Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-22 Confidence trick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: Confidence Trick
State: Closed

Requested By: RemoWilliams 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Other Parties: Steve8675309
Mediated By: Shell Kinney



Contents

[edit] Request Information

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

[edit] What is the involved article(s)?

Confidence trick

[edit] What's going on?

We are in a revert mess over Ward Churchill. Steve8675309 claims he is a con man, and has used 2 sources that admit explicit bias to support his view. Ward Churchill is still alive, and still has the job that he supposedly grifted. We've talked about it, and the consensus seems to be that we should leave him off of the list. Furthermore, even if the allegations are true, there doesn't appear to be a consensus that what he is accused of amounts to a "confidence trick." Rather it seems to be personal politics at work.

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

I think Churchill should be left off the list, as per the Biography of Living Persons Policy. He has never been convicted of any wrongdoing. At most, he might be a liar. This doesn't make him a confidence man, of itself.

[edit] Mediator response

Hi there, I'll be your mediator for this case. I'd like to keep discussion of the issue here if we can to avoid cluttering the talk page of the article. My initial impression is that while Ward Churchill may have been called a liar and a fraud by a few sources that rank rather low on Wikipedia's reliability scale, none of this is sufficient to classify his actions as a confidence trick. Its nice to see the article being worked on; its got a lot of great information and could reach good article status with a little cleanup and reference checking. Shell babelfish 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

  • Closing because discussion became unproductive. Case made that inclusion of Ward Churchill in a list on the Confidence Trick article does not meet WP:RS and violates WP:BLP. Shell babelfish 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Please add information here outlining your position in this issue. It is best to be concise and back up your information with references.

Hi, Shell Kinney and RemoWilliams. I think that University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill should be added to the list of con artists and grifters. The sources I’m using to justify his addition are a Denver PostRocky Mountain News column where Churchill is called a ‘grifter’ that used ‘the long con’ to get his job [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1363450/posts] and a column from National Review [1]. The National Review article about Churchill that says 'American con artists' often fake the personas of Native Americans and Vietnam War combat veterans after stating that Churchill is neither.

It’s been suggested that this characterization is 'slanderous'. But the article that calls Churchill a ‘grifter’ was written by a law professor at Churchill’s own university. I don't believe that a law professor would publish slander in a major newspaper.

It was mentioned that the National Review article “is explicitly biased”. But Wiki accepts the reality that “All editors and all sources have biases” WP:NPOV#Bias. What matters is reliability and the author is a well-known retired professor with little to no criticism on his Wiki page (Victor Davis Hanson).

I would not mind seeing the entry reworded in order to reach a consensus. If wording like “A Denver PostRocky Mountain News column alleged that Churchill is a grifter” would make this entry acceptable to RemoWilliams, then that’s fine with me. Have a nice day! Steve8675309 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My 2 centsI think the article should stick to listing only those living people who have actually been convicted of a crime. I don't think we should list everyone who's ever been accused by anyone of being a confidence man. I think that the most relevant guidelines here are still WP:BLP and I'd rather we be safe than sorry. We are talking about a living person's reputation here. At best, this material could be included in the subject's article, with the above wording suggested by Steve.TheRingess (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should stick to people who have been convicted of a crime. Just because a professor at UoC calls him a con artist does not mean that Wikipedia should. Furthermore, the article is not about Ward Churchill, it's about confidence tricks. So, any addition of "alleged" con artists really makes no sense, and does not add anything substantive to the article. To make an analogy, I could find any number of sources that allege Dick Cheney is a traitor for releasing Valerie Plame's name. Should we add his name to Treason? I think not. --RemoWilliams 06:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, those are great summaries.

