Talk:Allynwood Academy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Recommendation of wp:RFC

I learned very recently (to my embarrassment) that it is not appropriate to "endlessly delete" ELs that are being entered into an article simply because they fail wp:EL. I had been killing a series of ELs at Sovereign Grace Ministries, and this turns out to have been an error, as an admin had recommended an RFC.

While that article is not interesting enough to me to be worth the pain of finding out how to do an RFC, I would like to try it here. I also know even less about churches than schools. The only link I plan to mention is the one to CAFETY. I expect my questions to be:

  • Can we use this as an EL?
  • Can we use it as a footnote on a statement that CAFETY submitted additional comments to the hearing in regards to FFS, even though we have only the CAFETY site statements, with a profound lack of editorial control?
  • Can both of these be done with sharply divided opinion? Now that I think I have learned that wp:BLP does not apply so long as we don't put the CAFETY claims in the article, I do not fear these links as I once did.

I will look over the existing RFCs I can see for guidance and (just shoot me now) read the document.

If it is straightforward I will probably just open the RFC and linky it here. If it is convoluted I may come back and say "AHA! That Is Nuts!" Somewhere in the middle, I might create a sandbox for anyone interested to use to turn my mangle into an actual RFC.

sinneed (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To expand: If there are other links that have been contentious that interested editors want to add, this might be (or not, I don't know) a good time to bring them up.sinneed (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. That works very differently than I had thought, and I can't make the RFC tool work for me. I will have to try it manually. Further, there is not an obvious choice for what type of RFC this would be. There is not a group for education or schools. I considered law, politics, society. Law and Society go in the same group, and I am leaning that way. Going to wp:Be Boldsinneed (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The text I used on the template is "EL to CAFETY website/discussion board has been added and deleted repeatedly. It contains strongly negative statements about Family Foundation School. Should it be allowed as an EL? Can it be mentioned in the body?" sinneed (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

CAFETY site/discussion board as an EL

EL to CAFETY website/discussion board has been added and deleted repeatedly. It contains strongly negative statements about Family Foundation School. Should it be allowed as an EL? Can it be mentioned in the body? --sinneed 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment (long long, sorry) - I had taken this as a closed issue, as described in the previous section about opening this RfC (my 1st). However, I now understand (I think) that I or someone else should probably have opened an RfC earlier.
CAFETY members have apparently voiced at CAFETY site negative experiences with FFS. One member testified at hearings on Residential schools (which is in the article).
My reasoning (I'll speak for no one else, many many comments above and in the archives) for repeatedly killing the EL was that there is no editorial control... anyone whatsoever could say whatever they want... indeed could have edited the statements of others. This seems to explicitly break wp:EL. wp:RS are not immediately obvious that cover these statements. Thus, the only way to get the content into the article is by the external link. Editors argue that that (edit to add - refusing to allow the CAFETY site) violates wp:NPoV. With my newfound knowledge of my ignorance, I seek guidance from the community.sinneed (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose linking to CAFETY. In my opinion it is not a reliable source for any matters of fact about the Family Foundation School, so it could not be used as a reference for statements about the school. I don't believe it even qualifies for inclusion in the External Links section, because of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, item #10 (forums) and #12 (wikis). CAFETY doesn't even qualify as a usable *primary* source because there is no vetting process to determine that testimonies came from actual students at the school. WP:NPOV only requires that we make an even-handed selection from the body of material that comes to us from reliable sources. The fact that there are other sources we are not allowed to use shouldn't sway us to include them for supposed 'balance.' EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Question then: If CAFETY is IYO not a reliable source, then why is The FFS website reliable? They have something to SELL you. Are you really going to attempt to claim that people are actually LYING about being abused? Anyway, this may all be a moot point pretty soon. NBC, CBS and others are working on a story currently anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.167.172 (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: At the monent, this discussion is moot, as the CAFETY website appears to have been hacked. My recollection of the site is that it was very hard to find the content specific to FFS, which IMO seriously diminishes the site's potential to add value to this article. --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, moot point. They have taken the site down and are remaking it. Ah well. Hmm. Now how do I kill this RfC thing? Or can I? I'll look it up.sinneed (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
At least the site no longer appears to be hacked. We can resume the conversation when there is a site to comment on. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, in the past I got the impression that the content that the CAFETY folks want to link to is content that is not actually hosted on the CAFETY domain. Some is at http://cafety.youthrights.org/wiki/index.php?title=Submit_Your_Testimony and I think the content that was supposed to have been submitted to Congress is at http://endinstitutionalabuse.wikispaces.com/message/list/home . All of this is wikicontent that is not suitable to cite as a source for an article. I think that an online forum or wiki devoted to the school might possibly merit a link as an EL that adds information value to the article, but because a person has to dig to find the FFS-relevant items on these two websites, they would not be valuable additions to this article. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The inclusions that were supposed to be admitted to the record were the same page http://cafety.youthrights.org/wiki/index.php?title=Submit_Your_Testimony as the hearing was in April of 2008 and the record remained open until June of 2008. The ones from 2007 were also included, but all the testimonies on the page that was hosted on CAFETY were included and made so you don't have to go digging. It was still from the same main wiki, but without the digging. I'll put a link in here for consideration when it's back up. The wiki still is up, and if necessary, it is possible to categorize which students went where.24.164.167.172 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny

