Talk:West Ridge Academy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Image

I think the article would benefit with the image at this link [1] which stated on the West Ridge website, we have authorization to use it. Might be a nice aesthetic addition to the article. I tried to do it - but I am still figuring out the bugs with my Firefox installation on my new Ubuntu box (won't let me download images). I knew there was a reason I haven't done Linux in a while. Can someone else give that a try? --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot

Will now automatically archive all threads after they have been inactive for fourteen days. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reboot

My head was spinning trying to go through all of the conversations above, so I am going to do something pretentious. I am archiving everything, and lets reboot this discussion. Everyone and their dog - please read the article carefully in its current form - seriously - read it again - I made more changes. Then, list what you think is wrong with the article below in bulleted format.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Like this (for you new editors).

Thank you for the reboot - it was necessary. I find the article reasonably PC with one correction . DoonRay (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Opening Sentance: West Ridge Academy is classified in the industry as a Residential Treatment Facility (or center), not a youth rehab. From Woodbury Reports " West Ridge Academy is a non-profit, non-denominational residential treatment center for boys or girls " [2] DoonRay (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell me the difference between a "Residential Treatment Facility" for youth, and a youth rehabilitation center? I don't see a difference - and the latter is more clear as to what the center actually does. Correct me if I am wrong.--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's mine:

TallNapoleon (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The at-risk teens should go. A number of the Mormon Gulag teens allege that they weren't sent there for being "at-risk", but for rejecting Mormonism or coming out as gay. It's not for us to say that these teens are "at-risk", as this begs a number of questions. Better to not say it at all.

Fair Call and agreed to edit - but remember that the reasons the teens were sent there are best known by the teen's parents. 173.10.26.145 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - the allegations should be reflected in the controversy section. The lede and overview should reflect the current state of the center. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The quote in the lede should be moved elsewhere. It's unnecessarily awkward.

I cut out a bunch of it - how does it look now?--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Mormon Gulag folks explicitly allege that prosletization takes place. This is worth mentioning, in light of the claims by the missionaries that they don't prosletyze.

Is every allegation that the Mormon Gulag folks want to make going to be part of the article? DoonRay (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Of more interest here - I find it interesting that we are spending more talk time and more article space about the POV from some disgruntled teens from a teen treatment facility that treats a few hundred kids a year than is spent on the LDS church "Controversy and Criticism" section. I don't see protests listed by specific blogs or individual names or individual suits. Certainly the LDS church has had thousands of suits... but they are not listed individually as we are 'discussing' here. Are we off base in our scope, scale and perspective? DoonRay (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE READ - ALL - I might suggest that the mormon gulag folks and other critics create a site, like the one created to criticize the LDS church here and post to their heart's delight there, rather than seek to push a POV on the informational page about West Ridge. That way, specific allegations from specific individuals can be outlined at whatever depth is appropriate and general controversy issues can be referenced and pointed to the criticism article on Wiki. DoonRay (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1) I tend to agree that the controversy section might be a little bloated - a discussion about WP:UNDUE might be warranted. 2) I wholeheartedly DISAGREE to create a different article with criticism. That to me is a clear case of a WP:POVFORK. (I actually think that the Criticism of Mormonism article is a pretty big POV Fork too - and I expressed as much many times in that article.)--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to see less on governance, and more from the school's point of view. Right now there's a lot about the allegations, and not a whole lot about what the school actually says it does. This should be rectified.

What from the school would you like to see that is not in the primary web site? DoonRay (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Finally there are a number of small grammatical and formatting issues that need fixing. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the reference formatting and some capitalization. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Objecting to revert

I'm unhappy with the revert made earlier today by Voire Dei (t c). The result is to restore quite a lot of unsourced material and to remove some pertinent and well-sourced items.

I have not been happy with DoyleCB (t c)'s apparent POV here, and I think he was foolish to engage in substantial article editing after requesting arbitration, but the actual edits in this case seem to me very reasonable and consistent with Wikipedia policy. I propose restoring them. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First, thank you for asking about this here rather than participating in actions that will lead to edit warring. Your exammple is one that we should all follow.

I would encourage all editors not to do any significant edits unless first discussed here. As far as Doyle's edits, the first several that I saw looked POV to me. For example,

