Talk:Barrington Hall (Berkeley, California)/Archive 3

message: So all this discussion has been fun and everything, but I came here to create an encyclopedia.  At this point, the discussion has gotten incredibly repetitive (and mindblowingly, there are still requests for editors to repeat themselves), it's mostly about who said what instead of the article, and I don't think anything is really getting accomplished.  So I'd like to make a concrete proposal.  At some point this article will be unprotected, and it wil be edited.  We all need to collectively decide what those edits will be.  Here's what I propose, in roughly this order:
# Delete the reference/link to bonussugar.blogspot.com.  There's a clear consensus that it's not a reliable source.
# Add sources (reliable ones other than bonussugar) to each graffiti item for which they are available.  I'd recommend putting the  tag on all that do not have a reliable source.
# Once sufficient time has been given to add sourcing info, delete all graffiti items which are unsourced (I assume adding sources shouldn't take more than a day or two, the page being locked doesn't stop people from looking for sources).
# Once all graffiti items have been sourced or deleted, we can see which and how many there are.  At that point it can be debated whether they are notable/trivial/whatever and how many should be included, whether all sourced ones should go in or just a selection, whether it should be a list or mentioned in the text, etc.
I'd like to get a reaction to this proposal, counterproposals etc.  I think the key here is to focus discussion on what should be in the article.  I also think it might be more clear to handle the various elements separately instead of arguing everything at once.  I recommend we reach consensus agreement on a course of action, and at that point request the page be unprotected.  I realize that some may disagree with the consensus we reach and may even revert war over it, if that happens we deal with the disruptive editors.  Let's try and bring this to some sort of conclusion.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not consensus that JD is unreliable. Per your request at RS a few minutes ago,  I notice that you were told the opposite, basically.-Cindery 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't agree, feel free to make a counterproposal.  Otherwise, your disagreement is noted.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *You have to engage in discussion to gain consensus. The state of the discussion viz RS is that you have not resonded to (6x today): the source matches the claim.  (The argument that the source is de facto unreliable per RS is false, and not supported by RS.) Voting is not consensus; Wikipedia is not a democracy; and If you can't make an argument via discussion, you don't have an argument. "Voting" to abandon discussion because you cannot respond to a point in the discussion is, of course, absurd.:-) -Cindery 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your selective reading of RS does not interest the majority of people active in this discussion. Likewise you are selectively applying wiki is not a democracy and votes are evil. I agree, this is absurd. David D. (Talk) 06:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it was your misinterpretation/misapplication of RS that is at issue here: the source is not de facto unreliable per RS, it has to be discussed on its merits.  Pointing out that abandoning discsussion to vote is not helpful for furthering discussion is helpful (and obvious).-Cindery 07:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpreted the discussions as finding the merits of the blog to be wanting, using RS as a guideline to come to that decision (as well as soiciting opinion at other venues). I know you disagree with the consensus but it is wrong to say there was no discussion. Also, I think if you read the proposal above it does not abandon discussion, in fact, it seems to be a starting point for discussion.  In this case discussion would focus on each graffiti tag and the sources that are available for each. David D. (Talk) 07:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the "proposal" is based on the flawed propositon that the source is de facto unreliable per RS (or that there is any "consensus" about that). Beginnings of discussion of source-on-merits is below.-Cindery 07:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How 'bout some action? 

message: Cindery, while consensus is always debatable, I'm not sure why your revert included the comment "no discussion".  There certainly was discussion since the edit I made was exactly what I proposed above, and which a number of editors agreed with.  "No discussion" seems to be a flat-out lie.  Could you please explain your comment?  Thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there has been a refusal to discuss the source on its merits/source matches the claim. Stating over and over that ir de facto fails RS is not an argument, and refusing to "dignify with a response" is not indicative of engaging in discussion in good faith. Note also that Localzuk and Hiding are deleting the two uncontested graffitos...-Cindery 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we simply don't accept the source as reliable. It has been discussed in length. We looked at it under the suspicious circumstances is showed up in and judged it invalid. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no discussion/no consensus" 