Today's additions about Dr. Pinto and the FTC docs

This is too much for this article. Maybe the subject article about Residential Treatment Programs. All needs a copy-edit, and the FTC part does not belong in that section. I hacked out some of the more problematic stuff. I am glad to see the FTC guidance docs worked in, but the way it was presented was seriously slanted and I used the editorial hatchet.sinneed (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And poof it was gone. Ah well, glad I didn't invest a lot of time in cleaning that up. sinneed (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the entire addition. The Dr. Pinto stuff was largely copyvio of the testimony (the contributor didn't even bother to say what "Dr. Pinto"'s first name is nor why readers should pay attention) and was not directly relevant to this school (note that same material is being added to several articles by the same anon contributor). The Bazelon material was about residential treatment programs in general, not FFS specifically, and was largely based on a distorted reading of US surgeon general report that discussed relative merits of different types of mental health treatment. The FTC material also is not specific to FFS, and in fact includes a booklet about "Boot Camps." --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Your reasoning makes sense to me. I do think (as we've chatted about before) that the FTC guidance docs would be a good inclusion. I understand and accept the argument that Wikipedia is not a guide for selecting schools. I remain of the (small minority) opinion. I support your cut, I just wouldn't have done it. :) sinneed (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the FTC documents is essentially an announcement regarding the existence of the other document; there's not much purpose in listing it as a reference. The main document, Considering a Private Residential Treatment Program for a Troubled Teen? Questions for Parents and Guardians to Ask, is a good resource, but it does not have specific information about FFS or any other specific school. Furthermore, it is more objective and balanced than the anon IP's description makes it appear to be. It currently is listed as an external link at therapeutic boarding school. I think it could become a cited reference there and in articles like residential treatment center, but it should not be used to make those or any other articles into attack pages or warning pages. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the fact that the FTC material does not mention FFS, I take issue with the statement made in the edit summary for the latest addition by the anon user, which stated "the ftc specificallly states the reason why they publishd the warnings, further tbs are referred as boot camps in the link - stating 'there is no standard definition for what private placement is'". The reference is to this press-release-like announcement. The title is "Evaluating Private Residential Treatment Programs for Troubled Teens" and the subtitle is "FTC Urges Caution When Considering 'Boot Camps'". The only words that say anything about the FTC's reason for publishing the information are "in an effort to help parents and guardians with these decisions." Although the item states "no standard definition exists for these programs" and "such programs are not regulated by the federal government, and many are not subject to state licensing or monitoring," nowhere does it state that these facts are why the FTC published information. At Wikipedia, inferences such as those being made by the anon user (no matter how plausible those inferences might be) are considered original research. --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Family School Truth" EL

