Talk:Michael Welner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Infobox

I added an Infobox for Dr. Michael Welner on May 29, 2009. I filled in as much information as I was able to. I think that it is pretty accurate ... but please feel free to correct, add, subtract, and edit, as appropriate. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Responsible editing

These three edits reverted material I recently added to this article, with no meaningful explanation.

We are not a mind reader. We shouldn't be reduced to guessing at other's concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested Unprotection

I reviewed the complete history of this BLP and find no justification for protection so I requested unprotection. The BLP has only 1 instance of blatant vandalism that I could find and has never had an edit war nor much editing at all other than that by the Editor who requested protection, who is a new Editor with this being his/her single topic of editing,I think, and who might be overreacting to normal article development and the necessary inclusion of well-sourced criticism of a Subject at times. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to Extend Protection 30 days

{{editprotected}} In line with the verification prong of the BLP temporary full protection of the page is requested for 30 day. This editor is securing the trial transcript re: Khadr trial which is the only verifiable ource of information from which edits to this page regarding Khadr testimony at Guantanamo Bay should be made. The is not an overreaction, but a precaution to prevent vandelism in the form of factually inaccurate information.174.48.219.227 (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this request has any merit. The Requester's reason is that a trial transcript relating to only one small part of this BLP is being sought but that is hardly a reason for the BLP to be protected. Also, this anonymous Requester and the orginal Requester are both very new one topic Editors (Michael Welner being the topic) who seem to be imagining a lot of vandalism on this BLP where I can find only 1 example of vandalism, no 3rrs and no edit wars. In fact, over half of the edits over the past 6 months have been made by the Editor who requested protection in the first place. I assume the Editor has the best of intentions, but protecting lesser active articles like this one with no history of substantial vandalism or edit wars just makes no sense, at least not to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.gratevans2; I have actually gone ahead and unprotected the article entirely so that all may have the chance to add information; bad edits can be undone and redacted as necessary. Please refer to our protection policy for more information; protection is not preemptive. If you have any more questions, please direct them to my talk page. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 03:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo Testimony

Welner's testimony in the Omar Khadr trial at GITMO garnered a great deal of international media coverage both because of the flamboyant headline fetching characterizations Welner applied to Khadr, e.g. "rock star of Gitmo" as well as the criticism of Welner's testimony by observers such as Alex Neve of Amnesty International. Therefore, both aspects should be mentioned in the BLP, I think. If there are any disagreements about this aspect, lets please discuss them here on the talk page and reach consensus. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

editprotected to make minor change

{{Editprotected}} add pp-protected|small=yes. I had nothing to do with what lead to the full protection of this article. Inka888^ContribsTalk 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The article already has a protection template on it. Why do you want to add another? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Because a small icon would make more sense than a large banner in this case. Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Airplaneman ✈ 03:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If I was reading Wikipedia as a reference and had no means of editing, a small icon in the corner would be less in your face than a banner that most people who just read Wikipedia would not know what the hell it meant. Inka888^ContribsTalk 04:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. Honestly, though, wouldn't the banner be more informative? It's supposed to be in-your-face, like a maintenance tag, so it gets your attention. Airplaneman ✈ 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, but not everyone who goes on Wikipedia is here to edit. A lot of people I know read

Wikipedia just as a reference. I think the editors would know that they can't edit the page because they don't have the edit tab. Also the lock gives a link to the protection policy where people can read about full protection. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo Testimony Removed

Editor "Mrgrantevans2" has not once sought consensus before making edits. Rather the editor has continued to engage in character assassination in a public forum using factually inaccurate information from "blog sources". Dr. Welner's testimony has been received media attention, as well as overt character deformation and attacks of a more subtle nature (such as these). Allowing any individual to vomit malicious an inaccurate content on this site defeats the purpose of Wiki. This editor is open to consensus if edit are not intended to convey one person's agenda and malign the subject of discussionStewaj7 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Stewaj7, Please identify the specific content which you feel is not well sourced and we can perhaps improve the source or leave out that content. It might be easier if you begin with 1 or 2 items that you think should not be in the BLP. Thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I think is that the Biographies here are not meant to be promotional of the Subject and read like a resume,as this one currently does, when there are Reliable Sources which have article content which are critical of the Subject; in other words, the BLP should include both complimentary and critical content from Reliably Sourced articles. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Stewaj7, I have reinserted a reference to comments made by the Amnesty International official concerning Welner's testimony; I have provided 2 reliable sources. Perhaps we can begin by seeing if this specific addition is acceptable to you? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV flag

I have now done a complete review of the article and come to the conclusion that it has been highly controlled and restricted edit wise since its inception over 3 years ago to be as it currently is, a promotional resume for Dr. Welner. There is also a series of edits[1] by someone claiming to be Dr. Welnerhimself.There has usually been one dedicated Editor of varying User Names who has managed the article. None of this is too serious except for the fact the control reached the point of full-protection(with the 100% promotional nature of the content in effect) a week ago with a follow up attempt to lock in full-protecttion for a month. A NPOV flag might be necessary, I'm afraid to say. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The most recent edit criticizing Alex Neve and propagating some kind of conspiracy theory ("the advocacy forum") shows the NPOV flag is needed right now,I think, so I will put it in. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Empirical9 is doing some serious collaborative work here now, so I think the NPOV flag will come down soon. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: 6 Specific Areas of Professional Controversy which maybe should go in the BLP

First, the personal investment and vast edits of the editor who raises this point speaks to his or her agenda to malign the subject of this page [ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mr.grantevans2]. The contentious and many malicious points below are evidence of the editors attempt at character assassination and spreading of factually inaccurate content that has made its way to blog sources and editorials.

1: This is moot. Dr. Welner’s credentials are well referenced and the references included here are irrelevant to the point [2][3] [4] [5][6].

2: With respect to the second point, the mere encapsulation of "Evaluation for Trial" is facetious. Dr. Welner is paid expert fees for the objective work that he does on cases. Just as a point of clarification, forensic experts are often called to do extensive work (review records, conduct evaluations, call collateral sources, write reports, prep for depositions and trial, consult with attorneys). Never has there been a point of contention about his reports or testimony, because they are objective, iron clad, and supported by evidence in the case. In fact the extensive work Dr. Welner conducts in preparation is praised by his retaining attorneys, as it was by Brett Tolman in the Elizabeth Smart case [7]. In the same vein, the article cited to raise questions about Dr. Welner’s fees notes a comment by Honolulu Deputy Prosecutor Kevin Takata that Dr. Welner is, “the best on the stand I’ve ever seen" [8]. As a result, petty arguments are made about fees. Show me a contentious point that questions Dr. Welner’s credibility based on his opinion or the work done in the case. The inclusion of fee is irrelevant, clearly, as no expert witness, attorneys or political official with a BLP on WIKI have fees noted on their page. This is a sly, malicious attempt to put unfounded controversy to the page – not create neutrality. Lastly, one attorney’s opinion about an expert who has consulted both to the prosecution and defense is not appropriate. The attorney’s sentiment and opinion is his or her own and are not biographically relevant information. It is a mud slinging tactic. How would an attorney know standard of the field to criticize Dr. Welner or any expert’s practices? How would he have familiarity with Dr. Welner’s approach? This attorney would not and could not then be considered as a reliable source for grievances over fees and extensive court preparation.

