Talk:Jared Diamond/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vengeance Is Ours (2008)

On 21 April 2009, Henep Isum Mandingo and Hup Daniel Wemp of Papua New Guinea filed a $10 million USD defamation lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/04/22/Author_Jared_Diamond_sued_libel_4083.html over a 2008 New Yorker magazine article entitled "Vengeance Is Ours: What Can Tribal Societies Tell Us About Our Need to Get Even?” http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/war/diamond-vengeance.pdf

The single-source article, which was originally intended to be a chapter in his latest book, .http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/new_yorker_under_siege.php The World Until Yesterday, http://www.npr.org/books/titles/167742411/the-world-until-yesterday-what-can-we-learn-from-traditional-societies is an account of feuds and vengeance killings among tribes in the New Guinea highlands. Forbes reported that Mandingo and Wemp “challenge a story depicting them as rapists, murderers and pig thieves.” http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/new-yorker-jared-diamond-business-media-new-yorker.html

The lawsuit came in the wake of an investigation by Rhonda Roland Shearer http://www.imediaethics.org/News/149/Jared_diamonds_factual_collapse__.php alleged inaccuracies in the article, most notably that Mandingo, the alleged target of the feud who was said to have been rendered wheelchair-bound in the fighting recounted by Diamond, is fit and healthy. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/new_yorker_under_siege.php

Science reported May 15, 2009, that in a September 12, 2008 letter to an attorney representing Wemp, “ ‘The New Yorker general counsel Lynn Oberlander agreed, ‘as a sign of good will,’that the magazine would remove Diamond’s article from the freely accessible part of its Web site.’” Balter, M. (2009). "'Vengeance' Bites Back at Jared Diamond". Science 324 (5929): 872–874. doi:10.1126/science.324_872. PMID 19443760. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/24/new-yorker-new-guinea-lawsuit

However, Diamond and the New Yorker stand by the article. They maintain that it is a faithful account of the story related to Diamond by Wemp while they worked together in 2001 and in a formal interview in 2006, based on "detailed notes", and that both Diamond and the magazine did all they reasonably could to verify the story. Furthermore they claim that in a taped phone interview conducted in August 2008 between Daniel Wemp and Chris Jennings, a fact checker for the New Yorker, Wemp failed to raise any significant objections. Balter, M. (2009). "'Vengeance' Bites Back at Jared Diamond". Science 324 (5929): 872–874. doi:10.1126/science.324_872. PMID 19443760.

The lawsuit continued in New York State Courts http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/18/papua-jared-diamond-business-media-new-yorker.html until a few months after Wemp and Mnadingo’s lawyer’s sudden death. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/nyregion/24litman.html?_r=0

By June 16 2010, 14 months after filing, a stipulation to withdraw the case without prejudice or costs was signed by all parties allowing the tribesmen to file new litigation in Papua New Guinea, as reported by The Observer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/06/jared-diamond-tribal-life-anthropology http://www.imediaethics.org/misc/2013/2013.01.06-stip.pdf The Observer originally relied on Diamond’s claim to them that “I am happy to say the case was dismissed."” However, the Ombudsman soon deleted the incorrect Diamond claim from their story http://www.imediaethics.org/images/The_Observer_uk_Diamond_feature.png and ran corrections online and in print: “This article was amended on 9 January 2013 to make it clear that the libel lawsuit against Jared Diamond filed by Daniel Wemp and Isum Mandingo was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/06/jared-diamond-tribal-life-anthropology

Despite, Diamond’s original plan to make it a chapter in his recent book, The New Yorker story about Wemp and Mandingo, although central to its theme, is left out of Diamond’s The World Until Yesterday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/06/jared-diamond-tribal-life-anthropology. On page 88 of the book, Diamond states that he was never involved in any civil litigation with tribesmen, "In my lifetime I have become involved in three civil disputes-with a cabinet maker, with a swimming-pool contractor, and with a real estate agent."

Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

References

-stop-

Comment. That appears accurate to my mind, but is nonethelss whoppingly WP:UNDUE (>50% of the whole BLP?) for a lawsuit that does not currently exist. The only change that seems justified would be to edit the original sentence to replace "dismissed" with "withdrawn." An expansion would more reasonably occur if/when the suit is re-filed and if/when a secondary source covers it.— James Cantor (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to comment: Mr. Cantor: The academic literature refers to this law suit. The pages of academic publications and media data bases are not erased or reduced based on the outcome of the case. The case happened and as The Observer stated is pending in Papua New Guinea. The most prestigious media outlets wrote about it and it is part of history. It needs to be available here in Wikipedia. I look at the guideline for undue. This proposed restoration of what was deleted, with an update conforms to guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically, it's Dr. Cantor, but just 'James' is fine.

Of course, I can be misreading the sources (please point out if/where I am), but it seems like the sources are about the >previous< (now withdrawn) suit. You are correct about academic publications and the media, but incorrect to apply that to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is continually revised and updated. (You may wnat to refer to WP:NOT#NEWS) If the lawsuit is eventually successful (and is reported in the media), it would most certainly merit going on this bio. Allegations reported in the media can also belong here, but (as was previously discussed on this talkpage) cannot be a generic, permanent inpugning of the subject. Again, I am left with the opinion that the prior sentence was fine (except to change "dismissed" to "withdrawn"), and that other changes might become appropriate if/when the case resumes.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

James, I made a qualitative comment. The merits of this case that led to so much academic writing and media reports remain unchanged and apply to Wikipedia. It is not gossip but high quality information in high quality sources. So I don't agree with you. You say no changes are needed except changing dismissed to withdrawn, but ignore that there is no name provided for the New Yorker article or link to it making it difficult if not impossible to find. Why is that ok for you? The source for the lawsuit is behind a paywall--but again that's ok for you too. It is unacceptable that the section was ever deleted. It meets all guidelines. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Although opinions have appeared with people's reactions assuming the reports are true (such as 'he should know better'), but none of those opinions (as far as I can see, again, please correctly if I am missing it) presents any actual information. On wikipedia, such statements constitute WP:GOSSIP, not enyclopedic information suitable for a biography. (See also WP:BLP.) A guilty or other court finding would change that, of course, but as yet there is no finding, or even a filing. Everything you say may indeed turn out to be true and courts may endorse it. When that happens, wikipedia and this page will still be here and be ready for updating.— James Cantor (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The entry presents facts not opinions. I have copied and pasted it here sans links for easier reading Find links in version above. Vengeance Is Ours (2008)

On 21 April 2009, Henep Isum Mandingo and Hup Daniel Wemp of Papua New Guinea filed a $10 million USD defamation lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker over a 2008 New Yorker magazine article entitled "Vengeance Is Ours: What Can Tribal Societies Tell Us About Our Need to Get Even?” (FACTS, supported by links)

The single-source article, which was originally intended to be a chapter in his latest book, The World Until Yesterday, is an account of feuds and vengeance killings among tribes in the New Guinea highlands. Forbes reported that Mandingo and Wemp “challenge a story depicting them as rapists, murderers and pig thieves.” (MORE FACTS, supported by links) The lawsuit came in the wake of an investigation by Rhonda Roland Shearer alleged inaccuracies in the article, most notably that Mandingo, the alleged target of the feud who was said to have been rendered wheelchair-bound in the fighting recounted by Diamond, is fit and healthy. (FACTS-- Our investigation found Isum able-bodied, photos show and Diamond concedes Isum Mandingo is not paralyzed nor in a wheelchair, read Balter/Science article the citation you like)

