Full article here (links provided).
Thanks to a commenter for putting up this link.
I first read the article back when it came out in a print copy of the New Yorker, and never doubted the veracity of Diamond’s accounts, so much as his conclusions. Now, apparently the subjects of his article have filed a lawsuit against him on those accounts:
“In a new report, the four writers argue that Mr. Diamond botched the history of the conflict he described, and they say that his errors may have placed Mr. Wemp in danger.”
Unintended consequences. However, there’s also this:
“For nearly a year, Mr. Diamond’s article has been scrutinized by Rhonda Roland Shearer, director of the Art Science Research Laboratory, a multifaceted New York organization with a sideline in media criticism. Ms. Shearer, a sculptor and writer, is the widow of Stephen Jay Gould, who preceded Mr. Diamond as a widely esteemed public interpreter of science.”
Apparently, these gentleman had a little help. Here’s to hoping that if they were used once to prove a point, they won’t be used twice.
Please See The Comments And Also: This letter here which discusses, and disputes, the article paragraph by paragraph, “suggesting” that:
“1. Diamond and the New Yorker issue an apology for the publication insinuating the Handa clan as lawless, taught at an early age to hate, and commit heinous crimes without regard to law, order or morality.
2. Withdraw from publication and circulation the article in all versions (digital, audio, etc).
3. That Dr. Diamond consider the impact it would have on his professional reputation should he allow this factually untrue article to remain.
4. That some form of compensation be considered for Daniel since he has left employment and is hiding in another part of the country for fear of his life.“
What were Diamond’s obligations in writing the article, and did he meet them?