Talk:Allynwood Academy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Inclusion of Congressional testimony

In the interest of neutral point of view and achieving consensus, what are people's opinions on how the Jon Martin-Crawford testimony should be handled? Once we reach consensus, we can make the appropriate edits to the article. - Wikiwag 17:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not neutral, as it is my testimony. However, my opinion is this: if it is out, then FFS response to it is out as well. If it is in, and FFS response is in, my direct response to claims made against me should be in as well. Any specifics, good or bad, should be there all inclusive...the same for Betton House, as it has been proven through substantiated communication with the colleges it "affiliated with" that it is NOT affiliated in any way. Isn't truth more important? As I've cited before, we have firsthand communication with the colleges to back this.DJJONE5NY (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)djjone5ny

Firstly, let me state that what you've done on a personal level takes a great deal of courage and I salute you for it. I also understand what you're trying to accomplish with this article, as I came to Wikipedia with a similar misconception about verifiability vs. "truth," when it came to something I felt passionately about; namely Waldorf Education. Suffice it to say that I got a hard-and-fast lesson in that concept and soon found myself drawn into an arbitration that I had no idea even existed. Believe me when I say, it was ugly - and many of the scars from that experience even now remain on my talk page.

Whether you agree with Woodbury Reports or not is irrelevant; it is still an independent industry trade journal that has both a printed publication and a website, making them by Wikipedia definition, a reliable source. The fact that they rightly, wrongly or indifferently has published verbatim, the school's response to your testimony in both their printed pages and their website does nothing to change the source's definition, as that was their editorial choice. Conversely, your response does not meet the test with the reference you've cited. Moreover, you have a clear conflict of interest, because of your understandable, yet unavoidable bias (this is not a criticism, but I suspect you'll agree it is a fact). Your cited reference unfortunately also violates the self-publishing prohibition. The same is true for you Betton House argument and the associated emails.

With all of this said, if you can cite something from say ... Mother Jones, Maia Szalavitz, Huffington Post, other journalistic outlet, independent author or publication, then your response is allowable. Another option might be removing the Congressional testimony altogether in favor of the CAFETY article, but I think that would skew things too far the other way and eliminate an important event and associated set of facts. - Wikiwag 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that testimonies from both side should appear. Otherwise the article will end up like Mission Mountain School where staffmembers have altered the article so the GAO hearing is portraited like an article in the tabloid press. The MMS article is now a advertisement for the facility. Articles should be balanced - even when describing places like Stutthof. It is only the number of deaths victims that separate them. I believe that it can be done. Because we disagree what kind of place this facility in reality are, I have flagged the article. Covergaard (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me, so long as it's properly sourced. To show good faith, I've removed their response and added the NPOV box, until we can settle the issue. Cheers! - Wikiwag 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the remainder of the reference to the FFS response, as it makes claims that have yet to be proven. If someone wants to provide evidence that all staff are certified, maybe that would help as well. I appreciate you working with us to make this as unbiased as possible. However, if the only thing stating they are "trained" is that letter, then it seems just as invalid as our Betton House information.DJJONE5NY (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)djjone5ny

To whome it may concern. The congressional testimony was not from only one person it was from a group of at least 17 previous students and not just from the time period noted. Why does this factual information from congressional testimony keep becomeing excluded form wikepedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the "testimony" in the wiki area on the cafety website. This "testimony" is not included in the official committee transcripts that are used as sources in the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My Letter to Wikiwag

I recently wrote this letter directly to the user, Wikiwag, regarding the pattern of his contributions to the Family Foundation School article. There are instances of anger affecting what I wrote. If I strayed from certain standards of decorum in writing this letter, I apologize and will refrain from doing so in the future. However, I believe the core of what I wrote is a well reasoned, non-personal objection. Here is what I wrote:

Patrickcolleton (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

I find the edits you have made to the Family Foundation School article to be of poor intellectual integrity. Your profile indicates a commitment to neutrality, a commitment I believe you have flaunted. Despite your notations such as "rewritten for readability" attached to each of your edits, one can clearly see that the changes you have made only support a positive view of the Family School. You have (rightly) removed undocumented negative information about the Family. However, statements like "The school, many alumni and their parents point to a decades-long history of producing graduates that lead successful, productive lives." are entirely uncited, yet complimentary and thus you have left them alone. How many graduates and parents? According to whom? I find that particular statement very dishonest because it prefaces the paragraph on certain negative information about the Family. It gives the impression that only Jon Martin-Crawford and a small, fringe group of people hold a negative view of the Family Foundation School. To write a neutral article is not just to mention all views on a given subject in some way. Honesty requires that one accurately represent how popular each given view is. Of the 30 or so graduates and former Family School program participants with whom I have spoken since my leaving there in 2000, more than half have held the opinion that the Family School has had a mostly negative impact on their lives. Only a few have had mixed opinions, whereas only 2 or 3 truly defended the majority of Family school practices. Now can I prove this represents an accurate cross-section of graduates? Clearly not. However, even this much data shows your rendering of those who criticize FFS to be deceptive and manipulative. What's more, you condensed a section on the House Hearing I wrote a while back, and surrounded it with complimentary information. Again, the effect is to minimize the impact of ideas you don't like. I've written a number of similar letters to you and other Family staff. I feel these letters have been respectfully written and well reasoned. However, I have not gotten a single response. I think that is because they scare you. You do not want to look at evidence that challenges your view of the Family. The same process of introspection that was required of us as students does not seem to be practiced by staff when confronted with your own Pink Elephant in the room. If anyone criticizes the Family, they are lying to themselves. If anyone reputable has a different opinion than yours, they are the wrong opinions. If data on long term success contradicts what you like to think about your efficacy, the data is wrong. Just like an alcoholic: everyone but me is wrong.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Patrick Colleton

Patrick: I apologize for being tardy in my reply. Let me be clear sole purpose is to write an article with a neutral point of view. Full disclosure: while I do have a somewhat more than passing familiarity with the school, I am not an employee. I have however, seen first-hand the positive, long-term impact of the school's program since yours or John's involvement. This is what prompted me to write the article in the first place. If you care to check my contribution history, you'll note that I've edited a wide variety of articles over the past 19 months since I've joined the Wikipedia community, as fairly as possible and where possible, without WP:Bias. I will say again, Wikipedia is not a WP:Soapbox, where editors with well-established bias (e.g. you and Jon) can use an article to advance their own point of view or original research. I disagree with Jon's dismissal of the validity of and subsequent deletion the Woodbury Reports as a reliable source (and no, I don't work for them, either), as it meets the Wikipedia definition of the term.

With all this said, I will thank you to WP:CHILL, and refrain from calling the fairness of my editing into question. With all due respect, my edit history does not support the allegation. - Wikiwag 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiwag,

I would like to first thank you for your courteous and well reasoned response. Your familiarity with Wikipedia policies is impressive, and your corrections have been edifying. Often times, people interpret rules in such a way that is constructive to his or her position, which is clearly in bad faith. It would seem to me that if I clearly showed you to be in violation of one or another provision, you would concede it. I would like to think I would also concede in kind. An ideal I strive for is the separation of a person from his or her ideas. That is to say, I will not like a person for holding an idea I hold, nor will I dislike a person for holding an idea I disagree with. If you like, I will delete the post of the letter I wrote to you. I enjoy and respect the ability to challenge others ideas and have my own challenged according to a mutually agreed upon set of rules.

As such, I must concede not having followed that ideal as much as I would like to have in my editing of this article. Part of that is my only partial familiarity with Wikipedia style, and part of that is because of bias I may have. Certain of my comments directed towards you have taken on an ad hominem character, for which I apologize.

However, it is still fair to assail your ideas, and you cannot ask me not to challenge them or to point out a bias that may exist in you edits. Your may have an argument in challenging a bias I may have as a former FFS student. However, if your "somewhat more than familiarity with the [Family School]" is surely biasing as well. Moreover, I believe you cannot challenge Jon and myself for our relationship with the School when you have not disclosed your relationship.

I am not familiar with the Woodbury Reports or Jon's having deleted a reference to them. However, if these Reports meet Wikipedia's guidelines for 3rd Party Verifiability, then they should be in the article.

You also may have a point about describing Jon's writing up his own Hearing as Self Publishing. However, I later wrote a section about the Hearing, which is not Self Publishing. When I read the wp:NPOV#Undue_weight policy, it more or less rephrased the objection I made in the first half of my letter to you. The Family Foundation School has been on C-SPAN once ever: when it was mentioned in the Hearing. I believe the positioning and amount of space you assign to this nationally visible Hearing (the only time FFS has appeared on national television) gives Undue Weight to a complimentary position of the School. If that is the case, the article may have elements of Propaganda, Advocacy or Recruitment as per wp:soap, which you referred me to.