Are you saying the content of articles which criticize the level of Welner's fees and question his ojectivity should be completely left out of his BLP? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr.grantevans2 - Dr. Welner is forensic scientist who works in an adversarial environment. When his objectivity is questioned such as you have done it is because there is no indication that his opinions and testimony do not adhere to the highest scientific standard or are not fully supported by the science and evidence. The additions of the information is meant to insinuate something that can not be otherwise proven. This is clear as you have embedded your discussion of fees in adversarial opinions and chose to not include portions of the same sources that you cited, where opinions were in favor of Dr. Welner's objectivity and work. He does more work than counter opponents spending - 300 to 400 hours on cases. This is the rigorous standard that he sets and if the fees show anything, it is that very point. Lastly, it would seem that you are adamant about including fees because you feel they hold some relevance. I do not and neither do Wiki editors, authors or administrator as they are not included as a point of controversy for other experts BLP's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Dietz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kassin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ofshe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ShelbyStewaj7 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

3:Alex Neve is a known Khadr advocate and sympathizer [9] [10][11] [12]. And yes, he is the Secretary General of Amnesty international, an organization criticized because of its alliance with alleged Al Qaeda factions [13] [14] [15] [16]. His agenda clouds his objectivity – it is not surprising that he considered the prosecution’s expert witness, “over the top and outrageous” when his advocacy for Khadr makes it clear that any opposition to his cause would be ‘outrageous’ to him, especially when we consider the outcome of the case. However, those opinions are included on the page along with more objective sources about Dr. Welner’s testimony.

I can't debate Neve's beliefs or Amnesty Internayional's beliefs; I am not an authority on any of this content at all, but whatever you are trying to present about Neve should go in his BLP and/or Amnesty International's article if you have Reliable Sources. Do you realize the irony and perhaps hypocrisy which might be obvious here when you so quickly toss out the "malicious","character assassination",and "malign" buzz words in relation to anything remotely controversial about Welner and then go on to say the kind of things you are saying about Neve and Amnesty International? Its much better if we can just focus on what should go into the article and assume we are both just trying to make it a good BLP.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It was an effort to replicate your attempts. As you have accurately defined them, then I must have succeeded. Furthermore, as you have accurately identified how my edits have mirrored yours, it is clear that you can appreciate the type of sabotage that you are undertaking. If I understand the definition of Irony correctly, no I would not say it was ironic.Stewaj7 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

4: Please explain how this is a point of contention and reason for including it here? You have made edits asking to include the full context of quotes, however here you misrepresent context yourself, only including that section of the quote you believe will get your point across. In the noted article [17], Dr. Welner promoted integration, coexistence, and correctly predicted the Gaza withdrawal would lead to chaos from an Islamist element (which clearly has, including the events of wholesale slaughter of Fatah supporters by Hamas and preceding and including Operation Cast Lead). The article relates to a geopolitical issue that has nothing to do with risk assessment of an individual – other than to demonstrate Dr. Welner’s prognostications were accurate.

Good points. Welner's published views on the subject seem notable then. What do you think should be included from the noted article? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to practice pulling information out of articles that can be objectively represented. If you include your ideas below, I would be delighted to discuss them with you.Stewaj7 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

5: Please explain how this is a point of contention reason for including it here? Same note as above regarding cherrypicking quotes out of context.

ok then, let's put it in a context you approve of. How would you suggest this aspect be written into the BLP? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not I who wants to include the information. As per above, please share some of your more objective ideas below and I as well as other editors would be happy to discuss them with you. This is in the vien of your advice to discuss the changes here.Stewaj7 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

6: The Huffington Post citations are blogs [18]. The content contained therein, much like the above cited Alex Neve advocacy writing, is editorial information with no fact checking. The author of the Huffington Post article had access to Dr. Welner and never interviewed him to fact check, despite operating in close proximity to him without attempting to interview him. The point of the article was advocacy rather than fact-finding. The V of the BLP clearly states that verifiable information should come from sources that do fact check written material before posting. As these articles are factually inaccurate, as the Trial Transcript will reflect, they should not be included as reliable source. Otherwise, the editor will be allowed to spread propaganda, which defeats the purpose of Wiki. Empirical9 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am at a disadvantage in this discussion because I do not have this type of certainty, I can not say for sure that anyone at guantanamo attmpted or did not attempt to interview Welner but it does not matter at all. What matters is whether the source is reliable and the content notable. If you have Reliably Sourced information that the Huffington Post does not do fact checking, please show us a link to that. I'm not a big fan of that publication either. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have given you a source, the editorial for the huffington post is factually inaccurate, which fact checking would have revealed as would an interview. I would not suggest that the author of the editorial purposefully ignored discomfirmation of her story.Stewaj7 (talk)

NPOV Flag

Editors have reached agreement regarding the inclusion of an appropriate and object paragraph re: Michael Welner's testimony in the Omar Khadr trial. Issues of disproportionality, objectivity and neutrality have, after long discussion, been resolved. Stewaj7 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I was just encouraging you to do more research and add more content which you feel is notable, I still feel the BLP is a classic piece of puffery in its current sanitized state. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is a communication issue

I have no problem with much more Reliably Sourced content being added which is complimentary of Welner's work, I just don't want all of the reliably sourced criticism of his work to be excluded. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a proposal

I propose that you and Empirical9 consider the possibility that a reasonable portion of criticism within the Welner article (right now there is none at all) is not actually a bad thing either for the comprehensiveness of the BLP nor even for the stature of the Subject. Both of you are extremely boosterish of Welner in your comments and edits and condemn mercilessly those, like Alex Neve , who criticize his methods or fees to the point of insisting that such criticism be banned from the article. But I suggest you have a look at Alan Dershowitz which has an entire section on Issues and Controversies, yet I doubt you will find the article to be "negative".

Right now the Omar Khadr article is 5 times as long as the Michael Welner article. I think Welner's impact on society is as important as Khadr's, don't you? So, Welner's BLP needs to be much larger with much more content,I think, E.G. Both the Smart kidnapping case and also the Khadr case deserve subsections in the BLP I think. Perhaps we can all work toward making the article better. Where we differ, is I also want it to be very comprehensive to the point of including the Reliably Sourced criticisms which you two are quite dedicated to keeping out of the article on the basis that you have made a final determination that either the person making the criticism,like Neve, is biased, or that the criticisms are irrelevant.

Bottom line, I really think you are doing Mr. Welner and our Readers a disservice by wanting to leave the article as a 100% Puff Piece] when Welner is,at least in my opinion, an assertive,flamboyant trailblazer and, as most everyone will agree, people like that usually end up ruffling a lot of feathers. Right now, the BLP does not mention any of that ruffling at all, not one little mention of it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no attorney, judge, or forensic scientist who does not ruffle opponents for working in the adversarial system. Alan Dershowitz is flamboyant, Dr. Welner is not. The comparison is inappropriate. There is nothing puffed in the article, and if so, use reliable material to contradict, rather than “reliable sources.” There is nothing extremely boosterish of Dr. Welner in this that is not substantiated elsewhere or in multiple places. The edits and posture reflect a the maligning and petty editor who is obsessed with Dr. Welner in the wake of the Khadr verdict, not because of Dr. Welner being a trailblazer (the editor’s words) with an impact on Global Justice (his words). The The illegitimate vandalism of this cite does not establish this biography as containing puffery any more than it legitimizes its own malice.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To The Administrators of Wiki

The extremes to which Mr.Grantevans2(talk) is going to ensure the Omar Khadr case is included in length on Dr. Welner's BLP comes directly in the wake of the jury's recommended sentencing. How can this be deemed as anything but his/her own advocacy? Yet he/she is the editor claiming a lack of neutrality on the page? This BLP is concise and informative relating to the range of cases Dr. Welner has consulted as well as his research efforts and publications. Detailed explanations of his contributions on each case are not necessary nor would they add neutrality to his BLP. Instead, this editor Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) continues to go line by line through the BLP, removing sources and key reliably sourced terms that do not promote his/her agenda. The administrators of Wiki need to address this immediately. In that same vein, noting the highest fees Dr. Welner has recevied for cases, while leaving out the lesser fees denotes further malicious intent. This is beyond an edit war and is clearly an editor attempting to create a platform for defamation and NOT a factual biography. Empirical9 (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Recent Edits

Welner earns what has been described as a "magnificent living testifying at celebrity murder trials".

frivolous and spiteful article that has no insider awareness of what Dr. Welner earns relative to any other physician, be they any other forensic psychiatrist or any dermatologist, head and neck surgeon, or any other physician. The editors reversion to introducing financial issues is a means of insinuating something untoward, when nothing has emerged or been demonstrated. It is merely an attempt to inflame the reader that a person actually gets paid to do his work exceptionally well.