I am dubious of this site as an EL. I understand WP is very tolerant of hate sites, but this one starts off with "The Family School Abuses Kids". This (ed - the addition as an EL]] seems incorrect. Since this is not a wp:BLP I don't feel I must kill this instantly, but I oppose its inclusion as I feel it fails wp:EL. I don't feel strongly about it... simply oppose.- sinneed (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC) editorial addition in parens --- sinneed (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I also have mixed feelings about it. On the side of including it, it's no secret that these schools have critics, so linking only to positive sites does not present balanced information. Critical sites are linked for many non-mainstream religious organizations, for example. The site does not qualify as WP:RS, so if it belongs anywhere it is in the EL section. On the side of non-inclusion, the site does not identify its sponsorship, so it's basically anonymous information. (I assume it's CAFETY, but it doesn't seem to say so.) Also, this page promises to present personal attacks on living persons, although none are posted yet. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering what these people would try next. Seems they took the collective advice and made their own site. They'll likely find themselves in a boatload of legal trouble though, not the least of which for using the FFS logo, which is a registered servicemark. While WP might be tolerant of hate sites, they are not tolerant of Wikipedia:BLP#External_links violations, some of which exist on this page Re: Mike Losicco and Rita Argiros. The EL should go. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As the EL is considered by many to be biased an non-neutral, it should not be included as an EL. However the information on the website and its virulent standpoint cannot be disregarded when discussion the FFS. Therefore, Ive included a brief description of the site in the section related to the congressional hearings. Mercenary4Truth (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Mercenary4Truth

"the website and its virulent standpoint cannot be disregarded when discussion the FFS" - Actually, it can. Once it comes to the attention of a wp:reliable source, it might merit a mention. A citation to an EL is still an EL, it just goes in a different section, and is given a footnote in the body.- Sinneed 05:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, a reliable source has now written about The Family School Truth campaign, and its link to CAFETY. I guess that mention is there now, so shouldn't the link be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The link is and has been included: CAFETY. Now the articles are linked, and they point to the sites. The ELs to the hate sites still fail wp:EL as I read it.- Sinneed 23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain please how this is a "hate" site. It simply states facts that the school does not admit to. Additionally, the news article specifically mentions the truth campaign site. Therefore it is now noted by a reliable source. This article is starting to show clear bias by its non-inclusion of countering views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, please do give a read to wp:NPOV, wp:BALANCE, wp:CITE, wp:NOR, wp:COI... building in one's personal feelings and attributing them to a 3rd party with a citation is a failure of trust and makes it hard to wp:assume good faith. Please stop. Stay to what the sources say.- Sinneed 05:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
How? In the same way that I would say the school's website would "love" the school. It has a strong point of view... the school's PoV is positive... the web site's PoV is negative. We have had all this discussion before.- Sinneed 05:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly...which is why including the school's website, and not that of a countering view shows extreme bias and undue weight. That is the real issue at hand. The FFSTC simply shows the side of the school that the school is unwilling to show on it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a biased wikipedia site. The investigations on the Family School TRUTH Campaign's website all have evidence posted on the site and the website clearly states that it is not a hate site and is on the web to inform prospective parents of the abuses that many alumni have swore to. By not including at least the testimonials from alumni, wikipedia is definitely doing an injustice and is clearly biased. Sineed, if you continually fight the family school truth's link being on this article, you are really showing how one sided this wikipedia article is. www.thefamilyschooltruth.com has already been cited by two sources, CAFETY and the newspaper so why is there so much pushback from allowing anything from the Family School Truth's site to be on included in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.112.25 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