1. I see no need to delete the sentence, "It seeks to provide clinical services, education, and other programs for teens at risk" from the introduction paragraph. This would seem to be important because it specifically states "clinical services" and "teens at risk". Someone has stated that the young people themselves do not consider that they were at risk young people, but they are not the people to ask. Their parents obviously thought they were at risk or they would not be sending them to this very expensive school. More importantly, its inclusion fulfills the role of an introductory paragraph by summarizing the article.
2. Why continue to delete past board members? We have been given a entire list of all past members and each of these people are on them. Is that some of them are not LDS that is so bothersome or what? The reference has been given and should be used.
3. The state reviews the facility annually; why not state that? I see no reason to have deleted this. Is the objective to remove any information that describes the oversight of the facility?
4. No reason to remove a clarification for Buttars' "controversy". What is the objective for removing it? It would seem beneficial for readers to understand exactly what the problem was.
5. This new information about a law suit being filed in 2008 by Tyler Elsey is meaningless. Anyone can file a lawsuit and many lawsuits are thrown out for no basis. It would seem that what is needed before adding this is a verdict. Has there been any verdict yet? Do we know when a verdict might be given?
6. No need to remove the clarification that Norwood was a student. It provides the reader the benefit of knowing that he was there and his experience is first hand.
7. GBH receives "bulletins" about the academy...he also receives the NYT, the WSJ, and untold number of other things to read. This is a classic case of OR and SYN. It means nothing, it does not define a relationship, it does not provide anything.

That is just my initial thoughts, but what I reject most is the fact that Doyle was the editor who requested arbitration and since that time (s)he has consistently attempted to ignore all consensus editing and independently goes off. Is there a problem working together? Descartes was doing a good job of mediating; is there a problem continuing down that path? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 12:59, June 13, 2009

I agree with you on the matters of Buttars' resignation, Norwood's status as a former student, and the issue of Hinckley's receiving "bulletins" from the school; the first two should be included and the third should not. Here's why I disagree on the remaining issues:

1. The mission statements are already included as properly sourced quotations from West Ridge Academy literature. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Board members: I think overall this is a red herring and we would be better off leaving them off entirely. That said, the list that DoyleCB added (Delpha Baird, Ronald Kunz, and Ken McGuire) is supported by the reference provided. The other board members are not. Doyle's edit is simply better sourced. If I have misread the reference, please correct me.
3. The statement that "the state reviews the facility annually" is not supported by the reference provided, as far as I can tell. This is an unsourced assertion.
4. I am perplexed that you would say a 2008 lawsuit against the academy is "meaningless". The lawsuit may not have had merit and may have been dismissed, and any outcome should be included, but I think it is beyond question that it is relevant to an article about the academy.

If I have misunderstood your objections or the references given, please clarify so I can understand better. Thanks. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I also object to the revert made by voire del. I find it to be very disruptive. As far as the list above, I believe that my list is better sourced and is not reflective of a POV shared by those who support the academy. That does not mean that the edits are flawed or without merit. Let me give some examples:

1. Past board members. I have referenced a verifiable list, from an external source, while West Ridge Academy has not. They have attempted to use a list that has most people blacked out (why would they black out the list, who else is on it that they are trying to conceal?). As far as the credibility of references go, my reference and list for past board members is substantially stronger.
2. Hinckley publicly spoke about the Utah Boys Ranch on at least one occasion. That is significant to many people. Hinkley does not commonly speak about the NYT, WSJ, or the other red herrings mentioned.
3. As far as what the Academy states it does, that is stated many times throughout the article. They claim that they have been helping people since 1964, but also claim that the old facility and new facility are two completely different entities. I think that re-stating the mission statement of the current academy all throughout the article is inappropriate, especially given the disclaimers made about anything stated prior to 2005.
4. The controversy surrounding Buttars forced retirement is not known to everyone, the details and complaint are not public record. It would be misleading to indicate that Buttars "only did this" and to make assumptions on exactly what he was guilty of and what he was not guilty of. Retiring amid controversy seems accurate.
5. The clarification around Norwood being a student came at the heels of the dispute over whether Norwood should also be allowed the title journalist or writer. Since it seems that the consensus is to not add the title, I also feel that the title "former boy" is unwarranted.
6. It is correct, some students, former staff, and parents agree that not everyone is sent there for being "teens at risk." To assume so just because they were at the facility begs the question.
7. I strongly disagree that the lawsuit is meaningless. I do think that the lawsuit is relevant and that seems to be the consensus of the other editors, so I won't comment on that.
8. There is no verifiable reference that the state reviews the facility annually. If there is a reference for that, I would not object to adding it back.
9. I also strongly feel that this article belongs in the category Mormonism, or Mormon-related controversies. Any objections to that?--DoyleCB (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Can those editing also be careful when reverting to previous versions. It is messing up the reference formatting and other non-controversial corrections. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Like DoyleCB just did again here. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I problem with the law suit is that filing a law suit can be done by anyone, for any reason: real, imagined, nuisance, harassment, etc. Today, I can file a lawsuit against the US President for terrorism, but until a judgment is made, it is meaningless. Filing means nothing because the foundation of our law system is innocent until pr oven guilty. We do not know if there is any merit to the lawsuit or anything else.