  • Steve8675309 - What do you think about the suggestion that only people convicted for a confidence trick be listed? What would your response be to the concerns about the WP:BLP policy as it applies to this information?
  • RemoWilliams - What did you think of Steve's proposal to indicate that the charges were alleged and attribute them? Shell babelfish 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree less with adding an "alleged con artists" section to the article. Why is that in any way desirable? Would Britannica hunt down every reference to every obscure local paper where some person alleged that someone is a con artist and put that allegation in the article? No. For that matter, they probably wouldn't include a list of any but the most famous. In good faith, why is it so vastly important that Ward Churchill be added to an article about Confidence Tricks, especially since he is a living person and could sue for defamation, libel, etc? Steve8675309 has not made a case at all for why this information is needed. Frank Abagnale, Victor Lustig, etc., are well known con artists and deserve mention.
Returning to my analogy of before, perhaps Treason needs an "alleged traitors" section. It would probably include pretty much everyone from the Bush and Clinton administrations, because, no doubt, somewhere in print is someone who alleges that every member of each cabinet is a traitor. We don't do that because it's against WP:BLP, it isn't educational, and it isn't necessary, with so many other prominent examples easily available.--RemoWilliams 17:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I realise that Steve8675309 is not suggesting a separate section, but if not, how would the allegation be handled in such a way as to be consonant with the article as a whole?--RemoWilliams 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I really agree with Remo here. I also see this a maintenance nightmare. If we allow the list to include people who are only alleged con artists, then we are going to have a similar debate every time a name is added. We are always going to have differences of opinion as to what constitutes a reliable source for an allegation. We are always going to potentially violate BLP guidelines. It creates a whole lot of work for little or no value added to the article.TheRingess (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Like Cheney, Churchill has been accused of treason [2]. But I wouldn’t put either of them on a list of traitors because they have never been charged with that crime. However, ‘conning’ and ‘grifting’ are not crimes. A person can’t be charged with or convicted of those things. Every person listed on this page is there because of someone’s opinion that they are a ‘con man’ or ‘grifter’. So why are the opinions in my references unacceptable when every single name in the list in there because of nothing other than opinion? And the tenured full professor of law that called Churchill a 'grifter' in the Denver PostRocky Mountain News wasn't concerned about libel and slander. Do you really still think that's an issue? Steve8675309 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, pretty much all of the confidence tricks listed in the article are illegal, and most of the people listed on the page have been convicted of crimes (even before the latest purge). While there is no specific crime called "conning," in general, when we talk about con artists, it's understood that we are talking about people who engage in activities that are criminal in nature, in order to victimize someone. But you seem to be missing the point. What is so important about Churchill that you have such a burning need to have him on the confidence trick page? What does it add to the article? There are plenty of examples of grifters who used the long con already. Is his alleged con so elaborate, and so worthy of mention, that it's worth including, even though we'll have to use weasel words to do it, and bend the language to accomodate the entry? Why can't we just stick to known, convicted con artists, that are widely agreed to be con artists, such as Abagnale? One could make the argument that Bush used the long con to get us into Iraq. What do you want to wager that I can find a Salon article that says exactly that? You seem to have a personal problem with Churchill, which I actually identify with. But you haven't made a case for why his inclusion in the article is worth the can of worms or the headache. The point of the article is to educate about confidence tricks, not to feed every personal vendetta. --RemoWilliams 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we have a few main points here:

  • Lists should contain items that are canonical example of some facet of the article per WP:SAL.
  • Biographical material in any article must come from high-quality sources; opinion columns are not good sources in this context per WP:BLP.
  • Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events per WP:NOT.

