Talk:Telluride Association

Definition of Phrase

The award section talks about an award given to a 'Telluride associate' What exactly is a Telluride associate? Is it the name for a student member of a Telluride House? If so, this should be indicated Nomenphile 17:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited "intelligent" out of the introduction, for NPOV. I added a bit about how the program chooses applicants (PSAT scores, grades), instead of the blanket term "intelligent students" Nomenphile 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been corrected, but Telluride sends applications based solely on test scores, as far as I know. Jigabooda 19:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I defined this as a US-only program, since Telluride Association only operates in the USA Nomenphile 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomenphile: Telluride accepts and encourages international students to apply to their summer programs; although the organization operates within the U.S., I feel it is misleading to describe it a "U.S. only." Furthermore, Summer Program applications are mailed to students in a particular PSAT score bracket, but are availible to any high school student through the Telluride website (http://www.tellurideassociation.org/) 67.101.89.182 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Distinguished Graduates

Added Dominick LaCapra. As one of his students, he has discussed with me his time at Cornell's Telluride house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.46.160 (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the opinion on removing Paul Wolfowitz ? the son of a bitch is more infamous than distinguished; if Adolf Hitler were an associate I'd want to be quiet about that, too 216.189.15.112 (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Controvery over treatment of transgender resident

An anonymous editor has reverted by edits noting a controversy over the Telluride House at Cornell's treatment of a transgender resident. That editor claims, wrongly, that the note that there is such a controversy is defamatory. It isn't, and the anonymous editor contributes to the controversy by denying it. Nightspore (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It also isn't present in a reliable source. Wikipedia exists not to do original research on blog controversies, but to take note of those which reliable secondary sources have already judged as noteworthy. Please do not re-add until you can source with a reliable secondary source.74.67.213.159 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Anonymous Time-Warner user from near Ithaca: you don't get to decide which secondary sources are reliable. The blog entries are secondary sources, citing and quoting primary sources. If they're actionable, take action against them. But don't try to set yourself up as minister of truth.

