Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby/David Cesarani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's another quote that is being disputed:

David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian, stated that "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo."REF:Cesarani, David. "Exerting influence", The Guardian, October 8, 2007.

And talk about moving goalposts!

  • On Feb 1 Carol claimed it had to be removed because It is highly speculative personal opinion and prejudicial and POV.[1]
  • On Feb 2 Carol claims it definitely violates Wikipedia:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view and gives Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight to a personal speculation.[2]
  • On Feb 3 it turns out that the problem with Cesarani was that it misinterpreted Walt & Mearsheimer, and if the Cesarani quote goes in that speculatively MIS-interprets W&M all sorts of NPOV rules make it necessary to put in some variation on what M&W actually said to counter the falsehood. If Cesarani is taken out, then it is not necessary. The best thing is just to take out Cesarani.[3]
  • An hour later, though, she makes it clear what she wants is a quid pro quo - if she could include a quote from Walt & Mearsheimer about the Israel lobby, then the quote from Cesarani about the term Jewish lobby could stay in: Like I said, if you are happy with W&M's opinion, then we can drop Cesarani discussion.[4]
  • On Feb 7 she is back to claiming it is "UNDUE", because she thinks her opinion about what W&M would say about Dawkins is more correct that Cesarani's:It is clear that what is UNDUE is to quote David Cesarani stating "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo" and deleting what it is more likely they would say "Dawkins is being attacked for using the phrase Jewish lobby, even though Jews involved involved in Israel lobbying use it all the time."[5]
  • On March 20 she is objecting again that the Cesarani quote is dumb speculation and POV[6]
  • On March 22 Carol claims it had to be removed because Keeping Ceasarani in is also POV pushing which is against WP:NPOV policy., adding (Note, I don’t have a problem with a blog on a reliable source, since those are usually passed by editors.)[7]
  • On March 24 her concern suddenly becomes WP:BLP:[8]

And, just to be clear about this "blog", it is the Comment is free section of The Guardian's website, which is edited just like any other part of The Guardian, and which is linked to 499 times in Wikipedia:[9] including in many biographies. If the quote cannot be included, then let it be for legitimate reasons, not this runaround of a half-dozen different specious arguments, combined with some offered horse-trading. Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely not a blog by any definition I'm familiar with. Maybe it would be a good idea for everyone to read WP:NPOV as a refresher; the policy doesn't suggest that all content should be POV-less, just that we cover each POV in an appropriate weight. When dealing with controversial articles, its important that everyone have a thorough understanding of how NPOV is achieved. Are there any other concerns with the reliability or suitability of this particular reference? Shell babelfish 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Shell, a day and a half after you made that comment, Carol deleted the Cesarani quote with the edit summary removed Cesarani which currently violates WP:BLP defamation I'm astonished, given our discussion here, that she would do that. Can Carol please explain this? Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
First, this is first time I've seen this discussion.
Second, as Has Been discussed at least twice on Jewish Lobby talk, Cesarani quote violates: Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources - Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Cesarani comes from this blog entry.
Right now it does not say that edited mainstream blogs don't count. So I am just being very legalistic here, as other have been constantly in claiming WP:OR. One picks up habits from others, both good ones and bad ones.
