Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Taylor Allderdice High School/archive2

Another item for discussion

At the end of the second paragraph in the section on The Foreword I want to write: "Today, the school represents the Foreword as 'The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,' using it on the school's web site to document its fund raising efforts...", sourcing the school's web site[1] for the way the school currently represents and uses The Foreword. The school corporately authors the web site taking full responsibility for "All design, layout, image, and content elements,"[2] so the school endorses all its web site's content. Hiding reverts my change to: "The school displays a front page of the paper at its web site, which documents its coverage of such topics as the school's fund raising efforts...." In short, I claim the school represents and uses The Foreword on its web site, but Hiding claims the source doesn't justify this. The information I want to add shows the stronger, promoting relationship the school evinces with regard to The Foreword beyond its neutrally displaying it. In other terms, the school is not just displaying The Foreword: it is also displaying its supportiveness of The Foreword so Hiding's emendation, while seemingly safe, is actually a little misleading. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to stay on to help continue the discussion with other related items. I've split this into a new section since it is a new issue, and we'll wait for Hiding to offer his response to this new point. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's the same issue over again, to be honest. We're simply replacing "yearbook" with "website". My arguments above apply here. The copyright page doesn't assert copyright over content, only content elements, and the copyright and ownership is shared with the Pittsburgh Board of Education. I have to ask, would we consider stating that the Pittsburgh Board of Education represented the Taylor Allderdice school newspaper as 'The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,' using it on the school's web site to document ... I know I wouldn't. I don't think we can ascribe a motive to the school's publication of this particular edition of the paper. It may be that it was the most recent paper when the site was built, it may be a student chose it, the copyright page states students played a role in building the site. Therefore I can't see how we verify that the school did make the decision to use this edition of the paper in order to detail the fund-raising and so on. I'm not clear on the meaning of emendation, so I'm not sure whether I am being misleading or not, but I don't see how it is misleading people to state that "The school displays a front page of the paper at its web site, which documents..." I think that can be verified by the source provided. I'd argue it is misleading to assert to our readers a motive for the choice of edition when we can't verify such a motive. Let's present the information as it is and let our readers make up their own minds as to what it means. Hiding Talk 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• • (I'm happy to see something was reached!) I'll meditate a bit on this new issue before giving an opinion. Anyway, Hiding, try to avoid these edits, just for clarity and to be coherent with the mediation process. --Neigel von Teighen 09:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Look, to be fair I gave fair warning that I wanted to make that edit on this page 6 days ago. Nobody objected. I'd also note that the edit by 0-0-0-Destruct-0 that I was reverting was also made after the mediation began, with no fair warning. I'm new to this mediation, but I was led to understand this was somewhat informal and we could act as we felt best. I'd tried to discuss the issue, I figured since there were no objections it would be acceptable to be bold, as I noted in the edit summary. Hiding Talk 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Question - can someone provide diffs to the disputed edits mentioned above? Particularly where Hiding alters/reverts the information about the newspaper appearing on the school website, I would like to see the exact statements in dispute. Also, could 0-0-0-Destruct-0 clarify what is meant by the claim that "the school represents ... The Foreword on its web site"? I am unclear on the use of represents in this context. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Arkyan, I believe the item we're currently discussing under this heading differs subtly but significantly enough from the previous item to warrant this separate consideration. I'd greatly prefer, however, to discuss one item at a time, so before I answer can you clarify which disputed edits you'd like to see diffs for? Are you referring to Hiding's reverting my statement that the school uses The Foreword on its web site, or to the edits Neigel von Teighen refers to in his comment just above? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm requesting diffs for the one about the reversion, not the one mentioned in the preceeding statement. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I write it here[3] and Hiding reverts it here[4] 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am only taking in to consideration the bottom part of those diffs that concern the display of the newspaper on the website. Could I possibly get some clarification, though, about the phrase "the school represents the Foreword as 'The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School'" ? I'm still a bit confused as to what you are trying to say - unless it's just a typo and "represents" should be "presents", which would make more sense? Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got the difference between our last issue and this one. The first was about content endorsement: whether the school accepted the "Serving..." sentence in the Foreword or not. Now, the problem is a different one, we are in an existence endorsement issue: 0-0-0-Destruct-0 claims that the school accepts and promotes the existence of the Foreword in that way that it puts it into its website. I don't see here any interpretation beyond common sense. --Neigel von Teighen 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I have to agree in this case. Hiding makes a valid point in saying that the basics are more or less the same - replace "yearbook" with "website" and you can essentially describe it in the same terms - but I do also feel that the inclusion of the newspaper on the website does indeed present a stronger case for "endorsement" than the reprinting in the yearbook. Again, however, information on Wikipedia has to be factual/observational and not interpretive. It is safe to say that the newspaper is used on the website, but it is less safe to pass a judgement based upon why it is used on the website.

