Talk:Michael Welner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed Changes

Interested Editors; please seeTalk:Michael_Welner/Drafts. I plan to soon ask an Admin. to substitute the Lede and Early life(for both background and training) shown there for what is in the current protected script. Please discuss this proposed chanege here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr.grantevans: Is the page you linked for discussion on just the Lede and Early Life (i.e. we will seek consensus for the BLP on a section by section basis) or a hopping point for proposed revision to the entire BLP? Lawblogger18 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to follow Fladrif's suggestion above of doing it "bit by bit", which would be as you say, section by section. At this moment maybe we can agree on just the Lede and Early Life sections. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I responded to the current suggestions on the draft page. Empirical9 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Requested 2

Here's a proposed revised lede. Take out the peacocking, get it down to what a Lede should be. Fladrif (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I request that the content below be substituted in the article for the existing lede, section #1 Personal background and section #2 Training. Here at the discussion page I believe the discussion at the 3 sections directly above, from "Just a few of the many sourcing issues" may serve to support this edit and content change. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mr.grantevans2 -- I just realized I unintentionally suggested a revision after you submitted your request. You can undo my suggestions if that is considered bad form. Lawblogger18 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear exactly what is being proposed, or how many people support it. Do Stewaj7 and Fladrif agree with this? Edit requests should be supported by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Grantevans2, it appears that some changes have been suggested for the paragraphs that you submitted in your edit request. For consistency, may I suggest that this BLP be discussed on this discussion page rather than on an adjacent pageTalk:Michael_Welner/Drafts. I think it would simplify discussion and editing going forward. With respect to the paragraphs themselves, I have no objections. I do think they should be cleaned up a bit before putting them on the page. Please see below.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm flexible either way as to where the discussion is held, but Fladrif is far more experienced and I suppose the separate draft page can handle a lot more messy work changes and thus keep this page,which is more of a Reading space, less busy? I just made some more comment myself at the draft page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also ok with either way, but so far the draft page is working pretty well. Simply to ensure that there are not two drafts circulating, can everyone make sure to include their changes to the draft page, at least for the time being? Stewaj7 - If we get your comments, I think we can assert consensus and move on to the next section. Lawblogger18 (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the contents of the draft page to this page and redirected it here. There is little benefit from holding these discussions in a separate place and other editors may not be aware that they are taking place. Please discuss the article on this talk page! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Education & Training

Dr. Welner attended the University of Miami, where he earned a B.S. in Biology, and the University of Miami School of Medicine where he earned his medical degree. From 1988-1992, Dr. Welner undertook his residency in Psychiatry at Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan and in 1991 he was admitted to the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania. Welner completed a Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship simultaneously with a Psychiatry residency training at the Beth Israel program [11][12].

Should the title of the above be "Education & Training"? "Early Life" seems like a pre-amble to a person's youth. Also, I distinguished University of Miami and University of Miami School of Medicine which are likely deemed separate insitutions. Lawblogger18 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Semicolons should not to be confused with commas. Also, the titles of majors should be capitalized, i.e. "Psychiatry" and "Forensic Psychiatry" in forensic psychiatry fellowship (2x) as well as "Psychiatry" in the 'psychiatry residency training'. Should we consider putting his years of graduation from the University of Miami? Empirical9 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with th change in title and wording as suggested by Lawblogger18 and Empirical9.I don't think we need the date of graduation because we have his birthdate and his residency dates. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes agreed upon. I did not include the graduation date, because there isn't consensus, but I think for purposes of consistency if you include attendance dates for one program in the section you should do so for all programs in the section. I am ok either way though Lawblogger18 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

I am with Lawblogger18...ok either way.Stewaj7 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I am taking a crack a the next section and will post shortly on this page. Lawblogger18 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have updated this section according to what you have agreed above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede

Michael Mark Welner, M.D., (born September 24, 1964, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American forensic psychiatrist. He has a private clinical practice in New York, NY, holds academic positions at NYU School of Medicine and Duquesne University School of Law and is the Chairman of The Forensic Panel. He has consulted as a forensic psychiatric examiner in over 100 criminal cases and other court proceedings, many of which have garnered national media attention, is a frequent television and radio commentator, has written a number of articles and books and has made numerous presentations to professional groups.

Here's a proposed revised lede. Take out the peacocking, get it down to what a Lede should be. Fladrif (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the phrase "consulted or testified as an expert witness" to "consulted as a forensic psychiatric examiner". Consulting as an expert witness connotes that prosecution/defense counsel has engaged you. To consult as a forensic psychiatric examiner connotes that the court has directly engaged you. Based on his existing bio it seems like he has engaged in both.Lawblogger18 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am comfortable with this approach. I would however, like to propose the following - Lawblogger18 (talk) is correct in that the paragraph should read only "consult as a forensic psychiatric examiner" and the latter "or testified as an expert witness" should be removed - the two essentially follow each other and are not mutually exclusive, i.e. one would not get retained as both an examiner and an expert witness. Also, I would like to note that Duquesne Unvirsity School of Law currently reads "Lawand" the 'and' needs to be removed and that semicolons should not be used in the place of commas, in my opinion. Empirical9 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also comfortable with this approach,wording. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the revisions that everyone agreed to above. Lawblogger18 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as the paragraph was cleaned up, I am prepared to move on to the next section.Stewaj7 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the lead section based on this discussion. Let me know if any changes are needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

After careful review, the LEDE was quite inaccurate and certain portions such as "He has consulted as a forensic psychiatric examiner in over 100 criminal cases and other court proceedings" could not be substantiated estimations. Furthermore, the summary of him as a "frequent television and radio commentator" is not accurate as he is a consultant to ABC not a commentator. Lastly, it is best practice to list ones titles in academic settings. The preset changes were made to the paragraph to improve and correct certain inaccuracies. Below is the revised paragraph. "Michael Mark Welner, M.D., (born September 24, 1964, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American forensic psychiatrist.[1][2][3][4] He is Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a national consulting practice, is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law Duquesne University School of Law.[5] He has acted as lead forensic psychiatric examiner or as a key consultant in numerous criminal or civil court proceedings around the United States, many of which gained national and international prominence. Dr. Welner is known for developing protocols for forensic peer review through The Forensic Panel, as well as his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale. He is also recognizable as frequently appearing consultant to ABC News, and has written a number of publications for professional and public audiences. [6][7]"Stewaj7 (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted Stewaj7's changes which although made in Good Faith are premature until the career section is decided upon by consensus, this new wording of the Lede comes across as too promotional,I think. Please discuss here to get consensus before replacing that content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with Stewaj7 (talk) change and yet it was reverted despite the comment by you,Mr.Grantevans2 (talk), that it was made in good faith. The new paragraph that was inserted, but is now a proposed one because it was reverted, is better cited and is more collaborative of the work going in to this page. It is inclusive and descriptive of the work Dr. Welner does academically and professionally, while not being promotional. Your comments, to me, make no sense. For instance, how does saying he is a commentator, which Stewaj7 (talk) properly notes is completely innacurate do anything but take the NPOV away from the page? The NPOV would be to state that he is a consultant for ABC, which is the title he maintains there. NPOV requires accuracy and accuracy is not to be confused with promotion. Empirical9 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think given our push to ensure the best citations, it is in good faith for Stewaj7's to revisit these issues. However, we do have to work colaberatively to ensure avoiding an edit war. The most significant change that Stewaj7 made was the one that read "Dr. Welner is known for developing protocols for forensic peer review through The Forensic Panel". Do you have a citation which reflects that statement? Lawblogger18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

I agree that improvements could perhaps be made with consensus. Just because 1 Editor states an opinion as if its a fact, does not make it so. For example, although I did not select the term commentator, it seems to fit. He certainly makes a lot of comments when on TV about an array of topics. But neither my opinion nor any other Editors' opinions matter so much as what the Reliable Sources say; thus, we need to see how the RSs describe his job at ABC and we also need citations for the phrase Lawblogger addresses above as well as for "(he is known for)his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal background

Since Lawblogger is tackling the professional career section, and since I have no opinion at all about the personal background section, which we skipped over, I will try a few tweaks with it unless anyone objects? I'm just thinking it could be improved on the margins. If anyone else prefers to edit this section, please feel free. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a proposed revised Personal Background: Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Welner is married and is the youngest of four children born to Nick and Barbara (Safier) Welner. Both his parents were born in Poland, where many of their family members perished in the Holocaust. Dr. Welner's older sister, Sandra Welner, M.D., was a Maryland-based gynecologist who became internationally renowned for her medical research, inventions, and advocacy for the medical care of the disabled[7]. She also inspired a successful legal challenge to change United States currency to accommodate the visually impaired.[8]