CAFETY

wp:Edit war version 1 gazillion. I hope the reversion will stop and discussion/compromise start. I took another stab at the section. The activism about the school is from CAFETY as I read the sources. The activism not about the school doesn't belong in this article.- Sinneed 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And to the degree that it is about the school, the allegations are ancient and long-remediated. This amounts to little more than a petty smear campaign by people who clearly have issues letting go, and openly state that they were problem kids to begin with. They should would hopefully have realized by now that their campaign is a double-edged sword, and that the facts work much more persuasively against them than for them. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 10:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Please focus on the content not the other editors.- Sinneed 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, WikiWag, your familiarity with the school has now gotten you thinking and talking like them as well. Just because kids were troubled to begin with does not mean they DESERVED to be abused. I would love to see you telling rape survivors to just "let go". Whether the cases are old or not is meaningless. Kids were ABUSED. The public has every right to know this fact, just as much as it has the right to know the side that FFS spews out on its own site, and that you have fought so hard to include almost exclusively on this site. The site, and mailing by the FFSTC, is exactly what people said was needed to have this differing view point. It does not attack individuals, even if some people's testimony does. Additionally, the statements have been signed with dates of attendance given, something that people had a problem with on the wiki site that was similar. EVERY suggestion that was made for inclusion has been followed and now your only excuse as to why it should not be included is that it is by "people who clearly have issues letting go." Clearly you have a severe bias on this issue. Additionally, Sinneed, the articles you state are "from CAFETY" are also about the school, as they include the same mentions of abuse at FFS. How is this not relevant to FFS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please log in. Please focus on the content not the other editors.- Sinneed 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, WikiWag, the testimonials on the FFSTC website also include one positive one (the only one received) as well as at least 5 that are as recent as 2005-2008, which all fall well within even NYS guidelines of statute of limitations, so "ancient" is probably not the right word for it. In fact, even things that are 10 years old are in no way, ancient. Then again, I suppose you feel that all the kids that were molested by priests had only "ancient" stories that should never have been brought to light either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please log in. Please focus on the content not the other editors.- Sinneed 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously: focus on the content, not the editors.
Ancient and long-remediated truly, TRULY, don't matter. If you have that in a wp:RS, great, otherwise, not interested.
Why were the inclusions of the sources removed?
Leave the conclusions out, and the content in.
I will cut the flagged bits quickly if they aren't fixed.
Unless someone explains why the sources should not be explicitly given, I will restore them.- Sinneed 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
@68.172.217.182 (if you would log in, I'd be happy to address you by something other than a number): The only statement worth addressing since it pertains to content, is the metaphor about the Catholic priests' scandal, which is fallacious; it took public exposure, scandal and lawsuits to get the church to change. The school on the other hand, made sweeping changes before any of this came to public attention. JCAHO doesn't hand out accreditations to just any institution; the criteria are rigorous and the outcome uncertain until voted on by the board. Conversely, FFSTC is an unregulated, self-published smear campaign that is openly committed to seeing "the Family School's doors closed forever." Forgive me, but that sounds less like a desire for corrective action, and more life a desire for revenge. It's telling, to say the least. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Sinneed: Help me understand why this section even needs to be in here in the first place. What does it contribute to the article, considering the source and the source's mission? - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) - The section belongs because it isappears reliably sourced and is very much related to the school.- Sinneed 05:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(am in the process of signing up so don't worry I will be logged in next time) Wikiwag, this section needs to be on the site. This page has become less and less truthful and more and more of a marketing tool for the school. Alumni of the school have testified about clearly abusive conditions (as seen on the FFSTC testimonial page). The testimonials have been sent in to the site from alumni of the school and have not been disputed by the school administration, in fact, the school stated they will not dispute testimony of abuse. This needs to be here on this article because the FFSTC is showing what FFS will not show. All the cites that are on the article are from pages that FFS endorses and publishes. Of course FFS administration will not publish that they are under investigation for child abuse or that they ever abused a child. That is what this section is for, and FFSTC is not affiliated with CAFETY, therefore the section cannot be titled CAFETY activism, but Youth Rights Activism. Thanks, and I hope this can no longer be about hiding the truth and keeping this a neutral article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.112.25 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Also wikiwag, your allegations that the abuse allegations are ancient and long-remediated are not true and unfounded. Allegations of abuse date as recent as December 2008 when two former students reported abusive conditions according to the FFSTC website. That statement shows CLEAR BIAS on this article and is not what Wikipedia is about. The FFS Administration state that the allegations are old but there is NO evidence disputing the two former student allegations of abuse (see Charlie Carson testimonial on the FFSTC site) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.112.25 (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) @Sinneed: Fair enough.
@74.73.112.25: Funny that someone whose edit history is so thin as to not even have a user account (which takes 2 minutes, btw), deigns to lecture the seasoned-editor with hundreds of edits over a nearly-3-year period...on what Wikipedia is about, or to level accusations of bias, considering the source you cite and who you declare yourself to be a party to. FFSTC does not meet the definition of WP:RS, and I couldn't care less what shows up there, because you'll publish anything that serves your purpose without fact checking or interview. As a group, you have but a single, overt and over-arching purpose, and have demonstrated you are willing and able to stretch the limits of credibility, legality and (ironically) truth in your pursuit to achieve it. If you can't demonstrate in your own conduct, the qualities you're criticizing in others, then I'm afraid there's but one term for you. Psychologically, those bent on revenge are generally so blinded by their emotions that their perceptions of reality can't be trusted. I'll listen to Congress; I'll listen to independent journalists; I'll listen to Sinneed, Orlady, and any of the other independent, truly unbiased editors who have participated in this article. Will you do the same, without the ad-hominem attacks? Your ilk's conduct history leaves me doubtful, at best. But I suppose we'll get to see this play out, once again. Should be fun. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 13:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
wp:talk page guidelines - a good read. Please focus on content, rather than editors.- Sinneed 17:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, okay. Sorry (truly).