That said, since this issue is more or less the same I believe its resolution is also more or less the same. In regards to 0-0-0-Destruct-0's use of the word "represents" in the disputed phrase, I am going to assume that this is a typographical / poor word choice error and that the intent of the statment is more about presentation than representation. To that end I believe we can come to a satisfactory solution on this issue without requiring a lot of time or effort.

With a minor rewording and a change of tone I believe the statement can be altered in a way that preserves the factual information, makes the point about the paper's utility as a school news source, and avoids actively interpretive statements about the school's motive. Tell me what you think :

• As "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School," The Foreward is used on the school web site to document the school's fund raising efforts, the school board's politics, and the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school" and security environment where authorities' surveillance of the student body via cameras extends beyond the school campus "even as far as Pittock" Street.

The change in wording is subtle but I believe (and hope) that it accomplishes the goal of refraining from undue interpretation of the information while presenting The Foreward as a useful news source, which I believe to be 0-0-0-Destruct-0's main point. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm still not happy with it. There was a consensus established on the talk page after an RFC that the part about the authorities' surveillance of the student body via cameras extends beyond the school campus "even as far as Pittock" Street was adding undue emphasis, and I'm not happy with stating that the school uses that edition of the paper to document anything. As far as I can see the page is no longer linked to from any other page on the site, so I'm not even sure it is being used in any way. If I am allowed to tweak the passage, I feel the facts of the matter allow us to summarise thus:

:::*As "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School," The Foreword appears on the school web site, documenting such issues as the school's fund raising efforts, the school board's politics, the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school" and security environment where authorities' surveillance of the student body via cameras extends beyond the school campus "even as far as Pittock" Street.

I think that removes the last piece of interpretation. I can't see how we can ascribe a motive to the use of this edition of the paper. How do we know that it was chosen to document these things, rather than chosen to document the existence of the paper, or chosen to document only one item, or chosen because it was near to hand? Hiding Talk 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just checked the links provided and I realised the diff provided to document this part of the dispute is an early one. There is a later difference, which can be seen here, [5]. As I stated just above, after this difference the security item was discussed on the talk page, with a consensus reached that adding the security environment was giving undue emphasis to one aspect of the smallest article on display. This consensus was developed whilst the first advocate for 0-0-0-Destruct-0 was still acting. Can I ask what is inherently wrong with the version at which a consensus was arrived upon, namely this version:

• Today, the paper carries the motto "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School." The school displays a front page of the paper at its web site, which documents its coverage of such topics as the school's fund raising efforts, school board politics and the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school".

I think that removes all areas of interpretation and undue weight. Hiding Talk 20:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, the newer diff does make a difference, thanks for providing that. As far as your proposed/revision is concerned it looks fairly good to me, but I'd like to hear 0-0-0-Destruct-0's thoughts on this particular revision, too, so we'll wait for that. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Arkyan's proposal. My "big picture" aim is to have the article demonstrate that the school is generally supportive of its own student paper. The point was raised months ago on the talk page that some school newspapers are disreputable operations to which the school is antagonistic or which it disavows. It is thus worthwhile and relevant to succinctly source the fact that the school maintains the relation to its newspaper more typical of an academic institution. Hiding's wording is odd and even somewhat misleading by saying, essentially, that a particular content element occurs on the school's web site and that the web site does nothing but source bare existence. By "represent" I didn't just mean to indicate "presents again" but that the school depicts in an iconic way, via the page it chooses for its web site, a typical function of a high school: its production of a school newspaper. Also, since my phrasing has two verbs, I didn't want to write "use" twice. I don't see any problem with "represent" in any of its ordinary meanings around the idea of intentional display, but Arkyan's single verb sentence makes that point irrelevant while capturing what I aim for. I would like, however, to eliminate the passive voice from Arkyan's sentence by writing "As 'The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,' the school uses The Foreword on its web site to document..." As sourced, the school is doing the using here so the sentence can easily and should name the agent. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I actually like the bulk of Hiding's version that had been struck out. As modified slightly :

• As "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School," The Foreword appears on the school web site, documenting such issues as the school's fund raising efforts, the school board's politics and the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school"