Did I read the claim correctly that it was filed in small claims court? Does that seem strange to anyone? If this was a real issue, it would be a felony change against an individual and not be small claims court filing against an organization. More importantly, it would be brought by the State of Utah's prosecutor's office. Sexual abuse is not something that is handled by an individual and is a serious charge and this court filing looks like anything but serious. --^StormRider 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2 Things: 1) I agree that anyone can file a lawsuit - but in this case where there are relatively high profile allegations of sexual abuse, a sexual abuse lawsuit is particularly relevant, which is why I put it back. 2) Can you point to the reference for small claims? The references I am reading say it is a $10 million sexual abuse lawsuit.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference on justia.com says "Utah District Court". I don't understand the differences between district court, circuit court, and so on, but I am pretty sure this was not a small claims filing. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a reminder to everyone to sign your comments using four tildes. When you don't sign your comments the dialog gets confusing to follow. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits are contested - consensus first and then edits

Doyle, what's up. Do you not understand that your previous edits are contested? Please do not enter into another edit war or violate the 3RR rule. Understand that your proposed edits have been rejected and questioned by editors and we are working through them. Once consensus is achieved, the article will be edited. Cheers. --^StormRider 19:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, please be more specific about the edits you state are being contested. Furthermore, just because YOU contest them (you have a track record of contesting anything negative about the Academy or the Mormon church) does not mean that they should be reverted by you. Please refer to the 3RR rule, as you are making disruptive edits. --DoyleCB (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I must be mistaken, but are you completely ignoring the fact that there is a DISCUSSION going on? Typically, what that indicates is that editors are attempting to achieve consensus. It does not matter if one or a dozen disagree with your continued bullying style of editing of this article and your demonstration of ownership, only one person can revert at a time and I have done so today. More importantly, we are discussing them; just cool your jets and participate in the discussion.

When edits are contested it means they are reverted and brought to the discussion page...that was done. Strange, I thought this would be self-evident. You may want to go back and review the tutorial on editing Wikipedia; you seem to have a record of being ignorant of how things are done, complaining about it, and then realizing that others are correct in their actions. This appears to be another one of those times. Good luck with the tutorial; I am sure you will feel better afterwards. --^StormRider 21:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Old board members and current board members

Critics have made an claim about the LDS Church is related to this school. Strangely, that is supposed to be significant, but the LDS Church has sponsored numerous schools in the past, just not this one. I can understand how a critic would hate to have their claims proved silly by the presence of Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, governors, and State Supreme Court Justices, etc. on the board in the past. It seems to take the carpet out from under the argument that this is an LDS organization or even that it is related to Mormon doctrine, Mormonism, etc. The only thing that can be verified is that LDS work at the institution, that the founders were LDS, but nothing more.

We have been supplied with a list of all past board members by the Academy; all that is needed is to add the reference. --^StormRider 19:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to agree with StormRider on this one. The allegations of the Mormon connection are mildly supported by the references. Perhaps in the past the connection was much stronger - but now it is not. And throughout all of it, there never was an "official" connection between the two organizations. I would like to ask those with the POV that is critical of WRA/UBR - is the Mormon connection the real criticism here? It seems to me that this is really just a side point, and that the real problems you might have with the institution is the sexual/physical abuse. If this observation is correct, I propose we seriously limit the content alleging the Mormon connection (pare it down to just a sentence), and place more emphasis on the allegations of abuse. If you think about it this makes sense - because I suspect there are many centers like this across the country that are also religious in nature. The religious debate here is really part of a much bigger debate about the influence of religion on politics/society is it not? What are your thoughts?--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Documentation showing that an overwhelming majority of board members past and present were LDS would be more convincing. I think that the entire matter of the board's religious affiliation is moot until proven otherwise, and should be left out of the article altogether. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The references provided to show an overwhelming majority of the board members, past and present, were LDS. Can you not gain that information from the current references. To answer Descartes question, I believe many people have a big problem with the Mormon Connection. See here: http://web.mac.com/goodk/www.MormonGulag.com/The_Mormon_Connection_-_Mormon_Gulag_.html

Former residents and staff have referred to the facility as a "reeducation camp.: --DoyleCB (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The references given for the board of directors are the IRS tax form 990 and the archive.org link to the old utahboysranch.org board page, neither of which has details on the board members' religious affiliations. Can you be specific about which references confirm what you are saying? Tim Pierce (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I reworded the info on the board of directors. I think it is interesting and relevant information to include a mention of notable people who sit (or sat) on the board, so I left the two people who had existing wikipedia pages, but removed the rest. And before you WRA sympathizers get all up in arms about removing the non-Mormons from the list, I also added some phrasing to make it clear that the board members are/were both Mormon and non-Mormon.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem removing the board of directors completely, my only problem is with the unverifiable list of directors supplied by a former editor that had half of the names blocked out. That is not verifiable Enclyclopedic content.--DoyleCB (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Descartes - looks like your phrasing to balance the list was removed by Doyle once again. I am unclear as to the concern about representing the list of board members more accurately. The first member listed is a religion instructor, but we remove a past Governor of Utah Norm Bangerter, Major Business Owners such as Sam Garff, David Marriott and Tom Ivory, local leaders of complimentary religions 2 Fathers and 1 Reverend. These were all cited appropriately. Once again, the list is winnowed down to a list that lends towards a certain POV that is against the LDS Church. If we cannot have it balanced, why have it? If the only purpose in listing is to show a mormon connection - put it down with the controversy. This is getting silly. DoonRay (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider reading correctly?