Science reported May 15, 2009, that in a September 12, 2008 letter to an attorney representing Wemp, “ ‘The New Yorker general counsel Lynn Oberlander agreed, ‘as a sign of good will,’that the magazine would remove Diamond’s article from the freely accessible part of its Web site.’” (FACT, supported by links)

However, Diamond and the New Yorker stand by the article. They maintain that it is a faithful account of the story related to Diamond by Wemp while they worked together in 2001 and in a formal interview in 2006, based on "detailed notes", and that both Diamond and the magazine did all they reasonably could to verify the story. Furthermore they claim that in a taped phone interview conducted in August 2008 between Daniel Wemp and Chris Jennings, a fact checker for the New Yorker, Wemp failed to raise any significant objections. The lawsuit continued in New York State Courts until a few months after Wemp and Mandingo’s lawyer’s sudden death. (ALL FACTS, supported by links)

By June 16 2010, 14 months after filing, a stipulation to withdraw the case without prejudice or costs was signed by all parties allowing the tribesmen to file new litigation in Papua New Guinea, as reported by The Observer. The Observer originally relied on Diamond’s claim to them that “I am happy to say the case was dismissed."” However, the Ombudsman soon deleted the incorrect Diamond claim from their story and ran corrections online and in print: “This article was amended on 9 January 2013 to make it clear that the libel lawsuit against Jared Diamond filed by Daniel Wemp and Isum Mandingo was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending.” (All FACTS, again supported by links) Despite, Diamond’s original plan to make it a chapter in his recent book, The New Yorker story about Wemp and Mandingo, although central to its theme, is left out of Diamond’s The World Until Yesterday. On page 88 of the book, Diamond states that he was never involved in any civil litigation with tribesmen, "In my lifetime I have become involved in three civil disputes-with a cabinet maker, with a swimming-pool contractor, and with a real estate agent." (FACTS, supported by links).

There does not need to be a final status of the law suit for it to fit guidelines. To have the entry as it is now with no information --not even a link to the New Yorker article in question or its title, or a link that is accessible, is unacceptable as I have said. These facts have abundant authoritative sources. The case is part of serious discussion in the media, academic blogs and literature across many disciplines. There is no gossip. The section needs to be restored. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, now that we have come full circle, there is nothing more that I can add. To me, Rhonda's comments increasingly suggest WP:BATTLEGROUND.— James Cantor (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed starting point for dialogue and consensus building

James, I have read the page for Wikipedia values you cite and have taken it to heart. As you likely know, I am inexperienced in the Wikipedia community --although I did give a talk at WikiMania in Alexandria, Egypt, following Jimmy Wales (who gave a great talk BTW. Hard act to follow).

I hope my work on updating the deleted section above that was done at Tiggarjay request at least shows my sincere efforts to enter a dialogue. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I believe that he will be helping with fostering the dialogue here and doing an independent review? Again, I am unfamiliar, and am just learning the process of the community.

So perhaps we can start over in good faith on both sides? I may be wrong, so please explain if I am--that you have communicated to me that no changes, not even the addition of the title of the New Yorker article, cited now as "an article" without link to it, is acceptable to you at this point? Is this correct? However, for your consideration:

Here is what remains of the deleted section:(Emphasis mine).

In 2008, Diamond published an article in The New Yorker, describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea. A year later, two of the men mentioned in the article filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them, seeking $10 million in damages.[23] The Observer reported that the lawsuit "was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending".[24]

23 ^ Balter, M. (2009). "'Vengeance' Bites Back at Jared Diamond". Science 324 (5929): 872–874. doi:10.1126/science.324_872. PMID 19443760.

24 ^ McKie, Robin (January 5, 2013). "Jared Diamond: what we can learn from tribal life". The Observer. Retrieved January 5, 2013.

Please note there is no title nor is there a link provided to the New Yorker article. The reference selected [23] is behind a paywall even though there are many other authoritative links--Forbes, Associated Press among them, that are free and accessible about the case. The tribesmen, who call themselves tribesmen, have names, Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo. However, their names were deleted when the section was removed. They were the only two men featured in Diamond's narrative (not just "two of the men") .

Is it agreeable to you as a starting point for dialogue and consensus building to start with what is there now and ...

1. add more or change reference [23] to another Science article that is not behind a paywall and/or add Forbes, Associated Press reports that are not behind a paywall? 2. add the title and a link to the New Yorker article? 3. add the names of the two tribesmen and change "mentioned" to "featured"?

It would look like this:

In 2008, Diamond published an article, "Vengeance Is Ours: What Can Tribal Societies Tell Us About Our Need to Get Even?” in The New Yorker [add reference] , describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea. A year later, Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo, tribesmen featured in the article, filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them, seeking $10 million in damages.[reference changed or added]. The Observer reported that the lawsuit "was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending".[24]

Thank you for your consideration. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not (as far I have checked them), the facts. The problem is the greatly undo emphasis on the episode, relative to the rest of the biography. Wikipedia has no deadline, and should a case be filed, and should a court come to a decision, and should the media report it, then we should definitely include more fully than with a passing mention. But, there is only a now-withdrawn case. In a short bio like this, that merits only a passing mention, not a blow-by-blow like a Michael Jackson case of national attention. Coverage of the detail you provide would be appropriate only to the lengthiest and most detailed of bio's, not here.— James Cantor (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My response

James, I am confused by what you say above? There are only small additions to one sentence that I proposed? So there is no "overage of the detail." Perhaps you missed it? It is just above but I will repeat it here with bolded words that clearly show the most modest of additions that create reader accessibility.

start

In 2008, Diamond published an article, "Vengeance Is Ours: What Can Tribal Societies Tell Us About Our Need to Get Even?” in The New Yorker [add reference] , describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea. A year later, Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo, tribesmen featured in the article, filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them, seeking $10 million in damages.[non pay wall reference added]. The Observer reported that the lawsuit "was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending".[24]

stop

Given my original position, I think I am being very reasonable here with the spirit of compromise and consensus of the community. James, again appealing to consensus building. I think I understand your view and that you have gotten, based on your view, the entire section taken down. Now just two sentences remain. Indeed, it is now a "passing mention" due to your efforts. However, adding Diamond's article's name, a link to it and the tribesmen names that I have suggested here to conform to proper attribution standards, with all due respect, is not adding a "blow-by-blow " of the Jackson case. It adds the most basic reference information.

Maybe others can weigh in here? It seem to me that naming Diamond's own article, providing a link and reference to it would not only be fair, and still in recognition of James' view, but required here?

As it stands now, since the names and references are missing, it prevents or frustrates people trying to find the case, by keeping information from them.

James, is there any compromise possible for you?

Question for the community: Is deleting a publication's name and a link to it but still mentioning it, and insisting on keeping pay walled references in place, instead of a free one, proper means or remedy for undue weight? It would seem to me the the proper attribution--the name of the article, accessible references and names of people mentioned would be a basic requirement. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed that. Yes, the 3-sentence version seems about right. I would remove the part about pending action, but I think that's overall the correct angle. BTW, cites to paywalled sources is okay on WP.— James Cantor (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

James,

Thank you for agreeing to the changes in the two sentences I suggested as a compromise. However, to now bring up changes in the third sentence (cutting the word "pending" from the Observer quote)opens new negotiations. I thought since you recently approved this sentence, it was not an issue, for you.