• This version seems to better eliminate any potential interpretive statements while maintaining the importance of The Forewards use on the school website. As before, Hiding's primary concern is one of maintaining NPOV and NOR, and 0-0-0-Destruct-0 wishes to illustrate the importance of the newspaper in the school as a whole. Both are admirable goals - Hiding's is prescribed by Wikipedia policy, and Destruct's is enshrined by the spirit of making an encyclopedia more informative. Unfortunately a desire to show that the school's depiction of the newspaper on its website as "iconic" is interpretive - we cannot ascribe a motive to the school's choice in displaying The Foreward on their website. Without a plain statement of "this is why it was done" from a reliable source, anything beyond the observed fact that it is, indeed, displayed on the website - just without trying to make a conclusion as to why. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, this is a reply to 0-0-0-Destruct-0 and not the preceeding post by ^(talk).)As I said above, I can't see any source on which to base a motive for the use. I agree that the page displaying the newspaper serves to demonstrate the "production of a school newspaper", but I can't see how we can state anything more than that, especially not such peacock terms as "iconic". I also think it is original research to interpret the fact that the school has chosen this front page over a number of others as being an endorsement of the content of the page. I see no basis to state that the school "uses the page to document the news contained within the page". A description of the facts would allow us to state that the school uses the page to document the existence of a newspaper, which reports on such topics. I think that's what 0-0-0-Destruct-0 is also arguing, but I could be misreading somewhat. I'd like to stick to the facts and avoid interpretations, based on the policies. I'd also add that the page in question no longer seems to be linked to from any other page on the school website, which doesn't perhaps support the iconic status suggested by 0-0-0-Destruct-0. Hiding Talk 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's counterproductive in our case to mediate more than one item at a time. I'm happy to follow the mediator's lead. I am concerned, however, that Hiding has short-circuited the mediation by acting radically.[6] Hiding's disruption deletes much material established by a consensus to which he himself was a party months ago, disregarding this mediation and the talk page, so I've undone it.[7] 0-0-0-Destruct-0 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Major edits during mediation

Because there have been disputed edits during the discussion, I am placing a {{ActiveDiscuss}} tag on the section in question. While I can not and would not prevent anyone from making edits during this mediation, I would ask that from this point on we wait until the discussion comes to a conclusion prior to making any major edits. This is merely for the sake of keeping the discussion focused. Thanks! Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sorry, but to quote myself above: Look, to be fair I gave fair warning that I wanted to make that edit on this page 6 days ago. Nobody objected. I'd also note that the edit by 0-0-0-Destruct-0 that I was reverting was also made after the mediation began, with no fair warning. I'm new to this mediation, but I was led to understand this was somewhat informal and we could act as we felt best. I'd tried to discuss the issue, I figured since there were no objections it would be acceptable to be bold, as I noted in the edit summary. I resent the accusation that I am being disruptive, I thought part of the agreement in this mediation was that we all assumed good faith of one another. There was no established consensus to which I was a party months ago, I have always held reservations about this text. It is simply that I do not instantly revert but seek to discuss where possible before acting. I would note that both Chris Griswold and Ned Scott have made the edits which I myself made and on all three occasions 0-0-0-Destruct-0 has reverted them. I happen to agree with Chris Griswold's reasoning in his edit summaries using his alternate account. If we are to be fair then I figure it's best if the article stays true to the version of the 2nd May, when this mediation began. I don't know how best to proceed from here on in. Should we revert all edits by myself and 0-0-0-Destruct-0 after the 2nd May and both agree to refrain from editing the article? What's the most agreeable solution? It appears every edit we make to the article is contentious for the other. Hiding Talk 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand your reasoning and as I stated, I cannot require you to refrain from making these edits. I also don't see any inherent problem with them, as they were not to any material previously identified as "contentious" or "debated". It's just a blanket measure I have applied, requesting no further edits to The Foreward section at least until we've hammered out our existing differences. You certainly haven't done anything wrong with your bold edit of the article and I believe it was made in good faith. I'm hoping that the previous issue will be resolved shortly and also hopeful that our discussion of this (apparently new) issue of contention will be short, though I have to take a peek at the talk page to get a better feel for the history. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't mind how we go forward. I'm off to bed now, I'm not sure if I'll be back on for a while, I have a busy week next week. My apologies, and all the best. Hiding Talk 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Right after my AMA made the request to open a mediation on April 23[8], ChrisGriswold's abusive sockpuppetry disrupted the page with a number of edits beginning here[9] and ArbCom forced him to desyssop himself as a result. I waited for the disciplinary process to complete and allowed ChrisGriswold time to step up himself to rectify his own damage. When he did not, I reverted ChrisGriswold's disruption on May 6 before any of the editors' opening statements in this mediation and provided a full explanation on the talk page including diffs to the judgments of those who disciplined ChrisGriswold here[10] and who told him his "alternate account" was an abusive sockpuppet. When Ned_Scott subsequently performed the identical disruption as ChrisGriswold's sockpuppet, I reverted that before all but one comment in the mediation on May 8 here[11]. Ned_Scott's summary line is incomprehensible, and he ignored the talk page and this mediation. Hiding only first expressed enthusiasm for what ChrisGriswold's abusive sockpuppet did on May 18 while we were in the middle of discussing the first item of this mediation, on our mediation page here[12] and here[13]. When Hiding carried out this support of the other editors, one of whom, Superburgh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), is permanently blocked, Hiding disregarded the talk page entirely. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Sticking to the content, I think they are good edits and would like to see them reinstated. I can discuss the side issues if people want, but there's nothing in our policies which states good edits must be removed. I din't disregard the talk page, it was just that after discussion with the mediator I simply felt this was the better venue to discuss the issue. I was trying to stick to the content, not the behaviour or the editor. Hiding Talk 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

