User talk:Mr.grantevans2/Archive 2

Human Rights Advocates are not necessarily sympathetic to Khadr

Your sentiments are noted and appreciated; however, the page has been update objectively with information on the Khadr trial. It is free from human rights or any other advocacy. Rather, the present update informs the reader about facts rather than asserting individual arguments or opinions. Furthermore, two reputable sources are provided for further reading. If your purpose is to simply bring the page up to date with information about the trial, purpose fulfilled. Any additional revisions in this regard will be indicative of ulterior motives. RespectfullyStewaj7 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't know if it's the irony or the idea that Canadians might be that naive, but this edit made my day! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Natural Born Citizen

Mr.grantevans2, you may be interested in the discussion taking place on the Natural Born Citizen page, here [[1]] --Britcom 22:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow up

"Please discuss on talk page and seek a consensus before reverting Reliably Sourced content. Please note article needs to be neutral and not a promotional resume".

Reliably sourced content has not been demonstrated, but are editorials and blogs at best. Opinions and advocacy that will be proven to be inaccurate as the trial transcript will soon be available. The addition of malicious content is itself "promotional content".Stewaj7 (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow up on Michael Welner talk pageStewaj7 (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Synthesis

Thank you for the message and advice contained there in. Regarding the use of the words “ridiculed” and “subjective”, if you feel that way please explain why you have posted an adhominem attack by Alex Neve, no more than a partisan observer in the first place, originally using the words “denounced” and “criticized” until another editor inserted objective wording. As a caution, your unctuous advice applies to you as well. Otherwise, you risk positioning yourself as one using tactic meant to deceive the administrators into thinking that you are “following policy”.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I responded on.Stewaj7's(talk)page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

New Edits

“Empirical’s last version is again, disproportionate in length and disproportionate in influence to uninvolved and aggrieved advocates and their subjective views. That there are 12000 google entries to Khadr only reflects upon the proliferation of NGOs and advocates writing dispatches to vent their dismay over the effectiveness of Dr. Welner’s testimony. Elizabeth Smart, a case in which Dr. Welner has assumed an even more pivotal role, has had a far greater impact in society, and it is mentioned here only briefly. Moreover, there are many significant cases, including some not mentioned here, in which Dr. Welner has contributed heavily but the press was not aware of it to write 12000 dispatches. Google hits are not the defining emphasis for a biography – especially when writers are not privy to facts, a person’s life history is. Moreover, this entry on Khadr is more on Alex Neve and his criticism of Dr. Welner. Neve was nothing more than one of many spectators at a trial, offering nothing more than subjective opinion of an official representative of an organization widely known for its advocacy of Al-Qaeda and Taliban figures. It is here to do nothing but to attempt to tarnish Dr. Welner, yet is no different from the advocacy of any aggrieved litigant who loses. Neve, like others including the person who has been attempting to vandalize this site, is at long last a sore loser. That is not what Wiki is about. I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but are now, a hollow sanctimony after prolonged attempts at vandalism. You have no problem with the subjectivity of Neve’s comments as an uninvolved observer. Yet you delete the observations from the bench, on the record, of the presiding judge in the case, who asserted that Khadr’s claims of torture are “quite incredible (emphasis of the judge).” The notable aspect of Dr. Welner’s testimony is that it was: “The first testimony in an American Court on risk assessment that adapted a methodology for radical Jihadism. Dr. Welner’s testimony was admitted without objection from the defense, and his qualifications to render such an opinion were undisputed. The facts underlying Dr. Welner’s opinion that Khadr had shallow remorse, needed deradicalization, and was still resentful and blaming of everyone but himself were never rebutted, nor were Dr. Welner’s assertions about the demonstrated underestimation of future risk in ex-Guantanamo detainees and his explanations for that underestimation. The jury, asked by the prosecution to sentence Khadr to no less than 25 years, was moved enough by Dr. Welner’s ‘powerful, sweeping’ testimony that they sentenced Khadr to 40 years.” These are all facts and speak to the role Dr. Welner played in this case. I will post this to speak to your suggestion that the reader learn more about Dr. Welner’s legacy in Khadr. You may feel that there needs to be more data about why Dr. Welner’s testimony was so powerful and sweeping, I’ll add more from what he actually testified to as opposed to factual inaccuracies from erring news reporters or advocate bloggers. But I still do not think that an accurate biography is served by a disproportionate emphasis on Khadr. At some point, after researching Smart and earlier transcripts, I may post more from this and from other cases that I have access to. I know that his role in Smart was pivotal in a historic matter of psychiatric-legal significance (competency in religious zealots claiming insanity). Thank you for inspiring me to research more into this important figure in American justice.”Stewaj7 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied on Stewaj7's talk page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow Up

I was not aware of the above 'disproportionality' - however, I agree with Stewaj7 that the above detailing of Dr. Welner's tetimony is far more relevant to his BLP than any mention of fees or Alex Neve, who is in no way connected to Dr. Welner and has no place on his BLP. Empirical9 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied on both Stewaj7 and Empirical9's talk pages. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Proposal

