THC Science

Mediation Case: 2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Ckessler 08:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: Shlomo Carlebach

Who's involved?: IZAK and Ckessler.

What's going on?: I (Ckessler) added information on allegations of sexual abuse that were made against Carlebach. These allegations were public, via several news and non-sources. The paragraph added was "Several women have alleged that they were sexually abused by Carlebach, however, these allegations are unproven, and while they were raised privately during his lifetime, they were only made public to the media after his death." (Emphasis mine.)

The paragraph merely states that allegations were made, and says in explicit detail that the allegations were merely that. IZAK took offense to this, due to his bias as an Orthodox Jew.

I did not take offense in the article -- I was objecting to imprecise language, see my detailed responses at Talk:Shlomo Carlebach#Allegations, yet again where I outline my position clearly. But I do take great offense at this last statement that "IZAK took offense to this, due to his bias as an Orthodox Jew" which is sheer baloney! If that is so, then it should be that User:Ckessler must be motivated by a serious anti-Orthodox POV, which becomes very evident from the discussions and from the way she refers to me here. IZAK 10:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?: These edits should stand; the charge of libel and slander is baseless given that the information added to the article merely reports facts as they were reported. The omission of this information gives the article a POV, especially to those who know about the allegations. By reading the talk page, one can see that people have come to the article looking for information on this.

These are not "allegations" in the legal sense, as no charges or trial were ever held and they should not be presented as an accusation against the subject of the article. See my detailed responses at Talk:Shlomo Carlebach. IZAK 10:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: Public discussion is fine.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

Yes, absolutely.

Mediator response[edit]

Thank you both for agreeing to mediation. If either party would like to put into the evidence section any links or citations to publications that support either of your positions, that would be great. Any comments by other contributors to the particular article are welcome in the Comments by Others section.

Evidence[edit]

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Compromise offers[edit]

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others[edit]

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Discussion[edit]

In this discussion, please refrain from any ad hominem attacks on the other person. Also, please refrain from discussing each other's motives for editing: lets focus solely on the merits of Ckessler's attempt to edit based on the facts.

Alright, here's what it appears both IZAK and Ckessler agree upon. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, or am mischaracterizing your statements.

Legitimate publications mention allegations (in the non-courtroom sense) of sexual misconduct on the part of Shlomo Carlebach.

Ckessler opines that by virtue of their publication, they are worthy of mention in the wiki

IZAK opines that they are mere hearsay and amount to slander/libel if mentioned in the wiki

At issue is whether allegations of sexual misconduct published after someone's death (but never taken to court) are legitimate subject matter for a encyclopedic wiki on the person. Here are a couple questions for both of you to start our discussion:

IZAK, what standard of editing would you advocate for a dynamic encyclopedia like Wikipedia? Should allegations only be published after a court trial? Should they be removed when a person is found "not guilty"? I'd also like you to draft a proposed sentence regarding the allegations that you would find acceptable if placed in the wiki, and place it in the "Compromise offers" section.

Ckessler, what degree of concreteness can you bring to the table in terms of specific allegations of sexual abuse i.e. people, time, place, when the allegations were brought up, etc.? I'd also like you to draft a proposed sentence regarding the allegations as well and place it in the "Compromise offers" section.

Thanks again for participating, I hope we can resolve this successfully. Quaere verum 05:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]