message: With the page being unlocked and edited, I'd like to remind all editors about WP:3RR, if you are unfamiliar with it I'd recommend reading it.  In short it says that no editor may revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Assumeing everyone is ok with following WP:V I'll be converting the in-line weblinks to using the  system.
Here's a quick explination of how the system works (taken from WP:FOOT)
# Place a <ref> ...  where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags.
# Place the  tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here.
This page itself uses footnotes, such as the one at the end of this sentence.This footnote is used as an example in the "How to use" section. If you view the Wikicode of this page by clicking "Edit this page", you can see a working example of footnotes. The new format cannot be mixed on a page with the old Footnotes3 format—you must pick one or the other.
Here is an example of how it looks to cite the same source more then once.
; Sample refrences:
---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a huge improvement for this article.  As it is, there's no way of knowing what info is sourced, and which of the numerous sources it's sourced to.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They don't all have to be cited inline (particularly if they would be cited a lot, or are not available online). Per policy the original editor to use ref format gets to choose--as I have cited as links not footnotes, that would be me.-Cindery 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your objection to actualy citing sources. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Wikipedia:Citing sources, I see three options, all of which include something included in the text (not just a list at the bottom).  I assume this page is intended to use the Harvard referencing on that page?  There are three options and I don't think anyone here cares which is used.  But right now, none of the three is used, there's no sourcing of facts, just a list of references.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I added an example of how it works when you cite a source more then once.  I think it looks very clean and easy to read.  It's not redundant at all either.  If the entire paragraph is supported by the same source then we would only need one citation. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is the way to go especially since there are so many references associated with this page. i added two more examples to the mural section including an example of the YouTube link being used twice. David D. (Talk) 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) There are two objections 1) the format for inline cites of quotes will be links, not footnotes, per me. 2) not everything needs an inline cite, esp. as the Green Book would have to be cited so many times, is not paginated in its online form,and many of the sources are newspaper sources which aren't online, so  inline cites for them  wouldn't be to links.-Cindery 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In-line citations are not synonymous with links.  There does not have to be a link associated with a reference. What it does do is help the reader identify which reference/s is/are being used as a specific source. David D. (Talk) 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Nope--it's my call and footnote format is not what I choose.-Cindery 17:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether it's your call, you need to cite the facts somehow.  In your last edit, you didn't just switch the format, you removed the cite on the second line of graffiti.  Please put some sort of cite on it.  You also need to choose a citing format that actually cites info, there are three options listed at Wikipedia:Citing sources and the article currently uses none of the three.   --Milo H Minderbinder 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: May I again remind you of WP:OWN Cindery? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not really your call. You don't own the article, unfortunately this is one of the realities of wikipedia.  Seriously, this is how it works, if you are used to controlling your content you would be much better off starting your own web page. That way you can use which ever references you wish and which ever style you choose. David D. (Talk) 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."-Cindery 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true.  But as the article stands, there is no citation within the article text itself.  So it can be debated that no "system" was chosen at all.  Have you looked at the three options listed at CITE?  If you want to go with the Harvard reference system, start adding references like (Smith 1996) into the article text.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wiki-lawyering again.  In this case there is no way to tell which claims match with which reference. Given that the in-line cites solve this problem why would your preferred editing style make sense? Is it possible that you will fight every suggested improvement from other editors just for the sake of a battle? Or do you have a suggestion that you would find acceptable to solve this problem? David D. (Talk) 18:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to cite sources 

message: This is just a quick note to say that I have blocked Cindery . It's hardly worth a new section, but I felt the need to inform the editors here. -- Steel 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on the link above ().  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cindery blocked 

message: For a while now my major problem here has been with the lack of reference notes within the article. 
:*  22nd Jan 21:41 "I think we need to quote the article and cite it with in-line quote. Half the problem here is that the reader cannot distinguish between sourced material and unsourced material."
:* 23rd Jan 16:03 "The chronicle reference to specific graffiti looks promising. When this page gets unlocked we should tyr and get the in-line notes added so that specific references are easy to relate the text. It will help the article a lot"
Personally, I would be in favour of moving as many of the references to the text in the form of in-line references as possible. Is the Green Book really used as source 30 times (got his number from Cindrey's talk page)? Here we have two possible strategies. Cite each page of the pdf file that are available on the web (similar to Rosalind Franklin) page. Cite Green Book as a general ref below the inline refs unless it is used for very specific citations such as for the graffiti tags. The Rosalind Franklin approach is a little too much like overkill for me.  I would be happy to cite the green book as a general reference after notes.  Any other sources that would be better suited as a general reference rather than an in-line reference? David D. (Talk) 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the greenbook is the sole citation for an entire section then we only need to cite it once.  Even if most of the article is based on the GreenBook then we would only realy need to have 3-4 citations to it. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a viable alternative. My problem,still, is that it is not clear which bits of the current text match with to which references. I had been hopeful that Cindrey would be keen to get the references sorted out. David D. (Talk) 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Now we get to re-do all the research to try to add citations. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In-line refs

message: This article has a list of notable residents. Fair enough... but I've been having trouble finding citations for most of them.  With respect to WP:BLP I think we need to be careful when associating people with Barrington Hall when no reference exists. 
*Andreas Floer - Unable to find any source for this
*Joshua Clover - Unable to find any source for this
*Micah Garen - Unable to find a any source for this. Infact, our article on him claims he went to Cornell University... but that dosn't have a source either.
*Jewlia Eisenberg - OK
*Belinda Reynolds - Bio on http://www.belindareynolds.com/ sais she went to Berkly, but doesnt say anything about Barrington Hall
*Michael Lehmann - His NYT Bio acknowledges going to USC, but no mention of Barrington Hall
*Michael Tigar - His law-school bio mentions Berkeley, but not Barrington. Challenger 24 makes this statement in a paper about Barrington: "One of the contributors to that last issue, with a devastating satire of the Council, was Mike Tigar, who later worked for KPFA for awhile & most recently was heard from as one of the lawyers for the Chicago 7 who were tromped on by the judge.)" - It doesnt say he was a resident, but it gets really close.
Thoughts? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a source citation anyway, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andreas Floer: (1956 – 1991), Ian Ray: (1964-1997) both suicide.  This is really sad stuff. :(   David D. (Talk) 05:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with that, whenever unsourced info is removed, it can always be restored when a source is found.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Barrington Residents 

message: * Onngh Yanngh movie, by Dave Ross.
This is a sad case.  Dave Ross recently dies of cancer.  Some friends remember one of several movies he made while at Barrington Hall.  He appears to be a fixture at bears games and his obit was even mentioned on the Radio for a game, so he must have had an impact in Berkeley. Nevertheless, I am unsure why this movie or Dave Ross are more notable than the hundreds of other alumni that passed through Barrington hall. Why should Dave Ross and his movie be mentioned in this article? David D. (Talk) 17:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand it was a traditional movie played once a year at the Hall.  I don't have any sources for that, so it might end up in the pile of "things that are neat historical facts we can't verify so we can't include".  A link to the movie might be worth keeping... just because links are cheep and don't need to satisfy WP:V. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, it might be appropriate if we can include a reliable source saying it was played every year there.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish I could help you there. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But for how many years was it played, probably not enough to make it notable. David D. (Talk) 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning through external links