Thank you for your synthesis. I will think on it tonight and respond promptly. However, your initial edits of the Michael Welner's page , which are reflected in the history, were aggressive and malicious. This can not be forgotten. If your agenda was to include healthy criticism from the outset, you would have done so. You are clearly intelligent not to make an error such as this. Furthermore, your investment in this singular page to insert "criticism", particularly heightening as the Khadr trial concluded, is more than enough evidence for editors and administrators to question your sincerity. However, I will reflect objectively on your proposal and follow up.Stewaj7 (talk) 02:01, 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 him in this that is not substantiated elsewhere or in multiple places. And there are those in the area of justice for whom less is written. Any discussion of fees is not seen in any of the other pages of comparable professionals, unless there has been some impropriety and Dr. Welner’s fees have not even been challenged by the retaining agencies, much less disputed. The edits and posture reflect a the maligning and petty editing of one 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).Stewaj7 (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have also replied at length at Stewaj7 (talk) so I will now try to condense my responses. 1: We are not supposed to make determinations as to what is "reliable material",I don't think. E.g. If George Bush says Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and it is reported in the Washington Times that "intelligence confirms that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", then that's what we will include in appropriate articles; and we would and should likely also include contrary opinions on that subject if they are also reliably sourced. Then the Reader gets a fuller view to help him or her make up his/her own mind. We are not in the business of pushing one point of view over another. 2: For an Editor who has only ever edited this one article and who tried to freeze out all other Editors for 30days to accuse me, whose edits here are less than 5% of my total, of being "obsessed with Dr. Welner" is too weird and laughable to be taken seriously. And not that it matters, but I have no trouble with the Khadr verdict at all nor with Welner's contributions in Guantanamo. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No need for Khadr Subsection

Your 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 you are creating 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, as you stated it is too influential to pass up.

Each edit you revert proves your 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. Please 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 be mindful of the 3RR rule, which is continuously violated by you as you malign the BLP. Empirical9 (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I responded on Empirical's talk page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fee Section and Guantanamo Section re Welner BLP

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

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 you 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. 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 continuosly 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.

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 you want no consensus to be reached on the BLP; 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 by the advocates of the most recent defendant?

A consensus on inclusion of the above needs to be reached before continuous reinserting and removing of these materials. This is what the talk page is for. Empirical9 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to reach a consensus; I have responded in full on your talk page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

In regards to the 'name calling' - consistently inserting content that can only be seen as meant to malign a BLP is creating a platform for defamation and this editor stands behind that fact.

Regarding fees - as stated in my original note, this editor continues to remind you that a fee section is not included on any expert witness page - please see Park Dietz, Michael Baden, Henry Lee, and Richard Ofshe, who are all highly regarded in the field, as Dr. Welner is. It is biased and intentionally defaming to include content regarding fees. As such and as previously stated, this editor will not take part in research on lesser recevied fees and continues to urge you to be neutral in postings or they will be consistently removed.

Also, this editor is fully aware that much of Toronto and Canada does not sympathize with Khadr, however, in making reference to 'Khadr sympathizing Canada', this editor was referring to you and the propoganist writers who defame the names of those working for justice. Interestingly, while much time has been spent on Dr. Welner and his role in the Khadr case, why has there been no mention of the prosecution team or other witnesses for the prosecution? As an editor for Dr. Welner's page, the level of bias in these edits concerns me and the amount of advocacy for an admitted terrorist, yes I repeat it, is abhorrent. Consensus can and should be reached, but only if agenda is taken out of the equation and you remember that Dr. Welner and Omar Khadr are not intertwined - the case is over for Dr. Welner and, if you continue to read the news, he is continuing to work on another case already. Focusing on Khadr solves nothing.

Regarding the section on Guantanamo, your only response was that it is 'notable' because of all the articles written about his testimony. - Is the inserted paragraph not enough? Why not? As stated multiple times an entire section is not proper, does not belong and should go elsewhere, on Khadr, on Guantanamo, or nowhere for that matter. Its entirety reaks of advocacy - I propose that editors should wait for the transcript to come out and then write something accurate and factual. Empirical9 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you and stewaj7,who is now blocked for sockpuppetry, want to make this an ad hominem discussion?Just for deflection purposes?
• How/who did this content, which came from the Subject's own publishing and which you and stewaj7 keep reverting "malign"? Is Welner maligning himself?

• "Dr. Welner first became involved in the Omar Khadr matter in April, 2010. He reports in his November 5th. 2010 posting to the New England Review that he "consulted to government prosecutors on numerous issues, and the case witnessed a number of pivotal achievements that led to its eventual resolution." Welner said that his involvement "resulted in the first decision of a military court to compel an examination by a prosecution mental health expert in a disputed confession matter" and that the information that he yielded "ultimately had a major impact at the suppression hearing, and the August 2010 opinion by Judge Parrish in which he refused to suppress Khadr's statements" to U.S. interrogators when Khadr was 15.[80]"

• How/who did this content, which you and stewaj7 keep reverting "malign"?

• "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)"

• Who is it that you think is "working for justice"?
• Your repeated chategorization of myself as an "advocate for an admitted terrorist" is what? if not what you accuse me of?
• What is it about you and Stewaj7 wanting to wait for a transcript from Guantanamo. Do you not realize that this is not an archive and that there are many other Reliable Sources? When the transcript is released,feel free to include it of course, but the BLP is not frozen in content until then. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your other user account

Hello Grant,

I see that you forgot your password on User:Mr.grantevans some time ago. You may want to place a note on both of your accounts per WP:SOCK#LEGIT under Compromised accounts and, if you wish, you may have an admin block the old account to prevent someone from hijacking it. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

responded on Editor's talk page Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)