I am not clear on how the margins should be better in this section. Presently, comparing the composed draft above with the current version, I suggest we leave the sections as is. There have been no disputes are challenges to this section; thus, I think we should keep moving forward.Stewaj7 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I was just trying to make it more concise. We can leave it as is if you prefer. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking in from time to time. Glad everyone is trying to play nice now. If I may chime in on this paragraph, the section as written suffers from two problems: (i) it is a bit too long and coatrackish; the article is about Michael Welner, not his parents, siblings or wife, none of whom, other than perhaps his sister, are notable in their own right; (ii) there are sourcing problems for at least some of the information. I'm inclined to think that something along the lines of what is being proposed above is more appropriate for this article and can be sourced. I'm not even sure that "internationally renowned" can be supported by the sources. Something less peacockish would be appropriate here, like "was known" or "devoted her career to". I don't know whether there are enough sources to establish sufficient notability for her own article; if so, one might consider a new article for her, with just a in-line IL to that article for any information on her. I'm sure you can work something out. Keep up the good work. Fladrif (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so not to get bogged down by much discussion of this section, lets by all means trim the section. However, I cant agree that the brief mention of Sandra Welner is in any way vane or "peacockish". There is nothing flashy here - rather it gives an honorable mention to the contribution of Dr. Sandra Welner, who is deceased. I think it is poignant. "Was known" or "devoted to her career" are less complimentary but possibly less accurate. I will review the source to see how she is characterized. A happy medium perhaps will emerge. As there is no longer a block on the page, I hope that we will all remains civil and seek consensus before making changes to the page. It is my sincere endeavor to make this page better, as I am sure it is yours as well. Lets keep on course. Waiting for draft from Lawblogger re: professional career section. Will get back soon re: personal background.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Having read both the original section and the proposed section, I can understand the want to trim this section down a bit. However, I tend to disagree with Fladrif (talk) in the want for wording like "was known" or "devoted her career to". If we wanted to personalize a sentence to Dr. Sandra Welner, but keep it factual and not peacockish, the paragraph could read as follows:

• Welner is married and is the youngest of four children born to Nick and Barbara (Safier) Welner. Both his parents were born in Poland, where many of their family members perished in the Holocaust. Dr. Welner's older sister, Sandra Welner, M.D., was a Maryland-based gynecologist who notably designed and patented a special examination table for disabled women before she passed [7]. Empirical9 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorporating all suggestions, how does this sound?

Welner is the youngest of four children born to Nick and Barbara (Safier) Welner. Both of his parents were born in Poland, where their entire families perished in the Holocaust. Dr. Michael Welner is married to Orli Hacker Welner. In recent years, Dr. Welner lost both of his sisters in accidental deaths. His older sister, Sandra Welner, M.D., was a Maryland-based gynecologist. Overcoming a neurologically disabling injury in 1987, she notably invented and patented a universally accessible examination tabl for disabled women and inspired a successful legal challenge to change United States currency to accommodate the visually impaired..Stewaj7 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A few observations: Are not these two sources the same AP article, simply printed in two different papers? Why is it being cited as if it were two different articles? What is the source for his mother's maiden name? It is not in these sources. How do you know this? What is the source for his parents' entire families perishing in the Holocaust? That is not what the cited source says. What is the source for his wife's name? It is not in this source. What is the source for both his sisters suffering accidental deaths? It is not in this source - the other sister isn't mentioned. How do you know this? What is the relevance or notability of that, if it is true, to this article? 2001 is not "recently". How do we know that the Michael Welner mentioned in this source is the same Michael Welner in this article? Keep working at it. Fladrif (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The two sources that are in my suggested revision are in fact above are two different articles directly related to Sandra Welner's invention and the legal challenge she inspired. Both support the text to which they correspond. As I am not the original author of the Personal Background section, I can not confirm the details of the section, but I imagine that original author can. Again, we are getting bogged down here and being nitpicky, which compromises progress. What standard is this page being held to, with respect to referencing? Personal backgrounds such as Cyril Wecht, Henry Lee, who Fladrif has previously used as a reference, Park Dietz and the list goes on, have nearly any references regarding their personal background. As the have not been policed as this page has, we can assume that the Wiki community has no issues with this style of personal background. I think we should be fair here and hold this page to the standards that other pages on Wiki are being held to. We are working together here, yes? I think we should be less nitpicky, particularly if the section has not been an area of contention. Fladrif, I hope that we can move forward to other parts of the BLP. My proposed paragraph above is short and sweet, ready to be inserted...awaiting your thoughts.Stewaj7 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, they are the same AP article written by Helen O'Neill, not two different articles. They do not support the questions I raised above. The standard this page is held to is WP:BLP, which requires that all information in a BLP be sourced. There is a lot of information being presented here that is not sourced at all. It is a violation of policy to include it, and entirely proper to summarily delete unsourced information in a BLP. I am not being obstructionist, I am trying to get the editors who are interested in this article to conform to policy. It is also not the purpose of Wikipedia to give tributes or "honorable mention" to anyone, deserving though they may be; the purpose is to write encyclopedia articles. The draft by Empirical9, less the bit about his mother's maiden name, which is unsourced, is more in keeping with the appropriate scope and tone, and is supported by the sources. Fladrif (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the draft by Empirical9, minus maiden name, is good. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First, Fladrif, I may have missed it, but I do not see in the WP:BLP where it is required for all information in a BLP be sourced. I feel this is why so many pages, as noted above, have pertinent information in the BLP's which is un-sourced. I think the reason for this is that the community standard is to have citations for quotations and contentious material. I think Emperical9's draft is not properly sourced and leaves out a small but relevant blurb. Based on all comments, the following draft should be acceptable. Fladrif, again, the citations are included below. They are two different articles. I must have been formatting them wrong, which may be why you could not distinguish them.

Welner is married and is the youngest of four children born to Nick and Barbara Welner. Both his parents were born in Poland, where many of their family members perished in the Holocaust. Dr. Welner lost both of his sisters in accidental deaths. His older sister, Sandra Welner, M.D., was a Maryland-based gynecologist. Overcoming a neurologically disabling injury in 1987, she notably invented and patented a universally accessible examination table for disabled women [1] and inspired a successful legal challenge to change United States currency to accommodate the visually impaired.[2]Stewaj7 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.WP:BLP (Emphasis added) Fladrif (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have compared the two AP articles word for word, line for line. They are identical. They are not different articles. Did you even bother to read them? Fladrif (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a major miscommunication happening here. Source 26 and 27 in the paragraph above are not both AP articles. 26 is a link to an article by the Pittsburgh Post - www.pittsburghpostgazette.com/pg/04313/408619-114.stm, which 27 goes to the AP article reposted on the USA today site. What references are you referring to? Again, the paragraph you quoted above from the BLP says nothing about all information in the BLP having a source. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I think we can get things right with out belaboring points that are non-contentious.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, I was looking at footnotes 6 and 7 in the current version of the article, which are the same AP story. I neglected to see that you had substituted the PPG article for the MSNBC version of the AP story. I stand corrected. But, on the other point, you are misreading BLP if you think that information can be added to a BLP without a source. Let me be clear, I challenge the statement that "Welner lost both of his sisters in accidental deaths". What is the source for the other sister? Fladrif (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we remove the part that you challenge, instead saying that he lost his sister, Sandra Welner, in an accidental death. I think this would solve the problem yes. Any word on the professional career section Lawblogger?Stewaj7 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Professional Career