Check out the article on Fmr. Gov. Eliot Spitzer. wp: eliot spitzer The man has had a fantastic career as a public servant: Attorney General and then Gov. of New York. He was tough on organized crime as Att. General; as Governor, he supported a bill to give undocumented immigrants a form of driver's license. He was highly visible in both offices. Despite this long career in public view, there is a prominent section of devoted to his resignation after the prostitution scandal; there is even a separate article on the subject. Wikipedia has allowed the scandal to be weighted as it has, even though that scandal was only a small part of his national notoriety. The House Hearing constitutes %100 of FFS' national notoriety in the news, and you're taking the position that the Hearing does not even deserve its on section. I believe this is Undue Weight.

I am glad you have had such positive experiences with FFS in the last few years. I cannot make any comments about how the school has been in recent years. I believe that a balanced understanding of this institution requires knowledge of its, frankly, shocking practices of the past, and I think a balanced interpretation of Wikipolicy backs that up.

Patrickcolleton (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Patrick:

Thank you very much for your very complimentary response. Your points are all well taken, and no worries: there is no need to apologize (though it is very much appreciated), since we all have room to grow.

We of course all have our own unavoidable biases that derive from our individual experiences. That's why the pursuit of consensus (including the process we are going through here) is so important.

Regarding the congressional testimony, I'm honestly not sure how it came to be a part of the article, beyond a sizable lot of poor edits made in the days following Jon's testimony. Yet, it is fact and I hardly think it gives a platform to convey a positive impression of the school; far from it, I feel. Fact is that I've had extended conversations with Rita, Sid, both Mikes and Jan among others over the past 5 1/2 years I've been involved with the school. These have included extended visits, observing students and faculty in many settings, including Table Topics and various sanctions. And as such, I was shocked to learn of and watch Jon's testimony.

It prompted me to ask them some very tough questions, like "is this true!!?" Rita's grief was palpable, and while any changes they made clearly came too late to prevent the negative experiences that happened to you, Jon and presumably others, in all the time I've spent there as an independent observer, I've never witnessed anything other than what they purport to be. I've certainly never seen any disciplinary action that comes remotely close to what you've both described. Indeed, the sanctions I've witnessed (with the exception of "trotting," which they also abandoned a few years back), are fairly consistent with those I practice myself (and I'm a fairly liberal parent): if my kids get out of line, they do chores; if they don't do the chores satisfactorily, they have to do them over; if they hurt one another (emotionally of physically), they must apologize and make amends; if they serve themselves a quantity of food, they've got to eat it (unless they're genuinely ill); if they don't do their homework, there's no media (TV, Wii, PSP, computer, phone calls) until they do; if they get bad grades, those sanctions are extended so they can hit the books extra hard. So I guess what I'm driving at is that I can only conclude that the school I've known them to be is not the school you unfortunately experienced. So, there's my bias. Yet, I still feel the facts (good or bad) need to be a part of the article and I won't stand in the way of properly-cited material. In fact, you have my word that as a responsible editor, I will vigorously support it.

I look forward to your thoughts on how we can better balance the testimony with the other aspects of the school.

Sincerely - Wikiwag 21:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir or Madam,

It is indeed good that we have heard each other and will do our best to follow the rules. It is also very heartening to hear that what we describe is nothing like what you have witnessed. In fact, what Jon describes in his testimony about his experience from 95-97 is very different from my experience in 2000. The duct tape and blankets were gone; I never heard homophobic remarks used (though very much a homophobic undercurrent). So the family has been changing over the years. Yet this change seems to have been driven by litigation and legislation. Since you know the school staff well, you'd know more than I about the details, but my understanding is that the duct-tape-and-blanket routine was only abandoned by a student's successful lawsuit. I also understand a lot of change has been prompted by the suicide a few years back, as well as negative publicity.

I tell you these were not honest mistakes. If I had a dime for every time I heard a girl called a "whore" there... I am actually heading up there to see the new Family in a week or so on the invitation of Jeff Brain. Another graduate is coming with me. This girl was sent to the Family after her conservative Jehovah's Witness parents found out she had kissed a boy and had tried marijuana (twice). She is remarkably normal. Before she went there and after, she has had a very non-descript life. She never had major life issues as far as I can tell. She just graduated cum laude, is healthy and happy. Yet despite not being an addict and never having done more than kiss someone, she too was called "whore" and told she was lying to herself. I spoke to her today and she described and event I didn't witness personally, but she said she saw a staff member punch a defiant, non-violent student in the face. Later, another student in good standing with FFS came up to her to confirm if they had seen the same thing; they had. Mike Argiros once told me the Isolation room was legal to use under NY State law for students a danger to themselves or others. I, myself, and many non-violent students in my presence were threatened with or actually sent to the Isolation room. I remember a girl in tears being threatened to get sent there if she did not "come clean" about one or another thing. "Do you want to go to fucking Isolation" I remember the staff member saying to her(I remember their names, but they will stay nameless in this context). We were called so many names and we were afraid... always afraid. And we couldn't defend ourselves. At the table, there were comments made about our bodies, we were humiliated publicly for private masturbation. Always afraid, always ashamed. Even as I write this to you, I feel like I deserved it because that's what we were taught. If we have a problem with the way we were treated, we were lying to ourselves. Many of us graduates have the marks of psychological abuse: shame, bad dreams about the school, feeling like it was our fault, shame about our sex lives, shame about our bodies. There was another guy in my Family who, like my Family member, had never kissed anyone before going to FFS, though he had had a legit. drug problem. He was pressured to confess to having violated a girl before going there, though it had never happened. Eventually, he confessed anyway. We had no choice.

These weren't honest mistakes. This was an institution of responsible adults, who theoretically were assiduously working at being rigorously honest with themselves. And they chose to do these things. These things were policy. I am angry; it is right that I am. I am making a list of incidents I remember clearly, with staff members names, times of day, the student involved and so on. When I go up there, I'd like to read that list to them and ask them to explain. Did this actually happen? Why did you call an obese student a "fat motherfucker?" Why?

I am glad FFS is different, but we were abused. This wasn't a case of rough techniques necessary to set bad kids straight; they chose. What I want is an acknowledgment, an explanation. When I speak to them, it will be like confronting an abusive parent. I think I will find serenity in doing so, telling them how I feel and leaving it there. Keep in mind, I was only there three months. I was taught to fear, to judge myself, to judge others, to adopt so many ideas without proof or choice. I have carried that shame and fear. I don't want revenge, I want acknowledgment. We were encouraged to fearlessly reveal our sordid pasts (whether we actually had one or not) and confess our sins publicly, even if the truth meant terrible consequences for us. Not only my hurt feelings, but more importantly my reason asks me why FFS does not do the same. Their have instead defaulted to damage control. Their press releases deal with no specifics, but instead assure us that they are in the process of changing. And it's good to hear they have, but these were not small mistakes, they hurt lives, they left us with marks. I am looking forward to hearing what they have to say.

Patrickcolleton (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

With all sincerity Patrick, I hope you find the peace and satisfaction you seek. - Wikiwag 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I want up to FFS and saw how the school has changed. It was comforting, and I believed that their practices have changed. Rita Argiros acknowledged how what happened was wrong, and how she disagreed with certain practices when she grew up in the Family, and has continued disagreeing to this day.

Patrickcolleton (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear it, Patrick. They have done a lot over the past 24 months; it's reassuring to hear that someone who has such understandably potent feelings from his own experience can see the changes. Best wishes! - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 17:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

24 months? I thought these changes had happened "shortly after Jon's graduation" As of 24 months ago, I was treated like the plague at the FFS reunion by all staff....coincidence? Still wondering why I have yet to be "invited" to see the "new" FFS, as well as why FFS has not made a formal "inventory and amends" to those who have been harmedDJJONE5NY (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)djjone5

Factual Accuracy Tag

On 18-July Covergaard flagged the article in dispute of factual accuracy. I'm curious what facts are at issue, since virtually all statements are cited by reliable, independent sources. I'll wait 72 hours for a response justifying the continued inclusion of the tag on the article. If none is forthcoming, I will remove the tag. - Wikiwag 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the fact that there are claims that are in there that are in no way proven, other than the fact that they are cited in a website that GETS PAID to send kids to FFS, that's enough to dispute factual accuracy. Likewise, as Patrick pointed out, I was under the original impression you were coming into this as a neutral editor. If you have a personal connection to FFS or to Woodbury Reports, your bias in inclusion or omission is surely something of note. In particular, your recent addition about the reunion...which I also attended...as well as the rewording of the article to seem like a propaganda piece promoting the school is something that has been more apparent in recent edits. I've refrained from "self editing" even if others have added the same information, but continuing to do so as this article become a point of sale for FFS will not continue. And yes...if that means paying people to cover stories, like FFS does, then so be it.DJJONE5NY (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)djjone5

