the coverage of this mediation. Edit battles, editing to prove a point and disruptive editing don't improve Wikipedia and distract us from productive activity.
4. Good faith cooldown. Any party violating this truce shall take an 4 hour cool down break from interacting with the participant(s) that are part of the conflict. Other parties will not report the violating behaviour provided the offending editor take the self-imposed break. We all get a bit heated or passionate at times and should try to be understanding of others, but also aware of our own behaviour. Taking the break and not reporting the behaviour are both shows of good faith. If an editor chronically engages in unacceptable behaviour, they may be reported as appropriate. Also, if another editor breaks the terms of this truce, or otherwise behaves unacceptably, it is not a reason to do the same. Be cool, be courteous and take a short break if needed.

[edit] Participants

1. Accept. Smee 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
2. Accept John196920022001 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Accept --Tilman 05:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

John, please edit this draft version of the section in dispute. Please edit it to reflect how you would like the article to read.

Smee, please edit this other draft version of the disputed section. As with my above request, edit it to show how you would like the article to read. If you are satisfied with the current version, simply sign off as "Done" below.

Tilman, please edit this other draft version of the disputed section. As with my above request, edit it to show how you would like the article to read. If you are satisfied with the current version, simply sign off as "Done" below.

The point of this exercise is to clearly show what changes each side would like. Once we have both versions of the draft to compare to each other, it may be easier to find points of agreement and work out a compromise. Vassyana 12:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completed drafts

Please indicate below when you are finished working on your draft, so we can review it together and try to harmonize the two. Just sign your name with ~~~~ when it is done.

Proposal draft complete

1. Done. --Tilman 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Done. --Smee 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
3. Done. --John196920022001 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptance of Mediation

Please indicate if you accept my assistance as an informal mediator:

• Accept

• Accept John196920022001 10:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept - Smee 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
• Accept --Tilman 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

First archive.
Second archive.

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

Hello everyone! I am going out of town for a couple of days. I should be back early next week. If anything new arises, and I do not respond immediately, I will once I get back into town.Take care John196920022001 13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

Two participants approved the current version, with no changes. One participant, in draft, have proposed the following changes:

• Hassan confirms that he took part in a number of involuntary deprogrammings in the late 1970s.
• Hassan took part in a number of involuntary deprogrammings in the late 1970s.

Moderator comments: This seem to be a simple cleaning, making the sentance more concise.

• Roselle agreed to listen.<ref>[http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/refuting/ ''Refuting the Disinformation Attacks Put Forth by Destructive Cults and their Agents''] <br>I acknowledge that I was involved with the Roselle deprogramming attempt in 1976. But I was never involved in violence of any kind. One main issue is that the family felt that they needed to secure him with a rope before I arrived at the neighbor's house. Skip had reportedly punched and bitten his father as well as friends of his from the football team who were very concerned about him. When I arrived and learned Skip was in the basement tied up and violent, I turned around to leave. it was his mother's tears and other family members who begged me to speak with him. I decided to go downstairs and with tears in my eyes, begged him to just listen to what I had to share with him and if he wanted to go back to the Moonies, he was free to do so. He agreed and we talked for days.</ref>
• Roselle agreed to listen.<ref>[http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/refuting/roselle.htm ''Affidavit of Joanne Roselle'']</ref>

Moderator comments: This seems to be a fairly straightforward narrowing of the reference. I do not think this will be problematic for anyone.

• Hassan states that he spent one year assisting with deprogrammings before turning to less controversial methods (see exit counseling).<ref name="refuting"/> Hassan has spoken out against involuntary deprogramming since 1980.<ref>Mind Warrior. ''New Therapist'' 24, March/April 2003.</ref><ref name="refuting"/> He states that he has not participated in any deprogrammings since then. However, in Combatting Cult Mind Control, he states that deprogrammings can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail.<ref>[[Combatting Cult Mind Control]]'', Steven Hassan, 1998, ISBN 0-8928124-3-5, p. 114</ref>
• In Combatting Cult Mind Control Hassan stated, "I decided not to participate in forcible interventions, believing it was imperative to find another approach..." but later stated that " "[f]orcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail." John B. Brown of the "Pagan Unity Campaign" has criticized that statement saying that the passage is "indicating that Hassan might resort to a forcible intervention if all other attempts fail." <ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/2006/sd_brown.htm Jehovah's Witnesses and the Anticult Movement: Human Rights Issues], John B. Brown, presented at CESNUR 2006 International Conference</ref>

Mediator comments: I think this change might be most contentious. Would someone be willing to work out a compromise text? Would someone like myself or an outside party to craft a compromise version?

Please let us know your thoughts on these differances. Vassyana 08:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the above draft, for the following reasons:

1) there doesn't seem to be a specific reference to the source of the quotes, ie. p114 of Combatting Cult Mind Control

2) The phrase 'but later stated that ' is ambiguous, it could be taken to mean that Hassan had later changed his mind, after the publication of the book, and had come to the view that he might in fact 'resort to a forcible intervention if all other attempts fail'.