He/She said: "Did I read the claim correctly that it was filed in small claims court? Does that seem strange to anyone?"

Storm, you did not read correctly. The claim was certainly not filed in small claims court. Perhaps you should take some more time to read the references and less time being uncivil to editors and being an apologist for the "academy." Thanks. --DoyleCB (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Doyle: you will have to practice what you preach. I want very much to take your concerns seriously, but comments like this make it very difficult to do so. Tim Pierce (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that and will try and be more serious. I was simply calling attention to something I have a hard time taking very seriously, the claim that the 10 million dollar lawsuit was filed in small claims court. Really??? --DoyleCB (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SCOPE, SCALE and POV

Does anyone else find that over 30,0000 words of "discussion" (and who knows how many man hours of effort) over an article with less than 500 words to be, all interests and POV's aside, amazingly disproportionate and even amusing if it were not so pathetic? I am sorry, but standing back, you have to laugh. If all of these edits were about neutrality and objectivity, and not pushing the POV meter one micron left or right with each word edited, this would have been over 200 man hours and 20,000 words of discussion ago. Is there no way to end this pissing match without mega hours of "discussion" and countless edit wars? It is pathetic at best that the lives of those involved are about this kind of behavior and that it requires dedication of resources for senseless edit and opinion wars. This Discussion area is no more than one more forum for POV entries, despite the honest and best efforts of some of the editors. I applaud those trying to push for neutrality. I wonder if it would be better served to simply deny and delete the topic, than have what seems to be an unresolvable waste of man hours over a tiny article. DoonRay (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the same story that happened last time. This article started out as a hack piece for the Gulag gang. Unfortunately, they do not learn that Wikipedia is not a blog and is not used in the manner they want it to be. Wikipedia just reports facts in as neutral a manner as possible. Currently it is pathetic that so much time is lost just trying to keep an article even remotely neutral, but it is a public encyclopedia and anyone can edit. Fortunately, those who repeatedly abuse the policies will be blocked and some indefinitely. We just have to stick it out in the hopes of producing a good article. --^StormRider 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the continuing edit wars and POV problems - can we re-instated the COI Tag? DoonRay (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not prepared to place it on the article yet; it is influx and there is positive discussion going on. The editor that is being disruptive will not be much longer and then the rest of the editors will move forward. Doon, nothing should go in the article now without references; however, if a relable source is provided, then it will have a very high probability of going in. The easy path is to look at each of the criticisms presented and then reply to them. I concur with Descartes that the LDS relationship is senseless and means nothing. If there really was a relationship, the LDS Church would freely claim it. The far more damning claim is the ones relating to sexual abuse, torture, etc. These claims are weakened by the mere fact that no legitimate legal action has moved all the way through the system from claim, to court proceeding, to penalty phase. If there is such evidence, it should and will be brough into the article. --^StormRider 03:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: we are limited in our ability to include the claims about sexual and physical abuse because there are few or no secondary sources that corroborate them. If there had been widespread media coverage about the issues raised at the Mormon Gulag, we could legitimately refer to that coverage even if no lawsuits had been filed. It is not our job to decide whether the claims are true or even whether they are plausible. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested, Petition to remove Storm Rider as an editor of this article

It's pathetic that an organized group of adults that are opposed to the Academy wish to make the article more balanced, but not that some very dedicated supporters are doing the same? Storm, please review the Wikipedia policies for civility and ownership. You do not get to bully editors who do not agree with you. A formal complaint has been filed with the administrators. I'd appreciate the help of some of the editor, non POV editors involved. Storm Rider is trying to ban editors who don't agree with him or are part of a group of editors he calls "the Gulag gang" or "bloggers." --DoyleCB (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Doyle, I must ask you at this point to refrain from editing this article. I am concerned that your behavior is becoming as disruptive and biased as you have accused others of being, and I am worried that you have a conflict of interest that puts you in the same position as WestRidgeAuthorized (t c). Tim Pierce (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my behavior is in reaction to being bullied by other editors who don't share the same POV. I have been issued three warnings today by the same editor. I have not engaged in the name calling and personal insults that certain other editors have been involved in. Please let me know what edits are disruptive and biased and I will try to work towards a compromise. If anything, I have brought more references to this article than any other editor, for the record. --DoyleCB (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a rather long history of fighting vandalism. In fact, I have a rather long history of working on Wikipedia. In addition, I have never been blocked. I caution you, Doyle, that you are treading on very thin ice and you could easily be blocked for an extended period if you do not stop. Please heed Tim's advice given here. --^StormRider 02:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best for all parties to avoid words like "the Gulag gang", "apologist for the academy", "pathetic", and so on. It is not going to bring us any closer to a resolution. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Edit Warring filed for Storm Rider