The designation of "celebrity cases" is a misstatement of Dr. Welner's case history and what he has contributed to different cases. The writer has no awareness of Dr. Welner's career and has done no research to demonstrate said familiarity. There is nothing reliable in this source or in its data.

Ok, I have removed the content related to this source. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

While Welner has encountered some criticism regarding his fees over the years, as with the $400,000 he was paid in the Brian David Mitchell case, the critics are usually opposing counsel.

"Usually" opposing counsel is not something originating from this article. As for the Smart case, defense never cross examined Dr. Welner to attack fees, so out of court editorials from resentful journalists or bloggers are not biographical at all. Again, there are far more figures in the justice system who are compensated far more than Dr. Welner, and this is not highlighted to the degree we see here in this malicious attempt to vandalize this biographical page.

However, W. Christopher Conrad, a former homicide prosecutor, who has not retained Dr. Welner, said: "I don't think it's appropriate, I don't think it's needed. I don't think it's a good use of taxpayers' money."

Christopher Conrad was a former prosecutor who resigned for his own political ambition, running for district attorneys against the sitting district attorney who had retained Dr. Welner on successful major cases. The statement political opponents make to gain votes are irrelevant to a biographical page for Dr. Welner

During the high-profile competency hearing of Brian David Mitchell, defense counsel described Welner's contributions as "advocacy,not an objective evaluation of fact" . However, U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, part of the prosecution team that retained Welner on the Mitchell case, referred to his testimony as "worth every penny". Deciding in favor of the prosecution, Judge Kimball, in his opinion on competency, noted that Dr. Welner's preparation, testimony and report reflected, "best practices in forensic psychiatry and psychology (pg 14)" .

Again, when the presiding federal judge offers an opinion such as he did, what biographical relevance is any attorney's argument. This, without foundation, attempts to recast Dr. Welner's efforts as financially inspired rather than compensated hourly work, no different from the compensated hourly work of any other professional. The administrators of Wikipedia would be hard pressed to demonstrate any other biography in this encyclopedia in which a subject was put on the defensive for being compensated hourly for hard work and work which the attorneys and court likewise held in highest regard. The editor slyly attempts to convert this biography into a platform for malicious defamation, even as he praises Dr. Welner's work in his own comments as "stunningly important."Stewaj7 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Khadr Paragraph Removed

Welner characterized Khadr as an unredeemable jihadist who had spent his time at Guantanamo reading the Koran but wasn't interested in western literature

This is a misquote, especially so because Dr. Welner went to great length to describe what type of deradicalization would be needed for Khadr.

who had spent his time at Guantanamo reading the Koran but wasn't interested in western literature

Also a misquote. Dr. Welner specifically testified that Khadr was interested in reading primarily for escapism

however, under cross examination, Welner was asked to examine his notes, and acknowledged that Khadr had a long and varied reading list of western literature from the prison's library, including Nelson Mandela's Walk to Freedom, Barack Obama's Dreams of My Father, Ishmael Beah's A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series plus unnamed thrillers by John Grisham and steamy novels by Danielle Steel.

For someone incarcerated for eight years, this is hardly a long list. Furthermore, with the exception of the three biographies, the rest of the material was escapist. This was not at all contradictory; rather, the editorial writer's lack of understanding of the significance of reading three serious books in seven years. The author, writing for a reputable publication., did not do the math and conveniently omitted Dr. Welner's testimony of the role of reading as fantasy rather than to enhance his Western acculturation.

Dr. Welner was sharply criticized for using clinical data derived from Dr. Nicolai Sennels. Evidence submitted showed that Sennels has written that "Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1,400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool."

Dr. Welner clearly stated in his testimony that this had nothing to do with the clinical data that added to his conclusions. The juxtaposition of these two ideas is deliberately intended to mislead the reader by ignoring the clinical data that Dr. Sennels did compile, in favor of unrelated discussions of inbreeding. Dr. Welner testified that he was unaware of Dr. Sennels' interest in the consequences of inbreeding, and added that "Since I operated under the presumption that Omar Khadr was not born from inbreeding, this is of no consequence to my opinion." Including this is a sly way for the editor to mislead readers of this biography from Dr. Welner's actual testimony."

and described the Qur’an as "a criminal book that forces people to do criminal things."

These statements, again designed to inflame, were specifically posed to Dr. Welner. Dr. Welner indicated that he specifically testified that radical Jihadists do devious and antisocial things in the name of the Koran, but that the Koran is not an evil book." again, this vandalizing editor is insinuating false information in a way to inflame misunderstanding of Dr. Welner and his work in the Khadr matter.

Welner called "political" Sennels assertion that Musims can not integrate into western societies.

Dr. Welner said this was a political issue and did not factor into his opinion; he further drew reference in his testimony to the successful integration of Moslems in New York. Inclusion of this is again, a misstatement of Dr. Welner's testimony.

When Air Force Maj. Mathew Schwartz, Khadr’s lawyer, challenged Welner's credibility, saying Welner had delivered "hours and hours of hearsay-filled testimony",

This statement quotes Maj. Schwartz out of context, as he was complimenting Dr. Welner's memory when he made this assertion.

Welner seemed to become increasingly agitated.

This is just editorializing that has no factual foundation.

Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada , commented on Welner's opinions stating, "I’ve rarely heard anything so over the top and outrageous. Clearly, this is a psychiatrist who has some strong ideological views".

This belongs with the Amnesty International tag. All of it. And Alex Neve is just another spectator. Again, let the administrators consider that this editor is merely polluting Dr. Welner's accomplishments with a ragtag bunch of angry fans of a person who pleaded guilty to murdering in the name of al-Qaeda. This kind of malicious flaming can be done to any participant in successful litigation by aggrieved losers. Is this the precedent for WIKI? The case outcome speaks to how self-serving these comments are.

Dr. Welner’s testimony in the Khadr sentencing hearing was described in one article as "powerful, sweeping testimony", and in another as "over the top remarks.".

By someone who was not even there. The editorializing of Dr. Welner in this entire section deafeningly submerges Dr. Welner's important role in a hail of the aggrieved chorus of Khadr and other al-Qaeda advocates. Again, to add anything to the Dr. Welner bio about Guantanamo is disproportional to whatever has been written about his important contributions to many other cases. But if a reader is interested in learning of his contribution as the key witness to the 40 year sentence in this case, defamatory content is not necessary, factual representation his testimony is. The paragraph has been revised to include details that are not disputed.Stewaj7 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This Article is presently a Puff Piece

There are 3 issues;

• Firstly is the 100% puffery which has been maintained in this article since its inception 3.5 years ago.

I have managed to only remove a few of the extremely promotional adjectives. I see where another Editor brought up this same NPOV issue earlier today [19], and yet a third Editor complained of unfriendly reverting of Reliably Sourced material as recently as 2 weeks ago. It is not that there is a lack of non-puffery material relating to this Subject ( see "specific areas" above).

• • The items removed from the page have not been 'puffery', but factual representations of Dr. Welner's professional career. While it is clear from his BLP that he has risen above many others in his field, it is not the work of puffery to present this on his page. In fact Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) takes issue with the level of conciseness the page presents with, yet argues that it is too 'fluffy' and promotional, using inappropriate adjectives? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) consistently changes his/her mind, writing to this editor stating he/she is happy with the changes, then calling this editor a sock on this page to promote his agenda. Clearly the work of an advocate advancing a platform. Empirical9 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Secondly, I have been trying to add more content regarding the recent Guantanamo Bay/Omar Khadr involvement of Dr. Welner because it is so much more notable,I think, than Welner's other cases. A Google search coupling Welner and Khadr yields 15,500 results while a search coupling Welner and any of his other cases yields a pitifully small result, 125 for Welner and William Tager for example, yet Tager is given more content here than the Khadr case. For some reason the single article contributors here, there are several, will not allow a reasonable amount of content inserted regarding the Khadr case which Welner apparently said he spent 600 hours on; it makes no sense at all. Especially since I have advised the single article Editors numerous times that the article could use much more content from them regarding any and all of Welner's trial cases and his other work.

