Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Taylor Allderdice High School/archive1

message: Thank you all for accepting the offer to mediate this dispute, and for your willingness to work together to come to a solution on this issue. I look forward to reaching a satisfactory conclusion with you all!  Before we begin I want to just make a quick statement and set down a few ground rules.
Please remember that this is an informal mediation.  I will not be issuing any kind of judgement or decisions, my job here is simply to facilitate the discussion.  This will require the good-faith efforts of everyone involved to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion, and not merely try to "win the case".  Please be willing to accept that the best solution might not be the one you had in mind, and remain open-minded to the suggestions of other editors.
Please remain civil in all discussions.  This is a debate and not an argument.  Everyone's opinion counts.  Be patient and let people express their ideas and thoughts and don't be too quick to discount them.
Finally, be familiar with or at least be prepared to read up on the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning articles.  Try to make your arguments founded upon existing policy.  On the other hand, if you feel that policy is in fact hindering the improvement of Wikipedia we can always ignore all rules but if your argument depends upon doing that, be prepared to have a good reason why! Arkyan • (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator statement 

message: This will be a semi-structured discussion format.  I may ask for specific statements or answers from participants at certain times, but if ever you feel the need to bring something up or have a new idea don't hesitate to add anything you feel is pertinent to the discussion.  
This will be the only exception to that rule : opening statements.  I would like each of the participants to explain, in their own words, exactly what the problem is and the nature of the dispute.  There isa  short summary on the case page and I have read the discussion thus far but for the sake of fairness and clarity everyone should have the opportunity to explain the problem as they see it.
Please do not respond directly to another person's opening statement, but rather, keep it simple and just put the problem into your own words.  Once we have that out in the open we'll let discussion proceed normally. Arkyan • (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relply to Hiding: as I see, you are maybe a bit confused on how to write a statement. Mainly, give a brief explanation of the situation and your position in a way the mediator can understand all opinions. As a guideline (always given by arbitrators), limit yourself to 300-500 words. --Neigel von Teighen 11:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded per your advice, is that okay? Hiding Talk  13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's OK. Something most people misunderstand is AMA advocates' work: yes, we do represent a party and defend it, but we are also compromised to help the dispute process itself towards a solution and collaborate with mediators/arbitrators so they can have an easier job. That's why we're not lawyers! --Neigel von Teighen 08:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We aren't disputing the admissibility of the school newspaper as a reliable source. The periodical entitled The Allderdice 51 is not a school newspaper. It is a hardbound book corporately authored by the school each year, and is currently cited in footnote #9 of the page in question. This periodical reproduces content from the school newspaper The Foreword and the dispute is over whether or not the school endorses the content from The Foreword it reproduced under its own, separate authorship. The Allderdice 51, I claim, sources statements I've written that Hiding claims it cannot source, and so deletes. We aren't currently disputing the "drug culture" section found on the talk page.  0-0-0-Destruct-0 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding, you don't adduce a basis for your claim that the student body compiles The Allderdice whether part of its curriculum or otherwise. That's just not the case. See my comment below. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening statements and clarification

message: I'm not really sure what you want, but basically I've just been editing the article to comply with the content policies, specifically in this instance WP:OR and WP:NPOV, as well as guidance on peacock terms and weasel words. Hiding Talk  21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding's opening statement

message: The problem here according to me is in utilising sources and interpreting them.  I believe there is interpretation of sources in a manner which pushes a point of view or belief that an individual may hold, rather than what the sources allow us to summarise.  Taking WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV together, per the three policies, the reliability of a source depends as much upon the usage of it as the existence of it. To me the dispute turns on: whether content published in the school newspaper is representative of, and can be used to verify, the school's official policies, positions and views per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; whether the amalgamation and conflation of sources equates to synthesis per WP:NOR, namely in utilising a definition of the term corporate author to deduce information from another source; whether we can interpret the fact that an image of the newspaper has been reproduced elsewhere in school literature as meaning anything more than a reproduction, per WP:NOR; how much weight to give to the angle of view of a security camera, per WP:NPOV; and the correct way to evaluate an archival record per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and guidance offered in WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK.
Hopefully this mediation will help to get a well-written article which complies with the content policies and that this issue is solved. Hiding Talk  13:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion per Neigel von Teighen's advice

message: The problem here according to me is the following: there is a school yearbook that shows some photographs about the students' newspaper called the Foreword. My opinion corresponds 0-0-0-Destruct-0's: 
#The school yearbook is a verifiable source according to WP:V: the references are those links given by 0-0-0-Destruct-0; it can be treated as primary source according to the WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (thus, not being against policy. Read last paragraph of that section).
#Part of the discussion is whether the school allows and endorses the Foreword's existence (if not also promotes it) or not. We think it does and it's almost common sense: if you put some photos there is because you want to show something; if you are a school that publicly shows the students' newspaper, is because you like its existence. Otherwise, the principal's authority would be seriously questioned.
#My vision on the dispute is that the main disputed topic is namely if the Foreword is or not a reliable source. I think it is, as the school yearbook is reliable and think it endorses the newspaper existence. There's a kind of official backup.
Hopefully, the mediation will help to get a well-written article and that this issue is solved. --Neigel von Teighen 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Imaglang|Neigel von Teighen]]'s opening statement