Re:Lawblogger; I left a note on his talk page 4 days ago; his last edit was Dec.6th. If you'd like, perhaps we could try to start working on it here on the discussion page until Lawblogger shows up? or we can wait longer for Lawblogger, whichever you prefer. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All - Sorry for the delay. I had a bit of an emergency I had to deal with, but will be back in the saddle tomorrow and ready to roll. If you can bear with me until tomorrow, I will have the section posted. Lawblogger18 (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

no problem, thanks for getting back to it, take extra time if you need to. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why is such a small section getting such scrutiny from the Wiki community? I thought the revisions made weeks ago were agreed upon by the editors in play - I'm glad that a section is finally coming to fruition. I do hope, as Stewaj7 noted that other expert witnesses' pages will be policed by Fladriff so diligently now so that the efforts made to bring this page to a neutral point do not go to waste in comparison to those with whom Dr. Welner shares his expertise. Empirical9 (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we're done with Personal Background, and on to Professional Career, which is by far the biggest section, and the most problematic because of the extensive sourcing issues noted by tags in the text and my comments above. As for other BLP's of those who may be Welner's competitors, (i) See WP:OTHERSTUFF; (ii) if they're as unsourced, ill-sourced and promotional as this article, that's a problem that should be addressed in due course, but (iii) if you have a COI with respect to Welner, you probably should not be the person addressing it. Fladrif (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To Fladrif (talk) - the last thing I wanted was to again be attacked as having a COI or being a sockpuppet - I think that I've defended myself enough against accusations in that regard and the Wiki administration agreed with me. Let's assume good faith here and you should just recognize my comment for its face value. It was merely a notification of the extensive work that many editors are putting into this page and, perhaps a notice that if this is the standard BLPs are to be held to than it is important to recognize other pages that are also lacking in the areas you note bring this page under the NPOV mark, ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Wecht and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_(forensic_scientist). In trying to be useful to this editing dicsussion, I have been studying the BLPs of other expert witnesses whose NPOVs have not been called into question and found, surprisingly that their pages lack any sources for personal background and are under-sourced in other regards - that was all my comment was geared towards. Please, lets all continue to assume good faith and keep working on this BLP as it looks good and is making great headway towards a NPOV. Empirical9 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Professional Career

Staying on track, I am reminded that it is a holiday - even I will be less responsive here. But a few sourcing issues have been raised which I am reviewing now. We might as well get a jump on it, right?. Also, I have referred back to Fladrif's earlier reference challenges [3], in which the most salient issue seems to be with phrases that are not taken directly out of sourced material. For the sake of fluency and so not to overburden a paragraph with a reference for each word/sentence/phrase, It seems reasonable to revise or reduce some of the content, as well as remove references where a reference is otherwise unnecessary.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach. Start with the current language of the article. Take out everything that is unsourced, or badly sourced whether or not its tagged or noted above on this talk page and see what's left. That may suggest which direction to go in terms of further editing. Fladrif (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All - back on my feet. Thanks for the patience. Here are a few points to the suggested language I have put together for the Professional Career section, below:

1. I am in agreement with Fladrif and Mr.grantevans2 that subjective opinions, hyperbole, viewpoints and/or (positive or negative) puffery should be eliminated from this BLP. To that end, I have removed all superfluous language which is intended to indirectly connote a laudatory and/or derogatory opinion of the subject. A BLP should include cold facts about its subject. It is not meant to be a forum for contributors to skillfully and indirectly (positively or negatively) influence a reader's opinion of a subject or his works. This is sometimes referred to as propaganda.

As a point worth noting solely for the intellectual exercise, viewpoints/assertions made by attorneys in context to legal cases should be especially suspect as such parties have a duty to advocate any hypothetical position to the unilateral advantage of their clients, even if it is not the best reflection of the objective truth. In other words, lawyers have a duty to cast innuendos on their own mothers if it somehow casts their client in a better light; and references to their opinions within the context of a case they are trying would be ESPECIALLY inappropriate.

2. I do not believe that a BLP for a quasi public figure should include information which is personal or irrelevant to the very specific body of work to which he is notable. It is irrelevant as to whether any quasi public figure is a practicing Episcopalian, plays hockey, supports the republican party,or prefers the company of men over women, unless his notability is specifically for this subject matter. Wikipedia should not become a platform for "outing" someone's politics, viewpoints or lifestyle. Its bad enough that nouveau McCarthyism has become politically fashionable again -- I don't think we should allow that to creep into Wikipedia. When it comes to quasi public figures, the old KISS Rule (Keep It Simple Stupid) should apply, and to that end I have stripped this section to the basics.

3. Publications etc. written by the subject, have been removed; and should instead be inserted into a separate section just listing them. They should not be included here as a bulwark of credibility.

4. The order of the notable cases/investigations is random and the citations need a bit more work (one or two are missing as I search for better sources). We can order them chronologically or in another fashion; and I will put more work into it after my very last minute Christmas shopping is completed. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all!  :-) Lawblogger18 (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Forensic career

Dr. Welner is Board Certified in Psychiatry, Forensic Psychiatry, Psychopharmacology, and Disaster Medicine , and maintains a private practice of psychopharmacology, specializing in violence and patients who did not respond to other treatment . In addition, Dr. Welner serves as an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at NYU School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, PA.

Dr. Welner has provided forensic psychiatric evaluations in consultation to attorney and judges for issues pending in both criminal and civil courts, including many which have risen to national prominence. Notable cases and investigations to which Dr. Welner has served as the lead forensic psychiatrist and/or key consultant include:

• The insanity defense of William Tager for the murder of Campbell Theron Montgomery at the NBC Today Show studios in Manhattan’s Rockefeller Center.
• The death penalty sentencing proceeding of Aaron McKinney in connection with the murder of Matthew Shepard, due to his sexual orientation.
• The mental capacity evaluation of Johnny Paul Penry, convicted three times of murder in a Texas case that was overturned twice by the U.S. Supreme Court in controversies over mental retardation.
• Mental health claims made by New Jersey NBA Star Jayson Williams in connection with the killing of Costas Christofi.
• The Texas filicide of five children by Andrea Yates, and her second insanity trial.
• The mental health claims of Ronnell Wilson, notable for receiving first federal death sentence handed down in New York since 1954, subsequent to his conviction for shooting two police officers.
• The psychological autopsy of champion wrestler Chris Benoit after the Georgia homicide of his family and subsequent suicide.
• The federal court competency proceeding and subsequent insanity claims of Brian David Mitchell, a Utah-based fundamentalist accused of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart.
• Proceedings of the U.S. military against Omar Khadr by a Guantanamo military tribunal.
• The mental health claims at the sentencing proceeding of Donald Fell, notable for being the only successful death penalty prosecution in Vermont in fifty years, subsequent to his conviction of carjacking and murder.
• The contested will of Nina Wang, a Hong Kong industrialist who was alleged to have left the majority of her multi-billion dollar estate to a feng shui master.
• The insanity defense claims of Byran Koji Uyesugi, who killed seven in Hawaii’s mass shooting, the Xerox Murders, as well as malpractice claims relating to prior risk assessment.
• The insanity defense claims of white supremacist Richard Baumhammers, who embarked on a vandalism and mass shooting in Pittsburgh and killed six.
• The disputed confession of Patrick Free, a frequently cited appellate court opinion defining the parameters of expert opinion on confessions.

Lawblogger18 (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

At first blush it looks great to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

At first blush, this looks very problematic to me. A list of bullet pointed "major cases" looks like a resume or CV pulled off the Forensic Panel website, not an encyclopedia article. There are quite a number of problems with some of these sources, and "served as the lead forensic psychiatrist and/or key consultant" would seem to overstate the case considerably in several instances. Also, no source says that Welner provided consultation to judges - only to either the defense or prosecution. If these are "notable" cases, why do many of these cases cite no independent third-party sources instead relying solely on promotional material from Welner or his company or on court decisions?

• The sources cited on the Tager case say nothing about Welner being involved in that matter.
• The TruTV article cited on the Matthew Shepard case quotes Welner as saying the the Forensic Panel was hired to prepare a report. Doesn't mention what involvement, if any, he personally had in it.
• The speech transcript cited on the Penry matter is Welner talking, not a third party source, and it makes no mention of him having done anything at all in that case.
• The source cited for the Williams case simply says that Welner was hired by the defense to testify about his post-shooting coverup. It says nothing about "mental health claims"
• The interlocutory order linked to on the Wilson case does not indicate that he even testified in the case, just that he prepared a report. There is no mention of Welner at the deathpenaltyinfo websited used as the second cite.
• The source for the Benoit case is Welner's own website, and does not say that Welner did anything in that matter, or even that there was any case, just a report in anticipation of future cases
• The 2nd Circuit decision in Fell says Welner didn't testify, and he was one of many prosecution witnesses hired in the case. As with the Wilson case, there is no mention of Welner at the deathpenaltyinfo cite.
• Wang is completely unsourced
• The appellate decision in Uyesugi says that Welner was one of 5 prosecution witnesses, and the sole mention of him is "Dr. Michael Welner, testified that "appreciate" meant "to recognize"
• Welner's testimony in Free, according to the decision cited, was about the admissibility of the defense expert's testimony. The source is the appellate decision, which of course says nothing about it being cited in subsequent cases, or on what. The one thing it most definitely would not be cited for is Welner's testimony in the case.