• • No one case defines a forensic psychiatrist's career and it is disproportiante to overwraught Dr. Welner's page with Khadr information when this is only his most recent case, that has reached the media. While Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) fancies his/herself as being able to 'advise' editors on pages, your talk page includes consistent notation of lack of consensus about editing and violating the 3RR rule. As a 3rd party editor who is quite notable an Omar Khadr fan and advocate, it is irresponsible to attempt to promote your agenda on someone else's page. Empirical9 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr.Welner published an extensive report{note Welner's signature at bottom of the posting) a week ago itemizing the groundbreaking importance of his activities in Guantanamo(you have deleted content from that report as well on multiple occasions). I just do not think your editing position (that 2 words about Khadr is sufficient) is rational.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thirdly,the attempt to freeze out all editing for 30 days in this BLP, which had been a quite inactive BLP up to that point in time, is quite bizarre, I think.

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Is this odd? Considering the extremes to which this BLP has gone from neutral and concise to a platform for Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) defamation, placing a lock of editing on a professional's page to prevent this amount of character assassination and promotion of agenda seems necessary. Empirical9 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

One example

Yesterday an active Wikipedia Editor put the general "Citations Needed" flag on the BLP, and with good cause. The single article (this article) Editors are not digging up those citations as yet, but I have been trying, without much success, and I did find an American Psychiatric Assn. webpage to verify this sentence; "In 1997, he was honored by the American Psychiatric Association with its award for excellence in medical student education." What the webpage shows is that Welner was 1 of 61 members of the APA to receive that particular award in 1997, which might be a factor in determining whether that award is notable enough for this BLP, and which also drives home the fact that award is garnering more words in this BLP than Welner's work in Guantanamo Bay (as edited by the 3 single article Editors). As more citations are found or not,I expect the article to continue on its path to verified and balanced content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I inserted all of the necessary citations needed and removed the 'citations needed' flag. Empirical9 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is great that you are providing these citations. There are 2 small aspects relating to the ones you addressed today.

• this does not mention at all that he was the "first" to take those courses simultaneously.
• This source [The Cult of Al-Qaeda. (brainwashing and Islamic fundamentalism) Welner, M. The Forensic Panel Letter. The Forensic Echo. October 16, 2001], has no link and the Forensic Echo itself seems to have no web presence, not even as an archive, contrary to what the section in the BLP says. So the content saying that Welner was the "first mental health professional to write of al-Qaeda as a movement reflecting the methodology of traditional destructive cults, rather than an outgrowth of poverty or the disaffected" can't be supported by that source,I don't think.

I propose that the word "first" be removed from the 1st item and that the second item be removed altogether unless a Reliable Source can be found to support the statement. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Responsible editing – vandalism caution:

Editor 32.60.79.217 (talk) recently made major revisions to Michael Welner without noting or explaining these changes, either in the edit summary or on the talk page; therefore, such were undone and reverted back to previous version of page. Empirical9 (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No need for Khadr Subsection or mention of Fees

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) continued need to ensure that Welner's BLP focuses only on Omar Khadr and the fee he collected in that case displays an increasing platform for defamation and NOT neutrality. This editor incorporated a plethora of reliably sourced citations, at the request of editors to bring Welner's BLP to a cohesive place and also added a paragraph on the Khadr case, to try to create consensus.

Each edit Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) reverts fruther proves his/her advocacy position for an admitted terrorist and not for neutrality and Welner's BLP is deserving of an editor whose focus is not on his/her own agenda.

It is necessary to discuss on the talk page before continuously reverting changes and adding subsections on only one case in Welner's career to reach a consensus. Also Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) is not mindful of the 3RR rule, which is continuously violated by him as he maligns the BLP in claims of neutrality. Empirical9 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I responded in full on Empirical9's talk page, even to the ad hominem attack. As I said above, I think he/she did a great job with the citations. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fee Section and Guantanamo Section re Welner BLP

I would like to reach a consensus with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) on both the fee section and Guantanamo section so we are not consistently re-editing.

my reponses have a * I would also like to reach a consensus. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Again, we will waste a lot of time if we have to address name-calling type of comments, so I propose we stop that entirely.

1. The fee section does not belong on a BLP - other expert witnesses, especially those who operate also in private practice, do not post their fees on their BLP. That being said, if this is a section that Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) feel is absolutely necessary - please do research to find other cases, outside of the most publicized (i.e. Smart and Khadr) that Dr. Welner worked on for which he was paid substantially lesser fees. The names of cases he worked on are on his BLP and I'm sure the info is out there, considering the information Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) wants to find is. This editor will not do this research as he/she feels it is completely inappropriate, malicious (although you feel it is an unfair term, this is how it comes across on the BLP with continuous reinserting) and unnecessary, especially given the fact that other experts do not post their fees on their BLP. The only reason that can be gathered for 3rd party editors from Khadr sympathizing Toronto to continuously post fees is to malign the page and that is a fact that continues to become real as you continue to reinsert, yet to claim there is a lack of neutrality.

• What should go in are the most widely reported articles concerning his fees. But,for balance, feel free to put in something about any pro-bono work or low fees.

Empirical9 has clearly demonstrated why the fees are inappropriate for the page. Clearly Mr.grantevans2 is invested in this page, but it is not clear what relevance the editor feels the fees have except to create controversy. This point has had much discussion with all parties, except Mr.grantevans2, being in favor of leaving any discussion about fees off the page. Therefore, the fee section has been removed at this time.1406bjw (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Toronto is not "Khadr sympathizing Toronto". Toronto does have a population who places a high value on due process and civil rights; most of us learned about the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus in high scool. Most of us are more interested in the just application of law in a generic sense than how 1 individual might be affected, although that is also important. We also know about the American Bill of Rights and are mostly admirers of it.

2. The Guantanamo section does not belong on Welner's BLP - if anything it belongs on the Khadr page; a paragraph on the Khadr case was inserted after reaching consensus among the editors and then you begin to bring this section into the BLP - it is as if Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) wants no consensus to be reached on the BLP; Many legal circles are aware of Dr. Welner and his work - prior to Khadr, how do Mr.Grantevans2 (talk)think this editor got involved in editing this page and ensuring Dr. Welner's reputation in the community is not continuosly maligned by the advocates of the most recent defendant?

• Its notable for Welner's BLP because of all the articles written about Welner's testimony specifically.

Again, this does not clearly demonstrate why the section should be included except as a point of contention. An objective and factually accurate paragraph has been included which summarized Dr. Welner's contribution to the Khadr case. An entire section, which was poorly placed at the end of the biography, related to others' opinions about Dr. Welner's testimony does not represent his work in this case and should not be included in the BLP.1406bjw (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A consensus on inclusion of the above needs to be reached with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) before continuous reinserting and removing of these materials. This is what the talk page is for. Empirical9 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empirical9 (talk • contribs)

• I responded in more detail on Empirical9's talk page.