Looking at this again, I admit I was a bit confused as to whether a negative statement from a source deamed unreliable on living persons is also wiki/Slander_and_libel aka defamation. Carol Moore 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Comment is free is not "self-published"; the statement applies only to "self-published sources". Otherwise it would be saying "...websites... should never be used as a source for material about a living person...", which of course, is not the case. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources should make it clear if blogs published by WP:RS are considered self-published. I asked for clarification on that issue here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Need_to_clarify_on_WP:RS_blog_entries_about_BLPCarol Moore 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Wait - what biography and which living person are we referring to here? Can you explain a little better why you feel this Guardian op piece is self-published? Shell babelfish 15:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP covers any comments anywhere on living persons. Cesarani makes comments on Dawkins possibly being antisemtic. He does it at The Guardian blog. Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources doesn't diferentiate between mainstram and personal blogs or edited vs. non edited blogs. In general they need to get more clear anyway. Got it?? Carol Moore 16:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I've just never heard that interpretation of BLP before; thanks for clearing that up. Just to make sure I've got it right, Are you saying that you believe this source is self-published because you are classifying it as a blog? Shell babelfish 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it was published on The Guardian blog "Comment is Free" and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources does not make any explicit allowance for blogs from WP:RS. That's why the policy needs clarification for all such cases, including this one. Until that is done some of us want Cesarani quote removed as possibly libelous under Wiki's own policies. Carol Moore 16:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources does not allow self-published blogs, along with other self-published websites. Comment is free is not published by David Cesarani, it is published by The Guardian, and edited in much the same way as the newspaper itself. Moreover, the material itself is no way "libelous" - Cesarani does not state or imply that Dawkins is "possibly antisemitic", but rather says he shouldn't have used the term "Jewish lobby". Try another argument please, preferably a more plausible one. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Carol, you seem to agree that the blog was not published by David Cesarani, and thus, it does not fall under the self-published material clause. Did you have any other disagreements with this statement? Shell babelfish 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The WASH POST and NY TIMES recently allowed highly controversial, unedited material to be printed, so it's good to verify that The Guardian is edited. I do think in context of whole paragraph Dawkins could make a claim of libel and what his lawyers might try is the issue. The problem remains Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources not clarifying and if I don't get an answer may just change the main page to say that edited RS blogs OK and that should get people's attention. In meantime, it's up to you if you want something that may be against wiki policy (because it opens it to lawsuits) stand. Carol Moore 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Changing the main page of a policy is an absolutely horrible thing to do, please, please don't do that just to attract attention. Let me see if I can help out with an answer this one; since I work on WP:OTRS, I deal with these sorts of issues a great deal. Since the source being used is a blog by a reputable historian on a reputable source, I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that the source may be flawed or libelous. The RS section of BLP is there to help people avoid sources by non-experts, sources by people with grudges or sources that have no oversight -- those types of sources require far more scrutiny and as a whole are not reliable, which is why the policy simply forbids them entirely. This particular source doesn't meet any of the cases that could cause us concern. It is nice to see someone being very careful about sources, but I think you can safely give this one a pass. Shell babelfish 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On reviewing this, I think there is more of an issue here than WP:RS. Actually I'd thought Cesarani's quote was fine enough, but upon seeing the combination with the Hirsh quote immediately above, I do think this goes overboard, as well as gets to what I think is CarolMoore's concern that the article shouldn't turn into a series of potshots at different writers. We should keep mind that WP:RS isn't a formula for what goes in an article or doesn't, but is there to provide a number of considerations for what makes appropriate encyclopedic content. In that regard, a series of paragraphs ending with apparent shots at Walt and Mearsheimer can't be considered ideal, regardless of the sources (although the fact that the latter comment comes in a blog is probably reflected in the way it's written). Obviously I'm not a party to the mediation, so I have no problem with raising it on the talk page instead, but perhaps it's something that could be addressed here. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are some good points and bringing them up here is actually very helpful, thank you :) What does everyone think of the points Mackan made? Shell babelfish 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, now the problem isn't BLP regarding Dawkins, it's "apparent shots at Walt and Mearsheimer"? Cesarani doesn't take "shot[s] at Walt and Mearsheimer"; on the contrary, he speaks approvingly of their precision in language, and disapprovingly of Dawkins imprecision. And the comment is written in exactly the same way as any other editorial piece would be, because that's exactly what it is , a newspaper editorial. Jayjg (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The issues addressed by Mackan were addressed here Talk:Jewish_lobby/archive2#POV_Cesarani_Quote and here Talk:Jewish_lobby/archive2#Mearsheimer_and_Walt_.28again.29 and Jayjg always insisted it was a necessary quote despite arguments to the contrary, so when someone brought up the BLP issue, it seemed like an easy out. Carol Moore 00:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