I have come very far with my side of the compromise that I feel it a good gesture on your part to let the 3rd sentence stand, as you recently approved it, so we can come to a resolution.

Please consider too: In the Observer article, Diamond himself gave weight to the law suit by mentioning it. He obviously doesn't mind having it appear in a major media publication or he would not have discussed it with the reporter.

Finally, I am sure you are right, pay wall references are allowed. My point is that when there are so many high quality references that do not have a pay wall, it is not fair to insist on only one that unfairly burdens people to pay because there is no free alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To the community: Do I post these sentences now? Tiggerjay said should wait to post until things were settled? But I have heard nothing from him or another editor I wrote? Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

With this edit now done [1], I believe that section is now appropriate for each of BLP, N, and NPOV. Anything more is merely to POVify the section to leave doubts in readers minds based on events have not occurred. I would leave it this way as (by far) the most neutral, and update if/when we have reports of the current status changing.— James Cantor (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

James, You wrote above: " Yes, the 3-sentence version seems about right. I would remove the part about pending action, but I think that's overall the correct angle." We were working together for consensus. But you went ahead and deleted "pending" without answering my questions above or discussing it with me? You also have declared by fiat that the page is complete. By doing this you have reneged on an agreement with me to allow the small additions to the first sentence(comprised of adding the New Yorker article title, reference and an free high quality link for case instead of one behind a pay wall).

Referring to the use of the word "pending," you suggest, without any references, that leaving the word pending in the text "leave[s] doubts in readers minds based on events have not occurred." Again, you have no reference for this speculation and assumption that "events have not occurred." The Observer, an authoritative source and a reference you and Mr. Roe added, did the research and it states as fact that the case is pending. If you speculate that the case is not pending you need a reference for this. You can't just cut based on your personal research or speculations. Last week you had no problem with this word pending. Then suddenly, when we came to consensus on the first sentence, you suddenly wanted to delete it and went ahead and did so without discussing it with me. The stability of achieving consensus and the page itself is undermined when the chain of building blocks constructing agreement are not respected or maintained. James I am confused, I thought Wikipedia pages were created by consensus, argument and community.

Can the the community can help here? Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rhonda on this one. As it currently stands the quote implies (as it did before the correction in the Observer, which I assume is why it was issued) that the case went away because it was weak. But the full quote doesn't say that, it says that it has been temporarily dropped on a technicality and is not yet completed:

Wemp and Mandigo's case was withdrawn by mutual consent after the sudden death of their lawyer but it's now understood that a new lawsuit is pending.

So I would be in favour of extending the quote to "was withdrawn by mutual consent after the sudden death of their lawyer" which gets the same message across as "was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending", but has the advantages of a) actually being a direct quote and b) not making any predictions about the future (which are hard to verify). joe•roe^t•c 15:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I feel strongly about it. My hesitation is that this is one of the open-ended statements that could be there casting doubt forever based on no RS or actual RW situation. That is, we already edit acknowledging that 'anyone can get sued for anything', which (to me) would also cover 'anyone can promise to sue for anything'. Personally, I would not report on such promises/threats/predictions until they have actually come to pass.— James Cantor (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Does my proposed compromise of mentioning the lawyer's death but not the "pending" bit not dodge that issue? joe•roe^t•c 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. It avoids any statement about the state of the case being related to the quality of the case, and does prejudice the future.— James Cantor (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Death of their lawyer" answers a "why" question that the Observer article raises. Without it, the reader is left to wonder. I agree that "pending" isn't necessary if "death of their lawyer" is mentioned; I don't have a huge problem including it, but it's the sort of info that becomes stale rather quickly. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to see further discussions of this point about the Observer's research of the Diamond legal case status and their use of the legal term "pending". According to legal definitions, the use of the term pending means something different than what is being discussed here. One definition is offered here at legalmatch.com: "Generally speaking, yes. If an action or lawsuit is pending, it means that the proceedings have already begun, but a final judgment has not yet been instituted. If an action is pending, and a second action is filed, the first claim may be grounds for abatement of the second claim. " See http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/pending-actions-and-abatement.html.

So given that the arguments are that the legal case does not exist, this definition of the legal term sheds a new light on what the Observer reported as a misunderstanding of the term. If you have a reference that says the suit isn't pending or does not exist then I would support dropping the Observer's stance and description. However, they did a correction of Diamond's claim that the case was "dismissed" (surly they had to be careful and look at legal papers) and after their research concluded it was "pending." We are not doing original research without references here or guessing but quoting an authoritative source, you have already, The Observer. They were declarative (emphasis mine): "This article was amended on 9 January 2013 to make it clear that the libel lawsuit against Jared Diamond filed by Daniel Wemp and Isum Mandingo was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending.

And while we are discussing this, what about what I proposed and Dr. Cantor originally agreed to ("Yes")--the need to name the title of the New Yorker article and reference and link, and providing an authoritative source such as Forbes or Associated Press, to augment the only reference there now that is behind a pay wall?

I proposed this:

In 2008, Diamond published an article, "Vengeance Is Ours: What Can Tribal Societies Tell Us About Our Need to Get Even?” in The New Yorker [add reference] , describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea. A year later, Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo, tribesmen featured in the article, filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them, seeking $10 million in damages.[non pay wall reference added]. The Observer reported that the lawsuit "was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending".[24]

Hup Danile Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo were featured in the article as tribal leaders and killers. It is misleading and underplaying to refer to them as two of the men mentioned in the article

I agree too that it's a good to include the suggested phrase about the death of their lawyer, that is confirmed by the Observer and a NY Time references, since it explains the change of venue. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure we can conclude from the Observer reference whether they were using "pending" in the ordinary sense or (new to me) legal sense. And if we are confused about this issue, then many of the people reading this article likely would be too. I think this is just another reason to avoid using the word "pending" – it is now making a prediction, likely to go stale, and ambiguous. But if we are agreed that saying the lawyer died is sufficient, isn't that point moot?

I have no objection to adding a citation to the original New Yorker article (I think this was only ever an oversight, not deliberate, it is in the list of publications further down the page) and any number of additional citations that support what the Science report says. Adding the full title of the article seems unnecessarily long winded (especially if we're going to cite it inline), but I don't have any substantial objection to that either.

However, as I said to James in the previous discussion, I do object to the use of the word "tribesmen". It's an antiquated term, from when people felt the need to automatically distinguish between "tribesmen" and just "men". I see no particular need to make that distinction here. They are men, they were featured in the article, they are now suing Diamond. What is misleading or obscure about that summary? Surely you're not suggesting we use the words "tribal leaders and killers", which is highly POV? joe•roe^t•c 19:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE to Joe Roe

Joe, Thanks for responding. I appreciate very much that you bring up specific arguments that I can respond to and seem open to discussion. Joe, your wrote, "I am not sure we can conclude from the Observer reference whether they were using 'pending' in the ordinary sense or (new to me) legal sense." In fact, The Observer was making the statement in the clear context of case pending in a correction after they messed up and made a serious error stating it was "dismissed". Think about when a "patent is pending" Everyone knows this is not a "prediction" where people are thinking about filing for a patent. Patent pending means the filers are waiting for it to be final. The Observer obviously did not think their readers would be confused by it, hence why the world's oldest newspaper published it. If the status is "pending" as reported in an authoritative reference, why not quote the authoritative source that did the research and knows how to characterize legal matters (the paper has lawyers that review corrections--especially about legal matters). Moreover, how will the case "go stale" when it is historic, and generated extensive academic and media publications in authoritative sources. Legal cases are judged as important for lots of reasons. Diamond himself mentioned the case to the Observer making it timely and certainly not private. He talked to a reporter about it in a high profile article. It's not like Diamond himself has complained about this civil suit being mentioned in his bio. He discussed being in civil suits (naming three specific cases) in his new book.