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

I have added this article to the [20]noticeboard in the hope of having more input as to appropriate content here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I responded in full to your claims on the noticeboard. Empirical9 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Trutv is not a Reliable Source

[21] I will be removing content with that as the only source. Please provide a Reliable source. 12:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am putting it back in - it is absolutely reliable. It was an interview conducted with him as well as an interview he conducted. Abolsutelely reliable. Empirical9 (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat Determined by Welner to Be a Psychopath

I think this is notable; I never heard of a psychiatristit before mking this determination. Welner also devotes several pages specifically to Arafat's psychopathy, "Yasser Arafat represents, at this writing, the most successful psychopath terrorist leader in history.""Yasser Arafat is a stunningly vivid study in psychopathy, and the life cycle of the psychopath as terrorist leader." starting at page 7 of [22]. Is there any compelling reason why this determination is being excluded from the BLP? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is yet again your attempt to cloud this BLP with your own agenda driven content. A paragraph was already inserted on this chapter, at your request. I'm assuming you are going to request an enitre section be added on this, although it is completely unnecessary? A readed of the entire chapter can fully understand how and why the description of Arafat as a psychopathy is placed in those pages, but your cherrypicking is meant to make Dr. Welner appear in a particular, false light. Your edits are marred by your political and social agenda while you make claims that the page lacks 'neutrality'. A BLP is not meant to detail each aspect of a person's educational writings, but provide concise descriptions and overview, which is what has already been done. Please re-think your own personal agendas and reasons for editing this page before going any further. Empirical9 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. I am trying hard myself to do just that. Then tell me, how does including this content,content that covers 3 entire pages in 1 of the Dr. Welner's own publications, make Dr.Welner appear in a false light? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, due to the continued nature of your edits, good faith cannot be assumed. It is clear that you have scoured Dr. Welner’s publication record for any reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to overly flavor and contaminate this BLP with references to his opinions on the issue, cherrypicking those quotes you deem favorable to your position. At this point, references to Israel and terrorism are completely disproportionate to his professional focus and mislead readers about the concentration of his attention. While you see fit to raise his discussion of Arafat, you notably do not mention the numerous terrorist figures from other countires also discussed, in detail, by Dr. Welner in that same chapter.

• Moslem terrorism is your obsession - which is only too clear through your edits and continued scouring of particular references for cherrypicked quotes - perhaps appropriate as you have come to this page to maliciously retaliate for Dr. Welner's testimony in the prosecution's case against an admitted al-Qaeda terrorist. This has been amply demonstrated by your efforts to give Dr. Welner’s effectiveness in Khadr overemphasis, at the expense of his many accomplishments that have nothing to do with this sub-topic as well as your newfound 'editing' interest in giving any statements he made relating to Gaza or the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as terrorism, in general, extreme overemphasis. Not because this is Dr. Welner’s fixation – but because it is yours. Again, this is clearly demonstrated by both this talk page and your 'edits' to the page Mr.grantevans|contribs|talk.

• If you endeavor to inject neutrality to this page, you can begin by representing his many opinions which by now you are aware of, or by refraining from giving this page an artificially ethnocentric slant. Empirical9 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that Mr.grantevans has scoured Dr. Welner’s publication record for any reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to overly flavor and contaminate this BLP with references to his opinions on the issue. At this point, references to Israel and terrorism are way disproportionate to his professional focus, the corpus of his work, and mislead the reader about the concentration of his attention. You see fit, for example, to raise his discussion of the psychopath Arafat -- although in the same chapter you referenced, Dr. Welner devoted significant attention to many terrorist figures from other countries as well. Moslem terrorism is your obsession, perhaps appropriate as you have come to this page to maliciously retaliate for the admitted al-Qaeda terrorist that you support, amply demonstrated by your efforts to give Dr. Welner’s effectiveness in Khadr overemphasis, at the expense of his many accomplishments that have nothing to do with this sub-topic. Not because this is Dr. Welner’s fixation – but because it is yours. If you endeavor to inject neutrality to this page, you can begin by representing his many opinions which by now you are aware of, or by refraining from giving this page an artificially ethnocentric slant.Stewaj7 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Where you two SPAs make your mistake is in not reading the source. The section on "Terrorist Leaders" runs from pages 5-10 and 3 of those 5 pages are exclusively and in detail outlining Arafat's psychopathy(in Welner's opinion). He does mention several others in passing, such as Osama bin Laden, but Arafat is the one who gets by far the most attention from Welner. I fail to see why you feel that its not worth at least as much mention as Welner's Forensic Echo which stopped publishing 10 years ago and which you insist remains as a subsection. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

6 Specific Areas of Professional Controversy which maybe should go in the BLP

I think most of these 6 Reliably sourced aspects should be addressed in the BLP, epecially at length with regard to the Subject's GITMO testimony which was widely reported and commented upon by the international media.There are single article devotees of the Subject, by their own admission, who are insisting that no criticism of the Subject go into the BLP and that Reliable Sourced accounts of his Gitmo testimony and responses by Amnesty Intl. officials etc. be excluded as well as all of these Reliable Sources and content concerning the Subject's activities in Gitmo; note the first paragraph of this content reports the Subject's own publishing of his achievements at GITMO; even that has been removed from the article over 10 times.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps interested Editors can express their views about the appropriateness of including content related to 6 aspects of Welner's professional career.

Its not that there is some kind of rampant vandalism or conspiracy to fabricate non-complimentary content; there are many RS articles expressing concerns about:

1: Welner's credentials [23]

2: Welner's "Evaluation for Trial" fees ($242,000. for Andrea Yates second trial and $400,000 for evaluating Eliazabeth Smart's kidnapper) to the point where opinions by some Attorneys are,according to RS articles, that his evaluations are "advocacy,not an objective evaluation of fact".[24]and the description by one attorney that Welner "might be an expert-for-hire for prosecutors. He said Welner acted more like a detective building a case than a psychiatrist evaluating a patient."[25]

3:Alex Neve of Amnesty International is quoted as saying about Welner's testimony in the Khadr case: "I've rarely heard anything so over the top and outrageous," Neve said. "Clearly, this is a psychiatrist who has some very strong ideological views."[26] as well as all of these Reliable Sources and content concerning the Subject's activities in Gitmo; note the first paragraph(see link at end of this sentence) is for the Subject's own publishing of his achievements there, even that has been removed from the article over 10 times.[27]

4: Welner's own articles about Jewish settlements in Gaza whom Welner says "have provided a buffer zone for Israel, stemming the tide of Islamo-chaos".[28]

5: Welner's sometimes controversial opinions about "Jewish Anti-semitism",which he called "pathological thinking"[29][30]

6: Huffington Post articles[31][32] which specifically address Welner's testimony in Guantanamo.

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Welner's own writings are acceptable, provided enough context is given. No comment on the rest yet. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus may not be used to override Wikipedia Policy

It was alleged on my talk page that the paragraph I removed was well sourced and there by consensus. I've looked at the discussion above, and see no basis to conclude that any such consensus existed. But, even if there was, consensus cannot be used to override and thwart Wikipedia policy. The vast majority of statements in that paragraph were simply invented out of whole cloth. The citiations being used to support them simply do not say what the text claims they do. To make that clear, I have gone through, one-by-one and pointed out the problem. In other cases, Welner's self-published articles on his organization's website simply cannot be used as sources in violation of WP:SPS. There are very limited circumstances when and to what extent an SPS can be used. These uses are far outside the boundaries of what is permissible. In yet more cases, the text is simply irrelevant to this BLP, making clear that the paragraph is simply a WP:COATRACK.

It is also being argued at my talkpage that the paragraph on fees is defamatory. That is nonsense. The information is well sourced, and indeed well-balanced between those critical of Welner's fees and those who contend that they are a bargain. These opinions are properly attributed. Deleting this material is inproper and a violation of BLP.

All of this is impermissible in a BLP, and the fact that it is coming from a series of SPA's acting as a tag-team raise all kinds of red flags. Fladrif (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In accordance with the guidelines for editing BLP the paragraph on fees is disparaging without any factual basis. What other purpose could one have to include criticisms about fees and then loosely link it to comments about objectivity except to disparage the subject of the BLP - this is a violation. There has never been noted any financial impropriety or challenge by the court regarding Dr. Welner's objectivity. Including such information is defamatory and a clear attack on his professional career. There is nothing in the BLP, that has been called pufferey, that is not factually accurate. However, other recent contentious points that have been included by recent editors have no factual basis and merely sample from the opinions or editorializing of others. Such edits are not NPOV or neutrality.Stewaj7 (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph that you continue to revert is well sourced, and hardly disparaging. It is neither disparaging nor an attack. What is clearly not neutral and POV pushing is a couple of SPA's continuing to revert well-sourced, balanced material and inserting promotional, unsourced material that parrots the subject's PR. This edit warring has got to stop.Fladrif (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Requested

{{editprotected}} In accordance with the guidelines for editing BLP, I request that the following paragraph be removed.