I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have to support your claims. As I said to Patrick just now, I will vigorously support any legitimate sources and moreover, remove any that are proven to be shills. - Wikiwag 21:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Jon, you might've also missed the fact that I worked on the article here, to address the complaint that CAFETY was being portrayed as a fringe organization. At least, that was my intent. - Wikiwag 22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to really make this personal, because it's about much more than me, and actually much more than FFS....however, since you have brought up the reunion and Rita's "palpable grief"...why not ask them where their grief was when I was physicall in their presence at the reunion and they avoided me like the plague rather than speak to me. I have worked for CAFETY since before the reunion, and if they had any sincerity to any grief or apology, I would assume I would have heard it at that point. Just calling a spade a spade when I see it. I'm still wondering what your professional connection has been to be associated with FFS for 51/2 years, but would also recommend you looking into the various other testimonies we have recieved from as recent as a few years ago...I understand you call what you see, but things also happen when people aren't visiting. That's the general problem. Regardless, I'll leave the edits as is and will respect your judgement as it is for now...but just look into the claims that are made on both sides if necessary. Just because they say they feel grief doesn't change anything. FFS has had ample ability and opportunity to contact those of us who have been there with a formal apology including a moral inventory, as they made us do at the table (which you have seen). I would expect nothing less if they feel any sense of remorse. Practice what you preach...just as I said in the testimony.DJJONE5NY (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)djjone5

Fair enough. I also agree that what is at larger issue is about much more than FFS; FFS however, is all this article is about. Suffice it to say that both you and Patrick have already gotten my attention, which is why I'm checking and rechecking references as I'm editing the article for factual accuracy, and citing every single statement using the WP:Reliable Source guideline. It's also the reason I started the CAFETY and Therapeutic Crisis Intervention articles; the former I'll remind you, was a hard-fought effort that very nearly ended with me giving up in frustration.

The fact is though that as I'm digging, there is significant WP:Reliable Source evidence to support what you characterise as the "positive" aspects of the school, rather than otherwise. I assure you that to the extent that changes over time, I will be just as vigorous in adding those facts to the article, as well. In fact, I encourage you to do likewise.

But, I'll say it again: if your purpose here is to advance an agenda or opinion through Wikipedia editing and absent reliable, verifiable sources, then you gentlemen have come to the wrong place. This is an encyclopedia, where editors write about topics supported by verifiable facts; Wikipedia is not a WP:Soapbox. This is what guides my editing.

As such, the question of factual accuracy within Wikipedia guidelines remains on the table, which leads me to reiterate the original question: is there any legitimate, verifiable reason (e.g. excluding personal opinions, personal experience or original research) to keep the tag? - Wikiwag 09:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Since there have been no specific challenges to the facts as cited, I have removed the Factual Accuracy Tag. The tag can be restored if the factual accuracy of the article and its sources is again disputed. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as I said, I went up to see the school and was very comforted by what I saw. However, as I mentioned in my discussion with you, and you did not specifically address, there is a strong element of Undue Weight within your edits. This is a bit of tricky guideline as it is hard to determine in any objective sense how much emphasis one idea deserves relative to another. However, the article (until recently when the allegations of abuse section was allowed to stay in) has been written as an advertisement, emphasizing the strengths and appeal of FFS. The blanket-duct-tape-and-obscenities past of the Family is a very important part of understanding the school's history. I feel your past resistance to that information constitutes Undue Weight.

~Patrick

NPOV Tag Discussion

I'd also like to open for discussion, the appropriateness of the NPOV tag. I decided to do some research and see how many school articles on Wikipedia contained allegations of abuse. I was frankly shocked to see how many returns there were:

• The Google Search returned more than 14,300 from en.wikipedia.org for school abuse (yikes!)

So in checking a few of the articles:

• American Boychoir School
• London Oratory School
• Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls
• Cheverus High School
• Provo Canyon School (a non-educationally-accredited residential treatment center)
• Saint John's School of Alberta
• Pinewood School, Los Altos Hills
• Holmdel High School
• Lake Washington School District
• Twin Towers Middle School
• Prospect High School (Illinois)

All were marred by some allegations (or proof) of some level of student abuse by faculty and/or staff. Yet, none contain the NPOV tag.

With that said, we should discuss the case for/against keeping the tag on the FFS article.

I'll chime in by stating that, since all statements in the article are properly cited as fact from reliable sources, and all current editors have agreed (a.k.a. WP:Consensus) that it should continue to be edited in such a manner. As such, the article meets the neutral point of view requirement in that it "[deals] with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." Moreover, the article includes "a balanced selection of [reliable] sources." I therefore submit, that the tag should be removed.

Thank you in advance for your comments.

Many thanks - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no further comment on this issue, I have removed the NPOV tag. The tag can be restored, in the event that other editors are of the opinion that the article does not "deal with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources," or the article fails to include "a balanced selection of [reliable] sources," as required by the neutral point of view guideline. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Provo Canyon School it had such a tag when someone removed the dark history of the place. It was removed when the article became closer to NPOV but not perfect. A continuation school chain like WWASP, which outside United States is regarded as close to the state of the art when it comes to what US can produce in the education field would not have existed if the founders hadn't worked in highly specialized jobs at Provo Canyon. It gave them the basis regarding inside in the human nature which enabled them to run this world known chain of schools. Covergaard (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is not perfectly NPOV, but the information to take the article the final step is only emerging during these years so it can't get better now. Based on those facts removing the Tag is OK. Covergaard (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suicide in 2004

Apparently there was a suicide in 2004 Print of thread from the message board of Cafety. Can it be confirmed by another source? Covergaard (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No...it was never reported. While multiple students that attended at the time have confirmed this, there is no verifiable source to post it....although it definitely happened. He jumped off the third floor and split his head on the a/c and pavement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.140.192.194 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not even an obituary? We have found a lot of deaths never on any record by finding the community they came and read them in the local newspapers. If they are not online, sometime random people scan and upload them on the internet, where Fornits, Cafety, Ficanetwork or even Spft can find them. Is there any possibility to find out the name of the poor boy and the town he came from Covergaard (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask around. I know some kids that were there at the time. They may know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.162.230 (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was a student in the FFS when Tom Malkowski committed suicide, I found it peculiar that there was no record of this so I started searching for some evidence that this happened, after searching for quite some time I located this article of interest in regards to Tom the student who committed suicide under Jan Cheripko's watch at the Family School in 2004: http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/familyschoolsuicide.html If you have any questions just reply, I will check on this post from time to time. 167.230.38.115 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have sent a mail, so the wiki's covering the behavior modification industry can be updated. Covergaard (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for editing without looking here until now. I understand the desire to have this included on the article. However, editors must take care not to editorialize an event as CoreEdit has attempted to do on this matter. The only thing that the cited reference states is that there was a suicide on the school's campus. Regrettable though any such incident is, and callous as what I'm about to say might sound, it's hardly noteworthy. I submit it's not even worth mentioning on the article, as in 2004, thousands of such tragedies took place in hundreds of communities and campuses across the country.

This does not mean that those parents, caregivers, schools, RA's or counselors "allowed" those tragedies to take place. What it does mean is that those people did not act fast enough or in the correct way to prevent the tragedy; it does not betray culpability or responsibility. Moreover, in cases where a suicide takes place on a school campus, you'll never find a reference to it in a Wikipedia article purely from the question of noteworthiness. Indeed, considering the challenges possessed by the members of student body and the hundreds of students that have graduated from the program, it's IMHO more noteworthy that it took 17 years for such a tragedy to occur.

I've corrected the statement to reflect the facts of the citation, but I still feel it's inappropriate in its current location, as the event arguably has nothing to do with the faculty. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 19:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the reference to the Allegations of Abuse section and renamed the section "Controversy." The burden of proof that this belongs in the article rests with those seeking inclusion. If there is verifiable evidence that the school in some way contributed to this boy's suicide, then please post it. If not, then Wikipedia is not the place for this matter. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiwag you are not maintaining a NPOV. The FFS is an intensive therapeutic environment a suicide is a big deal, even if it is just one, and its circumstances important. The FFS only has 250 students at any time, in that regard even one person successfully killing themselves is a major statement about the school's security. "A student committed suicide in 2004" is nondescript and does not explain anything, it would be equivelant to replacing the section about Wells Thompson with "A former student plays soccer" or the section about Jan Cheripko with "a staff member wrote a book". Also there is no controversy as to the event so why place it in controversy? Stop trying to defend the school, if you read the article that provides the reference youll find that everything i posted was well founded. CoreEpic (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)CoreEpic

You're missing the point. Every other fact is cited by reliable sources. Your edits are not. Moreover, continued to violations of WP:BLP policy will be reported. This is your last warning. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest you review WP:NOT. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 00:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"No, Wikiwag, YOU are missing the point and abusing your authority. Your edits do not show a neutral point of view by Wikipedia's standards or by any standards. The FFS wikipedia page has many different portions several of which give detailed explanations of their contents, and yet somehow anything that goes against the school you feel the need to censor. So lets get down to what part of my statement is unfounded, this is the article that I am citing:

Recent Sad Events at the Family School Press Release

Contact: Sidney Parham 845-887-5213 Hancock, NY

(March 4, 2004) At approximately 8:20 a.m. on March 4, 2004, a male student jumped from a second story balcony at the Family Foundation School outside of Hancock, New York. Within minutes trained school staff began CPR. He was transported by ambulance to Delaware Valley Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

The 17-year-old from Virginia had been at this emotional growth school for just two weeks. After a difficult first four days, the student seemed to be adjusting to his life at the school. On Wednesday during group counseling, he confessed to having had suicidal thoughts and was subsequently seen by a staff Clinical Social Worker. During this interview, the student indicated he had no plan to commit suicide or harm himself in any way, said he felt better after talking with the social worker. However, senior administration at the school maintained it was standard practice for such situations to continue monitoring the student for any changes that might indicate an imminent crisis. The initial investigation revealed no precipitating incident leading up to this tragedy and no suicide note was found.