When I initially saw the Cesarani quote I couldn't tell how ironic he was being (he goes on to sharply criticize their "extraordinarily one-sided and inflammatory analysis"), but that was before seeing the preceding quote from Hirsh about the "care to avoid openly antisemitic rhetoric taken by sophisticates like Mearsheimer and Walt and Robert Fisk." In referring to "sophisticates," and contrasting with "openly" antisemitic commentary, however, I think it's clear that Hirsh isn't offering praise. The suggestion from this presentation is of course that M&W are simply careful enough not to place their intent on the surface. I still wouldn't mind the Cesarani quote, but in this context I think it's certainly worth asking how much relevance vs. extraneousness there is in Hirsh's comment on M&W; I think the current takeaway is very much more as to M&W than it is to the topic of the paragraph (Davies). Mackan79 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a look again at the area in question on the article - these appear to be two full paragraphs discussing different issues that have happened over the use of the term and the responses to those issue. The fact that more than one person has mentioned M&W appears to be more a commentary on their position than a slam against their writing. Shell babelfish 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that both comments are made offhand, coming as comparisons to others, but also making strong suggestions about M&W's own intent without any sort of adequate discussion. In some contexts you could ignore this, but in this one I think it's significant enough, and the comments are certainly loaded enough, that one should attempt to avoid it. I noticed actually that our quote of Hirsh omits his third qualifier, describing it as M&W's "formal care to avoid openly antisemitic rhetoric...." I should be clear that in a more direct form, this is one of the more controversial lines of criticism of Walt and Mearsheimer's commentary, which is I think why Carol and I have taken issue with it being presented in this way. Mackan79 (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's summarize all the arguments vs Cesarani:
  • Original paragraph for reference: A 2007 New York Sun editorial accused Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist, atheist and writer who is author of The God Delusion, of repeating antisemitic conspiracy theories[16] after he used the term in an interview published in The Guardian. In the interview Dawkins said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."[17] In a National Review column discussing the influence of "high-profile atheists" on the American left, Arthur C. Brooks wrote that Dawkins claim was "anti-Semitic, slanders religion, and asserts victimhood."[18] David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian, stated that "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo."[19]
  • Possibility it violates current Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources (though that policy ambiguous and problematic)
  • It is highly speculative personal opinion and of questionalble relevance, giving Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight to a personal speculation.
  • It makes strong suggestions about Walt and Mearsheimer's own intent without adequate discussion.
  • It MIS-interprets Walt and Mearsheimer if this sentence of theirs not allowed in: "Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of." (More about this below since I just noticed the relevant sentence was deleted again a week or so ago. One of those issues we think is settled and then it's deleted again!)
  • With Hirsh quote about Davies in preceding paragraph also mentioning what Walt and Mearsheimer have written about "Jewish" lobby, it becomes redundant and starts to look like a series of potshots at different writers.
Carol Moore 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I basically agree, but just to be clear, it's also the apparent irony in Hirsh and Cesarani's comments. As Jayjg points out, the statements have the initial appearance of praising rhetorical precision, but anyone familiar with their writing and the commentary on it knows that's most likely not exactly what Hirsh and Cesarani are saying (see backhanded compliment). Two paragraphs in a row ending in this is what becomes a bit much. One option would be to remove the Cesarani quote; I personally think the Hirsh quote in that context is more problematic, but I think a change to either could basically remove the problem. Mackan79 (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Cesarani quote untrue if you look at W&M quotes
In fact they say nothing about the phrase being anti Jewish at all. I guess I should have said UNTRUE instead of POV.
  • Article quote: David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian, stated that "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo."[19]
  • Article quote: Authors say they "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity."REF:Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", Washington Post, Book World Live, October 9, 2007. Accessed January 7, 2008.
  • Article quote: they state "Indeed, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading, both because the lobby includes non-Jews like the Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements."REF:Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. "The Israel lobby", letters to the editor, October 14, 2007.
Carol Moore 13:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I'm not seeing any arguments here that haven't already been answered on the talk page archives I was pointed to. To summarize:
  • It does not violate WP:BLP.
  • Its relevance was mentioned as being two-fold, the comment is by a repected historian in this field, the comment refers to a source used prominently in the article.
  • Further discussion is found in sources; Wikipedia summarizes their points.
  • Arguments of un-truth have no weight in this discussion without a source which shares your opinion. Attempting to interpret the meaning out of various sources is WP:OR.
  • The fact that the same source is discussed twice is due to the sources prominence and the incidents that are being described.