the item we were previously discussing

Arkyan, you said earlier "It is safe to say that the newspaper is used on the website" and you then suggested the phrase "'The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,' The Foreward is used on the school web site to document..." as a way to eliminate any worries that the term "represent" might connote. I agreed with your suggestion which drops the "represent" idea. You later changed it to "The Foreword appears on the school web site" but that eliminates the school's agency in assembling its own web site, and reintroduces the same problem with Hiding's wording which does nothing but relate bare existence. This section on The Foreword doesn't describe the web site, which would make merely listing the site's elements somehow appropriate. Nothing an author writes merely exists in an author's work; the author authored it. The school corporately authors its web site and expressly takes full responsibility for all the material it uses there[14]. You reasoned previously "It is generally understood that an academic institution will be supportive of its own student paper." As I said earlier, others have objected that some school newspapers are disavowed by their schools, so it's worth having material that speaks to this support. The school's use of its paper on its web site may demonstrate the generally understood support you refer to--it's up to readers to infer. But saying that stuff merely appears on the web site (or in a book, or whatever) denies there's an author there when we can plainly see, in a sourced manner, the author putting himself forward.

For example, consider how absurd it would be to constrain WP to say "the words 'It', 'was', 'the', 'best', 'of', 'times', 'it', 'was', 'the', 'worst', 'of', and 'times' appear in succession on page 1 of Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities." Instead, we'd say "Charles Dickens begins his novel A Tale of Two Cities with the phrase "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", and we'd provide a citation supporting Dickens's authorship and page 1 of his novel. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Look, if we want to talk about Charles Dickens, let's at least get the analogy right. We wouldn't write that every newspaper which serialised A Tale of Two Cities endorsed the choice of "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times", would we? We wouldn't state that the newspapers had represented that story within their newspapers, using it to document that it was the best of times, it was the worst of times, would we? We wouldn't claim that those newspapers were the corporate authors of the work, would we? We wouldn't ignore the fact that Charles Dickens was the author in an attempt to state the works were actually authored by the publishers of the newspapers, would we? We'd say "What the Dickens!" So I don't see why we should attempt to assert that a newspaper we have established is authored by students is in fact authored by the school, and that the school in an official capacity took an executive decision to display that particular page in order to document the "war on drugs". I'm not going to argue that it isn't possible. I simply argue that it doesn't matter. We need to be able to verify that the school did in fact act in an official manner, that they did take an executive decision in displaying that front page above all others. For that we need a secondary source. At the minute we're just interpreting primary source. Let's stick to the policy and keep it descriptive and avoid interpreting or evaluating. Like I say, it's the same issue as above. Now I really must be off to bed. Bloody addictive wikipedia. ;) Hiding Talk 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and if we keep to the Dickens analogy put forward by 0-0-0-Destruct-0, then we really should be saying Taylor Allderdice High School display a copy of The Foreword on their school website, citing the web address as source. Hiding Talk 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Of course we can have a Wikipedia article that states "Dickins begins his novel with the phrase ..." because it is a clear statement of fact. Just as we can safely state "The school displays the newspaper on the website". It is a simple, observational statement of fact. I think that Hiding's problem is when we add on to that statement something like "The school displays the newspaper on the website in order to document ..." because, while the first part is clear fact, the second implies we know the school's motivations for posting it. To follow the analogy, it would be like us amending the first sentence to say "Dickins begins his novel with the phrase ... because he thought the best things are the worst things". With no reliable source to prove the school's intent it is technically original research.

• To be totally honest, it does seem a little hypercritical to say that a statement like "The Foreward is used to document ..." is original research, but again, Hiding is technically correct in my opinion. I think the core issue of this problem is the same as the previous, and likely to be repeated in further disputed content regarding the newspaper.