New York State Police and the Delaware County Sheriff’s Investigative units were both on the scene, but an official determination has not been made yet.

Religious and spiritual advisors who regularly work with the students and the Delaware County Critical Stress Management Team, are on campus to assist both staff and students in coping with the shock and grief of this death.

At this unfortunate time in the Family Foundation’s 17-year history of guiding at risk teenagers into responsible adulthood, our primary focus is now on helping the family and friends of this child as well as the other students at the school." ...

This is what I posted as a summary of this article

"On another note, in 2004 the administration of the Family Foundation School allowed a boy to commit suicide after he had indicated suicidal tendencies. Having arrived at the school only a few weeks prior the boy plunged to his death. There are no references to this event on the Family School's webpage."

I have 3 questions for you Wikiwag:

1. WHAT PART OF WHAT I WROTE IS BIASED? 2. What makes the athletics program "excellent"? Why is Jan Cheripko even mentioned? In summary, what makes the details you have chosen to include any more relevant or valid than the one I insist be included? and 3. Why are you so insistant upon removing this accurate description of what happened in 2004?

The resource, which I might add comes from The Woodbury Reports, which the School itself uses as a reference on its own publications, clearly states that the student was being monitored by the administration, if that was the case how did he have an opportunity to kill himself? He was ALLOWED whether or not it was intentional to kill himself, him talking about how he had suicidal thoughts was an indication of suicidal tendencies and he indeed did plunge to his death. Check the Family School's webpage, you will find no tribute or mention to this event. Nothing I wrote is biased or incorrect. Stop removing it or I will report you to your superiors on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreEpic (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, CoreEpic.

• On your Question 1: The question of bias is not at issue. What is at issue is the matter of editorializing facts, which by definition constitutes original research, and is not allowed on Wikipedia. You're getting into difficulty by making claims that the administration allowed it to happen, and in so doing suggesting some degree of culpability. There is no basis for such a suggestion in anything you've cited or any other available reliable source. Believing they were responsible is not enough and rises to the level of synthesis of published material, which advances a position.

• On your Question 2: Change the word if you like. If you think "excellent" over-the-top, I'll concede the point that it may be subjective. In fact, as a show of good faith, I'll remove it myself. Jan is mentioned because he is a published member of the faculty, which is a common practice on other school articles. There may be other faculty members that meet the test, I really haven't dug that deeply to be certain. What makes the content currently in place acceptable, is the fact that every single item is verifiable by independent, reliable sources.

• On your Question 3: See my response to your Question 1.

• On your non-numbered questions, it is possible for a determined individual to commit acts of violence or self-destruction, even when closely monitored or under the direct supervision of trained professionals in any therapeutic setting. The fact that such tragedies occur in and of themselves, does not serve as evidence of culpability on the part of the facility or school, regardless of whether such intentions were overt or covert on the part of the person who commits the act. Indeed, I'll refer back to my earlier post that links to the CDC web page that states over 7.3 out of every 100,000 people between the ages of 10 and 24 committed suicide in 2004; a rise of 8% from the prior year. There is no evidence to support your assertions that the school or its staff were in any way responsible for the tragedy, any moreso than the Boy Scouts are directly responsible for injuries or deaths that take place in their programs, or any other school is responsible for similar (or worse) tragedies that occur on their campuses.

You clearly feel very strongly about this issue, which is fine. But let me be clear: what I am doing is not censorship; what I am doing is ensuring that Wikipedia Policy and rules of content and style are adhered to.

Moreover, I have no authority to abuse; I am just an editor like you. I am also an editor who is guided by the rules of the Wikipedia medium. I have no agenda to advance, other than what can be established through statements of fact as supported by reliable sources. The fact that I fought so hard to have the CAFETY article included on Wikipedia (an organization overtly antagonistic to therapeutic programs in general and the Family Foundation School in particular), should be proof enough to support the statement that I will follow the truth wherever it leads, so long as there's a reliable source to support it, and as sufficient rebuttal of the claim that I will not allow anything critical of the school to stand; there are other edits to rebut the claim, for anyone who cares to take the time to look.

I'll close with two things that I suggest you consider well, before you make your next edit: avoid personal attacks, and there are no angry mastodons, here.

I am also sorry to have to do this, but in the interest of maintaining Wikipedia's rules of content and style, I must revert your last edit and ask that this matter end here and now. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to state in defense of CoreEpic's employers after intensive research in the massacre caused the behavior modification industry than none of the schools state their loss-rate. Our death list (unfortunately incomplete) are of course backed by links but not a single program or school has it on their webpage properly because it is bad for the business. But while I think that it belongs on Wikipedia because it is a part of the history of this place. Kids like this poor kid doesn't deserve to be left out of the history. After all he meant something to his family. Covergaard (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to break it to you Wikiwag, but this is not an "angry mastodon" but rather an exercise in truth seeking, something with which you seem to not have a relationship. Maybe you failed to read the unedited source these are exact excerpts:

"a male student jumped from a second story balcony at the Family Foundation School outside of Hancock, New York"

He didnt quietly overdose or cut his wrists, he plunged to his death, there is no editorializing about that. This wasn't a student committing suicide, this was him plunging to his death, that's the truth, I am saying "the sky is blue" and you are saying "there is a sky".

"On Wednesday during group counseling, he confessed to having had suicidal thoughts"

Suicidal tendancies, no editorial.

"senior administration at the school maintained it was standard practice for such situations to continue monitoring the student for any changes that might indicate an imminent crisis."

if senior administration in an institution is monitoring someone and they still kill themselves, no matter how determined they are, they were allowed to do so. That's not editorial. Its not my perspective. And the reason I feel so strongly about this is because you are allowing bias to occur on here.

"On another note, in 2004 the administration of the Family Foundation School allowed a boy to commit suicide after he had indicated suicidal tendencies. Having arrived at the school only a few weeks prior the boy plunged to his death. There are no references to this event on the Family School's webpage."

this is not a note of original research, this is factual, founded and supported by a credited online resource, whether or not you like it and the post is going back up. I hope this is the last I hear of this argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreEpic (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on that proposed insertion:
"On another note," - cut, the lead-in isn't needful
"the administration of the Family Foundation School allowed a boy to commit suicide" - that would be the OR part - cut. One could almost as well argue that you, CoreEpic, allowed him to commit suicide.
" Having arrived at the school only a few weeks prior the boy plunged to his death." Sensational, not quite a sentence, repetitive -cut.
"There are no references to this event on the Family School's webpage." and there should not be - cut.
Cutting away these extra words leaves "In 2004, a boy committed suicide a few weeks after arriving." And this is a terrible tragedy. A very dear 17-year-old family member, distraught over a breakup with his girlfriend among other youthful disasters, killed himself. This markedly changed the lives of many people (I had to wake up his grandparents to give them the news). But it does not belong in the Wikipedia article for the school he attended? Using the death of someone's loved one to pursue an agenda is really not very nice. Is there a Wikipedia guideline or rule that says "Don't add mean stuff that isn't needful"? Well, no, I doubt it, but... I don't think you'll get a consensus to add this in, even with the OR and sensationalism removed. That said, I note that I have been wrong before. I just don't see how adding this tragedy improves the Wikipedia article. If their web page claimed "We guarantee no one will be able to commit suicide if they attend our school." then I would be arguing forcefully for both the claim and the refutation to be in the article. As it is? No. On further reading... the boy jumped off a 2nd(second) story balcony. Unless the school is willing to use restraints it isn't going to prevent a 2nd-story jump... and suicide by 1-floor drop is very very rare.sinneed (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Covergaard: You'll get no argument from me on the merits, only that this is not the place for this, and none of this is founded by reliable sources.

CoreEpic: Kindly read the Wikipedia policies regarding personal attacks, and the 3 reversion rule. Unfortunately, you are in violation of both and as it appears that despite my best efforts to remind you of the rules of the road as it were, and caution you about the quality of your edits, you have so far demonstrated little interest in following them. I therefore have no choice but to report this behavior to the administrators. I'm sure they'll be able to clear this up. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Covergaard's last edit also seems to suggest a possible conflict of interest on CoreEpic's part. While this does not prohibit this account from editing, it does raise concerns about the account's ability to be objective, particularly since this so far appears to be a single purpose account (See here).