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#user:Storm_Rider_reported_by_DoyleCB_.28Result:_.29 --DoyleCB (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been warned for abusing warning templates; it does not take long to get blocked. Please keep it up and I will ask for a long-term or permanent block given your interest in violating so many Wikipedia policies. The mere fact that you have listed this here is qualifies as harassment. Cheers. --^StormRider 02:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Using West Ridge as a Mask for Anit-Mormon POV

There is no evidence or citation for any contractual or other legal relationship between the West Ridge Academy and the LDS church. That the LDS church donates funds, goods or labor in the form of service missionaries does not create any legally binding relationship. The Academy does not deny that it receives donations from the Church. The Academy does not deny that many of its board and employees are LDS. The academy does not deny that it takes positive Christian values and ideas from the LDS Church and utilizes them as part of their stated Spiritual Emphasis. The bulk of the "edit war" here has been about the "mormon connection". The POV problem is that those stating it as a controversy are giving away their COI/POV position - that the association is controversial. The Academy does not view it as controviersial any more than its association with other Churches in the area. There is a strong connection because the Utah area is populated with a high density of LDS people. Displaying this as a "controversy" is simply a statement that "somebody did not like the connection." The connection exists in terms of donations and community involvement. Let's put it in the appropriate light. If those opposing the Academy wish to state that they did not like the Mormon influence, great, let's say it that way. But including the connection with the Mormon church as one of list of other heinous allegations is inappropriate. Let's separate the POVs here. Unless there is something inherently evil or legally wrong or documented as therapeutically damaging about the connection, lets separate the bias about the Mormon Church from the history and operation of the Academy. State it as part of what they are, not part of a controversy. Then, give whatever space in the controversy section you want to those that dislike the Mormons. You cannot believe that the current inclusion of the connection to the Mormon church is without POV and bias towards the religion. I dont care if you like or dislike the religion, but there has been no establishment that association with it is evil - so let's separate it from the other allegations. DoonRay (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no citation as to what former students or what former staff state that "there is a strong connection..." I recommend removing the Staff and STudents state section and simply keep something like "Cited examples of an apparent connection with the LDS Church include:" followed by the bullets. DoonRay (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

RELEVANCE OF CONTROVERSY EDITS

I have no issue posting controversy edits, in fact, I find them helpful. However, for the sake of both mediation and ongoing clarity, I belieive it necessary to brin up one critical issue for perspective. The controversy and anti-west ridge or anti-mormon (Not sure which it really is) postings and edits, and lets be honest people, without such, this discussion and edit war would not exist, is provided courtesy of past occupants of a residential treatment facility who disagreed with being there or the treatment they received. Let's be objective here one two counts.

1. All teens sent to such facilities do not want to be there initially

2. Teens that work their 'program' and experience a measure of change end up grateful for the life-changing event and end up repairing relationships with parents, famil etc.; those that do not overcome what they were sent there for end up even more upset about being sent there. Typically these end up estranged from parents and family etc.

The controversy section and edits here are not from the true customers of the Utah Boys Ranch (The Parents who sent their children) but from those whe were sent to receive help and fall into one of two categories above. I welcome the controversy section in appropriate measure, and not as a plug against mormonism, but I believe there is a huge hole in understanding of the editors, and a blaring hole in the controversy section as it only represents one small group of angry kids who are still angry about being sent there. Certainly there are upset clients (the paying parents) about the care their teens received, but seemingly more of the clients (the parents) are vocal about the positive changes their children went through. It would be far more compelling to have controversy from those that spent their dollars and made the decision to use the services, not just the disgruntled teens that were forced by their parents to attend. If any of the editors are old enough to have children and even grandchildren - as this editor does - this should be compelling perspective. Let's keep it in mind as we continue to battle over how to represent controversy. I believe the nature of the group bringing the controversy is relevant. DoonRay (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is my personal opinion, but I would appreciate not using the term "anti-Mormon" - there is quite a lot of insinuation and history behind that term and you use it as a pejorative (as do most unfortunately). I personally consider myself critical of Mormonism, but would not call myself "anti-Mormon". --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Doon, I will have to concur with Descartes on the use of anti-Mormon; it is an inflammatory word and should be used with extreme care by individuals and in particular, LDS. On the other hand, Descartes, your position of being critical of the LDS Church and the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole is based upon scholarly research and not emotion. After you have spent time reading Mormon Gulag, can you represent that the website is one based upon scholarly research? IMHO, it is wholly emotion as represented by the quality of their writing; there is no concept of striving to find facts. It is innuendo, synthesis, and recreation. They desperately seek after anything that even remotely supports their position. This may be one of those times when anti-Mormon applies, but I personally am not prepared to label it as such at this time. --^StormRider 17:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Doon/Descartes - my apologies. I was not aware that anti-Mormon was inflamatory. I viewed it no differently than critical of mormonism, but will definitely fix this in any future posts. Thank you for the education. DoonRay (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