• It's a bit on the late side so I'm gonna wrap up this statement before I start to doze off and type something inane :) I do have some thoughts I would like to present that I hope can allow us to start pursuing a more generalized solution to this problem rather than nitpicking individual sentences apart, and tomorrow I'll share some of those thoughts with you. In the meantime I will just ask all the participants to consider the fine line that exists between presenting factual information to support a statement and introducing interpretive and derivative content based on the facts. I suspect that there is still some middle ground to be found in which Hiding's concerns about attributable content and 0-0-0-Destruct-0's desire to portray The Foreward in the light that it is viewed by school faculty and students. Comments to that effect aren't yet necessary, just asking everyone to consider this for a bit. Arkyan • ^(talk) 06:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Arkyan, you suggested above to write "'The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,' The Foreward is used on the school web site to document...". You don't actually say why you now disagree with yourself. The parallel Dickens analogy would be this: "Charles Dickens uses the phrase 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times' to begin his novel A Tale of Two Cities." The supporting citation would be to page 1 of A Tale of Two Cities. Or: "Charles Dickens uses English in his novel A Tale of Two Cities" with a supporting citation to any page of the novel. It wouldn't be safer or hypertechnical to write instead "Words appear in Charles Dickens's novel A Tale of Two Cities" it would be downright weird. Taylor Allderdice uses The Foreword on its web site[15] as we can see on its web site. Authors author their works from materials they use. Isn't it absurd to claim otherwise? Is there a policy against using policy to achieve an absurd result or derail a manifest aim of WP? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody, but nobody, disputes that an edition of The Foreword appears on the school website. Can we cut all these rather inane analogies which are getting worse by the second. Here, look, Dickens novel opens with the words 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times'. That equates to writing that The Taylor Allderdice High School display on their website the front page of the Friday, February 18, 2005 edition. Now you can run on to describe the stories from there, but no, your analogy doesn't allow us to add an interpretation of why it's up there, just as we can't add an interpretation of why Dickens used those words, not without a secondary source. As to behavioural policies, you probably want to read WP:POINT, also WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:CONSENSUS. However, breaches of those policies go to the arbitration committee. As everyone knows, I've long maintained this case go to arbitration. I am more than willing to open the case if you agree. That's the second option open to us. I wouldn't mind at all if arb-com stepped in and ruled on whether I was being hypersensitive. At least this would all be at an end. Hiding Talk 13:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, we're getting driven into the wrong direction. This case is an existence endorsement, not a content endorsement. We're not saying the school endorses the articles included in that Foreword scan, but that the school likes that the Foreword exists so much that is showing it in the web.
• I'm thinking in a rewriting proposal, but, of course, I should ask 0-0-0-Destruct-0's opinion first. But also would like to see Arkyan's general proposal first.
• What I don't like and, this other user too, is that the overstrict onterpretation of WP:NOR is making Wikipedia lose some common sense edits. WP:ATT proposal makes it worser. It is quite obvious: the only reason the school has for showing the Foreword in the webpage is to use it for something. Nobody uses a source without reasons behind. Think as it the school is citing some piece of information with it and so, it's endorsing its existence and use it as source. This doesn't mean that the school necessarily endorses what the Foreword says (it's probably that they do, but that would be OR). --Neigel von Teighen 10:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Neigel, I don't disagree with you in the slightest. My problem is how we determine that your interpretation of the choice is more valid than mine. I reckon it was just the latest issue at the time the website was built, that seems a likely explanation. As for over strict interpretations of WP:OR, the problem I have is that here we are picking over each little sentence yet we have yet to look at the impact on the section as a whole. What are we building up to? What's the most important aspect of this section, that the school has a newspaper, it won these awards, it is produced in this manner, these students worked on it and went on to become big cheeses, or is that the school has a newspaper that won awards and is produced in this manner, these students worked on it and went on to become big cheeses and look at what this paper, which has done all that, says about the war on drugs and the security environment, and the school chose that specific edition to place on its website. I'm not sure what you are reading into Kim's point, but with respect I'd say 0-0-0-Destruct-0 dumped some information in, and we've slowly been wikifying it. I don't think I've ever left an rvv edit summary, I've always described this as original research. Would it perhaps be possible just to concentrate on the matter at hand though, rather than all these links to personal essays and analogies? I'm guessing at heart we all want what's best for the article. Maybe we should start right from the beginning again and go from there? Rather than all this piece by piece, how about we start afresh? Why doesn't 0-0-0-Destruct-0 take their best shot at writing up a section that covers everything they'd like it to say, even if we drag back stuff from the old Drug Culture of the 1970s. It might be better with the fresher eyes we've got here to see if we can't find a better middle road. It's at least worth a try. It might even make it shorter, if we just have one big discussion rather than stop start discussions, and we could put all the other side issues off the table once and for all, stop all the personal attacks and just collaborate. Any takers? I'm probably not going to be about much in the next week or so, but if I'm honest i don't really care if the three of you sort it all out. I'm pretty much in the same position as 0-0-0-Destruct-0. All I ever wanted was another pair of eyes that would be neutral. In all honesty I found the advocacy system distasteful, and I'm glad it has been deprecated because on my part it unbalances the argument. Suddenly you have two voices which only count as one, you have off-wiki discussion to which you aren't party, you get lomg delays and creeping insinuations and I think it breeds hostility and factionalisation. At the end of the day we're all here to build an encyclopedia through collaboration. Why don't we give that method a try? Hiding Talk 12:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Arkyan, a remarkable amount of information occurs since my last edit. I'd really like, at some point, to get a response to my paragraph above that begins with "Arkyan, you suggested above to write...", but I'm concerned it could get lost in the mix. I would only add that right after Hiding declares my paragraph's Dickens analogy inane, he analyzes it thusly: "That equates to writing that The Taylor Allderdice High School display on their website the front page of the Friday, February 18, 2005 edition. Now you can run on to describe the stories from there, but no, your analogy doesn't allow us to add an interpretation of why it's up there, just as we can't add an interpretation of why Dickens used those words, not without a secondary source." I agree with Hiding's analysis: we can't interpret why Dickens used those words, but we can say "Dickens used those words." We can also say the school used The Foreword on its web site. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How does it get used is the question. We can write that Dickens uses his words to open the novel, but it's trickier describing how the school uses The Foreword on its web site, because we don't really know. There's nothing within which to contextualise the usage. Hiding Talk 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