This should be reworked into paragraph form, and cut down to those matters that are properly sourced. Fladrif (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I read the material and Fladrif(talk) is correct on every point. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Fladrif(talk) that the bulleted list reads somewhat like a CV, I wonder if this isn't what the Professional Career section is better suited to look like? If it were in paragraph form, as suggested, it would be subject to the subjective opninions of the writer and a NPOV could not be reached on this section. Of course, I am open to re-formatting, but this version appears both inclusive and exclusive in that it contains only facts and no opinions. If some of the sources are not suitable, I suggest we all work to find better ones. In the meantime, I have a few comments on Fladrif(talk) objections -

• The TruTV article cited on the Matthew Shepard case quotes Welner as saying the the Forensic Panel was hired to prepare a report. Doesn't mention what involvement, if any, he personally had in it. - It is important to remember that a forensic consultant, or expert, does not have a 'personal' involvement in cases. If hired to write a report, than it is clear that Dr. Welner worked on the case and acted as a consultant.
• The source cited for the Williams case simply says that Welner was hired by the defense to testify about his post-shooting coverup. It says nothing about "mental health claims" - again, noting what I wrote above; a forensic consultant can testify in a case in a variety of manners, as a fact witness, expert witness etc.
• The interlocutory order linked to on the Wilson case does not indicate that he even testified in the case, just that he prepared a report - again, my comment is the same as above.

I'm curious what Lawblogger18 (talk) and the others think about my suggestions and comments. Empirical9 (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm offering an alternative second paragraph to Lawblogger's draft:

Dr. Welner has provided forensic psychiatric evaluations and consultation in both criminal and civil courts, including many which have risen to national prominence. Notable cases and investigations in which Dr. Welner has been involved include:William Tager,Matthew Shepard,Jayson Williams,Andrea Yates(second trial),Brian David Mitchell,Omar Khadr,Donald Fell,Byran Koji Uyesugi, and Richard Baumhammers.

I realize this would dramatically trim out many details of these cases but since they all have their own Wikipedia BLPs, any important details should be available there. Also, the details are what create problems for finding consensus. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to see everyone still getting along - much has transpired. First, as these discussion are moving forward, with a revised BLP on the horizon, I have removed a section of the BLP[4], which has remained throughout our discussions. I thought it best to wait and see what suggestions would be presented for the professional career sections before making any changes. I hope you all will agree that the course of our discussion and revisions have taken the BLP in a direction where such a paragraph would not be included. If I am wrong, please let me know.Stewaj7 (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think that paragraph belongs while the BLP professional career section is in its current state. Please put it back until we reach consensus on the section; there are some parts of the section I think should be stripped out now as well, but that path would be non-constructive. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Given our holiday absences, I put it back myself until we reach a broader consensus here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To Mr.GrantEvans2, I appreciate that you have put the possessional career section in paragraph format, which addresses a concern of Fladrif, but I think that by trimming out details misses the mark. Empirical9 appears to be knowledgeable about the forensic scientific community and offers good points to some of the objections raised. I hope everyone can appreciate the clarification. I think that by trimming out the details and relying on other Wikipedia BLP's, which are not immune from unreliable sourcing, crates a problem. Furthermore, having a source for the case that accurately reflects Dr. Welner's role, as this is a BLP about Dr. Welner is the point here. The paragraph above does not address that point. Like Mr.GrantEvans2, I have given Lawbloggers recommendation a look over and think that it offers the balance that we have been looking for. If sourcing is the only issue for Fladrif, I would love to work with you on finding more appropriate sources. I am certain they exist.Stewaj7 (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To Stewaj7, there is no question that the Subject has many accomplishments which could be covered in great detail, but he also has a number of Reliably Sourced criticisms about his trial contributions. Are you willing to accept inclusion of any of those criticisms? If so, which ones? Because it seems to me one way around the dispute about including detailed criticsms is to not include any details(about his trial work)at all. If it were me reading his BLP for the first time, I would have no problem clicking on the highlighted wikipedia pages about the defendents in those trials to see what it says about Welner's contributions. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Like all wikipedia pages, there are essentially two issues we are hovering around: (i) what information should be included on a BLP, and (ii) whether such information is properly sourced. It seems to me that the construction of this BLP keeps getting these two items jumbled in the discussion. I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with the notion that the elements of the page, whatever they are, need to be properly sourced. More importantly for now, we need to come to agreement with what information is relevant and how it is displayed. I addressed my views on these issues right above my draft of the Forensic Career Section, and I think we should start there. Does anyone disagree with my thoughts? If not, lets just start sourcing the information correctly or removing it point by point. If we follow this process we should be able to move forward quickly. Lawblogger18 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr.grantevans2. Along that line then, and based on the above, I think there are two sub-issues -

(i) should we use bullet points or simply embed the cases in a paragraph? and

(ii)should we simply reference the case names or should we include a reference to what the subject's role in that case was?

The first issue is fairly irrelevant to me. I think Fladrif made the point that it seems like a resume if we use bullet points, which seems fair enough. However, it also seems to me that everyone is doing a pretty good job and trimming this page to "just the facts"; and indeed there is a fine line between guarding objectivity and simply bickering about nuances that make no real difference. As such, I propose that we go with a paragraph inclusion if we decide to simply list the cases and bullet points if decide to reference his role within the case. However, I want to be clear about my position that I have no position. As mentioned, its mountain out of molehill stuff in my mind.

The second issue is a bit more interesting. I think Mr.grantevans2 make a pretty strong point that it would simpler and easier to just list out the cases. However, I think the entire crux of this BLP is a listing of what cases he worked on; and not listing his capacity within such cases or indicating why such cases where relevant to the public essentially strips away the most important aspect of the BLP. It my opinion that we should at least try to keep the more detailed language but subject it to a rigorous footnoting process. If Mr.grantevans2 and Fladrif are thereafter comfortable with the referencing we can keep it as is, if not we can either delete those aspects which are not properly refernced or revert back to a simple listing. If this suggestion work for everyone, I would also suggest the following: (i) we post Mr.grantevans2's version (with the exception, as a compromise, that we use the original list of cases until we sort things out); (ii) we all work in good faith to revise the more detailed draft so that if it passes the test of appropriate citation we can revise the posting it when the editors reach consensus; and (iii) simultaneously try to get the next section in order. Thoughts? Lawblogger18 (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I revised my thoughts above -- it didn't read clearly. Lawblogger18 (talk)

• I think Lawblogger18 (talk) hit the nail right on the head. As a reader, I think having the detailed case list with proper sourcing is better. Wouldn't everyone agree? I think in sourcing though, it is also important to remember some of the aspects I mentioned in an earlier comment, that seemed to go completely unnoticed, with the exception of Stewaj7 (talk). If we, as editors, don't understand the specialty of the person who we are editing a BLP for, how can there be a NPOV? I'll repeat here, as I stated previously, for the sake of its notice, that some of the earlier comments to the case sources made by Fladrif (talk) were indeed not correct when put into frame with the profession of Dr. Welner, although the points raised made sense if the details of forensics were not taken into consideration. The nuances of forensics and the contributions that can be made by an expert in cases are things we all need to work together to appreciate going forward to make sure this section remains neutral and properly sourced. Empirical9 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the Lede

Stewaj7 made some changes to the Lede (which are being addressed above in the Lede section and which I reverted). I think we have to be very careful not to unilaterally open up sections which have already been agreed upon as thta could throw a monkey wrench into our forward motion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added my thoughts in the Lede section Empirical9 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here is the history of the conversation from the LEDE section above.Stewaj7 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