On another note, it would be interesting to add how students are sent to this school. The mere concept that it is not by individual choice of the student is important for readers to understand. Parents are sending them there for reasons that should be explored. The difficulty is providing reliable sources. Thoughts? --^StormRider 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed DoonRay (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK Children, lets do this the hard way

You guys are killing me with this edit warring. Doyle, you reverted a bunch of my edits, claiming they were Storm's. And many other perfectly harmless edits are getting battled over. I think everyone please take a step back and take a deep breath and ask your self if it is really that important to war over the list of board members or other such nonsense.

Now - I am going to put my major edits up for a vote in an effort to achieve consensus. Hopefully that will make the edits non-controversial and keep them around. Proposal 1: I propose we limit the "Mormon connection" section to about one or two sentences, move all the bullet points to the footnotes. I think this is a really good idea because a) it commands a third of the article which strikes me as WP:UNDUE, and 2) it is not really the main complaint by the critics (abuse is the main point). Please vote support or oppose:

• Support--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support----^StormRider 17:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC) (as you say, not the preferred method, but one forced upon us).
• Support---DoonRay (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support---TallNapoleon (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC) The allegations of abuse are far more notable and important. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support---Alanraywiki (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support---Tim Pierce (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the Hard Way

This is silly, but let's put each issue back on the table and get consensus. I have not and will not edit before consensus.

Proposal 2. Language indicating that Buttars resigned due to controversy about his political campaign was removed once again. I propose annotating that the "controversy" surrounding his resignation was not over Ranch practices, but his personal campaign practices. (as cited) DoonRay (talk)

The article should explain that the controversy dealt with his improper use of Ranch facilities for his reelection campaign, because that's what the article says. It should not say anything either way about Ranch practices because the source does not address those. However, it is relevant to mention that Ranch facilities were involved. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support----DoonRay (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3. Board Membership. I propose either removing it, or putting back the list of material members (regardless of religion). Including a BYU teacher but not a governor, major community figures, religious leaders etc? Let's get this back on track, or remove it. DoonRay (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with removing the whole section about the board at this point. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support---DoonRay (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

I added some information from the web site of the Utah Department of Human Services on licensing. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

All organizations that are licensed are reviewed annually and receive periodic visits per the link above. This would include West Ridge Academy because it is licensed. Therefore, the verbiage that it "is reviewed annually and the organization receives periodic visits from a licensing specialist to monitor and provide technical assistance and to insure compliance with Core and Categorical Rules of Treatment" is correct. The citation does not need to specifically state a particular entity. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Suit by Tyler Elsey

Suits are brought all the time for various reasons. Please read the referenced Court Doc which indicates that the case was never pursued and that Elsey gave "Notice of Removal". The case was never pursued. So, bringing it up is interesting, but perhaps not much different than any other suit that was not found to have sufficient merrit to pursue. This entry should be removed or annotated as to the case being dropped by the plaintiff and Notice of Removal given to the court. DoonRay (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The court records cited say nothing about the plaintiff dropping the case because it was without merit. Nice try West ridge authorized.--166.135.253.230 (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Doon, do you have any references that this lawsuit was not pursued? At this point, the editing resembles more throw up anything in the hopes that something sticks. Regardless, we have to take each claim seriously and demonstrate that they are highly biased and without merit.