message: I'll be following the discussion attentively, but since I've engaged Neigel von Teighen as my AMA for this mediation, I'll let him speak on my behalf rather than have my view seem like an independent third. I must, however, clarify a bit. The periodical the school corporately authored is entitled The Allderdice 51, in which it reproduces very limited content from the school newspaper, The Foreword. My position is that the school as corporate author endorses that reproduced content from The Foreword; all parties agree that the school does not in general endorse all of The Foreword's content. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:0-0-0-Destruct-0|0-0-0-Destruct-0]]'s opening statement

message: Thanks everyone for your statements, the information is very useful.  There are a couple questions I would like clarified before we dive into mediation on the issue, though, just to make sure everyone is on the same page.
The core of the dispute seems to be the admissibilitiy of the school newspaper as a reliable source.  There also seems to be two newspapers in question - The Foreward and The Allderdice 51.  Is the question of reliability as a source regarding both of these publications, or just The Foreward?
Also, is this in regards to specific content (ie. the "drug culture" section found in the talk page) or is the concern just over the general usefulness of the school paper as a reliable source?  Thanks! Arkyan • (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't disputing the admissibility of the school newspaper as a reliable source. The periodical entitled The Allderdice 51 is not a school newspaper. It is a hardbound book corporately authored by the school each year, and is currently cited in footnote #9 of the page in question. This periodical reproduces content from the school newspaper The Foreword and the dispute is over whether or not the school endorses the content from The Foreword it reproduced under its own, separate authorship. The Allderdice 51, I claim, sources statements I've written that Hiding claims it cannot source, and so deletes. We aren't currently disputing the "drug culture" section found on the talk page.  0-0-0-Destruct-0 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding, you don't adduce a basis for your claim that the student body compiles The Allderdice whether part of its curriculum or otherwise. That's just not the case. See my comment below. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A little more clarification

message: Okay, unless I am horribly mistaken and on the wrong track here I think that the debate can be fairly well crystallized by the following.
  
*The Foreward is a school newspaper authored by the student body.  This is a fact no one disputes.
*The Allderdice is a school yearbook also authored by the student body.  This is also an undisputed fact.
:I do dispute this. Per its title page (provided in the referenced online excerpt, currently footnote #9 at Taylor Allderdice High School) and its OCLC database record #29780373 found using WorldCat, The Allderdice 51 is corporately authored by "Taylor Allderdice High School." Its online card catalog record reads "Corp Author(s): Taylor Allderdice High School (Pittsburgh, Pa.)" Hiding provides no basis for his claim that the student body authors the periodical. Furthermore, The Allderdice 51 contains no student bylines (except in the few reproduced images from The Foreword) and no attribution of content to any student. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That difference is rather integral to the dispute, then.  I will review this information and I encourage all of the involved editors to consider this information as well.  For future reference, please try not to reply inside someone's comment, instead reply after it to preserve the flow of conversation.  It can be hard for future readers to figure out what's going on when replies are interspersed throughout a comment.  Arkyan • (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, but how am I supposed to respond to this? Hiding Talk  12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if what I said was unclear.  I just wanted everyone to have a chance to speak their minds prior to someone else jumpting in with a "Yeah but".  Once everyone has made their point clear we can begin a civil discussion on the matter, which is where the "yeah but" can come in to play!  In any case the information you provided above is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for, a statement of where you stand on the article and the debate at hand.  Since Neigel von Teighen has spoken his mind and effectively speaks for the other side of the debate, both sides have spoken and we can continue with the discussion. Arkyan • (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am 100% supportive of the idea of bringing to the table ideas on where to go with this.  You mention a desire to have 0-0-0-Destruct-0 tell us what his proposed wording for this article would be, and I feel that is a reasonable request.  I would also be curious to know if you had a proposed wording that would alleviate the concerns brought up, if you can think of any that do not resort to outright removal of the material. Arkyan • (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the article as it currently stands.  At the minute we are, I believe, disputing the difference shown here, .  I've always attempted to collaborate, as can be seen in the way the dispute has moved from this edit  to where we are now. Hiding Talk  23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing the problem 

message: I'd like to revert this edit, or at least ask for the edit summary to be explained.  I agree with both Ned Scott and Chris Griswold, and I can find no consensus on the talk page by many editors that the such reversions should take place, and there is certainly no consensus amongst admins that Griswold's edits should be reverted as 0-0-0-Destruct-0 states on the talk page. Hiding Talk  13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another point