2009 Activism - random heading to make editing easier

Content...my concern is that the criticisms are (IMO) beginning to take on undue weight on balance with the entire article, with now two dedicated sections to the criticisms of "a distinct minority." I suggest that since this content needs to be here, that the Congressional Hearings and CAFETY be combined into a criticism section, as they are essentially two parts of the same whole. I know there is debate about the appropriateness of this, and that the ideal approach is "write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other," so I'll defer to your opinion on this. But this is becoming more about the campaign and the hearings than about the school as it exists today. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 17:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I took a stab at merging the sections. Though I fail to see what having to move rocks back-and-forth has to do with anything substantive. I worked on a farm growing up; didn't like it at the time, but in retrospect it did a great deal for my work ethic. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I see your argument, but disagree with merging the sections, and STRONGLY disagree with moving the POV flag up. Perhaps a subsection "2009 youth activism"? With the pov flag on the subsection? Possibly the activism needs tighter coverage... I will look at it again. The hearings bit is pretty major and serious, and seems well-done. The anti-school activism had a briefer mention. I can trim it down again, but... both sides have been expanding it and I have had my cuts restored and partially restored by both.- Sinneed 19:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I see a good bit of wp:BALANCE available in the article that the CAFETY activists have added as a source they seem to feel is reliable. It might be worth expanding a bit. I do see a basis for the "did not deny" that I had killed before (sorry). I suggest wp:edit summaries, but I think it would need to be a quote as it is very oblique... more a statement that arguing about it would do no good rather that a statement that the school did not disagree.- Sinneed 19:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I didn't mean to call the entire section into question. I just didn't know how to address it, and didn't want to delete it. See my edit summary on the heading. As far as the activism itself is concerned, I have no issue with the source - only the mailing's relevance to the school. In fact, I too, see it as an wp:rs, pertaining to some of the favorable aspects of the school that are present and ongoing, as opposed to the content of the letter, which misrepresents the abuse allegations as being current, when they're not. What's more, the rocks thing just seems pointless...I'm like "so what?" my kids take turns cleaning up after our 5 cats and lugging 35lb bags of litter about; does that make me a bad parent somehow? I think not. As a kid, when you misbehave, you lose privileges and get extra work - at least that's how I was brought up. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I support adding the positive content from the source... as long as it is presented neutrally. "soandso reported that suchandso said blah" rather than "however, blah is actually the case". Does that make sense?
I am just not willing to do it.
Again, our opinions about the school, its philosophy, are just not interesting and don't belong. What is said in the wp:RS, rewritten in our words, is.
A thought: propose the content additions here on talk... that will give me and anyone else who might have suggestions or concern a chance to comment without having to revert or change. It would also be a good show of wp:good faith. But that is just a suggestion.- Sinneed 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Did it. And, I propose the rocks thing be removed. It's silly. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not silly, as he spent seven months doing this, while not enrolled in school. It was a form of punishment, and education was withheld which is ILLEGAL by NYS law. Additionally, there ARE current (as of 2008) abuses mentioned in that letter, so there is no misrepresentation at all. While some of those things MAY not be happening today, the fact that the school claims it has ceased to operate with abusive practices, and yet still has allegations of abuse from as recent as 2005-2008 is of importance. Of course, from the school, such abuses "never happened". This is the entire point of the truth campaign. Putting out the information that the school withholds because it is not profitable to give the whole truth of what has gone on in the school, and who is employed by the school. Parents who are considering this school have every right to this information.137.140.124.219 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)djjone5