With all of the claims by the Gulag boys, it would seem like there would be a plethora of criminal legal actions. I keep thinking that something of merit will show up, but nothing does. Surely there has been at least one lawsuit that has gone to court and West Ridge has been found guilty; at least one. Surely something, but it appears that nothing has happened. Given how bad the stories are at the Gulag blog, this is very strange indeed. --^StormRider 02:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm: I caution you not to go too far down that road, and to remember that our role is not to judge what is true but to confirm what can be verified. The Catholic Church successfully suppressed any exposure of child abuse by priests for decades. If there has not been a successful lawsuit yet against the West Ridge Academy, that does not prove that nothing untoward has occurred. What it does mean is that we must be very circumspect about what we add to Wikipedia. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again - read the court record where it records request for Jury - the disposition shows "Notice of Removal" If there were any findings or actions, those would show, but all that shows is the notice of removal. West Ridge's License has never been out of "Good Standing", and I do not have a reference for that because there is no record of sequential years of good standing, only records of warnings and citations, which there are none that I can find. DoonRay (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that it says "Notice of Removal" but it does not explain why, and there is certainly no evidence that the plaintiff dropped the case. The Mormon Gulag site says that the suit was dismissed without prejudice (meaning that the plaintiff has the right to bring suit again) because it was not brought in the proper venue: http://web.mac.com/goodk/www.MormonGulag.com/Legal_Issues_and_Bad_Press_West_Ridge_Academy_Mormon_Gulag_Utah_Boys_Ranch/Entries/2008/4/22_.html. MormonGulag.com is not a reliable source so of course we can't use it as a citation for the dismissal, but it does lead me to doubt that the plaintiff simply dropped the suit. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cases that are withdrawn can always be re-introduced. Bottom line here is that the Plaintiff electively dropped the suit and has not reintroduced it. If it truly was for venue, why was the case not simply moved to the correct venue? Either way, to say a suit was filed is ok, but filing is easy, cheap and great for publicity, but does not indicate any meaningful controversy. Find a case that was tried and where West Ridge was found doing things that challenged its license. Review the status of the licence for the past 45 years for documented infractions, then there is real controversy, not just disgruntled clients that did not like the methodology. DoonRay (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What you seem to be arguing is that because of the circumstances of the filing, we may conclude that the suit is without merit -- and that therefore the suit should not be mentioned here. But whether the suit has merit is quite irrelevant to Wikipedia; our role here is to document verifiable and notable issues related to the subject of the article. In the context of current, ongoing (but unverifiable) abuse claims against the Academy, the fact of an earlier independent lawsuit against the Academy for similar claims is extremely significant, even if the suit was dismissed and not refiled. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. My point was that suits get filed for all sorts of reasons every day against every kind of organization. The only ones that are of neutral interest are not those that get filed, but those that get pursued. Angry clients, spouses, employees etc., all file suits. If the suit is worthy of pursuing, it is pursued. Even if it is pursued only to mediation, then it is interesting. What I am saying is that simply filing a suit can mean absolutely nothing, can mean that the filing entity wants the publicity, or can mean that there is cause for the filing. Filing does not intimate cause because without pursuing to case, the cause may not exist and the intent of the case can be one of many things not related to the allegations made in the case. My other point was that if you are going to state that a case was filed, it would be appropriate to indicate that it was also withdrawn without any trial, discovery, actions etc. DoonRay (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently, this lawsuit is menioned as being filed, but no further information has been added. Tim, do you think it is relevant information to note that it has been withdrawn by Elsey? If so, please add it to the article. Although Doyle has been blocked for a short period, I suspect that your edits have a higher probablity of not furthering an edit war than if I made the edit. --^StormRider 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. We have no basis whatsoever for the claim that Elsey withdrew the suit (as opposed to its being dismissed for procedural reasons, which is something very different). I do think that, if we can find a reliable source confirming why the suit did not go forward, we should include that no matter what the reason. But we do not currently have such a source. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I am confused. What is the current status of the lawsuit? Is it ongoing? If not, state that. I personally don't care how it was stopped the fact that it is no longer going forward is significant and is being censored from readers. If you want to quibble over words, fine. Pick your own, but do not make this lawsuit appear that it is ongoing when it is not. --^StormRider 22:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am constantly confused about why we continue to talk about proving a negative. More specifically. What we know is that there was a suit that was not pursued past an initial filing and withdrawal. Forcing "someone" to prove why it was not pursued past that would be consistent with support the POV of the suit. State that there was a suit, fine. State that it was filed and subsequently dropped fine. We have no other information, so asking for proof of why it was dropped would be similar to asking for proof as to why it was created. At this point BOTH are heresay since there was no action taken or pursued. DoonRay (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I could care less the reason why it is no longer active, what is fact, and NOT MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE, is that it is not active any longer. At this point, we can at least state it is not active.

More importantly, can someone please tell me how the Mormon Gulag site meets the standards of a reliable source? I deleted that reference, then reverted myself, but if there is not an acceptable explanation for meeting Wiki standards, I will remove all reference to Mormon Gulag from the article. --^StormRider 22:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that MormonGulag.com is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference. I have removed it as a source for information about the Elsey suit. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very unfortunate to characterize this as a matter of "quibbling over words." There is an enormous implied difference between a case which the plaintiff moves voluntarily to withdraw and one which the court dismisses on a procedural matter. I think it's also very misleading to suggest that this is about "proving a negative." DoonRay, you say that Elsey withdrew his suit; provide a reference that says so and we can add that here. Court proceedings are a matter of public record, so it must be possible to get more information from the county on the resolution of this suit. Do so and we can update the article, but please do not suggest that it is somehow impossible to prove.