You wrote : "But if we are agreed that saying the lawyer died is sufficient, isn't that point [about "pending"} moot?" These are two different points as I read it. The first, about the lawyer dying is why the case was withdrawn. Pending is the case's status. I think both points would be important to include. The Vengeance is Ours is the abbreviated title, not "long winded" --the long sub-title is already cut ("What can tribal societies tell us about our need to get even?”) ." To have the Wikipedia entry say "Vengeance is Ours, an article in the New Yorker" is more clear so people know what article in the New Yorker. To just say "an article" when the article itself has such extensive academic and media publications in authoritative sources, seems like conscious underplaying of the reference, rather than undue emphasis.

Your point about the tribesmen being called tribesmen --"I do object to the use of the word 'tribesmen'. It's an antiquated term, from when people felt the need to automatically distinguish between 'tribesmen' and just 'men. I see no particular need to make that distinction here. They are men, they were featured in the article..."). Indigenous Papua New Guineans call themselves tribesmen. See this report by a tribesmen, Mako John Kuwimb, who is a lawyer from the area and tribe that the New Yorker article discusses. It is co-written with the world anthropology expert on the same Wola area in Papua New Guinea. They wrote, "Tribesmen fight for other reasons, notably to prevent or deter others from subjugating them." See http://www.imediaethics.org/News/170/Rebutting_jared_diamonds_savage_portrait__.php I don't object if you want to add a reference that sayussion s that using the term "tribesmen" in Papua New Guinea is "antiquated" and Diamond and tribesmen should not use it. But absent this, since tribesmen there and Diamond uses the term in the essay why are we censoring it? Diamond new book and the New Yorker article is ALL about "us" [western world law] and "them" [traditional conflict resolution and ways of living]. It is up to us to accurately report this, not correct Diamond behind the scenes without using references. Also the proposed sentence does not make clear these men who have names were featured in the New Yorker article and sued. Why not name them? Aren't they worthy? By not respectively using their names, mentioning the $10 million amount and stating "a year later" suggests that somehow they were money grubbing pests who only at the last minute thought to sue. I also think it should state a date, 2009 not "a year later" for this reason.

Finally, you wrote that my stating "tribal leaders and killers"..."is highly POV?" But these are Diamond's own words. For example in the New Yorker article Diamond stated: "Daniel referred to Isum as an uncle—and so Daniel was not permitted to kill him, or, indeed, any other Ombal clan member, by his own hand. Yet hiring killers to kill Isum was permissible. 'By killing Isum or arranging for Isum’s killing,' Daniel explained..." I am not making editorial judgements here. I thought we are reporting what is in the literature? Diamond himself says "tribesman" and tribespeople. In this case, in Diamond's new book, The World Since Yesterday, as well as in the New Yorker article that was originally supposed to be one of its chapters (according to Balter), Diamond contrasts the legal system in Papua New Guinea and how tribepeople behave legally with the how we resolve conflict in the US.

Adding that the men were tribal people is important for understanding the historical significance of the case and Diamond's personal role in civil conflicts as detailed in his new book. Tribesmen suing researchers because a famed researcher's story is globally available on the Internet, is unique and an important cautionary tale, hence why it resulted in all the literature about it. Has anyone even read Diamond's article? or Balter's article for that matter? On a university web site. http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/war/diamond-vengeance.pdf Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts from an uninvolved editor

I see that the section now reads:

In 2008, Diamond published an article in The New Yorker, describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea. A year later, two of the men mentioned in the article filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them, seeking $10 million in damages.[23] The Observer reported that the lawsuit "was withdrawn by mutual consent."[24]

A few comments:

1. Our time would be better spent adding more material about the The New Yorker article (what did it say? what did reviewers of the article say? ) rather than focusing on a related lawsuit.
2. The amount of text about the lawsuit, above, is about right. The WP:UNDUE policy requires that material in the article be proportioned roughly in accordance with how much the sources cover it. The text on the lawsuit shouldn't exceed, say, 1% or 2% of the article's text, because Diamond has so much written about him on topics other than the lawsuit.
3. WP is not a crystal ball and the article should not devote any text to legal actions (e.g. resuming a lawsuit) that are proposed, or may happen someday. Even lawsuits that are in progress generally deserve no mention. Now, if the lawsuit reached a judgment of some sort, that would be worthy of inclusion. But there is no valid reason to mention a "pending" lawsuit.

In summary, I encourage editors to step away from the lawsuit issue and work on other parts of the article. Imagine if all the effort spent on the talk page discussion above had instead been directed at improving the quality and coverage of this article? Maybe the article could reach good article status! --Noleander (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the much-needed outside opinion. I think this could be grounds for a compromise. Rather than mentioning the lawsuit, which is causing much of the disagreement (rightly, considering this is a BLP and legal matters are touchy), we could focus on the immediate reception of the article, in particular the StinkyJournalism article, and the response to that as described in Balter's Science article (and others, where applicable). This succinctly gets across the fact that that article was very controversial, without getting bogged down in legal semantics. joe•roe^t•c 14:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank for the outside opinion and Joe for your remarks . You wrote : "Rather than mentioning the lawsuit" ...add more "immediate reception of the article, in particular the StinkyJournalism article, and the response to that as described in Balter's Science article (and others, where applicable)." I have disclosed I am author of this report AND I am against such a solution. Having the links to a couple of these authoritative sources in the three sentence we have now provides enough here to allow people to inform themselves to the details if they want them, in my view.

In the interest of compromise, let's stick to editing the three sentences and incorporate the suggested changes: drop the "pending" from the 3rd sentence and do as Joe Roe (and others) suggested use alternative language "was withdrawn by mutual consent after the sudden death of their lawyer". Also cut the subtitle, to further incorporate the group's wishes and cut the word "tribesmen" as Joe wanted. Given that Diamond himself discussed the case with the Observer on Jan 5 2013, the single brief description below surly is not undue emphasis.

Here is my new proposal offered for consensus :

In 2008, Diamond published an article, "Vengeance Is Ours" in The New Yorker [link to reference that is already below], describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea. In 2009, Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo, indigenous people featured in the article, filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them, seeking $10 million in damages.[non pay wall reference added]. The Observer reported that the lawsuit "was withdrawn by mutual consent after the sudden death of their lawyer." [24]

Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The above proposal is not ideal. There is no need to identify individual plaintiff's names, nor the amount of the suit. Maybe something like:

In 2008, Diamond published an article, "Vengeance Is Ours" in The New Yorker, describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea. [Add more details about the article's content]. [Add details about reviews/perception of article]. In 2009 two indigenous people featured in the article filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them. The lawsuit was withdrawn by mutual consent in 2012.