After careful review, the LEDE was quite inaccurate and certain portions such as "He has consulted as a forensic psychiatric examiner in over 100 criminal cases and other court proceedings" could not be substantiated estimations. Furthermore, the summary of him as a "frequent television and radio commentator" is not accurate as he is a consultant to ABC not a commentator. Lastly, it is best practice to list ones titles in academic settings. The preset changes were made to the paragraph to improve and correct certain inaccuracies. Below is the revised paragraph. "Michael Mark Welner, M.D., (born September 24, 1964, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American forensic psychiatrist.[1][2][3][4] He is Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a national consulting practice, is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law Duquesne University School of Law.[5] He has acted as lead forensic psychiatric examiner or as a key consultant in numerous criminal or civil court proceedings around the United States, many of which gained national and international prominence. Dr. Welner is known for developing protocols for forensic peer review through The Forensic Panel, as well as his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale. He is also recognizable as frequently appearing consultant to ABC News, and has written a number of publications for professional and public audiences. [6][7]"Stewaj7 (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted Stewaj7's changes which although made in Good Faith are premature until the career section is decided upon by consensus, this new wording of the Lede comes across as too promotional,I think. Please discuss here to get consensus before replacing that content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I see no problem with Stewaj7 (talk) change and yet it was reverted despite the comment by you,Mr.Grantevans2 (talk), that it was made in good faith. The new paragraph that was inserted, but is now a proposed one because it was reverted, is better cited and is more collaborative of the work going in to this page. It is inclusive and descriptive of the work Dr. Welner does academically and professionally, while not being promotional. Your comments, to me, make no sense. For instance, how does saying he is a commentator, which Stewaj7 (talk) properly notes is completely innacurate do anything but take the NPOV away from the page? The NPOV would be to state that he is a consultant for ABC, which is the title he maintains there. NPOV requires accuracy and accuracy is not to be confused with promotion. Empirical9 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr.GrantEvans2, I am not clear as to why you have reverted the LEDE here. The new LEDE reads very much like the previous version except the previous contained portions which were bland or unable to be inaccurate. I have outlined this in the LEDE section of the discussion page and directly above. The only changes that were made were 1.clarifying Welners positions at the universities, Specifying that he is not a commentator but rather a ABC consultant - this is wording supported by the sources from ABC. It can not be disputed that Dr. Welner has worked as the lead examiner and key consultant on cases, some of which have gained national and international prominence i.e. Mitchell and Khadr, which brought you - located in Canada - to this wiki page. It further can not be disputed that Dr. Welner is "recognized for developing protocols for forensic peer review through The Forensic Panel, as well as his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale". So the new wording only makes the paragraph better. There is no puffery and this can not be said to be unilateral, it is not even complimentary. It is simply a summation of facts, which no leading or puffed language. So we are all operating in good faith and the changing of this paragraph is harmless as it does not deviate from our goal of neutality. I know that we have had our disagreements in the past, but what reason could you have for keeping this new paragraph off - except that your permission was not sought first. The edits are were not disruptive. I think you should give the paragraph a closer look and cross reference it with the previous to see how it improves upon the bio. We are all trying to make this BLP better so I think we should avoid arguing just for the sake of arguing here. I don't think there is need to belabor this.Stewaj7 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I noted this on the LEDE Section above, but I think you have fair points Stewaj7, especially given our recent push to clean up citations. Add citations to back your draft of the LEDE, and let the editors discuss towards consensus. I think the frustration by you is based on the fact that we have not made progress recently. As such, can I also direct everyone's attention to my suggestion about the Professional Background section -- and ask for everyone's consensus to move forward in the manner I suggest? Given some of the frustrations that are rising, can I get some response today on the Professional Background Section? Also, Stewaj can you please provide your fully cited suggestion for the LEDE so that we can come to resolution on a FINAL version by tomorrow? Lawblogger18 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Proposed LEDE...Michael Mark Welner, M.D., (born September 24, 1964, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American forensic psychiatrist. He is Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a national consulting practice, is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law Duquesne University School of Law. He has acted as lead forensic psychiatric examiner or as a key consultant in numerous criminal or civil court proceedings around the United States, many of which gained national and international prominence. Dr. Welner is known for developing protocols for forensic peer review through The Forensic Panel , as well as his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale. He is also recognizable as frequently appearing consultant to ABC News, and has written a number of publications for professional and public audiences. Stewaj7 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that improvements could perhaps be made with consensus. Just because 1 Editor states an opinion as if its a fact, does not make it so. For example, although I did not select the term commentator, it seems to fit. He certainly makes a lot of comments when on TV about an array of topics. But neither my opinion nor any other Editors' opinions matter so much as what the Reliable Sources say; thus, we need to see how the RSs describe his job at ABC and we also need citations for the phrase Lawblogger addresses above as well as for "(he is known for)his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

All the sourcing is there. I had placed the reference that lawblogger made a comment about prematurely in the sentence. It has been revised. Now I guess we wait for consensus.Stewaj7 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of concerns: the first one is with "He is Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a national consulting practice", which reads as if it could be an arms-length(to Welner) professional organizational. When looking at the Forensic Panel's website[5], it seems to me to be little more than an advertisement for Dr. Welner's paid services and states clearly that he created the Panel himself. So, it is at best a primary source and more objectively a promotional commercial entity, in appearance to me,at least. Perhaps reference to the Panel should be dropped? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Dr. Welner is Chairman of the Forensic Panel, which is a fact and I don't think the statement alone is promotional. There are other sources that speak to this. So if you feel that part is too promotional. We can replace it with the bare minimum, Dr. Welner is Chairman of the Forensic Panel. We can use any of these sources, if it needs to be sourced [[6]], [[7]]. I simply used the site because it is central to what is being referenced. Fine with me.Stewaj7 (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see from the sources he is referred to as founder and chairman of The Forensic Panel, so I think its better if we include the word "founder" too. Also, for future reference, especially if its in the lede, I see here that Welner's Depravity Scale Standards are defined by the general public meaning "anyone who participates in the surveys", so if we mention that scale we have to,I think, mention that the standards set are a product of public surveys so as not to give the impression that it is something designed by medical practitioners as many people,like myself, might assume. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep it simple here and move on, particularly since we are all waiting on input regarding the professional careers section. It seems that we have reached consensus here on the LEDE.Stewaj7 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but let us please say "founder and chairman" instead of just "chairman" of the Forensic Panel. If its notable that he's chairman of it, then its as or more notable that he founded it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New LEDE paragraph was included into the BLP with "founder and chairman", per consensus reached.Stewaj7 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have returned the lede to what has been agreed to; which was the inclusion of the term "founder". There was no consensus reached on the rest of the changes,especially the Depravity Scale public survey process I brought up here 3 paragraphs above. I just realized Stewaj7 again jumped the gun a bit. More input from others is needed and actually the lede should be addressed last after we determine the body of the BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr.GrantEvan2, A consensus was reached per the above on the new LEDE. There was no jumping the gun.If you would like to include more information about the Depravity Scale, the LEDE does not seem the place to do it. Particularly as the LEDE is a summary. The paragraph was fully referenced - as was requested by Lawblogger18 and yourself. Your accusation that I have jumped the gun seems unfair considering that we have had substantial discussion about the page and only until we reached agreement in the above was the paragraph included. If you have no other challenge to the LEDE except that you want to expand on it, please make your suggestions here. But it takes us a step back when you remove agreed upon content and then make accusations that are unsupported. I ask that you to simply state your proposed changes without reverting agreed upon material.Stewaj7 (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I put this on Stewaj7's talk page.

"Thanks for your friendly note. Communication can be difficult here. I'm concerned about content which has been created directly or indirectly by the Subject and also that there be no misconceptions for the average Reader of the BLP. Here are 4 things Specifically,

• the Forensic Panel is Welner's business venture; it generates income for him.
• The Depravity Scale has standards defined by public web surveys and
• the forensic echo is a publication which stopped publishing 9 years ago.
• None of the 3 have much in the way of impartial secondary source references which have notable content.

In my opinion all 3 of these enties are simply components of the Subject's business enterprises, which is just fine, but,imo, it should not take up any space at all in his BLP much like details of any 1 or 2 buildings that Donald Trump builds should not take up space in Trumps BLP.

If consensus is that the top 2 entities deserve some mention, then they must be presented with a description which does not leave the Readers to assume they are arms-length(Panel) or Medically Professionally arrived at(Depravity Scale standards). The Forensic Echo simply is too outdated,inactive and non-notable to be included at all.