Are there any of those arguments you had a response to or were there any further issues you wanted to bring up? Shell babelfish 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In regard to the fifth point, I'd respectfully disagree that it is discussed twice simply because they are so prominent that they continually happen to be most relevant. This assumes that W&M are mentioned in each of these paragraphs because they help elucidate the point being made, but I don't believe this is the case, or that the quotes serve this purpose. I also think, more importantly, that it's simply inartful to have basically the same idea being quoted to sum up subsequent paragraphs, when as mentioned, the phrasing is so highly loaded. Hirsh's comment re W&M is extremely sharply worded, basically contrasting Davies good intent and bad form with W&M's good form and bad intent. This in turn colors Cesarani's comment, giving further weight to this comment. I suppose this seems to create a question of how necessary it is to repeat this reference? I don't know how this fits into a larger give and take, but I do think the article hurts if these two quotes stay as they are. Mackan79 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
On reading a little further, I actually still can't say for certain what Hirsh or Cesarani think about W&M, as Hirsh states elsewhere that "[n]o serious critic of Mearsheimer and Walt has accused them of being motivated by anti-semitism." This is what makes this kind of quoting problematic, however. I'd say a paraphrase of the Hirsh quote could solve the problem, although my question then remains how much it adds to the previous sentence (saying Davies "has had to resign because his laudable instinct to side with the underdog was not tempered by care, thought or self-education," which doesn't seem to require a comparison to others who know better). Of course, I understand this is slightly different from CarolMoore's concern that Cesarani's comment presents an inaccurate view of W&M's statements (the only reason this doesn't bother me as much is, I admit, that I think it's fairly clear Cesarani is presenting an opinion). Mackan79 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Carol's view that Cesarani presents an inaccurate view of W&M's beliefs is not relevant to policy. As for Cesarani, as has become clear, he's not criticizing W&M, he's praising them for their linguistic precision, and criticizing Dawkins for his linguistic imprecision. In an article about a disputed term, this kind of viewpoint is highly relevant. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if you would allow the second Hirsh quote to be paraphrased from, "[h]e compared Davies' rhetoric with the 'care to avoid openly antisemitic rhetoric taken by sophisticates like Mearsheimer and Walt and Robert Fisk,'" to something like: "He compared Davies' rhetoric with the more careful language used in discussing a pro-Israel lobby by John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and Robert Fisk." I'm still not sure the sentence is necessary, but this would at least clarify the point we're trying to make. Mackan79 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would we paraphrase, when the quote is so short, and says exactly what the author means? Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The way it is quoted, it's unfortunately not clear what Hirsh is attempting to contrast, although the presentation suggests that it is a barb at Walt and Mearsheimer. I'm suggesting that if there is a necessary point to make, we should instead simply include that point, with the goal of providing encyclopedic coverage. In that sense, I believe there should actually be a reason to have a direct quote, not vice versa. Am I wrong? Mackan79 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Shell wrote: Arguments of un-truth have no weight in this discussion without a source which shares your opinion. Attempting to interpret the meaning out of various sources is WP:OR. But NPOV says that we can and should provide various perspectives to give a full view point. Are you saying Cesarani may say that M&W would think it was "anti-Jewish" but we can't counter with M&W quote's that make it clear that they do not argue it is anti-Jewish? i.e., by referring to these quotes currently in the article: they "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity." In a letter to the editor of The New York Times, they state "Indeed, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading, both because the lobby includes non-Jews like the Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements."
Therefore the original and new sentences together would read something like: David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian, stated that "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo." Walt and Mearsheimer have stated they do not use "Jewish Lobby" because the "lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity"REF and because "because the lobby includes non-Jews like the Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements."REF
This certainly makes more sense than sticking the quotes in au unrelated "criticism" section further down. Carol Moore 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol,
Carol, of course "we can't counter with M&W quote's that make it clear that they do not argue it is anti-Jewish". Have you actually read WP:NOR? Quoting from the first sentences of the policy, "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." You keep trying to counter Cesarani's view (when not deleting it altogether) because you think Cesarani is wrong. However, this is forbidden by the no original research policy. W&M do not even address Cesarani's point - and, for all you know, they might agree with it. Finding two quotes from them that give some of their reasons for avoiding the phrase does not mean that they do not have other reasons as well. Please stop speculating about what they mean, insisting that the sources are incorrect, or trying to create counter-arguments to what the sources say. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI I did finally find something that clarifies the blog issue: Wikipedia:V#cite_note-4 "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. I am now asking others in WP:BLP to clarify if this principle also applies to WP:BLP and to be explicit about that so people aren't left wondering. Update: Hearing no response I just put this in WP:BLP the other day and have heard no dissent so evidently this is also the policy for living people as well. CM 4/7/08