This text here emphasizes the content of the article, and mentions the lawsuit as ancillary. Don't forget that the WP:BLP policy requires extra caution when adding material that could defame living persons ... the suggestion that Diamond is a liar or a sloppy researcher is defamatory; and anyone can file a lawsuit. So anything beyond saying "a lawsuit was filed" verges on violating the WP:BLP policy. --Noleander (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, I agree with your recommendation. Thank you. The Observer does not mention a date of 2012 so a reference would be needed to add it. I know of none. So how about just leaving what Roe originally proposed for this sentence: "The Observer reported that the lawsuit 'was withdrawn by mutual consent.' "

Also to the community, who will add what Noleander suggests, if you agree to this consensus suggestion? In the interest of achieving consensus, I feel others should draft it. But I am happy to give feedback, if needed, on available high quality references. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been two days. I find it odd that no one in these discussions has responded to the "uninvolved editor" Noleander's efforts for consensus? I compromised my view again and proposed incorporating what Noleander proposed. Where is the feed back from Joe Roe or the others? Do I start editing again if no one suddenly cares? Noleander, what do you suggest are next steps in this process? Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Many editors only visit WP every 2 or 3 days. So if 3 days go by, and other editors have not registered any objections, you are generally free to edit the article, provided your edits are consistent with the points made above. Personally, I feel that the most recent proposal I made is most consistent with WP policies, but that is just my opinion. --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel like we are going around in circles. If I'm not mistaken, Noleander's suggestion + Rhonda's tweak boils to down to exactly what is in the article now, except with the name of article inserted, some extra references, the word "indigenous" inserted and the damages removed. Those are trivial changes which I don't think anyone has objected to, so I'll go ahead and make them.

However Noleander's placeholders for [Add more details about the article's content] and [Add details about reviews/perception of article] take us right back to the beginning of this discussion and the dispute over what length we should devote to the Vengeance is Ours controversy in terms of avoiding weight. Leaving things open for unlimited "detail" to be added on this controversy is a flat reversal of the previous consensus to reduce it to two or three sentences, which I thought everyone was agreed on just a few days ago! joe•roe^t•c 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I had the very same thought.— James Cantor (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My proposal for small changes was never accepted, as is plain to anyone who reads this page. Joe, I also think your suggestion of the fuller quote referring to the death of their lawyer should be included.

This is what I proposed before Noleander's suggestion.

In 2008, Diamond published an article, "Vengeance Is Ours" in The New Yorker [link to reference that is already below], describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea. In 2009, Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo, indigenous people featured in the article, filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them, seeking $10 million in damages.[non pay wall reference added]. The Observer reported that the lawsuit "was withdrawn by mutual consent after the sudden death of their lawyer." [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe Roe: Not fair that you reject Noleander's suggestion but incorporate his cuts.

Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I incorporated his cuts because you seemed to agree with them, but I will admit I have completely lost track of what exactly you would like to see changed and who agrees with what.

I don't think we are getting anywhere. At this point the best thing to do might be for Rhonda to write a request for comment with a succinct statement of what changes she is proposing, and we can get the opinion of more people than the four of us. joe•roe^t•c 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion, my compromise again. 2 small additions which will settle this for me. I accept new cut from Noleander, of "seeking $10 million in damages."

1. add to second sentence. "In 2009, Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo," ...

2. end of third sentence add, as Joe Roe suggested earlier, "after the sudden death of their lawyer."

Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe Roe, do we really need a rfc? I am ready to settle for the two small changes cited above (one of which was your idea). Otherwise in a rtc, I am with Noleander's suggestions for additions and cuts as there is not enough information left from the original stable section that was cut on Dec 31 2012 (by you and James Cantor) to cover this significant topic in high quality academic and media sources about the New Yorker article and the libel lawsuit that Diamond himself talks about in Jan 2012, The Observer. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with those two changes. joe•roe^t•c 15:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

great thanks. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe Roe, I just checked the small changes you made. My first addition that you agreed to was only done in part. Leaving "a year later" suggests a POV that they waited a long time to file. As remedy, as you agreed, I suggested "In 2009..." for a NPOV. Joe, since we agreed upon my two addition above, would you kindly change this? Thank you. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed that facet of the conversation. It wasn't intentional, I just thought it was poor style to start three sentences in a row with "In XXXX, ..." Again, I have no objections to such a minor change.

But it seems Noleander has gone and reverted that part anyway, so we had best wait until he explains himself. Joe Roe (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Naming individuals

Thanks Joe Roe. Indeed, as we are reaching consensus, this is puzzling since Noleander wanted "[Add more details about the article's content] and [Add details about reviews/perception of article]" --which is a ton of detail to add back from where this whole thing started (when the entire section was deleted on Dec 31, 2012). For me, adding the names of the men featured (not just mentioned) in Diamond's article added the bare minimum detail to not have to add "[Add more details about the article's content] and [Add details about reviews/perception of article]." The "In 2009..." can be edited so not three in a row, no problem for me.

Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Naming the two plaintiffs is not encyclopedic. Readers dont care. The section should read something like this:

In 200x, Diamond published article VIO in the New Yorker. The article described acts of vengeful warfare in the XYZ region of PNG. The article described two groups M and N that waged warfare sporadically for YY years from 19xx to 19yy. Diamond wrote the article in 200x relying on interviews he conducted in the year 200x, conducted without tape recorders. The article suggested that the behavior in PNG shed light about human nature in general, and the propensity for violence in the Western world. The article was reviewed by Person A who said it was informative and instructive. Persons C and D, however, criticized the article for poor scholarship practices. In 200x, a lawsuit was filed by two of the persons Diamond mentioned in the article, claiming that the article defamed them. The lawsuit was withdrawn in 200x, according to Person C, because "of the death of the plaintiffs lawyer",

That would nice and encyclopedic. I know that the lawsuit is interesting to some people, but to put in more material about the lawsuit than about the article itself is absurd. Specifically: concerning the two plaintiffs: Why name them? I presume Diamond's article mentioned 20, 30, 40 people from PNG. Should the article name them all? Why spend so much time on the lawsuit? Why not insert one or two sentences that give a detailed synopsis of the article? Who were the prominent people/groups mentioned in the article? What part of PNG were they from? What years did the alleged acts of vengence take place? What kinds of interviewing practiies did Diamond employ? Ignoring all this fundamental encyclopedic information, and continually adding detail about a lawsuit that (a) is currently not active; (b) never resulted in a judgement; and (c) is libelous to Diamond's reputation ... that's not right. --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The only reason this article, out of the literally hundreds of similar pop. sci./science journalism articles Diamond has written over the years, is notable enough to be singled out in Diamond's biography is the controversy that surrounded it. The lawsuit is the integral component of that controversy. Other than Ms Shearer's article, I'm not aware of any other RS publications reacting directly to Diamond's original piece (positive or negative), but there are many sources covering the fallout/lawsuit. So I see two problems with your proposal:

1. Ignoring the lawsuit and its plaintiffs is ignoring what makes this event notable for inclusion in the first place. Contrary to your presumption, Diamond's article did deal almost exclusively with Wemp's recollections and he and Isum are two of the half dozen or so named individuals in the piece (you can read the article here, by the way), so it wouldn't be out of place to name them even if they hadn't sued him. You assert that too much detail on the lawsuit—but apparently not the controversy as a whole—is unencyclopaedic, but how? I understand the need to tread carefully around a lawsuit on a BLP (which brings me to my next point), but I'm not aware of any policy that says such things shouldn't be mentioned at all.
2. You are suggesting that we expand the space devoted to the article to close to the length of the section it had until this January, which as discussed above is undue weight for a controversy of minor, and rapidly fading, significance in the context of Diamond's career as a whole.