I'd caution you to carefully step back and consider your actions and their relationship to Wikipedia. Is the tone of your introduction appropriate to the development of a consensus-based encyclopedic content, particularly in regards to the WP:OUTING policy? As to blog entries, you are quite correct, it is not my decision: it is Wikipedia's. If you carefully study WP:SOURCE you will see that blogs may be acceptable if they are produced by a professional organization subject to ordinary journalistic review. Self-published or group blogs, however, are not considered to be reliable as secondary sources. The policy is set forth in WP:BLOGS and is quite clear. Furthermore, there is the issue of undue weight, where an exceptional claim, particularly one libelous of an organization, requires high-quality sources which establish the credibility and importance of the claim: none are given. Finally, it would appear that there may be a WP:APPARENTCOI at work: perhaps you are too close to this content? It is not difficult to establish that third-party canvassing is underway: https://www.facebook.com/demerith/posts/10101774397584811 contains a discussion which contains: HE:"Did you know the Wikiedia article for 'Telluride' already includes a 2014 'controversy'?" MT: Yes, that's the work of I and G. People can add a link to articles when they come out." GS: "Some person, perhaps from Wichita, according to their ip address reverted my additions, calling them defamatory. I unreverted them, but people should keep an eye on the page, since I am sure they'll be reverted again." GS: "Just reverted again by another anonymous reverted with this comment: 'Undid original research relying on unreliable self-involved blogs. This needs sourcing with reliable secondary sources.'" GS:"I can't edit from my phone: someone else should revert the excision." I would strongly suggest that you distance yourself from this topic and wait for secondary sources to make the disinterested decisions as to whether to and how to cover this claim, and whether you are the best person to make such edits.74.67.213.159 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am not reverting because I accept that the policy in WP:BLOGS makes the reversion debatable, though in my opinion acceptable. The rest of your screed is ludicrous: the pot calling the kettle black, and indeed doing so in a manner contrary to the very policy you cite (wrongly) against me: WP:OUTING. (Noting the geographical region of IP-Addresses that Wikipedia itself posts on its talk page -- e.g. your IP address -- is not outing.) Also "Wikipedia" doesn't make decisions, editors do, including on policy. Most of your comment here is a tissue of insinuated mendacity presented in judicious tones. If there's a controversy it's not libelous to say there's a controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• • I am looking forward to the justification for reverting my current edit. It will be hard for whoever reverts, anonymously no doubt (and after semi-outing me on Facebook!), to claim the devotion to neutrality affected in his or her previous comment (which implies that my noting the geographical region of the IP address from which the comments came constitutes WP:Outing!). Nightspore (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • Out of an abundance of caution I will disclose 1) That I know the transgender person from social media. I met her in real life once, many years ago. 2) I also have a relationship to the Telluride Association at Cornell. None of this could possibly undermine the simple fact that there is a controversy there at present, which is all my edits have noted. None has been libelous. Will the anonymous reverter disclose his or her relation to Telluride or to the principles of this controversy? Nightspore (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your context, Nightspore. I am not reverting your edit out of an expansive reading of the three-revert rule (yes, more than 24 hours has passed, but I would rather the opportunity of a brief dialogue here in the hopes that you'll consider reverting it itself. I do thank you for the opportunity to engage in more constructive dialog than the earlier back and forths above. I live in the Ithaca area, I have never met the transgender woman who is raising a concern, I have no affiliation with Telluride, or have I ever been in the house, but I did have some limited familiarity with one student 10 years ago who was a Telluride member. My concern is the use of Wikipedia as an arm of promoting a particular perspective of an ongoing struggle -- a struggle in which I do not believe that consensus or clarity is perhaps even available at present. That is why I urged you to consider carefully your distance to the event, when it is clear your own involvement in canvassing raises the question as to whether you are subject to a conflict of interest. As Wikipedia policy notes -- that does not discredit you from editing, but it does behoove you to exercise particular care. I do thank you for waiting until a second-party source has become available that is not a blog entry published by the principal of the controversy. I ask you now to consider two issues: that of whether thefrisky.com, which is described on its own masthead as "Celebrity Gossip, Relationship Advice, Beauty and Fashion Tips", is to be considered of sufficient weight to serve as a reliable source. The "editorial mission" of thefrisky is noted on its submission page and nowhere describes its mission as journalistic, but rather "hilarious, irreverent, sexy, and smart" content or that pertaining to various categories on relationships, experiences with identity, family, friendship, and the like. Much of the content is "hosted daily blogs", and the author would appear to fit within that category. I think there is some attempt to be balanced in the article, but it doesn't presume to be a journalistic analysis of the ongoing situation at Telluride House. That brings us to the question of "undue weight". If this becomes something widely covered and inviting of large-scale controversy, it would certainly be notable regardless of whatever partisan leanings one might develop. At the moment it is not. Given that the particular wikipedia page is fairly weak to begin with -- it reads more like an advertisement for Telluride Association than an encyclopedic entry, I think it's important to improve the page by concentrating on core issues than to focus on issues whose notability is not established. I urge you to consider these issues seriously, instead of focusing on one particular point on this page. I would suggest also that it may be necessary to request of a wikipedia administrator's arbitration, if you feel that I am not disinterested. Will you revert this content based on the points I make above?74.67.213.159 (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. I do like it when discussion gets more civil on the Talk pages, as sometimes happens. I can see why you think this is a borderline case; I think I'll leave it for now, and see whether this gets picked up further, as I think it will. If it doesn't, I'll revert in a few days. This is because you're right: the page does look like a Telluride promo, and it doesn't hurt to have some stuff on it they might not like. And this issue does seem to me one that's gathering steam. But if I'm wrong, I'll revert at least temporarily (or not object to your reverting), let's say by Saturday? Nightspore (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• • And thank you for the increased civility. I would rather reversion, if it happens, occur by you or someone else: it would be inappropriate for me to be a third-reverter. In the interests of gathering additional disinterested perspective, I've asked for a "third opinion" (not arbitration, not administrator intervention) on the 3O noticeboard, simply because I think it might be useful for de-escalating this apparent conflict and helping to reach consensus. I do agree with you that with time it should become obvious whether this issue becomes notable and achieves the weight which would bear listing on this page, and if so, would certainly admit sourcing appropriate to it.74.67.213.159 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Telluride Association and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'."