Family School Suicide

Whether or not you like it, a student killed himself at the school and has been left out of any and all websites associated with the school with the exception of the press release cited on the woodbury report. The reason the post keeps being removed is that its language is "sensational" or that it is "irrelevant" to the school. I maintain that a death, any death, whether it be suicide or accidental, to occur on a school's ground is a very important thing to be aware of when thinking or talking about said school, and to the best of my knowledge anyone who thinks otherwise is self deluding. Using wikiwag's response initially that many people kill themselves each year and many of those are on grounds of college campuses and schools, each of these institutions acknowledges the event and no one will argue the importance of taking said information into account. If we go so far as to include information about specific graduates and staff members, we should also go so far as to include information about a specific event that occurred on the school grounds.

"In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School. There is no mention of this or the student on the family school webpage" Is not a sensational statement. If you want to chisel down the words or have a suggested revision please submit it but I maintain that it is accurate and NPOV. Saying that it is inaccurate and POV because you THINK it is is NOT a reason to remove it. Removing it because it has been removed before is also not a reason. If there is a valid reason for it to be removed I have yet to see one. But for the sake of diplomacy I'll let the mediator decide.

I stopped entering my edit on the FFS wiki because I saw that it was getting me nowhere, not because I had come to consensus. Given the veracity of the information and given the neutrality of my most recent edit, I strongly believe it my responsibility to make sure that it is included on the page. please re-open the mediation request, if I cant talk reason into the talk page or enter the npov information quietly, then I would like my opportunity to have it mediated. I have reopened the mediation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Family_Foundation_School CoreEpic (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Are there any external sources that take issue with the death not being mentioned on the school's website? If not, it constitutes original research and does not belong here. It isn't for Wikipedia to decide what should or shouldn't be on somebody's website. If the media was blasting them for covering it up or something, that would make it appropriate to publish, but if it's just your opinion that they ought to mention it and your observation that it's not there, in no way is that appropriate. I don't know how common deaths are at this school, but in the US, the teenage mortality rate is 65 per 100K. With an enrollment of 260, if I do the math right, that means a death at the school would be expected once every 6 years assuming that these kids are no more at-risk than average (probably a very bad assumption). It isn't the school's responsibility to indefinitely maintain a memorial to each student that dies there, nor is it Wikipedia's place to unilaterally criticize them for not having one. --B (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no external resources that comment on the contents of the FFS webpage, however if one looks over the page it is not there. Does it not being anywhere make it somehow there? The logic in that argument is lacking, the comment that there is no mention on the FFS website is merely a valid observation, if that information changes so should this entry. I have made no mention of the media, a criticism or anything else, in 2004 a student did, indeed, commit suicide on the FFS campus after having been under observation. There is, indeed, no mention of said event on the webpage. This isn't a statement of opinion or original research, if I point at a hole in a ground and say "there is no earth in that hole" can you then argue that my observation is invalid because there is no earth in the hole? There is no mention of this or the student on the family school webpage, you argument to leave this out is that there is no mention of it? CoreEpic (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

You're missing the point. I'm not saying it is there. I'm saying it doesn't matter if it is there. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Your own observations about a website are inappropriate. If no media outlet cares about the omission, then neither do we. --B (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no external resources that comment on the contents of the FFS webpage, however if one looks over the page it is not there. Does it not being anywhere make it somehow there? The logic in that argument is lacking, the comment that there is no mention on the FFS website is merely a valid observation, if that information changes so should this entry. I have made no mention of the media, a criticism or anything else, in 2004 a student did, indeed, commit suicide on the FFS campus after having been under observation. There is, indeed, no mention of said event on the webpage. This isn't a statement of opinion or original research, if I point at a hole in a ground and say "there is no earth in that hole" can you then argue that my observation is invalid because there is no earth in the hole? There is no mention of this or the student on the family school webpage, you argument to leave this out is that there is no mention of it? Your point about the percentage of kids committing suicide, the kids at the FFS have been deemed "at risk" and therefore have been placed under strict supervision, this student very clearly indicated suicidal tendancies and was placed under monitoring, I am not criticising the school but I am making an observation that a student under observation committed suicide, any conclusions drawn from there are the reader's own.CoreEpic (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

This is not "original research" because I have done no research, but that's fine. I can agree to remove the reference to there being no reference to this event on the school's webpage

"In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School."

Im going to put that up. Hopefully this will be the end of the argument. CoreEpic (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

And I will take it down. Edit against consensus. This is covered in the school press release, which is linked.sinneed (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

take part in the discussion, sineed, vandalism will not be tolerated. I have filed a mediation request. If you disagree you can get in on the action right there. CoreEpic (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEPic

PS. If the requirement for an item to be included on wikipedia is that it not be covered elsewhere then the purpose of wikipedia would be defeatedCoreEpic (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

let it be noted that rather than dispute this consensus users Threeafterthree and Wikiwag have chosen to quietly vandalize the page, this will not be tolerated. CoreEpic (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

I removed the material for a number of reasons. First, the source is questionable. Has this been "covered" elsewhere by "mainstream" media or sources? What is the relevance and why is this to be included in this article? I don't really care one way or the other, but it seems that there is one editor who wants this in the article and a few who feel it doesn't belong?? I am just trying to flesh out arguments on both "sides". My position usually is that consesus should be for inclusion to have material added rather than consensus for keeping material out of articles. Cheers! --Tom 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Politely, CoreEpic: it is not possible to label your own minority view on an edit that has been shot down again and again as "consensus." Since you're not intersted in following the rules, I encourage you to continue to break them, then you will be blocked indefinitely. So please, for the sake of the article ... continue your behavior. It has but one conclusion. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The resource being used is already used in the page for other "agreed upon" statements. Therefore it is as questionable as anything else that cites the woodbury reports. Moreover its inclusion is key to the article as is the inclusion of Jan Cheripko and Wells Thompson, it is an example of something extraordinary that has occured in or as a result of the school. The "consensus" was reached as to the wording. The inclusion is and will continue to be disputed because there are people who want only positive school supporting information to be included. But their "reasons" for not including this reference no longer exist so they have resorted to quietly vandalizing. The post will remain. Please leave it alone unless you have a valid reason to remove CoreEpic (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Yet again, you're either not grasping or deliberately missing the point. I won't repeat it the point that has been made over and over again. I will remind you that you've been issued a final warning here against re-adding this edit. We have no more patience for it. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But since you still have a problem with its merits, what edits do you propose? This is the current quote "In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School."

what should be added or removed? CoreEpic (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

For the final time, CoreEpic. The topic does not belong on this page at all. You have been provided detailed reasons by no fewer than 3 different editors. Case closed. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)CoreEpic, first, please stop with the vandalizing accusation, that is not helpful and will not win your way. 2nd, as pointed out, just blindly reverting and edit warring will not help either and will get you blocked from the project. I would suggest that you try to get other univolved editors to look at this or maybe a WP:RFC? Anyways, --Tom 16:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason given was that they disagreed with the language, which I am willing to change, and that there was no consensus, which I am willing to work towards reaching. Apart from that everything else that was contributed was speculation, all of which is easily disproven. Wikiwag you have allowed the references to Wells Thompson and Jan Cheripko to remain, neither of which have any more or less merits than this edit. But if you dont want to play ball thats fine. Im more than willing to work within the guidelines of wikipedia, I am just fairly new to it and am still gaining an understanding, but thus far am I incorrect to believe that valid an pertinent information that is supported by a valid source should be included? As far as the vandalizing accusation, what is the difference between what wikiwag, sineed, B and yourself have been doing and if a few of my friends and I took turns removing factual information from another page claiming that the page is POV? I have submitted a request for mediation, are there other steps youd recommend? CoreEpic (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

No CoreEpic, it's much more than the language. Frankly, I find your sudden conciliatory posture dubious. However, in the interest of WP:AGF, I'll detail this again.

For starters, Sinneed wrote on your talk page:

• Among many reasons: dropping it "kerplunk" into an article about a school seems disrepectful [sic]. In this case, it appears to be using the death of a young man to further the agenda of folks who dislike the school. This is addressed in the talk page, extensively. You don't agree. You are very much entitled to disagree. But you are very unlikely to push this edit into the article using these techniques. Wikipedia is consensus based, rather than "I can yell loudest!"-based.

Second, I believe that User:B is an admin (perhaps also User:Sinneed), which makes them the gatekeepers and enforcers of WP:Policy. By definition, their edits cannot be "vandalism."

Finally, I recommend that you follow the many admonitions that you've already been given and suggest that you find another issue to focus on. The suicide has been repeatedly done, redone and rejected. Time to move on. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, with the comment about the website and thus the original research being removed, there is no administrative issue here (or, at least, none beyond edit warring or other concerns unrelated to the particular content). In my personal opinion, something stuff like this happens and isn't really an issue for an encyclopedia. At my alma mater, Virginia Tech, there's usually between 1 and 4 student deaths each year. (Well, one year we had a lot more, but in a normal year, there's 1-4). Some are suicides. Some are auto accidents. Occasionally there's even an alcohol poisoning. We went through a rut where for about four years in a row, someone fell out of a window every year and went splat. (I don't know how that happens.) Whatever it is, it happens. Virginia Tech's website doesn't have memorials to them, except for the one extreme case. Our Virginia Tech article doesn't mention them. It's just understood that when you have a sufficiently large group, there are going to be people who will die. It's not encyclopedic content. That's my personal opinion only, though, and should not be taken as having any more value than one of any other experienced editor. The administrative issues - [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons] and no original research have been satisfied, so the rest is my opinion only. --B (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate your point however Virginia Tech is a university, most of its students are adults and deaths that may occur on campus are not usually deaths of people who are being monitored. Moreover VA Tech is not a boarding school, no one there is under the custody of the school and people are free to leave if they want to. Your comparison is a valid one and yet even at VA Tech when the massacre happened there was a mention put on the wiki, proportional to the # of students and the conditions and supervision provided to the FFS students, a single death at the FFS has no less weight than a massacre at a major university.CoreEpic (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

This is the mediation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Family_Foundation_School Also in response to wikiwag's "edit summary" reinventing history would be if I wrote my own version, I didn't the family school wrote their own version on their press release I am merely quoting it. The reference to the suicide will go on the article, one way or another. I am willing to work with you and the other editors to determine the wording and placement, but you seem to only want to argue its merits, which are as valid as 90% of the existing article. CoreEpic (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

With respect to the "rewriting history" edit summary, I was referring to your attempt to make the other editors out to be the vandals and editing out of consensus. With respect to the issue you continue to hammer away at, it is not up to you alone to decide what will "go on the article, one way or another." This issue is dead. Move on. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 17:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, vandalism can be committed by anyone, and I maintain that the actions of the above listed users is no less vandalism than if I went in and deleted any section myself because I felt it was too positive in its description of the school. You yourself said "Moreover, I have no authority to abuse; I am just an editor like you. I am also an editor who is guided by the rules of the Wikipedia medium." therefore you have an equal ability to break said rules, which in essence is what you are doing. And stop telling me to move on, I will move on when a consensus has been reached and there is a direct reference to the event in 2004 on the FFS wikiCoreEpic (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

CoreEpic, please stop accusing the other editors here of vandalism. It is not helping to resolve this dispute and is a form of personal attack. Please try and remain calm and polite. I also ask you to have a read of WP:VAND (linked above). Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have accused the editors of vandalism because they have refused to reach consensus but rather made the changes.CoreEpic (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Apart from the language what is it that you are disputing? That the suicide occurred? Obviously it did. That it should be included? It has as much merits as the inclusion of Jan Cheripko or Wells Thompson it is an extreme that has allegedly occurred at or as a result of the school. Using the logic that the editors that have insisted on removing this post are using, inclusion of Jan Cheripko implies that all staff members are reknowned authors and that Jan's books were more written by his experience at the school than by his experience, and all students who graduate the school become professional Athletes and Wells Thompson learned everything he knows about sports at the school. (Both ludicrous statements.) My behavior on here has been out of frustration, upon reevaluating my approach I realized that while I was making a valid point its reception wasnt what I wanted so I decided to change said approach, hence my reconciliatory tone, if you have a valid concern about what I am entering by all means make it clear, but saying that you dont like it because it's negative is obviously biased. CoreEpic (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but you're view is not shared by anyone else here. As such, you won't be getting this issue to stick to the article. You might want to find something else to work on while you're waiting, though. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 17:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there have been people inserting agreement with my stance but they haven;t bothered continuing the debate. As far as something else to work on, Id rather try to reason with you.CoreEpic (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Please see the above discussion. My opinions have been outlined if anyone has any questions refer to the following

http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/familyschoolsuicide.html

the statement being made "In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School." This has been repeatedly deleted and debated. Thoughts? Comments? CoreEpic (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Is there really anything else to say? I count four people who have opined against its inclusion. --B (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is, I count thousands of people who if they were made aware of this discussion would opine for its inclusion. Current/ex students and alums, and their families. There is nothing NEW to say, merely more opinions to get. It should be included.CoreEpic (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

I am a parent of a student at the FFS and I have found the previous posts regarding the alledged incident troubling. I do not totally blame the school but I dont see why the posts should be deleted. I think the post defineitly meet Wiki standards as being both factual and relevant. I think it is shameful that the school is spending so much time editing some ones opinion rather than adressing what may have been the underlying problems. I am comfortable with the stated mission of the school and do not intend to remove my child. I am however troubled the way this has been handled. I am also a little dissapointed in Wiki.Cicatriz1 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1st, welcome User:Cicatriz1 Thank you for creating your account at 20:03 and joining our discussion in time to finish at 20:14.
2nd - It cheapens the loss of life to use it to pursue an agenda. This is a real tragedy. It should not be used this way.
What is it that makes this relevant? That the school did not physically prevent his suicide? According to your source, he jumped from the 2nd floor balcony. Are you arguing the school should have "tied him in a blanket and duct-taped him" as has been done at other schools in the past? Should he have been on lockdown? Should there be no balconies? Should there be bars on all windows to ensure no one "plunges to his death" from the 2nd floor? Or even the 1st? I consider the actions required to PREVENT a suicide to be abhorrent, and will fiercely protect those I can from such abuse as you seem to indicate.sinneed (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, sinneed, the "duct tape and blankets" was not only other schools. This was a practice that happened at FFS. The schools protocol for such a situation (a students saying they have suicidal thoughts) is extremely close monitoring, with one or more students or staff constantly walking everywhere the student goes with them. For the student to have the opportunity to jump, someone screwed the pooch.....anywho... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJJONE5NY (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the inclusion of this article, when FFS responded to the testimony given to the House of Representatives by simply posting a press release on Woodbury Reports, it was said by editor wikiwag (who has a connection to the school and has admitted so) that the report was verifiable enough to be included as "proof" that the school has changed, (and that any reports from the Woodbury Reports or StrugglingTeens.Com were good enough to be included)...as noted in the entire paragraph following:

The school responded by declaring their support of the efforts of the committee to keep children safe from harm, adding that they had since modified their crisis-management methods to meet the standards of both the New York State Department of Education and the Therapeutic Crisis Intervention (TCI) program developed by Cornell University. The school also stated that since 1999, all school faculty and staff are required to be trained in Therapeutic Crisis Intervention techniques.[5]

The only citation for this is not from official testimony as published on a .gov website, but from the biased Woodbury Reports. If that site is ok for this inclusion then why not for inclusion of the suicide article as it is.

As CoreEpic has mentioned, this is a program that has no problem boasting about its success, but to have completely swept aside and now hide the fact that a suicide occured (indeed only one at this program compared to others at other programs) it is important. After all, the hearings conducted by the House Of Rep. were to look into the cases of death by neglect or suicide at these programs. The first hearing dealt solely with cases of death by suicide, dehydration, and other medical neglect. Therefore, if the government feels that even one death at such a closely monitored program is enough to be brought to the national political forum, then there is ample reason to include the article here as well.

It seemed there was no problem with 100% of students go on to further education (although even that is not a proven fact other than what the school claims. Why the reversal if there is negative information?DJJONE5NY (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5

What I said was, that the release was from a reliable source. I did not say it was proof. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok...well then the same reliable source is being used now. Let's quit picking and choosing when to use it.DJJONE5NY (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjjone5

Frankly, I'm starting to think that I should've left the CAFETY article alone and let it stay on the Speedy Delete list, considering that it's apparently earned me zero good faith from you lot. Oh well, live and learn I suppose. What's more, you people make it sound like I've never let anything critical of the school stand. I'll just say: wrong, wrong and wrong. Pretty damning stuff there, I think. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop now. Do not indulge in bashing one another "Why the reversal if there is negative information?" and "earned me zero good faith from you lot" - pointless. You will only make it harder to reach consensus. wp:assume good faith. Then when the good faith is violated take appropriate action (for example, warning, appeal for block). Then wp:assume good faith again...and repeat as needed.
Focus on the content. "If this edit...then this edit"... don't fall into the trap. If you think another edit is the same as this one, and you think it should be out, give your argument *THERE* please... you will only make it harder and harder to understand what you are trying to say... and you will make it seem you are edit warring... this is not a baseball card swap. It is not a prisoner exchange.sinneed (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

••sigh••... Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I should take my own advice and step back... I'm sorry I let them get to me. I tend to get testy when I'm unfairly characterized, hard as I try to remain neutral. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've managed to make a bunch of minor edits in this article (mostly to come closer to conforming with WP:MOS and related guidelines) without confronting this question.
Unfortunately (and as noted earlier in this discussion), adolescent suicides are not rare. Thus, a suicide 4 or 5 years ago is not itself a notable piece of the story of the school, unless there was something unusual about it (not so in this case, AFAICT) or it changed the school in some way. Is there third-party coverage of this suicide? Is there third-party documentation of how the suicide altered the course of the school, affected its reputation, brought outside attention to FFS, led to external regulation, etc.? The strugglingteens link is independent of the school, but it's not a genuine third-party source (it was an FFS press release), so its existence alone doesn't convince me that this suicide is a notable part of the school's story.
Bringing in an unrelated school article as an analogy, I've pushed for keeping fairly old information about negative events in Berkshire School because the events had significant repercussions (such as the ouster of a headmaster) and they led major publications to publish news/feature stories about the school (which in turn happen to be about the only third-party coverage of the school available to cite in the article). I haven't done a search for other coverage of the suicide, but I don't see this suicide as having had enough impact to warrant its inclusion in a fairly short encyclopedia article.
On the other hand, I think that the testimony that was provided about FFS in the hearings of the U.S. House Education and Labor committee is notable information that should be summarized and cited in this article (but not listed as an external link). My two cents... --Orlady (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So is there a consensus?

"In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School." Describes in a NPOV way what happened in 2004. We have already agreed that this even is no less or more important than anything else on the page, and the language of the statement doesn't get much more objective. Does anyone have a valid reason to not include this? If not I think that a consensus has been reached.CoreEpic (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Asking the same question in a different place will not get you a different answer, especially when it's been answered in the negative time after time after time. It's not appropriate here for the many reasons already in evidence. Consensus is negative on its inclusion. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked this before but will again. Why is this relevant? Is this the first time something like this has happened or is it notable? If there had been "more" to the story, ie, he was notable, or the school was "involved" so to speak or "something" to add to the article then MAYBE we could discuss this more. Right now, its a factiod that doesn't really add much. Also, is there a reason why you are so adiment that this be added?? Do you have a conflict of interest with this school?Anyways, --Tom 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Every reason that you have presented thus far has been shot down. Why do you not want this included? It IS NPOV, we've determined that, it IS valid, and it IS something which should be included. Give me one reason why it should not be included in the body of the text of the wiki? The information is as valid as anything else on the page, I am adament about its inclusion because I was there when it happened. And it is negligent to not include a brief account of it on the wiki.CoreEpic (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

I agree with the first two points, its NPOV and its "valid" but is it something that "should be" included? I am still not convienced. See WP:IINFO. The moon is not made of cheese. Does the Moon article include that info? If it does, forget this arugument :) Seriously, you being this "close" to the material doesn't help your prospective on how and what goes into this project. I am just one small editor, anyways, --Tom 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL#MEMORIAL also applies. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Another vote against inclusion is on CoreEpic's Mediation Request page. She goes on to be very critical of how the article leads off. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 18:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To repeat a statement I made in another section of this talk page:
Unfortunately, adolescent suicides are not rare. Thus, a suicide 4 or 5 years ago is not itself a notable piece of the story of the school, unless there was something unusual about it (not so in this case, AFAICT) or it changed the school in some way. Is there third-party coverage of this suicide? Is there third-party documentation of how the suicide altered the course of the school, affected its reputation, brought outside attention to FFS, led to external regulation, etc.? The strugglingteens link is independent of the school, but it's not a genuine third-party source (it was an FFS press release), so its existence alone doesn't convince me that this suicide is a notable part of the school's story.
Bringing in an unrelated school article as an analogy, I've pushed for keeping fairly old information about negative events in Berkshire School because the events had significant repercussions (such as the ouster of a headmaster) and they led major publications to publish news/feature stories about the school (which in turn happen to be about the only third-party coverage of the school available to cite in the article). I haven't done a search for other coverage of the suicide, but I don't see this suicide as having had enough impact to warrant its inclusion in a fairly short encyclopedia article.
On the other hand, I think that the testimony that was provided about FFS in the hearings of the U.S. House Education and Labor committee is notable information that should be summarized and cited in this article (but not listed as an external link). My two cents... --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WHEN it happened is unimportant, that it happened is. The moon not being made out of cheese is not pertinent because the wiki on the moon tells what it IS made out of. Moreover this is not a memorial if we dont include more details than THAT it happened. Next objection?CoreEpic (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

So does anyone have a good reason to not include it? Anyone at all?CoreEpic (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

You've got your reasons. Consensus is against inclusion. Whether you consider the reasons valid is irrelevant. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been no reasons provided that have not been rendered invalid. Your initial reason was that it was not NPOV, which we've already edited to be 100% spotless. Next were the merits of the inclusion, which we've determined is as important as anything else. Are you saying its not? So what else do you have?CoreEpic (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

All already addressed - Weasel-worded, already included, disrespectful of the death of a teen to use as part of an agenda. If it needs to be in, the simple, factual wording is above, in one of the 1 kagillion other copies of this proposed inclusion. Consensus as I see it is no, do not include the text as you are presenting, no, do not include the text as I am presenting it, no do not include it in the text at all, unless something else happens.sinneed (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of an agenda? Its a FACT there is no agenda, it happened, undeniable. Is it not important enough to include? And please sign your posts. So is that it? is there a consensus now?CoreEpic (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Actually, the wording I had used before is less accurate than it might be...I have read the FFS press release so many times, this is a bit better "In 2004, a boy committed suicide 2 weeks after arriving." I think it is a sad comment on our society that no single news agency visible on the web picked up the release nor the story. The only mention I can see is the school's... no one else cared? And yes, there remains a clear consensus to leave the statement out.sinneed (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I can agree to that, I think that the fact that it occurred on the campus rather than on a trip off campus, and that he was in fact being monitored are both relevant information but if its between no mention whatsoever, and that insertion, that its fine. So "In 2004, a boy committed suicide 2 weeks after arriving." it is?CoreEpic (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Consensus remains to leave it out, whether as I stated it, or as you stated it. You are wp:edit warring.sinneed (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Whats the reason now? How am I edit warring?CoreEpic (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Continuing that thought, NO ONE, not me, not you, not anyone, thought my version should be included. Have you now decided it should be? Are you now going to champion that version? I don't. But it is at least factual and not weasel-worded. I think only I had those 2 objections to your previous latest version. The others' objections remain. You are edit-warring, among many things, by jumping from one area to another, asking the same question "Is there consensus yet?". Asked and answered. Over and over. As you move from area to area. Please follow the link, and read. Then you might know. And to answer your next question, yes, there remains a consensus not to include the information text.sinneed (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is your intent CoreEpic to edit against consensus, which by definition is editwarring and will almost certainly earn you another block, consensus is against inclusion. Further discussion is pointless. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Its called picking your battles, Sinneed, Im not going to give up on having a mention, and thus far your only reason to disagree with putting it in is that you disagree. What areas have I jumped around to? Your logic is breaking down, take a step back and think. There is no weasel wording, I want there to be an inclusion that summarizes the exact nature of the news release, you want there to be no inclusion, but have mentioned one that would acknowledge the event as vaguely as possible. I figured that a good middle ground would be an inclusion of the vague mention rather than none whatsoever but obviously that is too much. So apart from consensus by biased parties, what reason do you have to not include the reference?CoreEpic (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

"thus far your only reason to disagree with putting it in is that you disagree" - false, warning you again now. Do not put words into my mouth. There is no excuse for it.

"inclusion of the vague mention rather than none whatsoever" - if you read the article, you will find that remains untrue as well

"So apart from consensus by biased parties, what reason do you have to not include the reference?" - placing a warning on your talk page. Do not do this ever again. Each of us is entitled to have an opinion. This is not bias. It is having an opinion.sinneed (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When your opinion opts to non inclusion of established facts because you dont like them, its defined as bias, thus far you have given me no other reason than a lack of consensus, you cant agree to consensus because none exists is your reason and that translates to "thus far your only reason to disagree with putting it in is that you disagree". The only inclusion currently on the page is the link unless the page has been changed since i last looked, aaaaand as far as you warning me, your warnings are tiresome, go waste them on someone else.CoreEpic (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic So, whats the good news? "In 2004, a boy committed suicide 2 weeks after arriving." sounds like a plan to me. Anyone have a valid objection? Or are we proceeding?CoreEpic (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

We are indeed proceeding with leaving that out.sinneed (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why though? apart from not liking the inclusion (which could possibly just maybe be defined as bias) you have given me no other reason. This is getting childish, "In 2004, a boy committed suicide 2 weeks after arriving." its true, its accurate and it should be included. Is there any valid NPOV reason to not include that?CoreEpic (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