Again, I have the feeling that we're going around in circles. A lot of your proposal for how the section should read doesn't make sense in context and, in the politest way possible, I'd encourage you to actually read the relevant sources and the voluminous discussion about the section you are now dictating to us. Joe Roe (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but WP:BLP prohibits us from putting in material that suggests that Diamond is a fraud unless there are outstanding sources. All we have is a lawsuit that has been dropped and some blogs. The fact that an editor of this article is one of the severest critics of Diamond, and apparently initiated the lawsuit makes this whole issue very suspect. Maybe we should initiate an RfC and get input from additional editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I created an RfC below. --Noleander (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! Noleander, You better retract your false suggestion that I "apparently initiated the lawsuit." My report LEAD to tribesmen and their tribal lawyer suing which is quite different. Please correct yourself here. You also write, "All we have is a lawsuit that has been dropped and some blogs." Wrong again. There are plenty of high quality references about the Vengeance article and with the lawsuit mentioned. See for example Anthropology Today, "Moral dilemmas and ethical controversies," by Stuart Kirsch, December 2009 – vol 25 – no 6. There have been MULTIPLE articles in both Nature and in Science. Plus more to cite... It would be helpful to either ask for examples in Talk or do the research before declaring that there are no "outstanding sources." . Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Photograph

Is it acceptable to scan a photo from my copy of a book?

Probably not as it is copyrighted.Bkkeim2000 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we take a photograph from flickr.com? There are a couple of suitable ones there, e.g. [2], which has the Creative Commons "non-commercial attribution" license. -- Ngio 11:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this photo?

Jared Diamond speaking at University College London

HiraV (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Is BLP violated by mentioning dropped lawsuit against Diamond?

Can the 2009 libel lawsuit against Diamond be mentioned in the article without violating the WP:BLP policy? If so, how much detail should be included? --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Background

In 2008, Diamond published an article in The New Yorker entitled Vengeance Is Ours. In 2009 user User:Rhonda.R.Shearer and others investigated Diamond's research and concluded it was fraudulent and defamatory. Shearer's web site has a page on her accusations here. Shearer's claims led two persons to sue Diamond for libel for $10 million (perhaps Shearer participated in initiating the lawsuit?). The lawsuit never reached judgement, and recently the lawsuit was dropped. A source says it was dropped because of the death of an attorney. Some editors maintain the lawsuit may be revived in the future. Shearer and other editors are attempting to insert material into the Diamond article about the lawsuit. The question is: Can the lawsuit be mentioned in the article, and if so, how much detail should be included without violating the WP:BLP policy? --Noleander (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not quite accurate. The question is whether to retain information about the lawsuit, as until 31 December 2012 it was covered in some detail. At that point, User:James Cantor and I agreed that, after several years in a stable form, an entire section on the controversy surrounding Diamond's article Vengeance is Ours (which centred largely around the lawsuit) was now undue weight and decided to reduce it to a few sentences. User:Rhonda.R.Shearer became involved only recently when she corrected a statement about the current status of the lawsuit and then attempted to reinstate more detailed coverage. Since being made aware of WP:COI she has limited herself to the talk page. Eventually a compromise was reached on the level of coverage Vengeance of Ours on the whole should receive, but there remains the question at to whether WP:BLP allows us to cover the lawsuit and in what level of detail. Joe Roe (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. The question still remains: how much detail about the lawsuit should be in the article? --Noleander (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, Again, what are your sources for your reckless speculation about me. You don't know what you are talking about--"(perhaps Shearer participated in initiating the lawsuit?)" Please correct this error NOW. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've stricken the text above. --Noleander (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Only a very brief mention, with no details - The WP:BLP policy requires negative material about living persons to be extremely well sourced. The lawsuit alleges that Diamond, a professional author and anthropologist, is a fraud and liar made a large number of major factual errors and defamed several people. The lawsuit never reached a judgement, and in fact was recently dropped. Including anything other than the briefest mention of the lawsuit violates the BLP policy. See also WP:Libel which states "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." Specifically, giving details about the lawsuit's contents or plaintiffs adds legitimacy to the lawsuit that is not deserved. The fact that Shearer herself, who participated in initiating the lawsuit, is involved in attempts to insert details about the lawsuit, is very unsettling and raises conflict of interest issues. --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I am in support of Only a very brief mention, with no details if lawsuit is supported by reliable independent or secondary source, and mention or inclusion is not done by Shearer. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you read the legal papers, the assertion is not that Diamond is a fraud and a liar. It simply lists Diamond's facts --like that Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum are killers, responsible for 30 deaths, in a tribal fight about a pig in a garden--and says they are wrong and libelous. The lawsuit was never dismissed for lack of merit over 14 months. After their lawyer died, the suit was withdrawn (agreed upon by Diamond , New Yorker and the tribesmen) without costs. The Observer, an outstanding source, reported the most recent status. Diamond himself discusses the lawsuit in The Observer/Guardian article in Jan 2012, very much keeping the topic fresh and alive. If he himself discusses it publicly then it must be fine here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk • contribs) 02:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry typo the Observer article was Jan 2012 Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The lawsuit and associated sources do claim that Diamond is a liar. Your own website contains many assertions such as the following: "Jared Diamond … published lies", "Jared Diamond's Factual Collapse", "Revenge Tale Untrue", " analysis … indicate the quotations attributed to Daniel Wemp … are fabrications", "Even though Diamond’s article says the quotations by Wemp were made in 2001-2002, this was untrue", "Let’s examine just one example of the seriousness of Diamond’s errors ..", ... and many more.

Anyone can file a lawsuit ... the fact that it was "never dismissed for lack of merit" (your words) is besides the point. The essential fact is that he was never found liable by any judge or jury. Accusing a living author of making tons of factual errors is a very serious allegation.

As for the Jan 2013 Observer article, your claim "Diamond himself discusses the lawsuit". But that is not true - the article reads:

The case caused a flurry among science journals but has since fizzled out. Diamond blinks and looks pained when I mention the name Rhonda Shearer. "A distinctive person about whom I shall refrain from commenting," he mutters. Wemp and Mandigo's case was withdrawn by mutual consent after the sudden death of their lawyer but it's now understood that a new lawsuit is pending. There is no mention of the Wemp tale, although highly relevant to Diamond's thesis, in The World Until Yesterday. Caution appears to have won the day.

You are misrepresenting what the sources are saying in order to get defamatory material inserted into the article. You seem to have a personal vendetta against Diamond that started with publicizing a lawsuit and now is carrying into this WP article. --Noleander (talk)

• It should only be mentioned if high-quality, reliable, independent sources mention it, or perhaps (stressing, perhaps) if the BLP subject himself does, other than in passing. Nothing that relies on self-published material, blogs, personal websites etc (per WP:BLPSPS), or that relies on court documents (per WP:BLPPRIMARY), should be included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of reliable, neutral sources (beyond Shearer's own web site) that mention the lawsuit - which is why my own recommendation above is to include a brief mention. --Noleander (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, The Observer article quoted Diamond talking of the lawsuit BEFORE the correction. Here is the original Observer text that you quoted incompletely, not realizing Diamond's quotes were deleted when the correction was posted.