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, The Forensic Panel is not a forensic psychiatric business - as clear from the references that you agreed to with Stewaj7 previously, it is quite clearly a forensic science practice, of which Dr. Welner is the founder and Chairman . You are clearly making changes for the sake of causing disruption on this page and it is unecessary when consensus has been reached thus far. Even though you will not cite to The Forensic Panel page, read this to understand: "The Forensic Panel is the premier forensic science practice in the United States. We consult on psychiatry and behavioral sciences, neuropsychology, pathology, toxicology, neuroradiology, medicine and emergency medicine issues in civil and criminal courts." (from About us www.forensicpanel.com). I am changing this edit as you did not make it in good faith and it is a blatant misrepresentation. Empirical9 (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, from the sources that were on The Depravity Scale section it is clear that Dr. Welner gets no income from this research and that it is research. You are making mountains out of mole hills. The research is extremely important, however, and Dr. Welner speaks about it quite often in his media consultation appearances.

Third, The Forensic Echo absolutely has importance and I stated to you and the other editors previously that I was going to remove it as its own section and subsume it under publications and presentations. What happened? Regardless of when it stopped publishing, Dr. Welner was publisher and editor-in-chief, absolutely important for a BLP.

Please do not get back to reverting consensus changes. This page is moving forward and all editors were working together. If I were to post a section without consensus, you would have me blocked from the page. However, you see it fit to make changes without consulting with other editors. Please, lets continue on. If you have proposals for sections, place them here on the talk page so we can all discuss them and their sourcing before making edits. Empirical9 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Empirical; perhaps some of the dispute is related to semantics;Maybe its better to take the issues 1 at a time: You say that the Forensic Panel is a "practice"; I'm saying its a "business". Can we agree that the Forensic Panel[8] is something that Welner makes money from ? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to that, but let me ask you a question in return - how does that change the nature of The Forensic Panel and the work it does? - remember we are doing a BLP, not playing with semantics here. Also, if I can direct you to the Park Dietz page you will note that his "business", which is his forensic consulting firm, Park Dietz & Associates, is called just that, a forensic consulting firm. There is no need to continue to argue this point - it is moot. All BLPs will represent some form of business based upon the Wiki definition. If they are of note enough to have a BLP, then they had some form of generating income. Also and most importantly, I was directing you the The Forensic Panel page for your understanding of what it is. The editors have agreed that it cannot be used as a reference and so, it cannot. The reference that currently stands is an interview with Dr. Welner, founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, who notes that it is a forensic science practice - you cannot argue with his words and description on his own practice. Empirical9 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate both sides here, but I ask that we focus on the LEDE and save discussion about any other sections for when we get there. To be clear, below is the proposed LEDE: (Michael Mark Welner, M.D., (born September 24, 1964, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American Forensic Psychiatrist. He is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a forensic science practice is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law Duquesne University School of Law. He has acted as lead forensic psychiatric examiner or as a key consultant in numerous criminal or civil court proceedings around the United States, many of which gained national and international prominence. Dr. Welner is known for developing protocols for forensic peer review through The Forensic Panel, as well as his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale. He is also recognizable as frequently appearing consultant to ABC News, and has written a number of publications for professional and public audiences.)Stewaj7 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Forensic Panel Issue- There does appear to be a semantic battle, which I encourage us to not get bogged down by. Business or Practice, ok. The point is that it is informative and relevant for the reader to know that Dr. Welner is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel. We have used Henry Lee’s page as somewhat of a yard-stick for the format of the present BLP. Dr. Lee is noted within his BLP for setting up the Henry Lee Institute. This is externally linked so that others can learn more information. The institute appears to be a business from which he receives income through consulting services [9][10]. But what I, as a reader, can appreciate is that the site offers more than consulting services – specifically there is a section describing the institute. I think the average reader would prefer to have access to information about the topic rather than having another define for them what it is. Also, if the average reader is the target here, there is no issue related to promotional intent of such a reference to The forensic Panel site. It would be informative. Again, the average reader, I am certain, can make up his or her own mind about what The Forensic Panel is, if a link or reference is provided. That said I propose we keep it short and simple for this aspect of LEDE as it is above.Stewaj7 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• The Depravity Scale Issue - It is important, before opining about The Depravity Scale research, to familiarize oneself with what it is. [11] The Depravity scale is has been called many things as it has been discussed in several arena’s[12][13][14]. But, who better to explain the research than the individual who has spearheaded it. Mr. Grantevans2: your belief that the research is a component of the Subjects’ business enterprise is unsupported. Careful not to inject any unsubstantiated beliefs or biases into the BLP. In any event, one can duke over the content about the Depravity Scale section without holding up progress on the LEDE, which contains a short and sweet mention to inform the reader about the Subject of the BLP. I again propose that we move forward with LEDE and next address the concerns you have raised without confounding the two. This would put us back on track with Empirical9's proposal[15], before this disruption.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Clarification: I am not saying he makes money from the Scale, and that's 1 reason why it should be clear in the BLP that the Fotum is a money generator for him. The issue with the Scale is to ensure the Reader knows that the Scale's standards are defined by the public and not by medical professionals as one might assume. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Forensic Echo Issue - the echo has nothing to the with the LEDE. I think that all should focus our discussion/objections appropriately so not to slow progress.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Stewaj7 (talk) here and want to point out that this semantics discussion, if it needs to continue, should continue when The Forensic Panel section is proposed. In the meantime, I wanted to add a source as well as make a few grammar edits to the proposed LEDE: (Michael Mark Welner, M.D., (born September 24, 1964, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American Forensic Psychiatrist. He is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a forensic science practice, is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law Duquesne University School of Law. He has acted as lead forensic psychiatric examiner or key consultant in numerous criminal or civil court proceedings around the United States, many of which gained national and international prominence. Dr. Welner is known for developing a protocol for forensic peer review consultation through The Forensic Panel, as well for as his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale . He also frequently consults to ABC News, and has written a number of publications for professional and public audiences . Empirical9 (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you two have convinced me with your well reasoned points. Thanks for taking that time. I can accept Stewaj7's proposal which is:

• (Michael Mark Welner, M.D., (born September 24, 1964, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American Forensic Psychiatrist. He is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a forensic science practice is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law Duquesne University School of Law. He has acted as lead forensic psychiatric examiner or as a key consultant in numerous criminal or civil court proceedings around the United States, many of which gained national and international prominence. Dr. Welner is known for developing protocols for forensic peer review through The Forensic Panel, as well as his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale. He is also recognizable as frequently appearing consultant to ABC News, and has written a number of publications for professional and public audiences.) Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems we have consensus here, unless there are any objections, I will insert the above LEDE. Emperical9: looking forward to your proposed content.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I left some time in between to makes sure that there were no additional comments on this. The paragraph (Michael Mark Welner, M.D., (born September 24, 1964, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American Forensic Psychiatrist. He is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a forensic science practice is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law Duquesne University School of Law. He has acted as lead forensic psychiatric examiner or as a key consultant in numerous criminal or civil court proceedings around the United States, many of which gained national and international prominence. Dr. Welner is known for developing protocols for forensic peer review through The Forensic Panel, as well as his research to standardize the distinction of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Scale. He is also recognizable as frequently appearing consultant to ABC News, and has written a number of publications for professional and public audiences.) has been added as the LEDE.Stewaj7 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fees Paragraph

The editing of this bio has lagged. I appreciate and agree that consensus is important as we proceed through the bio, but it should not compromise progress. The fees paragraph, which has been a major point of contention and disagreement, has reamined on this page for month. References to Dr. Welner as a hired gun are loaded and defamatory. No forensic scientist BLP should have such content on it, particularly when it is unsubstantiated. Mr.GrantEvans2 is opposed to my taking this paragraph off, because it is premature; however, the