Opinion: I presume this edit and this edit encapsulate this dispute. I'm not going to spend much time on the change.org source, since it has apparently been conceded to be an inadequate source, but will simply note without further explanation that it's clearly not an adequate reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia. The frisky.com source is a bit more difficult, but on analysis it, too, is clearly inadequate. If you click on the terms and conditions link at the bottom of the article, the spinmedia.com terms page that comes up says, in its User Conduct section, "We do not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, do not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content." The submissions page of frisky.com indicates that they accept submissions from the public and the author of this piece is not a person listed on the "About" page listing frisky's full time staff. Taken together, this demonstrates that the piece does not come under the NEWSBLOG exception to the verifiability policy's requirement that reliable sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An actual reliable source must be found for the material under BURDEN if it is to be included in the article and it cannot be included, however important it may be perceived to be (see SOAPBOX), unless one is found and cited.. The issue of undue weight is irrelevant until a reliable source is found.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that outside perspective, TransporterMan. Nightspore, would you agree, given the perspective above, to revert this content?74.67.213.159 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Okay -- fair's fair. I don't think I can delete in good conscience myself, but I won't revert if you delete unless and until a more acceptable source reports on the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• • Thank you. I'll do so, given our partial consensus on this.74.67.213.159 (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • I put the controversy back, now that there was a piece in Salon about it. Whatever you think about the piece, Salon is a reliable source, and written by a long-time contributor. There can be no doubt that there IS a controversy. Nightspore (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• • (addition) I've also gone through the article with the start of trying to make it encyclopedic. I've trimmed some of the flowery promotional prose and removed peacock words. More work remains, and the article remains very poorly sourced. Is it encyclopedic to list the essentially internal awards offered by the group? I have left them pending discussion for others to consider.74.67.213.159 (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nightshade -- I have deleted your re-add of the material. I agree with you that the salon.com article is significantly weightier than the thefrisky article, but I believe it is problematic on several points. First, [| Salon as a source for Wikipedia] has a lengthy discussion but the overall consensus is that because Salon self-identifies as a "smart tabloid" and not as journalism, its use as a reliable source must be judicious and best supported by additional reliable sources. In this case the author self-admits to being a personal friend of the chief person involved in the controversy and was (perhaps unsurprisingly given that basis) unable to get a perspective from TA itself. The combination is not an inspiring one for sourcing. It also reminds one of the advice given as an aside by the gentle third party above to remind one that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Is this material, particularly with the problematic sourcing, of core significance to encyclopedic coverage of this organization? Please consider this carefully.74.67.213.159 (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No -- there's no question that there's a controversy, that it's reliably sourced, and that you're really reaching to find reasons to hide it. Really, you've managed to find a totally obscure discussion from years ago to impugn Salon? So much for your good faith.
    • I beg your pardon, but that discussion is linked from a great big box, marked "do not remove", at the very top of the Talk:Salon web page, as a "Centralized discussion about the use of salon.com as a source in Wikipedia articles". When I have questions, I often find the wisdom of other wikipedia editors (or the clarity which the struggle between them brings) to be of significant benefit. 74.67.213.159 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • oh my, that is a big box. I repeat: so much for your good faith. I'm done with this. Nightspore (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Good. I removed the section. Investigation showed the claim to be without merit so this "controversy" is apparently nothing more than a whining little cry-baby attack plus it was four years ago now. I have my own complaints cf Telluride, but I don't act like a self-important two-year-old. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a gossip column. 216.189.15.112 (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)