Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

message: Could please discuss the points in each task in the order they appear. Seddon69 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

message: Seddon69: As a stickler for accuracy in editing, the document I sent you does not have a “watchtower” watermark. It has a “watchthetower” watermark. I do not want other editors to have a false impression of this document. 
Second, though I know the document is authentic, I am compelled to point out that having a document that is purported as Franz’s U of C transcript is not evidence the document in question is official. Digital images are extremely easy to concoct. If I want, I could make the document I sent you say whatever I wanted it to say, and look like, and you would not know the difference if you looked no further. As I expressed earlier and frequently to Vassilis78, the only way to know you have an authentic copy of a university transcript is to have that institution issue one to you. Alternately, you could probably accept the document as authentic if it appears in a written work vetted by a reputable institution. This is why the reference details are important. These details are what allow other editors to authenticate the document (just as I did) if they feel it needs challenge. The online version is useful to have a picture to look at, and undoubtedly most readers will probably accept it as valid. But such an assignment of authenticity is less than fragile solely on that basis. Again, though, because reference information makes the document testable it is, then, just fine for an encyclopedic entry as a third-party source. 
You suggest the “title” of the source needs to be changed, but you failed to suggest a title for the document. If you do not accept “University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz” then what do you suggest? Perhaps we could state it as “University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz, 1911-1913”. 
As for the rest of your suggested language, I have no problem with the detail you suggest. One problem is, though, that some of the details on that transcript are a bit hard to make out, even on the document I sent you which is better than the two hardcopy versions I have in my archive. The Latin and Greek credits can be made out, as well as the cataloged item “GK New Testament”. What about the indiscernible items? I asked about these at the time, but did not keep track of the information because it seems relatively useless (typical 100 stuff). I am not making another request on this document through my library, and I am certainly not making another trip to U of C just for this. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Task 1: Marvin’s Response

message: 1. Do you think it appropriate for an article on a given work (the NWT in this case) to include information from primary sources about identities of authors/translators of that work? [My answer to this question is, yes, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the translators have taken reasonable steps to be anonymous, then it certainly isn't our role to identify them. Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addhoc: The reason names of these translators is known is precisely because these men did not take reasonable steps to ensure anonymity. Edited to add: The role of an encyclopedic article is to express information of what is known. The inclusion threshold for information is verifiability. If primary and secondary sources have already made known the identities of the NWT translators then this information is already revealed. Furthermore, the information from primary and secondary sources is not (and should not be) presented as material fact. Rather, it is (and should be) presented as what those sources say. If the sources actually say what an edit asserts of them, then the edit is verified as presented. The edit has not revealed anything. The edit has only expressed information of something that is known. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Addhoc: Clearly R Franz abused his access as a GB member to disclose this information after he left the JW organization and began opposing it actively. And there is no way to verify its accuracy. It has been my argument all along -- the list of names useless as a means of evaluating the NWT and we would simply becoma a party to perpetuating rumor and innuendo. -- cfrito (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is covered by the principle behind Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy.--Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addhoc: This response of yours gives undue weight to one primary source because it assumes it is actually representing the views of a real entity it terms The New World Bible Translation Committee. Your response also assumes these translators took reasonable measures to ensure their anonymity without proving this is the case. This assumption is given undue weight to one primary source compared to another primary (and secondary!) source when the other source(s) asserts the identity of these translators was common knowledge to many people. Edited to add: You may or may not be aware that the individuals alleged as NWT translators (Franz, Knorr, Gangas, Schroeder and Henschel) by primary and secondary sources are all deceased. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Addhoc: There are other considerations such as exceptional sources and so on. R Franz has no documentation nor does Cetnar. Both lists (they do differ) are no more than published recollections in memoirs advocating against a position that both these men once defended, etc. There is also sufficient doubt regrading these names: it could easily be a strawman list synthesized expressly to bait the publisher into breaking its oath to keep the true translators and editors anonymous even after their deaths. Since we know that the identities are the relevant information to the Article, and these cannot be verified, it doesn't matter if we know who synthesized the list. And this is just the tip of the iceberg: for example, the sources are dubious, the lists differ but are both represented as true and complete, and so on. As to reasonable care to protect the information, the "list" has only been leaked by super-privileged-access insiders and only after they each began anti-JW campaigns. For example, R Franz kept silent when Cetnar's list was published by Gruss in 1974: Indeed, the Watchtower organization strengthened its commitment to remain silent along with why in that same year -- And R Franz was a GB member at that time. In the case of R Franz, if the entities were indeed true arm's-length entities, then R Franz would have no right to access confidential documents, but he could easily abused his authority as a Governing Body member to gain illicit access. If he was permitted access because he was a GB member, it would have been because he was indeed bound by the agreement/stipulation of the GB made to the translators which was reaffirmed in print in 1974 in the middle of his GB tenure. Either way, it would take extraordinarily privileged access to gain access to the information -- so it actually demonstrates better than reasonable care. -- cfrito (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding identity information of authors/translators of a written work