Is it worth refactoring the page? I agree with User:0-0-0-Destruct-0 that this page is getting cumbersome in places. Hiding Talk 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is getting cumbersome, but refactoring might be unecessary. I am in the process of writing up a broader proposal and abandoning the point-by-point method of discussion used up till now. If you think refactoring the existing discussion thus far would be good for archival purposes, though, feel free to let me know what you have in mind. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I was thinking we could summarise or archive the first point of dispute which seems settled, and perhaps simply summarise the rest of the disputes, since there now seem to be disputes over my behaviour, as well as two separate content disputes. But I wholeheartedly agree with a broader proposal being put forward. Normally when I archive, I just tend to split off what I see as dead issues to an archive anyway. I certainly wouldn't want to refactor a discussion like this in which I'm a part of the problem, I was hoping you'd agree to do that. ;) Hiding Talk 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Archiving the first sections may be a good idea, I'll see what I can do. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, the first part is now archived. If everyone agrees to move forward to the suggestion below I'll probably archive a second batch shortly. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The big picture problem

Let's calm down just a sec folks, I believe we've been making some progress here and there's no reason to think we've hit a roadblock. You've all been pretty civil and patient and cooperative in the scope of this mediation thus far and for that I thank you immensely. Let's try to keep it up :)

Okay, now here's my more general thought that I had late last night but was unable to type up without confusing myself (damned sleep deprivation). I have to agree with Hiding that we are becoming mired down in a point-by-point debate, that while effective (we successfully resolved the first point of contention) is slow and in efficient. The core issue at each point is the same, and I think a broader approach to attack that problem is one to be favored.

As I understand (and have stated) the "big picture" that 0-0-0-Destruct-0 sees is the following - The Foreward is an important publication, not only in terms of student use, but also in terms of how the school and faculty, and possibly even the surrounding community, view it. He wishes to demonstrate this fact by showing us instances where The Foreward seems to be used in a capacity that one might not expect to see just an "average student paper", such as in the yearbook and on the school website. This is fine.

Hiding, however, is concerned that this is being taken one step further with interpretive statements. While independently each statement interpreting a fact may be minor and permissable, taken as a collection to support an idea (in this case, the importance of the paper) is what constitutes original research and a synthesis of material. He is correct here, as well.

Hiding issued a "challenge" to re-write this section from the start. In a slightly modified form, that is very similar to the proposal I was going to make, so let me just build upon that.

So if all parties are up to the "challenge", this is what I propose. I would like 0-0-0-Destruct-0 to re-write the section about The Foreward to a version that he would like to see, but keeping in mind a few points. Your zeal to cast The Foreward in a positive light is understandable, but is it possibly causing you to write in an overly promotional manner? The article already includes references to awards granted to both the paper and some of its writers, and makes clear that The Foreward has indeed achieved a level of excellence. Let your sources do the speaking on this matter, though, rely on what has already been published to that effect. Consolidate the information about the paper's journalistic achievements, so that it stands on its own and is not peppered throughout the section in the form of minor statements. Attempt to rewrite it in a manner that points out what others have said or done without trying to interpret why they have said or done it.