;

states that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures." In this situation, good faith would be to take the paragraph down immediately. We have moved far beyond including this type of content and are well on our way to a revised profession career section. I think that if we are really pursuing this in good faith, this request is should resonate with all.Stewaj7 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that this paragraph violates WP:BLP is far-fetched. If it's well-sourced, and if its truth is not in question, it doesn't violate BLP. If you consider the fees paragraph an important issue, I recommend that you open up a WP:Request for comment. If you click on that link you will notice that you can advertise the discussion to bring in more people. If editors just keep on reverting this article as you did on December 30 *before* consensus is reached, full protection may be restored. Whether a generally-known true fact about Welner ought to be included (like how much he charges) is a matter for the consensus of editors to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stewaj7: This BLP was subject to an editing war and locked down. As a result, the editors agreed to a process to ensure that we could proceed without undo conflict. I understand your frustration with the delay in reaching consensus, but the answer is moving the process along without unilateral action. Each of Mr.grantevans and I have suggested a form for the Professional Career section which would both address your concern and ours. Furthermore, I suggested that we post Mr.grantevans version; and see if we can afterwords reach consensus on a more detailed version which would be properly sourced and worded. I think the most appropriate thing for you to do in this junction is advise if you are ok with these proposals. Mr.grantevans2 and Empiracal9 -- same question to the two of you. I do not want to deal with an edit war; and am starting to see the wisdom of Mr.grantevans2's viewpoint on simplicity for sake of consensus.... Lawblogger18 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with [Mr.GrantEvans2] proposal except that he has left out sources all together. One of the big issues has been references up to this point. The way the proposed professional career paragraph stands does not answer a fundamental question, "how was Dr. Welner involved" or at least "where is the proof that he was connected to these cases". I think this is important as it is going on the BLP about Michael Welner. If the paragraph goes up, then someone has to answer that question. On the other hand, [Lawblogger18]'s paragraph or something like it that it paired down a bit addresses the sourcing issue, the neutrality issue, and all the other issues we have been debating. I hope this makes sense. And to prove that I am not just arguing against [Mr.GrantEvans2] on principle, I would have no problem putting the paragraph up if it was properly sourced in such a way that answers the questions, "how can we verify that Dr. Welner was involved in that case?" Is this not important?Stewaj7 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To all, to help prevent another lag, I am addressing my own concern. I am fine with moving forward with Mr.grantevans2 paragraph; however, his version contains 3 cases Matthew Shepard, Jayson Williams and Donald Fell, whose wiki pages do not offer anything as a reference to Dr. Welner's involvement in the case. The avoid future sourcing issues, I included references for them. I appreciate that Fladrif has had an issue with using The Crime Library as a source; however, it serves as a legitimate source for many wiki pages. Therefore, please see a hybrid paragraph below, which includes Lawblogger18's wording and Mr.Grantevans2's wording and formatting and my referencing of the three cases that are referred to above.Stewaj7 (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Dr. Welner has provided forensic psychiatric evaluations and consultation in both criminal and civil courts, including many which have risen to national prominence. Notable cases and investigations in which Dr. Welner has been involved include:William Tager,Matthew Shepard , Jayson Williams Andrea Yates(second trial),Brian David Mitchell,Omar Khadr,Donald Fell,Byran Koji Uyesugi, and Richard Baumhammers.Stewaj7 (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is where we are

Here is where we are on the citation issues raised by Fladrif re: the Professional Career Section. I listed out each bullet point, and referenced each concern or response noted by each editor. Lets just punch this out quickly. As noted above, I have suggested that we use Mr.grantevans2's version (which is not the version below) until we come to consensus on these issues, as it has at the very more consensus than what is posted now. IF YOU HAVE OBJECTION TO DOING SO, PLEASE INDICATE ASAP.

Dr. Welner is Board Certified in Psychiatry, Forensic Psychiatry, Psychopharmacology, and Disaster Medicine , and maintains a private practice of psychopharmacology, specializing in violence and patients who did not respond to other treatment . In addition, Dr. Welner serves as an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at NYU School of Medicine and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, PA.

Dr. Welner has provided forensic psychiatric evaluations in consultation to attorney and judges for issues pending in both criminal and civil courts, including many which have risen to national prominence. Notable cases and investigations to which Dr. Welner has served as the lead forensic psychiatrist and/or key consultant include:

• The insanity defense of William Tager for the murder of Campbell Theron Montgomery at the NBC Today Show studios in Manhattan’s Rockefeller Center.

Fladrif: The sources cited on the Tager case say nothing about Welner being involved in that matter.

Lawblogger18: Agreed. Citation needed.

• The death penalty sentencing proceeding of Aaron McKinney in connection with the murder of Matthew Shepard, due to his sexual orientation.

Fladrif: The TruTV article cited on the Matthew Shepard case quotes Welner as saying the the Forensic Panel was hired to prepare a report. Doesn't mention what involvement, if any, he personally had in it.

Empirical9: It is important to remember that a forensic consultant, or expert, does not have a 'personal' involvement in cases. If hired to write a report, than it is clear that Dr. Welner worked on the case and acted as a consultant.

Lawblogger18: I agree with Empirical9. If TruTV article states stating that the Forensic Panel has worked on this, and the Forensic Panel website clarifies that Welner worked on Shepard, then I think it’s appropriate to conclude that Welner worked on these cases. I think we can add a reference to the Forensic Panel Website simply to confirm the chain.

• The mental capacity evaluation of Johnny Paul Penry, convicted three times of murder in a Texas case that was overturned twice by the U.S. Supreme Court in controversies over mental retardation.

Fladrif: The speech transcript cited on the Penry matter is Welner talking, not a third party source, and it makes no mention of him having done anything at all in that case.

Empirical9: noting what I wrote above; a forensic consultant can testify in a case in a variety of manners, as a fact witness, expert witness etc.

Lawblogger18: This speech transcript was vetted (including adding citations to matters referenced within the speech) and printed by the Pace Law Review. It is overly dismissive to imply that this is the equivalent of a simple printed transcript.

• Mental health claims made by New Jersey NBA Star Jayson Williams in connection with the killing of Costas Christofi.

Fladrif: The source cited for the Williams case simply says that Welner was hired by the defense to testify about his post-shooting coverup. It says nothing about "mental health claims"

Lawblogger: Specifically it says the Defense team hired Welner to “explain why Williams launched his post-shooting cover up.” If it is more accurate, we can revise “Mental Health Claims” to “Claims of mental state and motivation”

• The Texas filicide of five children by Andrea Yates, and her second insanity trial.
• The mental health claims of Ronnell Wilson, notable for receiving first federal death sentence handed down in New York since 1954, subsequent to his conviction for shooting two police officers.

Fladrif: The interlocutory order linked to on the Wilson case does not indicate that he even testified in the case, just that he prepared a report. There is no mention of Welner at the deathpenaltyinfo websited used as the second cite.

Empirical9: The interlocutory order linked to on the Wilson case does not indicate that he even testified in the case, just that he prepared a report - again, my comment is the same as above

Lawblogger: The draft of this section does not state that he testified. Its states that he provided psychiatric evaluations for issues in both criminal and civil courts, including on cases which have risen to national prominence. Preparing a psychiatoric report is perfectly in line with this statement. The second cite is simply there to confirm that the Ronnell Wilson case is the first federal death sentence handed down in New York since 1954.

• The psychological autopsy of champion wrestler Chris Benoit after the Georgia homicide of his family and subsequent suicide.

Fladrif: The source for the Benoit case is Welner's own website, and does not say that Welner did anything in that matter, or even that there was any case, just a report in anticipation of future cases,

Lawblogger: Lets replace this cite with the following cite, which specifically states that Welner performed a psychological autopsy: http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=3696555. For clarity, a forensic psychiatrist performs a host of functions, many which have nothing to do with testifying on the stand or serving as an expert witness.

• The federal court competency proceeding and subsequent insanity claims of Brian David Mitchell, a Utah-based fundamentalist accused of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart.
• Proceedings of the U.S. military against Omar Khadr by a Guantanamo military tribunal.
• The mental health claims at the sentencing proceeding of Donald Fell, notable for being the only successful death penalty prosecution in Vermont in fifty years, subsequent to his conviction of carjacking and murder.

Fladrif: The 2nd Circuit decision in Fell says Welner didn't testify, and he was one of many prosecution witnesses hired in the case. As with the Wilson case, there is no mention of Welner at the deathpenaltyinfo cite.

Lawblogger: the 2nd Circuit Decision clearly states that Welner prepared a report. The above bullet point does not claim he was a witness, it claims he evaluated the mental health claims of Donald Fell. The fact that the defense withdrew their own expert witness based on Welner’s report, does not eviscerate the fact that Welner was a key part of the case.

• The contested will of Nina Wang, a Hong Kong industrialist who was alleged to have left the majority of her multi-billion dollar estate to a feng shui master.

Fladrif: Wang is completely unsourced

Lawblogger18: Agreed – Need citation.

• The insanity defense claims of Byran Koji Uyesugi, who killed seven in Hawaii’s mass shooting, the Xerox Murders, as well as malpractice claims relating to prior risk assessment.

