Talk:Controversy at Ave Maria School of Law/Archive 1

message: 6 May 2006: I took out all the "cute" language about how the professors did a novena to St. Thomas More and about "pouring new wine into old wineskins."  This isn't an exercise in dramatic writing.  This is intended to be a factual, journalistic piece outlining the problems between the faculty, alumni, Board of Governors and Monaghan.  There's no need to be trying to paint the faculty/alumni as having the moral high ground; the facts will do so for us.
Also, I took out the part about Monaghan trying to sue Ann Arbor township and electing his own zoning board members.  Why?  There was no citation provided other than the word "Monaghan."  Again, folks, it's important to have a source you can point to other than your own recount.  Otherwise, we're reduced to rumor and hearsay.  PLEASE, hyperlink to a citation before posting a new fact.--Resipsaloquitur 18:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

message: I'm restoring the original version of how the debate is framed, as a recent edit deleted the part about how alumni are contesting Tom Monaghan's governance.  I don't think anyone is contesting the proposed move to Florida in a vaccuum.  The alumni board of governors and the most vocal opponents on Fumare have been contesting things entirely in terms of Monaghan's methods of governance; Florida is merely symptomatic of that governance.  Arguably, how the issues have been written might be paired down, but those who are opposed to the alumni board's position shouldn't presume to frame it for them.  --ResIpsaLoquitur 4:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Comments 

message: I've just added an 'importance' tag to this article, as I'm quite uncertain as to whether this is actually encyclopedic - it is a timeline about a dispute involving one school, from the looks of it. I'd be interested in hearing why the editors believe it's important enough to be included as part of Wikipedia. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. I think I'm going to ask some other folks to review these articles to get some extra eyes on them. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: An admin I had take a look at this page suggested that it should be merged into the main article rather than being a standalone piece. That would likely require it to be shortened substantially. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds bang-on to me, I'd say. Make absolutely sure you have a source or two included in there, though, as that way it won't be considered original research and you should be able to get it in the article no problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, answers.com will probably reflect it no matter what, now that it's been picked up. When this has been merged properly, we can tag this for proposed deletion, as it's likely not going to be controversial. At the end of five days, if it's not contested, it will be eligible for deletion by an administrator. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue with the article is that it is unencyclopedic as a standalone article or fork from the main article. Frankly, it should have been merged quite some time ago (which was the opinion I got from an administrator who I asked for a second opinion from), but it appears the fellow above hasn't gotten around to it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason that a number of articles are done on "controversies" is that they were major, important items of note nationally or internationally that are a story in and of themselves, and would make the original article far too long. Each of the claims you made above are articles that grew to be much larger than a simple small section in the original article could ever contain. For a school to have a controversy page - let alone a timeline of that controversy - is somewhat out of the norm. Having said all that, I'm going to see if I can get a few more people involved in this discussion and see what kind of opinions can be developed that way. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Tony-
This is turning into a full-fledged Wiki War with competing versions of this article being posted.  The sourcing is poor, the article is unencyclopedic, and this has become a forum for propaganda.  I am forced to be vigilant in order to keep up with this and keep propaganda against my school from being propagated on Wikipedia.  I sincerely request that this article be merged immediately. Gamisano 16:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see above, there's outside viewpoints saying that the article should probably exist. However, I'm disappointed with the edit war that's starting to break out, and I'm intending, when I get the opportunity shortly, to go through this sucker with a fine-tooth comb with regards to verifiability and reliable sources and, most importantly, neutral point of view to find a balance. If it's going to exist, it's got to be entirely neutral, and I get the impression the main editors involved in the discussion are having problems finding that neutrality. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, I note that the neutrality article mentions that we should "let the facts speak for themselves."  I hope this means that we'll favor including facts rather than deleting them for convenience.  I'm disappointed that Guy has chosen to delete material for the sake of "balancing" the article.  I invite anyone to add facts which favor the school's administration, but we shouldn't be removing facts in order to hide evidence.
Dear Whoever-
Opinions stated by one side are not "facts" in the sense that they belong in an encyclopedia.  Certainly, one side in this controversy is able to be much more vociferous about the move than the other side, but that does not mean that all the opinions stated should be included as "facts" in a Wikipedia article.  If that were true, then a vociferous side would always be entitled to an advantage in an article about a controversy.  Second, the fact that one side marshals more facts than the other does not give that side the right to an advantage in a Wikipedia article, because it is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, which must be fair at all times, rather than a debate, which may be won by one side, perhaps on the basis that it marshalled more or better arguments.  In writing an encyclopedic article, the writer must seek to include opinions on both sides fairly, rather than seeking to demonstrate an advantage in the evidence for either side.Gamisano 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tell me if any of these articles need to be more balanced to represent "both sides."
Completely irrelevant. Gamisano 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How curt of you.  How's it irrelevant?  The Holocaust article, for example, would be more balanced simply by adding "some people believe..." to every paragraph.  Why not give equal time to folks who believe it didn't exist?  How about a substantive answer?
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be balanced, particularly articles about on-going controversies.  There is no on-going controversy re the Holocaust, the rantings of some crazies notwithstanding. Gamisano 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not an admin, so I can't say either way whether that would happen. Protecting or semiprotecting an article is generally against the spirit of Wikipedia, however; it's only done in specific cases where there's a large amount of vandalism or problems with the article. If there are problems with people making changes that violate the neutral point of view, on either side, they risk being blocked from editing for periods of time, however. We'll see how the rewrite goes. I'm going to try and sort it out tonight or tomorrow, but the sourcing issue is going to be a challenge. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki War