Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 6 January 2007

Expert witness

Some info about Mr. Ofshe's work as expert witness in the 1980's would be a good addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions. Note that he worked closely on many cases with Singer. Adding some of these would be great. Do you know if he also co-witness with Singer in the Fishman case? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DIMPAC summary

How about if I copied the DIMPAC summary from Margaret Singer and adapted it for this page? I think (if I do say so myself) that it is a better summary. Tanaats 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. Smeelgova 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Still, the lawsuit material belongs here as well, not just at DIMPAC. Ditto for the summary at Singer's article. Tanaats, would you like to summarize the lawsuit, or should I do it?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that stating "Singer and her professional associate, sociologist Richard Ofshe, subsequently sued the APA in 1992 for 'defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy' and lost in 1994. Singer and Ofshe were subsequently not accepted by judges as an expert witnesses in cases alleging brainwashing and mind control" would be enough for a summary. The lawsuit is then explained in detail in DIMPAC. I don't think that further detail should go into the DIMPAC summary on any page that we put it into. The summary is already quite huge for a summary. Tanaats 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That would work, Tanaas, just add the sources. We need all sources listed as per WP:V, even if it is a summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'll go ahead and work on sourcing. Tanaats 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Honors section

We need secondary sources for these. Some of these honors do not state who is the organization/institution that awarded these honors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a citation per honor, best if not from a self-published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Again: One citation per honor. MAke it easier on the readers to verify the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please leave in these citations. They are useful for the reader, and they will be used later on to add additional material to the article. Thank you. Smeelgova 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Sourced numbered (3), (4), and (5) are self-published primary sources. We need better sources than that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We could certainly use better sources than that, yes. But in the meantime, these sources are find. They were entered in official record in the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, so they are officially recognized credentials and honors. Will remove tag. Smeelgova 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Pulizer price?

Read Pulizer price: Public Service—for a distinguished example of meritorious public service by a newspaper through the use of its journalistic resources, which may include editorials, cartoons, and photographs, as well as reporting. Often thought of as the grand prize, the Public Service award is given to the newspaper, not to individuals, though individuals are often mentioned for their contributions.

Please provide source. Until then it is deleted as per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have provided many sources, and will provide many more. Hold on please on editing this article, I am actively editing it. Will put up WIP. Thank you. Smeelgova 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

We do not need "many" sources. One reliable one will do, preferable if not self-published. If it is an honor, a link to the honor-given organization will dispel all disputes. Newspaper articles that write about Mr. Ofshe being a Pulitzer price winner, may have gotten than from his CV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I give you all the time you need, but note that "Pulitzer Prize -- For Public Service, 1979 (Shared with Light publication)" is not factually accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have specifically spelled out for the reader the situations regarding the Pulitzer Prize, so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Smeelgova 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

See The Point Reyes Light: "The Light earned the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. See also 1979_Pulitzer_Prize ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Ofshe's contributions in the official record: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No. See all of the reputable citations I have given. They all state the same thing - that Ofshe is a co-winner of the award, with Light. Not that they were solely given the award. Every single reputable source I have given labels him as a Pulitzer Prize Winner. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough here. And also - I request that you do not remove all of the citations - they will be useful sources of info later on for other parts of the article. Thank you. Smeelgova 05:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I am not asking that these citations are removed. What I am asiking is that you, as the editor that added these, provide at least one source per claimed honor. As it stands now, I do not know what refers to what. As for the Pulitzer, he did not received the Pulitzer, the newspaper that we worked for, The Point Reyes Light, did. I see no mentions of his name on the Pulitzer. I would argue that we need to be accurate, rather than parrot what may be factually incorrect material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have specifically spelled out for the reader the situations regarding the Pulitzer Prize, so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever. I have also added citations as to his awards/credentials, that have been entered as a part of official court records in Circuit Court in Florida. Smeelgova 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

That is OK, as it illustrates the problematic created by newspapers when they repeat what they read on CVs without checking the accuracy of statements in these (and newspapers are supposed to check their facts, oh well...) As for the sources for the other awards, the self-published sources are not sufficient, even if these are part of court records: these are statements by Ofshe, and this primary and self-published. Unless third party sources are found, these need to be deleted as per WP:BLP, and WP:V#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_the_author(s). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You are reading WP:V#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_the_author.28s.29 incorrectly. This information was not published by the Subject itself, but rather entered into the official court record of the Circuit Court of Florida. Thus, this is most certainly not a dubious source. It is a matter of record. Smeelgova 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Read you own sources, Smeelgova. That is Ofshe's CV, written by him. "Entered into the public record" has no meaning beyond that. It is still a self-published CV. Read what self-published means: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication." (WP:RS#Self-published_sources). I have removed the tag, so that you can take time and find better sources. I no secomdary sources are forthcoming, these will need to be deleted. Look what happened when we did some research about the Pulitzer price. It is good to do the necessary research to support assertions made in WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Expert testimony

• Applying a Double Standard are we Jossi? How can primary sources for positive info about a Living Person be not okay, but primary sources for negative info about a Living Person be fine? Hrm... Try to find secondary sources for those court cases and "rejected" testimony that you added. Otherwise, I will delete in a few days. This is all your own original research, extrapolating what you see from primary sources. Smeelgova 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

You are making a mistake. There is a difference between a "self-published" source, and a court record in which an expert gives testimony. If we have a section about expert testimony in this article, material related to that expert testimony is required to support that section, and the sources are court records in which such testimonies were recorded.

A self-published source, on the other hand, in particular one that includes material that cannot be verified by other means, is not appropriate source for a BLP. You many need to re-read the respective policies of WP:V, and the guidelines about reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet the tag is perfectly appropriate, as it refers to primary sources. Please find secondary sources for the material you added, or I will remove it. In the meantime, the tag can stay. Smeelgova 15:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

No., Smeelgova. You will not delete properly sourced material, as it is not appropriate. Read the tag content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alone,'primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article."

The tag, is to tag articles that uses exclusively self-published and primary sources. That is not the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No., Smeelgova. You will not delete properly sourced material, as it is not appropriate. Please, do not use "command" grammar language to tell me what I will and will not do!!! I will not have it. Let us discuss on the talk page, but don't patronize me and talk down to me like that. It is very unpolite. As to the material, primary sources are clearly subject to POV interpretation. Let's find secondary sources for this, I'm sure they are available. I could quite as easily manipulate my own POV into other primary sources, I'm sure you would not want that. Smeelgova 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

In reading material widely available online, it seems that Dr. Ofshe is an expert on interrogation techniques, and that he has acted as an expert witness in hundreds of cases in which issues related to allegations of coerced testimony. If this is the area about which he is notable for, we need to expand on that aspect in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! But probably best for everyone involved, if we do not do this by using primary sources. This way we won't interpret things from the sources. I propose we wipe the primary source material stuff and start over with secondary sources. As I have said, I will do this unless secondary sources are provided soon. As a gesture of good faith, if we do this, I will voluntarily remove the primary-sourced sections in the "Honors" section. Smeelgova 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, Smeelgova, but that is not acceptable. These court records and affidavits are 100% compliant for an articvle about a person who is notable for these court records and affidavits. If you delete the material again, I will stop editing this article and ask for third party opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

confessions

Ofshe has done a lot of work about the reliability of confessions. Email me directly about articles (tilman at snafu dot de). Another thing is that his entire document collection on Synanon was destroyed in one of these regular California fires . I don't really have much time to edit, but I put this article on my watch list. --Tilman 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the little research I have done, I can see that there is quite a bit of controversy around his expert testimony. I have added some material to cover some of the cases in which his testimony was rejected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people