If he's ok with doing this, I would like Hiding to t hen go through the rewrite and edit it as he sees fit to remove information that might not meet policy and guidelines. In doing so, however, please take care not to lose or alter the context of the information being presented. If there is material you feel goes against our standards, try first to come up with a compromise solution instead of gutting the section. If it is possible to edit and clean up the revision with a light touch, try and do so. Remember not to lose sight of the forest for the trees - policy and guidelines are very imporant, but it is possible to lose sight of the overall goal of improving the encyclopedia by becoming too fixated on specific, strict interpretations of one or more policies.

You both seem fairly well informed and most certainly well intentioned editors. Collaboration is the key here and I am certain that we can come up with a solution here. If we can abandon the notion that one side is right and the other is wrong - let go of absolutes - perhaps we can find that middle ground.

How does this proposal sound? Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds brilliant. Hiding Talk 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I must tell you all that my experience is that this procedure can turn the whole mediation into a dissaster. The key is to compromise ourselves to talk about that section or we're going to revive older disputes already solved. Let's be careful.
• Arkyan, I personally prefer a slow but effective system. I have no per se complaints about your proposal, I just think that we must restrict ourselves to the "Foreword" section to avoid disputing everything. In the other hand, maybe it is a way towards collaboration and may work... The more risk, the more return on investment (more gain/lose of money).
• Anyway, before this was proposed I was thinking in a rewording of the phrase, I think we can use it if some likes it. It is the following: <quote>As "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,"(note 1) the school web site cites a scan from The Foreward and so documenting the school's fund raising efforts, the school board's politics, and the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school" and security environment where authorities' surveillance of the student body via cameras extends beyond the school campus "even as far as Pittock" Street. (note 2)</quote> "Note x" refers to the <ref> tags; I removed them in purpose just for showing it here (so the talk page doesn't get full of little [1]s).
• Hopefully, I'm not being disruptive in this case. It's only that I'm a bit afraid this can get out of control. --Neigel von Teighen 16:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that my proposal only covers the section for The Foreward, which I believe to be the only section named in this case. I certainly don't want to drag the entire article into dispute! Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also to note, I will be out of town for holiday vacation and won't be able to further respond until late Monday or Tuesday. I hope I was clear on the above proposal and if all parties are ok with it then great! If not we will have to approach things at a different angle. In the meantime, I urge everyone to have a good weekend! Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Arkyan, rewriting from scratch would be entirely counterproductive because the section as it stands was achieved through consensus. Hiding even reiterated his enthusiasm for the present state of the article here[16] on April 29 when he said "I think the section detailing the school paper is an excellent addition," and ChrisGriswold expressed his agreement here[17] when the state of the page then appeared like this[18]. I don't agree to dishonor the difficultly achieved consensus by destroying it. It would also be deeply unfair to me and dishonor the contributions I've made. I request that I be given more respect.

Since we are down to just a very few specific items of disagreement, why wouldn't we proceed in a manner that honors the consensus achieved so far, and which has successfully dispensed with one item? We've pinpointed the policy disagreement at the root of some of these items. I am, however, troubled by my inability to easily refer to previous points in the discussion. I appreciate your requests for opinions on the archiving, but am troubled by the archiving being done per Hiding's approval without waiting to hear from me. I request that I be given the respect due any editor. Can you please unarchive that discussion which has such a material bearing on subsequent unresolved points?

I'm particularly concerned that we need to reach an understanding as to whether or not an author uses the materials that constitute his works. We were in the middle of productively discussing that item when a whole lot of points were interjected. You honored all that with your response that put a lot of energy into this page, and I respect and admire the mediator's role--which I gather isn't always a cakewalk--and your diligence in carrying out that role as a needed contribution to WP. In the mix, however, a request I've made twice was neglected[19][20]. I am confused and troubled by your opining both for and against the suggestion you put forward that I agreed with. I respectfully request a response so that we can continue from where we left off. I respectfully request the other editors suspend for a moment and refrain from interjecting just until the mediator responds. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to archive any material that is "not yet resolved". I only archived the discussion up to the point of the compromise that I suggested and you approved - there is no further discussion on any of that content. Also, archiving the content does not mean I am saying "this is old, ignore it" - I'm simply moving it off this page to keep it from growing too long. Feel free to reference discussions in the archive if you need to.

I have also addressed the concern that you keep bringing up - I voiced my opinion that I felt Hiding's proposed wording was better than my own as being more neutral, but also made it clear that I thought the difference was minor.

If you don't want to rewrite the entire section, then don't. It wasn't a requirement, it was a proposal. If you are uncomfortable doing so, then incorporate the compromise we previously reached, and edit the section according to the proposal above. And if you are uncomfortable with that then we'll try a different approach.