In the meantime, because it is clearly important to say something about the status of the case, I have done so to the best of my ability (very limited given the small amount of information presently available). Tim Pierce (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what you have posted and fair. It indicates a case was filed, it tells the current disposition. No problem. Asking me to prove its disposition, again, is asking me to prove why it was dismissed. I don't know why, other than the plaintiff withdrew it without pursuing it. The court as well as anyone but the Plaintiff, likewise, does not know why or keep a record of why the Plaintiff withdrew, only that (s)/he did. So there is likely no record of the intent or rational for the withdrawal. I have no issue with the current edit, it is fair. To say any more in either direction would be without proof. Asking for more may not be perfect semantics for "proving a negative" but asking for reasons for the withdrawal is proving something that has no citation or record. I am reasonably certain you will get resistance to the existing edit, but I find it acceptable. DoonRay (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am mystified at your continued insistence that Elsey withdrew his suit. None of the sources I've seen (reliable or otherwise) seem to corroborate that he did. It's probably a moot point for now, though. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that as of this date, the status of the suit from Elsey has changed. It was reintroduced as a differnt suit in, I believe, a different venue. I recommend removing language that indicates that it was withdrew. It was withdrew, but has not been reintroduced. DoonRay (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, the suit is active now, but you are not sure where it has been reintroduced or under what name. Is that an accurate summation. This suit is important to the article, but I would not do anything until we have correct information. Should anyone become aware of it, please provide the reference when it is added to the article.--^StormRider 03:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

External Links

In the External links section, College Bound's "review" of the academy is listed. CollegeBound.com is a paid advertising service for boarding schools and the linked page is far from a review of the facility. How can this be included in the links considering the obvious bias? The POV of mormongulag.com is too questionable to be cited but a paid service is held up as credible? I propose all advertisements for West Ridge Academy be removed from the links. The academy's website can offer their POV, other "review" links are misleading.--Drstrangelove1 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The mormongolag.com site is in the External Links just as is the college bound networks. The College Bound network promotes schools that it reviews and that are consistent with their tag line "Find the boarding school that fits you and your family’s needs.." and "Since 1987, America's Trusted Resource on Higher Education" Noted here. Mormongulag.com solicits donations to support its POV. College Bound Network sells advertising space because it recognizes that it is viewed as an authority and drives traffic. It does not sell its "reviews", only advertising space. Its value to its clients, like other educational consultants, is its objectivity. DoonRay (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose that both mormongulag.com and collegeboundnetwork remain in the external links. DoonRay (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The College Bound website is not used as reference in the article, but is used as externally linked, just as the Mormon Gulag website is. Are you saying that they both should be removed because you think both are biased?

The College Bound website does appear to be focused mostly on college bound students and connecting them to different schools. I was not readily able to find how schools get on the website or how the website is compensated. Do you have any evidence that College Bound is paid solely by institutions that it supports? If so, please provide it. This appears to be an article written by Amanda Fornecker, a senior staff writer for College Bound (google here name, she has over a hundred hits). She writes as if she interviewed Jared Hamner; I did not read that she visited the campus, but may have missed it. I don't see the bias yet, but let's review your references and hear what other editors think. --^StormRider 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As Above, I propose that BOTH mormongulag.com and Collegboundnetwork remain in the external links. DoonRay (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support--- DoonRay (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Please review some of the policies regarding voting. I know that Descartes opened the door, but generally voting is frowned upon and used only occasionally. The objective of Wikipedia is to produce great articles through discussion and consensus. That does not mean that we seek unanimous support, but that through discussion superior logic within the parameters of Wikipedia policies is achieve and implemented.

I would prefer not to use additional voting to achieve decisions on this article, but rather focus on discussion and decision per topic. It may take a little longer, but in the long run I think it will result in a more stable article. Thoughts? --^StormRider 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I also would prefer not to use the consensus/voting method - but if you will note the history for the past number of days, the only time we did not go round and round in circles was when voting was introduced. Voting made clear if there was consensus or not and made obvious if a single user was in the minority, despite the number of edits. Things got MUCH quieter with voting implemented. I am concerned that if we do not require consensus, we will just return to edit wars. Just my observation of the past few days - but I believe the discussion and history support that conclusion. DoonRay (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given Doyle's return from block, I don't see any way forward except by voting on each and every major edit. It will take an inordinate amount of time, but let's move forward one step at a time. Should be fun. --^StormRider 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Status

At this point I am basically happy with this article - I think there may be a little undue weight on the criticism, and the pissing match over the board members is a little ridiculous, but overall it is a decent article that is straight to the point. I am going to walk away for a while and devote my attention to a topic that is more interesting and critical (in my opinion anyway), but will keep an eye on this article from time to time. Smell you guys later. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know theres a Lot high Emtoins with this place. Heck i way a boy there ten years ago. AS ive heard thier a fromer staffer on this site. i would like to know when Dierct Defaince was removed as a reason for Physical Restraint. AS I spoke with some Lincesing people and some staff who ackowegelde that was an offical reason but insist that has been removed from policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coalhouse (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the article overall, there is actually some undue weight on the other side as well that I will try to get to when I have some time. Overall some very interesting references are being produced, and for that I am grateful. The bullying is unnecessary, but hopefully we can get some more editors involved. --DoyleCB (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You should have waited until the 10 major edits from the re-instated Mr. Doyle showed up today. Are we really going to start all over again? DoonRay (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)