“Welner has encountered some attention for his fees, which have been termed "jaw dropping"[27][28](e.g. $242,996.74 for his work on the second Andrea Yates trial and $400,000. for his competency report on the Eliazabeth Smart kidnapper) as well as some criticism about his level of objectivity. His competency reports and testimony have been described by some as "advocacy, not an objective evaluation of facts."[28][29][30][31] . However, U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, part of the prosecution team that retained Welner on the Mitchell case, referred to his testimony as "worth every penny"[32].Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, commented on Welner's opinions in the Khadr case stating, "I’ve rarely heard anything so over the top and outrageous. Clearly, this is a psychiatrist who has some strong ideological views"[33][34]. With regard to Welner's fees in another case, W. Christopher Conrad, a former homicide prosecutor said: "I don't think it's appropriate, I don't think it's needed. I don't think it's a good use of taxpayers' money." On the other hand, Honolulu Deputy Prosecutor Kevin Takata said that Welner's expertise and abilities are valuable, "I can tell you that Dr. Welner is the best on the stand I've ever seen," said Takata, the prosecutor who convicted Xerox employee Byran Uyesugi. Welner insists he is not a prosecutor's "expert for hire". He said he has also worked with defense attorneys. "I've consulted on criminal cases fairly equally," Welner said.[28] Defence attorney William H. Difenderfer questioned Welner's credentials, pointing out that his curriculum vitae lists 137 publications since 1993 and all but 23 of them are found in Welner's own online publications. He also accuses welner of acting "more like a detective building a case than a psychiatrist evaluating a patient." Welner replied that thinking like a detective is in accordance with his training, and with regards to criticism that his publications have mainly appeared in his own journals, Welner acknowledges liking greater control over the editorial process of articles about his work. In the six murder trials in which Welner testified where insanity or mental infirmity were defences, the prosecution has always won.[28]”

The paragraph gives disproportionate space to particular contentious viewpoints of a small minorities. The paragraph has no factual basis or relevance and is wholly disparaging. To include criticisms about fees and then loosely link it to comments about the objectivity of the subject of the BLP is a violation. Whether it is reliably sources or not, the opinions expressed are unfounded and disparge the noted reputation of the subject. Including such information is defamatory and a clear attack on Michael Welner’s professional career. Again, edits such as this have no factual basis and merely sample from the opinions or editorializing of others. I request the paragraph be removed. Thank you.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)— Stewaj7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is no consensus for the paragraph to be removed. The user who is suggesting removal was recently blocked for being a sockpuppet master as well as being an obvious SPA. As Fladrif (talk) said in his recent edit to re-include this paragraph: It is well-sourced balanced relevant notable text. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I support its removal. Its inclusion is inconsistent with out BLP policy requiring a "high degree of sensitivity" when dealing with negative content of living persons. It appears to serve little useful purpose except to put him in a bad light. If it is included it should be pruned down considerably, per WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: We don't generally remove whole paragraphs, especially when they are well-sourced. However it seems to me that this particular paragraph does violate WP:NPOV by putting undue weight on these negative points. I think the parapgraph could certainly be trimmed and better written. But this will need some kind of agreement here. Please continue discussing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am agreeable, perhaps 1 of the SPAs or brewcrewer (yada, yada) can propse a draft? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well sourced? Please take a closer look. The whole paragraph has previously been removed for the following.

"Welner has encountered some attention for his fees, which have been termed "jaw dropping"[27][28](e.g. $242,996.74 for his work on the second Andrea Yates trial and $400,000."

• Reference 28 in no way refers to “Jaw Dropping”.

“…as well as some criticism about his level of objectivity.”

• This sentence is libelous, un-sourced and included in the BLP by user:Mr.Grantevans2; re-inserted and defended by user:Fladrif.

“However, U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, part of the prosecution team that retained Welner on the Mitchell case, referred to his testimony as "worth every penny"[32]”.

• This whole source referenced Dr. Welner’s fee’s with a single reference about his being worth every penny. Again, the inclusion of such a source to inject some “positive” mention is backhanded and clearly WP:COATRACK.

“His competency reports and testimony have been described by some as "advocacy, not an objective evaluation of facts."[28][29][30][31] .”

• While user: Fladrif has accused this editor of WP:COATRACK it is clear that a closer look has not been given to reference 28 , which has no mention of this quote. It is padding and very poor referencing. While the quote derives from reference 29, clearly this opinion was offered in an adversarial arena with no support or evidence for such claims. The court rejected such claims and the judge in writing in his decision noted, “Welner then prepared a report presenting the relevant history, examination findings, diagnostic assessment, and explanation of the reasoning process used to formulate his opinion. This represents the best practices in forensic psychiatry and psychology.” . Omitting this memorandum, which is arguably the final word in this matter, shows a malicious slant of the edits made by user:Mr.Grantevans2 and re-inserted and defended by user: Fladrif. Lastly, reference 30 and 31 are simply copies from the Associated Press article which is used for the 29th citation. As an editor who has demonstrated himself to be knowledgeable of wikipedia rule and editing guidelines, such a strategy by user:Mr.Grantevans2 is manipulative and reflects covert yet disruptive edits he has made. Additionally, user: Fladrif made every attempt to sanitize the sourcing on the page; however, they must have overlooked such poor sourcing.

“Defence attorney William H. Difenderfer questioned Welner's credentials, pointing out that his curriculum vitae lists 137 publications since 1993 and all but 23 of them are found in Welner's own online publications. He also accuses welner of acting "more like a detective building a case than a psychiatrist evaluating a patient." Welner replied that thinking like a detective is in accordance with his training, and with regards to criticism that his publications have mainly appeared in his own journals, Welner acknowledges liking greater control over the editorial process of articles about his work.”

• WP:LIBEL none of this is sourced. Moreover, it is an unnecessarily disparaging string of opinions that have no relevance in the BLP. The paragraph is poorly constructed, jumping from a solo opinion of a minority to another.Stewaj7 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC))— Stewaj7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• In response to Stewaj's comments:

• I am not opposed to including any notable relaiable sourced content, so I encourage Stewaj7 to include that judge's memorandum which praises Dr. Welner.

• 100% of the content of the paragraph about fees etc. is reliably sourced and references provided within the paragraph. Here is an additional Salt Lake Tribune article which headlines his fees [33].

• Where is the proof of this. I provided ample evidence that the paragraph is not reliably sourced.Stewaj7 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you can list what is not sourced in brief terms. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Attorney Difenderfer's opinions are reported (reference #28 in the BLP at end of the paragraph) by the Pittsburg Tribune-Review, one of the largest newspapers in Pittsburg.

• And?Stewaj7 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Above you say none of this is sourced,I thought you were referring to Difenderfer. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Stewaj7 criticizes the wording; "some criticism about his level of objectivity" calling it libelous. Would he prefer the use of the same term that the Houston Cronicle used; "hired-gun"? In fact, the most critical assessment of Welner's work seems to have come from the Houston Cronicle in relation to his efforts in Andrea Yates' second trial; I have included almost none of this in the BLP:

• Headlines: Second Yates expert paid $242,966.74

• Including the term “hired gun” in this BLP would be your most overt inclusion of lible yet. Again, there is no evidence to any of these assertions and including them in the BLP is defamatory. Mr.grantevans2 decision to not include certain contentious points and to include others (all of which are non fact adversarial opinions) is not a defense. The “it could be worse” does not dismiss that the editor is attempting to sabotage the page.Stewaj7 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Your classifying of better or worse is yours,not mine. I'm trying to show that I have been attempting to be reasonable in the wording. This Subject has at least as much criticism written about him as praise, going back to 2001, if you ignore the publications he controls or works for, so it is a disservice to our Readers to continue to present his BLP with 100% complimentary content. The need to present the obvious reality of the different opinions about his work is not a surprising thing for someone who aggresively promotes himself as a groundbraker and pioneer in his field and who uses much more flamboyant language and emotional metaphors in his public speeches and writings than his peers; please don't ask me to provide a list of examples, it would be very,very long. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The article includes scathing analysis by jury members and court officials of Welner's testimony and what the paper calls his "phony peer review" process, I have left virtually all of this out of this BLP, so I resent the continual accusations that I am trying to slant the BLP in a negative fashion. Here is what is left out of the BLP:

"But Dietz looks like a bargain compared with the new hired gun brought in by the DA's office for the second trial. Are you sitting down? Dr. Michael Welner and his consulting firm, the Forensic Panel, were paid a jaw-dropping $242,966.74 for work on the second Yates trial. At least Dietz's testimony worked with the jurors in the first trial but was overturned by an appeals court because of the mistake. Welner's testimony seems to have backfired with the second jury, which found Yates not guilty by reason of insanity. "Although Dr. Welner's qualifications were impressive, his presentation in court was not good," said juror Bobby Chism. "He came across as very aloof and self-serving."