Again. wp:talk page guidelines - Please focus on the content.- Sinneed 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I propose to NOT delete the comment about the rocks. It has a reason to be included. 7months of time moving rocks back and forth is a long time for a menial task. There is reason to keep it up.68.172.217.182 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)djjone5

Indeed it is a long time, and there are people who spend years or entire lifetimes doing menial tasks, but we don't often write articles about them...janitors, lunch ladies, farmers, sanitation workers...even teaching or lawyering can be menial and seemingly pointless at times. It might be more helpful if we understood why this is important to the article, because I truly don't get it. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It is notable. It is relevant. It is a single, short mention. It is factual. It is neutrally presented. Your argument seems to be the the mention fails wp:UNDUE, and I can't agree. I support the rock-carrying incident as currently included. Please consider looking into the WP guidelines, essays, etc. and presenting an objection in terms of those. If we were to go for "important enough to include", the school would be out... it is too small, too special-purpose. The mentions of the extracurricular activities would be out, every school has such, "so what?". Fortunately degree we don't and can't assess importance. We can assess whether or not the content meets the various guidelines and rules ... the closest to an importance meter being wp:UNDUE as I see it..- Sinneed 21:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm very concerned about the implication that a single, short mention is either notable or relevant in the context of this section. Playing devil's advocate: by applying the same standard, if someone were reported at one of these rallies as saying "the Family School made me slaughter a dog, because I wouldn't do my school work," would that be allowed too, whether or not there were any basis in fact? This opens up a huge can of worms that empowers those with an overt and unabashed axe to grind with the ability to say anything, and do anything that - so long as it's reported in a media outlet - is subsequently allowed in the article. Once that happens, then we might as well forget any kind of factual basis, here. Very concerned, indeed. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Please focus on the content. If you have concerns, putting them in personal mode as you have here, again, is not generally helpful.
"factual basis" - You appear to be under a misapprehension: WP cannot assess facts. It can only assess what is published in the wp:reliable sources. "factual" - as I used it, means it is about facts... true or false, not opinions.
If you are unhappy with a publication, you might wish to express your unhappiness to the publication. If you believe a publication fails wp:V or in some other way fails to be a wp:reliable source, pursuing wp:RfC or going to wp:RSN might be worth considering.

- Sinneed 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Truly: I believe I am focusing on the content and I do know the rules, even though in my passion I occasionally step beyond them. So please, please stop repeating to focus on the content - that too, is unhelpful.
I have a prediction: this article will become much more about the activism than about the school, because the activists are much more...well...active...and motivated to broadcast their message than the school is at this time; there will continue to be rallies, there will continue to be reporting and it will doubtlessly meet WP:RS. At what point will the additions constitute WP:Undue? - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that whoever wiki wag is continues to say "focus on the content", he is failing to realize that we are focusing on the content. The fact that many alumni of the family foundation school are coming forward and rallying, speaking out, etc against the school shows that there obviously has been and still has much wrong with the school, which is not shown in the main content of this article. I believe that by the editing of this article to make the bad content about the school in such a small section, and all the "great" things that FFS publicizes, there is a big issue with the neutrality of this article. For the article to be neutral, doesn't the article need to show both sides in a fair way? This doesn't seem like its too fair. The Family Foundation School has not really said too much to the public besides the FFS alumni allegations of abuse were "untrue" which shows that FFS is doing absolutely nothing to counter these allegations. The last person is right, this article will continue to have more and more additions about the abuse that FFS forces their students to endure, because more and more FFS alumni are coming forward. The other editors that stated the abuse allegations in the letter are old did not read the letter, the letter sent out CLEARLY shows the years that alumni were there and includes a student who left in 2008. Even if all of the abuse allegations were from fifteen years ago, which they are not, it still shows that FFS has participated in abusive practices, which needs to be included in the article, otherwise, wikipedia IS showing bias to keep the school in the public's good graces. This is why CAFETY is struggling, because the majority of the public is NOT outraged by institutionalized child abuse. If this was my site, I would be posting the abuse allegations FIRST on this article. Flyboi9 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