I have to head out now, as stated previously I'm leaving for the weekend. I'll pick it up when I return, but feel free to continue the discussion in my absence or make any further comments you wish. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When you get back, I would like to continue where we left off. To summarize as follows. You're saying that writing "the school uses The Foreword on its web site" is OR. We were construing this through the analogy "Dickens uses the phrase 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times' in A Tale of Two Cities" and I claimed that calling the statement about Dickens OR is a hypertechnical interpretation of WP policy that violates the principles expressed in policy and WP's manifest aims. The same violation applies to the Taylor Allderdice statement. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking through Arkyan's comments, he has said it is OR to say "The school displays the newspaper on the website in order to document ..." because, while the first part is clear fact, the second implies we know the school's motivations for posting it. To follow the analogy, it would be like us amending the first sentence to say "Dickins begins his novel with the phrase ... because he thought the best things are the worst things".

Personally I'd rather just drop all the analogies and stick to the content that matters. How about if rather than using "uses the scanned page to document", we rather write "uses the scanned page which documents". Basically we're removing a layer of interpretation, and allowing the reader to decide what the school's motive was for placing that particular page on the site. Alternatively, Neigel had a proposal that has merit. I've split that off below. Hiding Talk 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neigel's proposal

Up above Neigel made a proposal that I think may have gotten lost. He proposed:

• Anyway, before this was proposed I was thinking in a rewording of the phrase, I think we can use it if some likes it. It is the following: <quote>As "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,"(note 1) the school web site cites a scan from The Foreward and so documenting the school's fund raising efforts, the school board's politics, and the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school" and security environment where authorities' surveillance of the student body via cameras extends beyond the school campus "even as far as Pittock" Street. (note 2)</quote> "Note x" refers to the <ref> tags; I removed them in purpose just for showing it here (so the talk page doesn't get full of little [1]s).

• I've already noted above that there was a consensus on the talk page about using the security camera element, it was decided it added undue weight to a portion of the smallest article on the scanned page, but I think there's merit here. If I can tweak slightly, how about:
• <quote>As "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,"(note 1) the school web site presents a scan from The Foreward, so documenting the school's fund raising efforts, the school board's politics, and the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school". (note 2)</quote> I think the choice of the word so is perhaps the best one suggested. Thoughts? Hiding Talk 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think Hiding makes good suggestions here. If I've been construed as wanting to fall on my sword over keeping the "in order to" logic then I apologize that I haven't been making myself clear enough. I want to convey that there is an author here using material in his/its work, namely the web site. I think the way Hiding proposes using the word "so" strikes just the right note. Combining that with the idea Hiding expresses above: "we rather write 'uses the scanned page which documents' " I propose this combination: "As 'The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,'(note 1) the school uses a scan from The Foreword on its web site, so documenting the school's fund raising efforts, the school board's politics, and the school's prosecution of 'the war on drugs in school' (note 2)." I think I've been consistent for six months in asking that we always indicate human agency when the sources allow it, along with the objects of that agency. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's great that we get some understanding here. Do you agree here, Hiding? I really don't think there's any difference between your last proposal and 0-0-0-Destruct-0's beyond style, and both are very good. --Neigel von Teighen 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that some constructive discussion has been going on over the weekend. I'm back now (obviously) and hope everyone had a good weekend, and I'm eager to get back into the meat of this discussion. As far as the above comments go (including those in the previous section) - it does appear that there has been a miscommunication that has been hindering progress on this. Most particularly the distinction between what Hiding has been considering OR, and what 0-0-0-Destruct-0 felt Hiding was referring to, and I think that gap has finally been bridged. I also think that the proposed compromises above look pretty good - again, as Neigel von Teighen has pointed out, they are largely stylistic differences and not content differences, and would be happy to support either one. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Look, in all honesty I'd prefer "As 'The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,'(note 1) the school publishes a scan from The Foreword on its web site", but if we're down to quibbling over that then I'm happy to give way if nobody else is concerned. Hiding Talk 07:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would find this wording preferable as well, it seems to make a little more sense but it's not a major issue - like I mentioned before I could find either version acceptable. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I see the merit of Hiding's latest suggestion, and I realize the difference in wording is minor, but I'd still prefer the verb "use" in this case. I wouldn't merely declare my preference and would put forth substantive reasons, but if everyone is able to sign off on my last proposal, I'd like to ask that we do that, celebrate, and move on. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hiding has indicated that he is willing to accept your version if no one else objected. Again, while my preference is for Hiding's wording, since I do view it as a minor difference that does not alter the substance of the article I believe we can safely say your version is accepted and the article can be updated to reflect this change. Barring further concerns I would say that discussion on this topic is resolved :) Do we have any more points to bring up in this mediation? Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)