"The case caused a flurry among science journals but has since fizzled out. Diamond blinks and looks pained when I mention the name Rhonda Shearer. "A distinctive person about whom I shall refrain from commenting," he mutters. "That was the first and only time I have been sued. I am happy to say the case was dismissed." However, there is no mention of the Wemp tale, although highly relevant to Diamond's thesis, in The World Until Yesterday. Caution appears to have won the day."

I can send you the pdf of the original article. I also have the original document with email from the Observer Ombudsmen stating that he removed these Diamond quotes. The correction was to remedy Diamond's false claims about lawsuit being dismissed. Observer Correction: "This article was amended on 9 January 2013 to make it clear that the libel lawsuit against Jared Diamond filed by Daniel Wemp and Isum Mandingo was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending."

So you can apologize now. Again, before making accusations you should ask questions since you are not that familiar with the facts here, just as Joe Roe suggests. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, One fact you should consider in addition to noting that accusing a living author of factual errors is serious. New Yorker and Diamond could have demanded retractions, corrections or sued for libel? Our media ethics news web site nor I have EVER been asked for a retraction or correction or sued by the New Yorker or Diamond since we published in 2009. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, --please srike out NOW> "The fact that Shearer herself, who participated in initiating the lawsuit." Also strike out your false charge you based on your error: "You are misrepresenting what the sources are saying in order to get defamatory material inserted into the article. You seem to have a personal vendetta against Diamond that started with publicizing a lawsuit and now is carrying into this WP article. --Noleander (talk)" 208.105.82.94 (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Found the link to a screen save of the original Observer article that quotes Diamond discussing the lawsuit against him, Jan 2012. http://www.imediaethics.org/images/The_Observer_uk_Diamond_feature.png Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should not be used to right great wrongs, and discussion in this RfC is beyond repair—my suggestion would be to abandon the RfC and start again with a concrete proposal. It would be very hard to meaningfully comment on a generic proposal when an advocate is posting walls of text. Whether a lawsuit can/should be mentioned completely depends on the wording of the "mention", and the reliable sources used (which, of course, need to be independent secondary sources). Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a more concrete RfC would be more productive. But this particular RfC may be instructive to help decide what that concrete proposal is. For instance: Should the plaintiffs be named? Should the dollar amount be mentioned? Should the article state that the plaintiffs may re-file? Should the article state that the suit was dropped because their attorney died? Should the claims in the lawsuit be repeated? My inclination is to leave this RfC open for awhile (3 weeks maybe?) to get input from uninvolved editors, then make a concrete proposal based on that input. --Noleander (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• brief, one sentence mention, just the facts. Soosim (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"COI allegations should not be used as a 'trump card' in disputes over article content." Wikipedia:No personal attacks Finally, "Importance of civility: During debates on articles' talk pages...disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks" Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

References

* The lawsuit existed and was then ceased We stick to simple facts in BLP (or ought to do so) Was he wrong to rely on anecdotes in an article? Maybe - but a New Yorker article != major scholarly publication. Dollar amunts and names of non-notable litigants are not really important, and may, in fact, violate the BLP rules about those individuals. Collect (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC) (note amended opinion below) Collect (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: As far as iMediaEthics goes, this is more than Shearer's personal website. It's a somewhat notable source, and probably (by and large) is an appropriate source for Wikipedia. However, it shouldn't be the sole source (or major source) for controversial information about a BLP.

  In 2009 the lawsuit seemed like a big deal, and got a lot of coverage, but other than Diamond's use of the word "dismissed" in a recent newspaper article about his new book (and there's no way for us to determine whether it was imprecise choice of words, wishful thinking or intent to mislead, so it's really not noteworthy), this issue wouldn't be on the radar today. In an article that simply skips Diamond's (quite notable) scientific contributions, dedicating more than a sentence or two to the lawsuit seems to give it undue weight. I don't think that mention of the lawsuit violates BLP. There are plenty of 2009-vintage sources. But in an article this short, going into any depth at all about it violates WP:UNDUE. Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Certainly criticism of the writing of a prominent science writer is reasonable to include, the lawsuit is almost a side issue to that. The real problem here is UNDUE. The section, in my opinion, would be perfectly fine in a thorough article about Diamond, but we have a pitifully short article about a very prominent figure, so until we expand it to its proper length, a brief mention (though one longer than the one sentence version certainly) is all that we can sustain. Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include the lawsuit, but include criticism from other reliable sources. I don't see any need to reference a lawsuit with a nebulous outcome. There are other reliable sources that can be used for critiques of Diamond's work and those are appropriate for inclusion. Andrew³²⁷ 16:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Brief mention The monetary amount doesn't belong and the significance of any fact should be backed up by RSs. I'd support a sentence mentioning that there was, in fact, a lawsuit. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Not unless the lawsuit went somewhere Lawsuits of harassment, carrying outlandish claims, against prominent public figures are an unfortunate fact of modern American life. Unless the lawsuit actually resulted in a judgment against, or some sort of admission, I think we should leave them out, per our requirement under WP:BLP to be judicious about these things. Ray^Talk 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• No mention As a lawsuit which is never heard or pursued in a court of law would lend credence to an implicit charge of libel - which Diamond can not answer. The bit abut any Wikipedia editor is, of course, irrelevant to the overriding WP:BLP requirement that we be conservative in such articles. Do some BLPs have such stuff in them? Yep. But that does not make it proper per policy. Collect (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• No mention of the lawsuit, although the dispute should be mentioned (briefly). WP:BLPCRIME is pretty clear that unless there is a definitive judgement, Wikipedia shouldn't even hint at any criminal wrongdoing by the person. FurrySings (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• No mention of the lawsuit. BLP articles demand special care with respect to reliable sources; many of those cited here are clearly self-published, and hence, even if the person publishing is reliable, cannot be used. Court records cannot be used. Plus, WP:BLPCRIME. Abhayakara (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• The issue is weight. Where a legal action has received extensive coverage, then it should be mentioned, referenced to secondary sources. But I do not see that coverage. TFD (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure

FYI, I am making some (hopefully!) non-controversial edits to this article. For full disclosure, Diamond is a member of my extended family, so I see him every few years at family gatherings. As I am also a Wikipedia administrator, I understand full well the issues of COI, so if anyone has trouble with my edits, I encourage you to speak up, and I'll happily take things to the talkpage or allow others to review and/or make the edits. At the moment though, it's looking like the article is much in need of further sourcing, and I can probably help provide those sources, so I will help as I can. --Elonka 18:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thinning the Awards section

The Awards section, in my opinion, is a bit long right now. Diamond has definitely won many awards, but some of the ones listed there are fairly obscure, and/or difficult or impossible to source. Would there be any objection to thinning the section out a bit, to only include the major (and/or well-sourced) awards? --Elonka 18:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm done thinning the awards section. I removed several for which there were no easily available sources, and added refs to several others. There are a few that are still missing refs, but since they are major awards that are covered in other sources, I think are unlikely to be challenged. If anyone does wish to challenge any of them though, please feel free, and I'll see what I can locate. --Elonka 06:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the Criticisms section?!

Why is there no mention of the major criticisms of Diamond's work as being environmentally determinist and white supremacist?