3) Why is the f in square brackets in '[f]orcible intervention can be kept ...'? The original on p114 of the book reads: 'Forcible intervention can be kept ...'

4)The word 'passage' (in: '... the passage is "indicating that Hassan might resort...') is potentially misleading. Its actually only one sentence that Brown quotes, not a whole passage.

I propose the following:

'John B. Brown of the "Pagan Unity Campaign" has criticized a statement in Hassan's book "Combatting Cult Mind Control" (page 114) which says that "Forcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail." Brown states that this indicates that Hassan might resort to a forcible intervention if all other attempts fail. [1] However, it should be noted that the first sentence of the paragraph immediately preceeding the sentence on page 114 that Brown refers to reads: "I decided not to participate in forcible interventions, believing it was imperative to find another approach.", which would seem to contradict Brown's interpretation of the sentence he quotes.'

Also, there are some faults with the earlier part of the Deprogramming section. The sentence: 'Hassan then states that Roselle decided to leave, but Roselle's mother begged him to stay and talk to Roselle.' appears to mean that Roselle's mother begged him (Arthur Roselle) to stay and talk to himself ??. I presume it should read: 'Hassan then states that Arthur Roselle decided to leave, but his mother Joanne Roselle begged him to stay and talk to Hassan.'

And the word 'also' appears superfluous in: 'Arthur Roselle's account in a sworn affidavit also contradicts this account.' (first sentence, 3rd paragraph). The word 'also' implies there is some other account in addition to Arthur Roselle's which contradicts those of Joanne Roselle and Hassan. I think the sentence should read: 'Arthur Roselle's account in a sworn affidavit contradicts both the sworn affidavit of his mother Joanne Roselle and also Hassan's signed but unsworn statement.' EmmDee 17:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would object to an uncited, blanket comment unless another source can be cited stating such. Secondly, I take the comment as reading, "I decided not to participate in forcible interventions, believing it was imperative to find another approach." However Hassan states that ""Forcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail." I did discuss that passage with Hassan. I know exactly what his feeling on this subject were at that time. He did state 'at that time.' He apparently does not feel that way anymore. Any attempt to alter the interpretation based on the commentary I have from the horses mouth will be rejected by me. However I will except a citation that contains a rebuttal. I think adding a citation with a rebuttal rather than uncited commentary that refers to my citation as a contradition is professional and academic. Lastly I agree with EmDee that the Roselle section needs to be cleaned up. This includes the comments I added. I don't want to touch this article untill this issue is resolved. John196920022001 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to have taken a while to respond - partly I have been busy, and partly I can't think of a way to phrase this part of the criticism section which would satisfy John.

John says he would 'object to an uncited, blanket comment'. I guess the part which he doesn't like is the final part of my proposed text (above): ' ... which would seem to contradict Brown's interpretation of the sentence he quotes.' I felt that it needed some kind of summary comment to round the paragraph off. It could be OK without this, but it seems incomplete and too abrupt, and thus unsatisfactory (from a literary and stylistic pov) without this. It is almost impossible to write an article using only text quoted from reliable sources.

The summary part was not intended to be a 'rebuttal', the rebuttal is Hassan's own words, quoted from the same book as Brown quotes from, and thus an equally RS.

One could write something like: 'Brown does not state whether or not he was aware of Hassan's preceeding statement when he interpreted the sentence of Hassan's that he quotes.' - but that is gettting a bit longwinded IMO. Concise is good. And I don't think that creating a seperate 'Defense , Rebuttal to Criticism' sub-section is a good idea, that is unecessarily complicated.

I tend to be an 'inclusionist' in the sense that I think it is good to include examples of criticisms, provided that relevant context is also included. This includes other quotes which (self-evidently) seem to contradict the criticism.

John states that: 'Any attempt to alter the interpretation based on the commentary I have from the horses mouth will be rejected by me.' But he doesn't cite any RS which supports his interpretation, it remains just his interpretation or his opinion.

John doesn't say if he would be happy with the text I proposed above, if the last part (' ... which would seem to contradict Brown's interpretation of the sentence he quotes.') was removed. That might be OK, though I think its a bit stylistically abrupt myself.

Failing that, or a better suggestion, I concur with the other editors, who approved the current version of this part of the article, with no changes, ie. not mentioning Brown's criticism/interpretation, or Hassan's words a few sentences earlier. EmmDee 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal from John

I have a suggestion. Start a subheading titled something like Defense , Rebuttal to Criticism , or something similar. I would be OK with that. Adding a rebuttal to a criticism in the Criticismhas the effect of weakening the criticism in my opinion. None of my college textbooks or research papers that I have been required to read at my university do this. They always start with the elements of the research and the research that affirms the conslusion of the author. Then sometimes there is a section on criticism and/or updated research. Anyway, I am going out of town again for a few days. I will be back Wednesday afternoon (US Mountain Time). Take care everyoneJohn196920022001 00:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)