Fladrif: The appellate decision in Uyesugi says that Welner was one of 5 prosecution witnesses, and the sole mention of him is "Dr. Michael Welner, testified that "appreciate" meant "to recognize"

Lawblogger: The BLP does not state that he was the sole prosecution witness. It says he evaluated the insanity defense claims of Uyesugi. The reference to the appellate decision is not meant to indicate everything that Welner testified about, just confirm his involvement in the case. However, I think we may remove all language after the term “Xerox Murders”, as there are no citations relating to this.

• The insanity defense claims of white supremacist Richard Baumhammers, who embarked on a vandalism and mass shooting in Pittsburgh and killed six.
• The disputed confession of Patrick Free, a frequently cited appellate court opinion defining the parameters of expert opinion on confessions.

Lawblogger18 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Cut this list down to what can be sourced to independent, secondary news ources. The choice of cases for this list appears to be lifted more or less directly from the Forensic Panel website, without regard to whether Welner's actual involvement in any of these cases was significant or notable. We should not be taking our guidance as editors from the subject's own publicity. If Welner's participation is not noted in reliable secondary sources, there is no basis for us to determine as editors whether or not the case itself is notable or important, and whether or not his involvement was significant or had any notability. Getting mentioned in passing in an appellate decision does not establish notability. That would eliminate Tager, Penry, Wilson, Fell, Wang, and Uyesugi. That would leave five high-profile cases where there is actually some mention of Welner's involvement in a case in mainstream press, and I'm giving in on the TRU TV puff piece to allow the Shepherd case. The new ref for Benoit is incredibly weak; a tiny local paper in Canada, reporting on a competely different case - I'd drop that too. Accurately reflect what the sources say about his involvement; avoid puffery such as "leading" "principal" "main" As to the other arguments above, the claim that reflecting what reliable secondary sources say about his fees is somehow defamatory is nonsense. There is clearly a significant criticism and controversy over his level of fees, and it is appropriate for the article to accurately reflect that, just as it would be appropriate in the Henry Lee BLP to reflect that he donates his fees to charity precisely to avoid the charge that he is just a hired gun. Keep working. You're all making progress. Fladrif (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif. The Subject created the Forensic Panel and its website is highly promotional of the Subject; therefore, its published information is not sufficient to use as the sole Reliable Source for saying his involvement was significant or had any notability in regard to those cases where it is the sole source of potential BLP content. As Fladrif says; we need independent and secondary news sources in order to include Tager, Penry, Wilson, Fell, Wang, and Uyesugi. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the Fladrif’s viewpoint on citations, I am in agreement with much of what he says and believe they are in line with the Wikipedia objectives of seeking high quality, verifiable, secondary sources. However, I would be more comfortable giving the editors another day or two to find additional sourcing and/or discuss Wikipedia’s policy on self-published sources for BLPs before we take out the big red marker for permanent deletions. If anyone has additional sources regarding Tager, Penry, Wilson, Fell, Wang, or Uyesugi or thoughts about use of self-published material in this context (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source for guidance) please propose them, and I will post a summary post within a few days for purposes of final consensus.

Where I stand more cautiously than Fladrif relates to language regarding his fees. While I agree with Fladrif that this language may not be defamatory, it is clearly pejorative and as such, we must tread lightly and carefully. The general objection to undue promotion is equally valid whether it be positive or negative puffery; and I am averse to mucking around with somebody’s reputation unless it is both relevant and neutral in tone.

To this end, I do not believe that Welner’s fees are relevant to his BLP unless there is a substantially held viewpoint that the level of his fees somehow impact his work. I am not talking about the viewpoint that ALL expert witnesses are tainted by the charging of fees (this issue is more appropriately taken up in the article about Expert Witnesses). I am talking about allegations that THIS Subject’s fees have tainted his work in a manner other than the general critique relating to Expert Witnesses. Without this very critical link, I think we have crossed the line from encyclopedic fact to voyeurism. Without this intellectual or factual link, we are simply saying that it is appropriate to criticize a Subject for being able to command a higher income.

Fladrif - In contrast to your analogy of Henry Lee, the criticism as it has been presented in this BLP is NOT that Welner is earning fees, but rather the amount of fees he is earning. If you want to assert that the mere fact that Welner is earning fees makes him subject to criticism that he is a “hired gun”, you should add that criticism to the Expert Witness article (as it is relevant to almost all expert witnesses) and cross reference Welner’s BLP to that article.

I want to make clear that while I may disagree with some of the original viewpoints of my fellow editors, I am not asserting that the original inclusions were made in bad faith. I am simply sharing my view and hoping I sway to consensus. If there is still debate, my suggestion is that in accordance with Wikipedia’s policy on Criticisms, we take this language out of this section and seek consensus as to whether to include it in a separate, appropriately titled section. If we jam every issue into one unified consensus we will never see any finality to the progress we are making. Lawblogger18 (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Lawblogger for very good work on this BLP. However, regarding Welner's fees,I do not think the defining determinant of inclusion is whether the Subject’s fees have tainted his work or to what,if any,degree. What is most notable and most reported by RSs is the amount of fees he receives, and that aspect has been even headlined "Big payday for psychiatrist" in Reliable Source articles [16] going back to 2001. One aspect which has not even been mentioned in the BLP is how those fees have increased from 2001's $60,000. level to the more recent $250,000-$500,000. levels and I am not suggesting that the increase be mentioned exactly because the increase has not been directly pointed out in RS articles. But certainly the dollar amounts and some controversy surrounding them are notable because they have been often and consistently highlighted in RS articles about his work over the past 10 years. Some articles point out that Welner's fees are paid with public "taxpayer" funds which likely makes it more of a reportable situation for the Reliable Sources, maybe, but for whatever reason, RSs are addressing it and that is the reason why we should not exclude it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think its now time for the opponents of inclusion of content about Welner's fees to clarify all, in list form, of the exact reasons why they think the statements in RS articles about his fees should be excluded. For example, Does anyone still feel that the same information in RS articles is defamatory when put in the BLP? Its more constructive to address specific reasons that vague generalities like the "defamatory" label. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr.grantevans. It’s been enjoyable working these issues out with everyone. I only have a few moments to respond to your thoughts, so forgive me if this is truncated. With respect to the fee issue, I hear what you are saying, but there are legitimate and opposing viewpoints with this issue that reasonable editors are disagreeing. I have additional thoughts that I would like you and the other editors to consider, but do not want to step into a quagmire of debate between all the editors without finalizing progress that has already been made. There are issues which may be debating regarding relevance (which we have touched on), tone, wording, placement and nomenclature of this issue (which has been the most contentious to date, based on the talk page). Given this practical concern, my suggestion is that we finalize the progress on the Professional Careers section and the citations, and open this issue up for discussion for the next separate section. Lawblogger18 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to Fladrif, I think your assessment of the cases listed by Lawblogger18 misses a key point that Dr. Weler was involved in the cases listed. Because the wiki standard is use of reliable sources to substantiate this, I cannot disagree that Fell and Wang should be dropped. However, there are two cases that you have suggested be removed, which warrant a closer look. The references that I have provided here are not give just a flippant mention of Dr. Welner, rather both reveal that he was retained in the case, examined the individual of the case and presented a report, which seems like a pretty big deal to me.

• Uyesugi [17][ http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/06/14/special/story2.html] – The sources note that Dr. Welner was a prosecution expert and that he wrote the most extensive report.
• Ronell Wilson [18]Stewaj7 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As for trutv’s crime library, there are multiple wiki pages that use the content from this site. The article continues to be referred to as a puff piece; when in reality, it is an independent article written by a journalist. One of the many pieces written on this site related to crime/investigations.Stewaj7 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr.grantevans & Stewaj7 - based on each of your agreements above and below, I am taking the following actions: I am replacing the career section with what has been agreed to so far. There are five cases that are outstanding for discussion, based on the quality of the sources being proposed. Within the next day or two (please let me know whether anyone needs more time), please provide all the additional citations for review and discussion (I will repost them concisely for ease of the editor's mutual review and discussion). We will thereafter reach consensus on whether the additional citations merit inclusion of the additional cases. Please hold off responding to each other's viewpoints on fees. We will open discussion again as we progress to the next sections of the article; and each will have ample opportunity to state their viewpoints and sway consensus. Lawblogger18 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no issue with this. I am a fan of progress.Stewaj7 (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)