1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490
2. https://www.academia.edu/4927223/F_k_Jared_Diamond (Same as above, but no paywall)
3. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/ggs
4. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n22/james-c-scott/crops-towns-government (This by a well know academic geographer)
5. http://artthropology.tumblr.com/post/23956553815/fuck-jared-diamond-and-his-white-supremacist
6. http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/jim-blaut-on-jared-diamond/
7. http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/guns-germs-and-steel/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.123.19 (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 

Early life and education

The last sentence in the section "Early life and education" reads:

"He attended the Roxbury Latin School and earned a Bachelor of Arts from Harvard College in 1958 and a PhD on the physiology and biophysics of membranes in the gall bladder from Trinity College, University of Cambridge in 1961."

I don't know if advanced degrees are described differently in England than they are in the U.S., but usually degrees from American universities are described as being in one (or perhaps two) fields of study. The phrase "on the physiology and biophysics of membranes in the gall bladder" sounds like the topic of a doctoral thesis rather than a field of study. Usually the topic of a thesis is just one specific topic within the field of study. Unless doctoral degrees are described in England simply by naming the topic of the thesis, I would be interested to know the field (or perhaps fields) of study in which the doctoral degree was earned. The topic of the doctoral thesis can be mentioned after that. CorinneSD (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

British PhD programmes are a bit different from American ones. There are no taught courses or examinations, it's just research, so the topic of the PhD and the topic of the thesis are one in the same. Joe Roe (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jared Diamond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005160948/http://www.aka.fi/en/about-us/scientists-behind-the-research/academicians-of-science/ulkomaiset-tieteen-akateemikot/ to http://www.aka.fi/en/about-us/scientists-behind-the-research/academicians-of-science/ulkomaiset-tieteen-akateemikot/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality questioned

I'm aware that the archives include discussion about controversies, all of which have been removed from the current text except for the lawsuit.

But even with that still in the article, the average reader would go away from this article believing that Diamond's books have widespread academic acceptance, as there is no criticism of any of them in the article. A very quick search shows that that is incorrect.[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

I'm also removing the section with the big quote on his views as I don't think it's encyclopedic - is it widely quoted? Or did someone simply like it? Doug Weller talk 10:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If I recall correctly the previous discussions were almost entirely about his 2008 article Vengeance is Ours, Rhonda Roland Shearer's criticism of it, and the related lawsuit. That is now cut down to a couple of sentences in the "Works" section, which I think is appropriate.

I don't think the article has ever adequately covered the criticisms of his books, which I agree it certainly should. The criticism sections from the articles on his individual books would be a starting point, although they're a little underdeveloped too. – Joe (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, they seem a bit underdeveloped. I can see why you moved the NPOV tag down but I think that if we did reflect the criticism of his work in his article then that would be reflected in the lead, and thus at the moment the lead is NPOV. I don't know if I'll have time but I'll put it on the list. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jared Diamond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503130745/http://www.expo-cosmos.or.jp/jusyou/1998_e.html to http://www.expo-cosmos.or.jp/jusyou/1998_e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jared Diamond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130908062215/http://www.suunews.com/news/2012/mar/04/tanner-lecturer-will-present-tuesday/ to http://www.suunews.com/news/2012/mar/04/tanner-lecturer-will-present-tuesday/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://newbooksinhistory.com/?p=1858

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Upheaval" summary

I can't find it now, but I remember hearing a summary of Upheaval that included the claim that there are four existential risks currently facing humanity and civilization:

• Nuclear war and Armageddon, leading to a nuclear winter and famine, during which 98 percent of the survivors of the nuclear war would starve to death.
• Climate change caused by human activity.
• The lack of sustainability of global agriculture and fishing practices.
• Income inequality.

If I heard correctly, Diamond claimed that we need to rapid progress in all four of these areas if civilization is to survive. I think a summary like this of that book would be a valuable addition to this article, assuming it's accurate.

Sadly, I don't see myself finding the time in the near future to confirm this and add it to the article. I hope someone else will. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy, added. Found an interview the confirmed the risks. Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Age template in lead?

Is there any reason why the first sentence uses the {{Age}} template to give his exact age ("83")? I haven't seen this in other BLPs. Per MOS:TOPRESENT, the {{Age}} template is normally used in the Infobox (rather than the lead). Muzilon (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that's wrong. It was an edit in late December and I have reverted it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Journalist with same name

Do we need to disambiguate this person from another Jared Diamond, the baseball writer for the Wall Street Journal? This person does not seem to have his own page at present. Johnoandrews (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If we don't have an article on the other Jared Diamond, there's nothing to disambiguate. If one is created, we can had a hatnote with {{about}} or a similar template. – Joe (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

References

NPOV

There have been critical reviews of Guns, Germs and Steel yet you wouldn't know it from the article. Likewise other books of his. His environmental determinism isn't discussed at all, just a see also to Environmental determinism which has an editor's description of Diamond's arguments but does have a couple of paragraphs of criticism. I don't see the words "racism" or "conquest" in the article. There's a review symposium here.[8] "Marketing conquest and the vanishing Indian: An Indigenous response to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse" is here[9] and I can provide a copy. There's a lot more. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tagging the whole article though? Why not just tag the sections on GGS and Collapse? Why does "racism" need to appear in the article, specifically? That's a label we don't throw around lightly on a BLP. I note that this journal is dedicated to "strengthening a Left politics broadly defined", which is a bit odd. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why should racism or conquest be mentioned? Is this connected with the assertion that agricultural practices can easily transfer east/west, but not north/south? Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: a lot of his work was meant to be anti-racist as I recall, others thought it failed. See T. J. Jackson Lears review here for instance. Or[10][11][]https://www.jstor.org/stable/43735681?seq=1]. This blog probably can't be a source but it might be useful.[12] @Crossroads: I hope these help. And I only did a quick search. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it hard to read rubbish like that first review. What specifically would be worth recording here? Diamond can hardly be blamed even if "played to the racial liberalism of upper-class professionals" were known to be true. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Diamond has effectively uncouple old notions of environmental determinism being necessarily linked to racist colonialism. How could any social and economic system NOT be linked to environment and the available resources in that environment? This is right at the core of contemporary notions of sustainability e.g. Brundtland Commission that derive much of their understanding from indigenous experiences (i.e. not racist at all). The revival environmental determinism of Diamond need not be a justification for racism and conflict. Rather, it is more of a call to focus more on local environments, indigenous peoples, and the sustainable practices they might engender. A good example of local indigenous domestication in the Senegambia Region and subsequent influence in the US South and elsewhere in the Americas is in Black Rice. I see no point in debating the shortcomings of Diamond's book here but rather reserve the detailed debate for the book's page itself Guns, Germs and Steel. A simple statement here that. "Guns, Germs & Steel has been an influential but controversial book," should suffice. Innapoy (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, this article only needs a summary on the information about the GGS book. It is the wrong place for substantial discussions on whether the book is right or wrong, or good or bad. Most especially, this biography is not a coatrack for criticism against the book. Furthermore, while there has been plenty of criticism of the book over the years, there has also been a lot of acclaim. No criticism should be included without giving an idea on how prominent the criticism is in relation to its acclaim. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Have we, then, reached the point where the NPOV tag can be removed from this article (whether or not the GGS article needs one)? Jmacwiki (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's reasonable. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

References