3rd time. WHY should it be included? --Tom 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be included because it is a noteworthy piece of information about the school. Because it allows for a NPOV of the school showing positive as well as negative examples of things that have gone on there. It is important because it happened. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the importance of an encyclopedia is to include information on historical, scientific, political etc facts. If you include the FFS on wikipedia, it is also your responsibility to include any and all pertinent information to the history of the school. And if a suicide taking place on a campus that is by its own definition closely monitored by staff isn't important then logic has failed. CoreEpic (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

You wrote, because it is a noteworthy piece of information about the school, according to whom?? --Tom 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the school, as they released a press release about the event, and according to societal edicts, society likes to take note of death, particularly when it comes before its expected time. You dont hear nearly as much news about birth as you do about death, thats because it's considered to be news(note)worthyCoreEpic (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Moreover, its noteworthy because of all the ruckus that its addition has caused. If this wasn't noteworthy information would anyone really care about its addition? CoreEpic (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Why exactly does there need to be a consensus? I admit the original language was bit biased but it did happen and it was certainly a major event. What criteria does this not meet? Do u need a consensus on the Jeffrey Dahmer page if one of his relatives object to an accusation of killing? Someone dying is both noteworthy and relevant. Especially when one of the main objectives of the school is reforming youths. I think even an accusation of something this serious is noteworthy but this rises to an even higher level than that. It actually happened. I live in this area and it was one of the biggest stories of the year. As far as any accusation that may come up as to my relation with Core Epic, I do know him, but it is a story I care about that happened in my community. The biased language should be corrected but he should not be censored. Doesn't that go against everything Wiki stands for.Cicatriz1 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Enough. Hopefully, reminding CoreEpic that consensus is not who can shout the loudest, or who can have the last word will bring an end to this. This exchange is pointless and ridiculous, in addition to being a complete waste of time and effort. I likewise suggest that the other editors here let this be the end of it; we're getting nowhere. I may have an arguable bias that tends to favor the school; the other editors here do not. You need to listen CoreEpic. If consensus went the other way, I would've conceded the point and moved on long ago. This editor has been repeatedly cautioned, counseled, warned, and blocked on this same matter, yet he persists unabated. Consensus is against inclusion. Period. If he readds against consensus, I say let him suffer the consequences. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, Wikiwag, you are missing the mark and the point. There is no consensus to add it because... there is no consensus to add it because... there is no consensus to add it . Great, why is there no consensus to add the information to the page? Is there any valid reason that is no opinion?CoreEpic (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

also, whatever happened to your last statement being your last on the subject? My "counseling" has been that "no one agrees with me" and that I am apparently a "sock puppeteer" (which I find to be a delightful concept despite the fact that I am not, can I put lipstick on my sock puppet?) CoreEpic (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Comment

For the record, I was asked by CoreEpic to step in and have a look-see. To be honest, I must concur with the above users against the inclusion of such information. Unless there was specific, and well sourced, neglect on behalf of the school (i.e. if the school had anything to do with the suicide) or anyone else pertaining to the teenager's education, it can't be considered notable enough for inclusion. I've only read the above arguments, I have not read any sourcing or anything deeper than that, so please don't apply too much weight to my comment. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

this is the press release http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/familyschoolsuicide.html the comment that I am insisting be added does not implicate the school or anyone else, it just lends a reference. Thank you for your input though.CoreEpic (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

So, whats the conclusion?

Does anyone have a reason to NOT include the reference to the 2004 suicide other than lack of consensus(of individuals who maybe, just maybe are biased)? If not, I think that maybe Sineed's idea was a good one, despite the fact that I kind of take issue with its lack of detail, "In 2004, a boy committed suicide 2 weeks after arriving." Looks acceptable to me. Does anyone have a factually based, NPOV reason to not include it? Again, not including the fact that there is a predetermined lack of consensus (by individuals who might, just maybe, possibly, one in a million chance, might not be neutral unbiased participants)CoreEpic (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

(EC)The lack of consensus is reason enough. You have a clear CoI CoreEpic and you seriously need to consider letting this go. John Sloan (view / chat) 23:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for the reason of lack of consensus is not reason enough, I can go out and get 50 meat puppets to come on here and agree with me, and that will constitute consensus in favor of the inclusion, but no, I am sticking to wiki guidelines, no original research, just because you dont like it doesn't make it invalid. You'll need to provide a reason for not including the information, not that I shouldn't include it because i shouldnt include it. Thats irrational.CoreEpic (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Actually, "just because you dont like it" is an incorret statement from you. I actually have no opinion on the disputed content. It is your behavior and lack of willingness to accept the obvious consensus here that is concerning me. Also, consensus is not irrational. Its policy! John Sloan (view / chat) 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh Ok, so using that logic, I should go get as many meat puppets as humanly possible to create a biased consensus, then you'll agree?CoreEpic (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

If lots of new accounts come here now and start editing in your favour, everyone is going to know it was because of you. See WP:MEAT, you'll find that its a form of sock puppetry. Consensus will still not be considered to be in your favour and your disruptive editing will have reached a point were you may recieve an indefblock. Please let this go... For your own sake! John Sloan (view / chat) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I said that merely to make the point that just because 3 biased individuals are forming a consensus it doesn't make the consensus valid or something that I will acknowledge. Until I see reason to not include the detail I will continue to drive the point home. CoreEpic (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Uninvolved editors here have also agreed that the statement should not be included. However, if you can't let this go, you will ultimately just have to continue beating that dead horse. Simple. John Sloan (view / chat) 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that people who know each other in real life and share an opinion may have recruited one another to join in a discussion on this article. That would fall under WP:MEAT, but if there is disclosure, there is less chance they will be sanctioned. It is reasonable that the complete set of people who made a joint plan to appear here ought to be counted as one single editor for purposes of Talk page consensus or any WP:3RR issues. If they have something constructive to say as individuals, their arguments should still be carefully listened to. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

CoreEpic, who are the 3 biased individuals are forming a consensus?? The reason for NOT including this "material" has been repeatidly spelled out at this point by more than one unbiased editor. This is not the Sarah Palin article and rape kit material, this is a tiny article and about a tiny school and it seems that a few UNbiased editors have now chimed in. You can try to get a few more folks to look at this, but at some point, enough is really enough it seems. I am sorry you are not happy about this, but this is how wikipedia works for better or worse. If 3-4 uninvolved admins or regular editors showed up here and said, "yeah, that should be in the article" then I would ride off into the sunset and we would be done. That hasn't happened. Your "idea" that recruiting others to argue for inclusion is bad and probably wouldn't work because of wikipedia transparancy, the #1 thing I like the most about this project. That would be sniffed out pretty quickly I would hope. Anyways, --Tom 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, John, The "three biased parties" is more of a figure of speech, however if you look at the history of the wiki, there are two parties who have overwhelmingly shoveled positive information into the wiki, while generally rejecting any negative information (excluding detail of cafety, which seems to have caused a bit of a rift). Also there is one party who has insisted on accusing me of gloating and sock puppetry and continues disagreeing with me on the merits that others do as well, im not sure if that's bias but it sure seems funny... Im not quite sure I understand your reference to Sarah Palin, but Im going to bring up a point that a prior editor made: if you look up Jeffrey Dahmer, you'll find that it says that he killed people, that seems awefully POV against him, but that's allowed to stay because it happened and there are sources that verify it. Similarly, someone died at the FFS, whether or not it makes the place look bad, it happened, sorry, it just DID. Why insist that that information not be included? How is it irrelevant?CoreEpic (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

4th time, how is it relevant and if its truley noteworthy, produced multiple 3rd party sources that covered it and show its relevance. Anyways, this horse is glue and I am close to out. --Tom 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ps Dahmer recieved "coverage" up the ying yang, and he is noteworthy according to TONS of reliable sources. The same is no where near to close here. So far we have how many citations covering this "material"?? --Tom 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

back to an earlier point, just because an issue was stifled, doesn't make it irrelevant or invalid. there is one source that makes what happened very clear, as well as dozens of eyewitness accounts on various blogs and forums (which I know are not valid verifiable sources but the point still stands). Why this issue was stifled, I don't know, I have my own theories but original research is not accepted so oh well, but the point is that it has been stifled, if its an issue of me doing more legwork and finding an official obit, or something beyond what has already been done, sure I'll do it. But the fact is, apart from the interview with Wells Thompson, there's no proof that he ever set foot in the FFS. What makes one detail more valid or pertinent than another?CoreEpic (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

If there is a secondary source that comments on the 2004 suicide and connects in in some way with how the school operates, that would certainly be OK. If all we have are rumors, then it's not OK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/familyschoolsuicide.html is all that exists, I could do some digging, maybe find a hard copy of an obit, which I HOPE exists, but I would imagine that if a single interview in a local news paper is enough to include Wells Thompson, then a press release by the FFS should probably be enough.CoreEpic (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

So what's the deal? If I go ahead and do a whole bunch of picking at that scab and finally get a second verifiable source put online, will there be a consensus to include the information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreEpic (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)