• One juror who subjectively experienced Dr. Welner as one thing, one author who sensationalized what Dr. Welner was paid for the many hours that he worked on the case does not make it appropriate for a BLP. How is this not obvious? I am not opposed to well-founded criticism; however, Mr.grantevans2 has only further demonstrated his efforts to inject controversy into this BLP using the opinions of a small minority or adversaries. This is not what Wikipedia is for.Stewaj7 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yet you have no problem in contining to insist that one of Welner's pubications which ceased publishing 10 years ago,the Forensic Echo, command a section in the BLP. I think the juror's view is very unbiased and notable for that reason, regardless of him being only one in your eyes.And I would put his opinion on par with that of the judge in a jury trial since the decision rests with the jury. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Welner's "phony peer review" (forensic panel) "But defense attorney Wendell Odom brought out during the trial that Welner's idea of "peer review" differs considerably from that of academic journals. When a scientist submits a paper to a first-rate journal, the editors send the paper to experts in the same field to critique. The author has no say in the selection of the reviewers. The result is that many papers don't get published. But, as Odom brought out, Welner himself hires his "peer reviewers." Simply put, employees and employers are not "peers." This arrangement, said juror Olson, "really compromised his integrity.""Most of us really felt that he did more harm than good to the prosecution's case," Olson said"

• Court room theatrics and defense attorneys who’s job it is to misrepresent or twist the truth are the exact opposite of neutrality and reliablity.Stewaj7 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yet you have no problem repeating multiple accounts of Welner's courtroom theatrics when they are well received; and would you also say it is the prosecutor's job to "misrepresent or twist the truth"?

• Then there are dozens of articles vigorously criticising Welner's Guantanamo Bay testimony, almost none of which is in the BLP, likethis article in the Toronto Star(I think its the largest Canadian newspaper)"Aware of the high political stakes involved, military prosecutors have been ruthlessly clever. Michael Welner, the psychiatrist they called to testify about Khadr’s state of mind may be, as the defence pointed out, linked to Islamaphobes. Yet for the North American public this is far less important than Welner’s knack for memorable phrases. While his description of Khadr as “the rock star of Gitmo” may not, under scrutiny mean much, it is great fare for headlines."

• This is correct, there are a few papers that have criticized Dr. Welner’s testimony; however, these papers are factually inaccurate, which the trial transcript will show. I assure you in my research there are far more that praise his contributions to the field. User:Mr.grantevans2 and I have discussed this at length. However, as the trial transcript will not be public record until next week, all content about the Khadr case should be left of the page, particularly as many of the criticisms are related to the work of Sennel – we should refrain from assigning guilt by professional association. Yes? As for the comment “Michael Welner, the psychiatrist they called to testify about Khadr’s state of mind may be, as the defence pointed out, linked to Islamaphobes.” It is contrary to the BLP guidelines to hang contentious edits on may be’s.Stewaj7 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not on a search for "truth". You may consider a trial transcript prepared by a Miltary Tribunal coming from Guantanamo which took over a month to prepare and likely vet to be the final word on what occurred, but the cool words of a transcript will not cover all of the other important aspects of the trial,like demeaner,tone and animation. Right now google shows 19,000 articles that cover Welner and Khadr; 3,700 which cover Welner and Yates,1700 that cover Welner and Elizabeth Smart and 174 that cover Welner and Tager. Your version of the BLP initially devoted more space to Tager. If notability is determined to any extent by publicized accounts aimed at the general public, Khadr is Welner's most notable court case thus far, at least from a public perspective, and much of the international press's reporting has ranged from stunned to amused at Welner's terminolgy which the reporters witnessed and reported. Those reports mst be included,in a sensitive and balanced way, in order for our Readers to get a full and broad summary of what the Reliable Sources reported. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• So, The SPAs' attacks upon my motivation and characterizing my benign edits as attack edits have not only appeared to me to have ad hominem deflective intent, they are also obviously without any merit whatsoever.

• User:Mr.grantevans2 had ample opportunity to clean the content that he himself inserted on his own. Furthermore, my objections to the content have not changed, yet the editor persisted and then put it on me to make right his or her wrong. If the editors edits were honorable and in good faith, knowing the disruptions that they have caused within Wikipedia and the harm that such unsubstantiated comments could do to the subject of the BLP revisions should have been made from the outset. My comments are not directed to his or her motivation, but rather the editors obsession.Stewaj7 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You confuse obsession with interest and a desire not to leave the article in the classic state of promotional puffery(not just my opinion as you are well aware) which it has stagnated in for over 3 years.
    • I am still waiting for your rough draft of what the paragraph should look like so we can get started on a collaberative effort to make it better. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Having said that, I am more than willing to continue to try to collaborate so again I encourage Stewaj7 or whomever to provide a draft of how they think the paragraph in question should read. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Might be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in this BLP editing

As suggested by the protecting admin., I have posted this BLP on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of comments over the past 3 years, including several recent ones from SPAs currently dedicated to this BLP, which may indicate a conflict, perhaps from a professional employment perspective. There is also a series of edits[34] by someone claiming to be Dr. Welnerhimself.I will be putting a notice on the appropriate noticeboard. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

and more recently this:"Many legal circles are aware of Dr. Welner and his work - prior to Khadr, how do you think this editor got involved in editing this page and ensuring Dr. Welner's reputation in the community is not continuosly maligned...? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a few of the many sourcing issues

There are some major problems with the sources being cited in this article, and the use to which those sources are being put. Apart from other problems, such an an abundant an improper reliance on Self-published sources , lets focus just on those sources which provide no support for the text whatsoever:

• This 2007 ABC News interview transcript [35] is used as a source for "he is responsible for a number of forensic psychiatry publications". The source makes no mention of his publications. It cannot be used as support for that statement. The other cited source, a bio at the Nebraska Institute of Forensics at which he is a board member, mentions only that he is publisher and editor-in-chief of “The Forensic Panel Letter”.[36] It provides no basis for the broad assertion about being responsible for "a number of ... publications."
• This blurb at a University of Miami alumni e-publication [37] is being used to support the statement that he graduated early from high school at age 15. It say nothing whatsoever about that.
• This blurb at the Duquesne website [38] is being used to support a statement about his early practice and specialization. It says nothing whatsoever about that.
• Cites to the main page of Forensic Panel [39] are being used for a number of things. That reference is essentially useless, quite apart from issues relating to it being a SPS. The only source it can conceivably be used for is that Welner is its chairman, as that it the only piece of information presented directly on that page. So it is fine as footnote 7. As footnotes 15, 43, 44 and 45 (44 and 45 are to subpages, but are dead links now)
• This Boston Globe article [40] is about Sharpe's suicide. (As an aside, the IL to "Richard Sharpe" is to a disambiguation page - there is no Wikipedia article on this particular Richard Sharpe.) It mentions that Welner stated that he had interviewed Sharpe in 2003 - two years after his 2001 conviction - because his attorneys were concerned about his depression. It says nothing about whether Welner played any role whatsoever in the case, let alone an "influential role"
• This interlocutory order in US v Wilson [41] is being used to support the statement that "Dr. Welner was the principal prosecution mental health witness in all three of the only successful federal death penalty verdicts in the Northeast United States in decades" The order, inter alia grants a defense motion to compel the prosecution to turn over comments of the reviewers of Welner's draft report in the sentencing phase of the case. It does not state that he testified. It does not state that the death penalty was imposed in that case. It says nothing about death penalty verdicts in the Northeast US in decades.
• The Second Circuit Opinion in US v Fell[42] is being used as support for the same statement. Far from stating that Welner was the "principal prosecution mental health witness", it discusses issues relating to proposed testimony and a proposed report by Welner, that he would have been the government's third mental health witness but states that "the government presented no mental health evidence during the penalty phase". The source contradicts the text.
• This Mississippi decision [43] is being used to support the statement that "Dr. Welner has also conducted original research on false confessions, and he has testified in nationally referenced court decisions involving false confession questions. These cases have included Tyrell Edmonds (Mississippi)" The decision makes clear that Welner was not a witness in the case. His name in mentioned in a footnote in the decision as one of a number of people who were not witnesses in the case who have an opinion on the theory of false confession. This provides no support for, and in fact contradicts the text.
• This ABC News article [44] is used to support the following text: Dr. Welner has also devised the WIEEO (Welner Inventory of the Everyday Extreme and Outrageous), a standard for application in clinical psychotherapy to distinguish everyday evil and intent that warrant clinical attention. "Most people's lapses into bad behavior don't qualify as evil, he believes. A normal person might exhibit some of Welner's criteria — ‘choices not to remedy another's suffering,’ for example. But it would be evil only in an extreme case, such as choosing not to help someone who had just been sexually assaulted.While the quoted language is mentioned in the article, there is no mention of a "WIEEO" standard anywhere in the article, and no statement that it is a "standard for application in clinical psychotherapy". There are statements attrubuted to Weiner that he hopes to get feedback on his ideas and "hopes that it eventually" will have applications. The source simply does not support the text.
• This transcript of a speech Welner gave [45] is being used to support the paragraph on Welner's political activites. No mention is made anywhere in that source about his active role in the Perot campaign (something that could easily be sourced - just not by this source), his political activity or lack thereof since then, his writing on public policy issues, or what influence the deindustrialization of Pittsburgh has had on him or his views. The source has nothing whatsoever to do with the text, and appears to be entirely gratuitious. Fladrif (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking that much of the content which is only supported by the inaccurate sourcing which Fladrif identifies above should be removed from the article. Does anyone disagree with such removal?Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly where the text is contradicted by the source, this needs to come out. There are a few more that I would note, among them the text crediting Welner for the news media's coverage of the Virginia Tech killings. The sources say no such thing. The GMA article has a very misleading headline. The actual body of the article does not say that there was any connection between the two, it merely speculates. There is another where the text says that Welner was the first to publish a paper identifying Al Qaeda as a cult - the source is his paper, which cannot possibly conclude that it is the first. A third is that claim about the first three death penalty cases in the Northeast "in decades". The sources don't say anything about that, and in fact the claim is demonstrably untrue. There are more, and there are large portions of the text that continue to be totally unsourced. It is odd that the otherwise dedicated SPA have been notably silent (other than hurling invective and personal attacks at the various noticeboards) about the fact that large portions of the text they added to this article are unsupported by, and in some cases contracted by, the sources they provided. Fladrif (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the sources given do not support the content written in the areas you identify. I also feel the Forensic Echo is a publication which ceased publication 9 years ago and deserves only a sentence in the Forensic Panel section. I am not sure whether it is better to rewrite here and now and ask for edit permission or wait until the protection is lifted to attempt to edit these changes? The SPAs are quite strategic in their edits, from my observation. They will be back, likely with reinforcements, when they feel they can control the content of this BLP. As 1 of them said to me, they feel they are watching over "those working for justice", and, if sincere, that type of devotion is not likely to disappear overnight. Especially when one considers the way in which the promotional efforts on behalf of the Subject have made great use of mirror repetitions among the various publications influenced or controlled by the Subject; and Wikipedia is not just Wikipedia, there are lots of mirror sites to what's said here, as I imagine you are aware. Hopefully the SPAs will join in with some collaborative editing, I also await their reappearance. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you propose specific language, with citations to sources. To facilitate that, without over-burdening this page, I'd suggest that a subpage be created to hold the proposed revised text. I've gone ahead and done that here Talk:Michael_Welner/Drafts I've added a draft lede just because the page needs some text to get started, but let's be clear: I have no interest in editing this article. People should discus the proposed edits, and if consensus is reached, then ask for an Admin to make the change. Do it bit by bit. Fladrif (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No way, you've got too good a handle on this to bail out now;I don't have any inherent interest in it either, but we can't let it stay in perpetual puffery, for several reasons. Especially not now that we know about it, and I don't think I can handle it by myself. It won't take a lot of time if its kept as brief and succinct as you suggest; what do the kids say? suck it up and dig in. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding More Material to the BLP

There is plenty of well-sourced material that could be included in the article,I think, for example in the area of Dr. Welner's published articles and his testimonies before various judiciary committees about mental competency standards in court trials, and much other material on many other aspects of his work as well. Does anyone have any other suggestions as to what areas could be expanded? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the PR flackweasel fluff, sourced and unsourced, be trimmed before anyone starts talking about expanding this article. Compare this article to Henry Lee (forensic scientist), who is a far more prominent and notable person in what amounts to a very comparable field. Lee's article is roughly the size and tone this article should be. That also means that the various controversies should be cut down to size as well - not eliminated, but cut down to size. A meataxe rather than a scalpel may be the appropriate editing tool. Fladrif (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, that's ok with me even though I personally prefer more content, I will work in accordance with what you are proposing .One other matter, I am thinking about asking for a time extension in the protection because I fear that the SPAs will quickly retake control of the content once protection is lifted.I am thinking that until we can reach consensus while under edit protection it is not likely we would be able to edit consensually when its lifted. What do you think about a time extension on the protection? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of page protection is to permit editors time to try to reach consensus. It is unfortunate that the SPA's have not engaged in any substantive discussion of article content and sources since the lock was put in place. If involved editors refuse to discuss the content of the article and then resume edit-warring after the lock is lifted, there are likely to be consequences beyond just an extension of page protection. Fladrif (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not contributed to this talk page as I have been responding to and prevailing against the accusations of Fladrif (talk). I will now take the time to review the entirety of the page and will display my thoughts to you both. Empirical9 (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Folks, it seems to me that much of the edit war has either turned personal between the editors or being driven by mutual tit for tat obstinacy. Fladrif: I think there is some merit in your suggestion to construct a simple, factual BLF without ancillary details or opinions. The other option, as I think indicated by Mr.Grantevans2 is to construct a BLP which is expansive in its parameters. While I think that this is a valid option, it seems that the edit war is being enflamed by the fact that each of the opposing editors (including Mr. Grantevans2 and Stewaj7) have tried to walk a middle path – adding/deleting loaded information to selective topics within the BLP. In line with Fladrif, my suggestion is to simply stick to the facts of the career, list the basic facts of the cases he has worked on and remove sourced or unsourced, positive or negative third party opinions relating to his career or his life. I know that I am a bit late to the ball on this, but if everyone can put the battle gear aside and have some fun working together, I would like to help in the process. Lawblogger18 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Welcome. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lawblogger18’s points are well taken, and think it would benefit the Wikipedia community if all editors, including myself, take a more conciliatory position. I imagine that everyone involved wants to make this BLP a neutral, well sourced, quality page and I think that an assumption of good faith should be reestablished so as not to impede its progress. It seems that the protection that was placed on the page has turned out to be a good opportunity for everyone to cool down so that consensus could be reached. As has been suggested, let’s take it bit by bit.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)