If I'm reading correctly, RemoWilliams and TheRingess agree that Churchill does not meet these criteria. Steve, you haven't addressed your side as it would apply to those policies. The questions would be: Are the allegations against Churchill an excellent example of a confidence trick? Can any references be found that satisfy WP:BLP? Opinion columns in a newspaper are not subject to the same rules and fact checking as other sections and are not considered reliable sources, especially in the case of biographical material. And finally, are Churchill's actions likely to garner long-term historical notability? Shell babelfish 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that I provided good, reliable sources. The author of each source is respected academic. Their writings were opinion columns and it’s been stated that “Opinion columns… are not considered reliable sources”. But I don’t see where Wiki policy states that opinion columns should be treated differently. Can you point out where policy says that? In regards to long-term notability, academic scandals tend to be remembered. For example, the Cold Fusion controversy predates the founding of Wiki by about 15 years. But there’s a lot written about it (cold fusion#Moving beyond the initial controversy) on Wiki.
In my opinion, I’ve heard one good argument for omitting Churchill… he wasn’t charged with a crime associated with the con. (Though it’s amazing that he didn’t get into legal trouble for stealing artwork [3].) Most of the other people on the list were charged with or convicted of something. Is it acceptable to everyone to change the name of the list from “Famous convicted and alleged con artists” to just “Famous convicted con artists”, then remove Churchill and everyone else that doesn’t have a criminal conviction? Steve8675309 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's even necessary to say "convicted". I don't think famous is the right term either. I would change the section to "Well known con-artists," and I would remove the "some items may be disputed" statement, and stick to only those who are actually well known and not disputed. I think you should carefully re-read WP:BLP. The burden of proof is on you. I guess I must repeat that just because a professor says that Churchill is a con artist, does not mean that Wikipedia should. I will quote some passages from WP:BLP that I find relevant to this matter.
Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below).
This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
In point of fact, your own user page violates WP:BLP, and anyone who views it really has a responsibility to change it. I personally don't want to because it's your user page, but it's clearly a violation:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.--RemoWilliams 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your question about opinion columns, WP:V states Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You might also want to look at WP:BLP where it discusses categorization (while this is not a category, including a person on this list serves the same end) and also the archives of the WP:RS guidelines discuss opinion columns directly, like the discussion here.
Also, while you may believe that the scandal will have longer historical value, as of yet there appear to be no references with long term value calling this a confidence trick. Again, is there any reason to believe that Ward Churchill's action are an excellent example of a confidence man? If so, why would his article not be in that category? Shell babelfish 00:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Shell, your last response didn’t say anything about limiting the list to convicted criminals. Doing so would exclude Churchill. Instead you’ve offered unreferenced speculation about the “rules and fact checking” in newspapers. Nothing you said changes the simple fact that Churchill was called a “grifter” who used “the long con” in a major newspaper [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1363450/posts].
  • Is there any reason why a person should think that the “Remo” account is anything other than a single purpose sockpuppet (WP:UN#Single-purpose_accounts)? I want to assume good faith in this process. But between the fact that this mediation was requested by an account that looks like a sockpuppet (WP:Sock#Characteristics of sock puppets) and the fact the mediator sometimes seems more interested in discrediting something published in the Rocky Mountain News than mediating, it’s difficult.
  • Regarding Churchill and the list, the sources I presented are from 2005. The consensus seems to be that those sources are not adequate. I personally disagree, but will accept the consensus. However, if more news stories are published that refer to Churchill as a ‘con man’ or ‘grifter’ would any of you agree that there is longer historical value to the scandal and that Churchill should be restored to the list? Cheers! Steve8675309 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Your allegations of bad faith are not helpful, unwarranted and uncalled for. They don't strengthen your case. Quite frankly, I think this conversation has gone on too long. Your arguments in favor of including this man in the list are not compelling. The arguements for not are more compelling (see WP:BLP). Regarding new sources, I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on sources that don't seem to exist yet. Please don't waste any more time with groundless accusations of bad faith, see WP:AGF. I'm striking out your irrelevant comments in order to speed up this process.TheRingess (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that you haven't answered any of our questions, you've just repeated yourself several times, and now added a personal attack. I've made my argument fairly carefully, and see no point in repeating it since you haven't responded to any of our criticisms in a meaningful way so far. I requested mediation because I'm trying to build consensus, but the fact is under Wikipedia policy, anything which violates WP:BLP can be removed without discussion, and isn't even subject to the 3 revert rule. No one involved in the discussion has agreed that Churchill's name should stay. I agree with TheRingess that the discussion is over. I have nothing further to add.--RemoWilliams 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like there is anything more to be gained by this mediation. I appreciate everyone participating. Shell babelfish 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)