message: 1. Do you think it appropriate for an article on a given work (the NWT in this case) to include information from a secondary source about the identities of authors/translators of that work if information of identity is significant enough to address in the first place? [My answer to this question would be, yes, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the translators have taken reasonable steps to be anonymous, then it still isn't our role to identify them. Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addhoc: The reason names of these translators is known is precisely because these men did not take reasonable steps to ensure anonymity. Please review and comment. Edited to add: The role of an encyclopedic article is to express information of what is known. The inclusion threshold for information is verifiability. If primary and secondary sources have already made known the identities of the NWT translators then this information is already revealed. Furthermore, the information from primary and secondary sources is not (and should not be) presented as material fact. Rather, it is (and should be) presented as what those sources say. If the sources actually say what an edit asserts of them, then the edit is verified as presented. The edit has not revealed anything. The edit has only expressed information of something that is known. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is still covered by the principle behind Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy.--Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addhoc: The Wikipedia policy you cite is explicit that biographies should document what reliable third-party published sources present if it is notable, but should go no further. Are you advising contrary to this policy? Edited to add: You may or may not be aware that the individuals alleged as NWT translators (Franz, Knorr, Gangas, Schroeder and Henschel) by primary and secondary sources are all deceased. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Addhoc: As alleged members cannot be notable with respect to this Article. R Franz and W Cetnar (via Gruss) cannot be considered reliable sources. See also Strengths and weaknesses of primary sources. -- cfrito (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding secondary sources

message: 1. Do you think it appropriate for an article on a given work (the NWT in this case) to include information from a primary source when the source presents a significant view that is consistent with other primary sources and secondary sources? [My answer to this question would be, yes, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if there are secondary sources, then you don't require a primary source. Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addhoc: You have offered a non-answer response to the actual question asked. To be clear, the question addresses two primary sources in relation to each other. Please review and offer an answer to the actual question. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Addhoc: These sources are all rooted in recollections from only two dubious sources published in literature that specifically advocates against a position they once defended.
2. Do you think it appropriate for specific information on an issue from one primary source to be included and specific companion information from another primary source to be excluded from an article when both sources are addressing the same issue and the issue is deemed significant enough to express in the first place? [My answer to this question is, no, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not all primary sources are equal. If the NWT publishers have issued a statement, that could be a notable view worthy of inclusion. However, journalistic research has no place in Wikipedia. Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addhoc: No one has suggested that all primary sources are equal. No one has suggested journalistic research, either. Essentially the question asks whether it is appropriate to give equal weight to two primary sources when both sources are reliable and published. Please review and offer comment. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Addhoc: Including the list of alleged translators violates common sense: Which list? Both? Franz's? Cetnar's? Was Henschel a translator or not? How would we know? Both R Franz and Cetnar both say that they had perfect knowledge. Isn't it odd that in an organization that is known for its ability to translate into many many languages that only Governing Body members are listed, and no lesser ones? How can it be used to judge the quality or reliability of the NWT? Why publish it if to make it comply with NPOV standards we have to follow it with strict verbiage that says that the list is unreliable, that the sources cannot be trusted due to extreme conflicts of interest and non-neutrality? Shilmer admits that these men are alleged translators, that they are not the complete list, and that they do not accurately represent the skill set that critics would need to do the evaluations they claim are the impetus for demanding their identities and credentials? What benefit do these names really represent to the Article? The Article is not a dumping ground for speculation and trivia. -- cfrito (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding weight, neutrality and points of view

message: This is specifically to Cfrito. Seddon69 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are you looking for in a source? 

message: Seddon69: What is the status of mediation efforts on the NWT article? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Marvin, I concur the informal mediation efforts have stalled. I notice in the request for comment section you commented "plenty of secondary sources have examined this information and used it as reliable and relevant to the subject of the NWT". Could you provide a link to these secondary sources? Addhoc (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addhoc: you can see examples of these secondary sources, some of which are available online, on my NWT sandbox talk page. The ones available online have links provided. On my talk page you will find direct quotations from each source along with full bibliographic data.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Status?

message: I have placed a RfC tag in the talk page of the NWT article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Following the apparent solving of this dispute are there any objections to closing this case? Seddon69 (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the dispute is resolved. I have no objection to closing the case.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure of MedCab Case