  • And I still think including Cesarani is an unencyclopedic, POV, misleading, and WP:Undue addition - but that sort of thing obviously is an editorial judgment call on which cooperative editors should be able to consense. Carol Moore 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Please relate your objections to specific policies. We have only one sentence from Cesarani, so UNDUE doesn't seem to be an issue. Regarding BLP, since we already have sources that say much worse things about Dawkins in the article than Cesarani does, it's clear it's not relevant. Regarding Cesarani being "misleading", your claim is both incorrect and not relevant to policy. Regarding "POV", I will quote from WP:NPOV:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Jayjg (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You obviously do not understand that incooperative editing it is realized that many things are fairly subjective and if most editors believe there is an overemphasis on any idea or point they can ask for it to be DE-eemphasized, including by removing sentences. Wikipedia is not supposed to be merely lawyers' games of gotcha but a cooperative means of creating articles that are sensible and balanced among the variety of opinions out there. (And I have responded on neologisms so enough. I dn't have to opine or respond on every issue. Carol Moore 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
My objection to the Hirsh quote above also remains. I think it would be helpful if Jayjg suggested some way of dealing with either of these issues, not that I necessarily have a way of fixing them together. In general, I think the problem may still be using quotes not for the general purpose of a particularly notable or illustrative comment, but as a shortcut through the type of content that we should be writing. Where the quotes are open to ambiguity and misinterpretation that we aren't discussing, I think that becomes more of a problem. Mackan79 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you decide that Hirsh didn't mean what you thought he did, after all? Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's entirely possible to tell what he means, which is part of the problem. It's clear from other contexts that he doesn't like their approach. Mackan79 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP specifically mentions need to be "encyclopedic": Some of us have claimed Cesarani quote is not encyclopedic but merely speculative personal opinion about Dawkins. I just found confirmation of this view here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources - Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. This statement should be elsewhere in Wiki policies though I don't feel like looking right now, since I have found what is relevant to this issue. Carol Moore 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Can you explain what you mean by "encyclopedic"? Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I mean. As for your BLP "concerns", they have already been dismissed; other sources in the paragraph say far stronger things about Dawkins, and you've never objected to them. Cesarani is a reliable source, and when he says that Dawkins wasn't careful in his language, it's not a BLP concern. As I said before, rather than throwing up a laundry list of phrases like "POV" and "BLP" and "unencyclopedic" on the page, hoping that one will somehow gain traction, please raise an actual, serious objection with the quote. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, did you have a reason why the paragraphs should rely so heavily on quotes? It seems contrary to an encyclopedic style. Mackan79 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me add that saying another statement is somehow "stronger" is hardly a serious argument about BLP, as must have crossed your mind. If this were general theory I wouldn't so much bother, but we are talking about living people here, which makes the questionable use of commentary like this a problem that should be discussed more seriously. I don't mind seeing if something can be worked out on the talk page per Shell below, but I think it should happen without a great deal more delay, since we are talking about questionable statements about living people. As one other thing, I would ask Jayjg not to do things like putting the word "concerns" above in quotes, which suggests a personal attack on Carolmoore. Mackan79 (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I guess the question now is, do we have any middle ground here or any other people in the dispute with an opinion on how to handle this quote? I don't believe that Carol or Jayjg are going to convince each other to change viewpoints here, so unless there's some other way to handle the issue, I think its one that isn't going to be solved here and needs more community involvement to develop a consensus. Shell babelfish 04:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a very good idea as long as the issues are accurately described. By now I have made it amply clear that *using mainstream/edited blogs in BLP* NOT a concern and I've even fixed the WP:BLP article to reflect that. To summarize the issue now as presented by various editors: in context of whole paragraph, the material puts undue weight on a speculative argument that just reads more like a pot shot at a living person rather than something factual that belongs in an encyclopedia, so WP:RS can be overruled in this case. Carolmooredc {talk}
Well, I wouldn't say BLP is no concern. If you read the second and third paragraphs of WP:BLP, you'll see it's more than just a guideline about defamation or similar issues, but also there to make sure we're always particularly careful with any statements about living people. Jayjg would probably admit that he tries to get clearer lines out of the policies than most people, but if you ask on the talk page people will probably tell you it ends up as a balancing act. Mackan79 (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I put astericks around specific issue of *blogs in BLP* which seems settled, but other BLP issues can be relevant. The WP:BLP paragraphs you mentioned read:
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. 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.
To me this means, yes, include criticism, but don't gratuitously over do it with speculative argument that just reads more like a pot shot at a living person rather than something factual that belongs in an encyclopedia.
Not sure what you mean by "clearer lines" unless you mean WP:Gaming the system. (A phrase I'm sure WP would not allow to have a page if we weren't allowed to bring it up from time to time.) Carol Moore 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}