wp:talk page guidelines, wp:SOAP, wp:NPOV, wp:NOT a discussion board. Focus on the content.- Sinneed 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 activism - continuation 2

The header should not be called what it was. It should read "Alumni and Youth Rights Activism against FFS", because the section includes alumni, who are also involved in youth rights activism, against the school. This new title is clear and verifiable. The article in the Daily Star also clearly states that although the social service guy said that abusive conditions date back to the 90's, the president of CAFETY stated to the paper that testimonials of abuse date as recent as one year ago. By omitting CAFETY's Statement, this is not an accurate section. Hope this makes sense and will not be continually re-edited over and over.

Also, why is this section still being disputed? Can we remove that DISPUTE thing? Flyboi9 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I oppose that header as it appears to me to fail wp:NPOV, wp:V. It may be that it needs to be "2009 CAFETY letter" or such... "Activism" may be POVish. How about the new one?
I expect the testimonials will stay out unless they are part of what a wp:RS reports. Interested readers can read the source, and follow the links, or read the CAFETY article and follow the links. The part that the paper chose to carry is in this WP article... the rock-carrying. Once a wp:RS carries more it *MIGHT* belong in the article, but this section seems long enough to present in an encyclopedic fashion that there were activists against the school, who had things to say about the conditions there.
The section is flagged because you and the other editor with clear and strong feelings on the issue believe it is "showing bias" and "I'm very concerned about the implication that a single, short mention is either notable or relevant in the context of this section." respectively. Once you are both content that it is neutrally presented, I expect we can remove the tag.- Sinneed 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed, I believe that adding the link, as the title of the website 'the family school truth campaign' is also necessary, as it is mentioned as the other party that sent the letter. while CAFETY and the FFSTC may have similar goals, and members may work in each, they are two separate entities. I believe most of us at CAFETY would certainly feel there is less POV if the name of the site, as mentioned in the article, were posted. At this moment, it reads as if CAFETY sent out the letters, when in reality it was the FFSTC and some members of CAFETY. Either way, the second entity deserves a place in this article, as it is the main site (#2 on a google search at this point when searching FFS) that gives the countering view points. We may not need to quote the site, as you can argue POV there, but to not include it does show bias.137.140.123.21 (talk)djjone5 —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

additionally, there are pdf files of that letter that is in question on the FFSTC site. as such, adding a link to the actual letters would allow readers to see for themselves whether or not the dates are, as some have stated, "ancient and long since corrected" The letter itself shows that the abuse allegations are as recent as 2008. to have a statement saying that it has long since stopped, or that "we have had nothing but positive reports" etc without showing that at least one student HAS stated abuse recently, how is it not biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.140.123.21 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please sign in to your account. Please sign your posts. Please remembmer wp:NPOV, review wp:COI, wp:V. Please don't address your emotional arguments to me, as I will not be interested in them, nor do they belong in WP. wp:NOT a chat board.- Sinneed 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed a bit about the campaign... article says the letter was from CAFETY, as I read it. If not, please provide a quote.- Sinneed 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with this section. The dispute tag can be removed as far as I'm concerned. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No wikiwag, this is still disputed. The section is not neutral. The guy quoted in the article (Moon from social Services) and Jeff Brain from FFS both state that the abuse allegations are old, but in fact like the unsigned editor stated, allegations in the letter date as recently as 2008. Both that page from the FFSTC website and Brian Lombrowski's quote should be included in this section. It seems more and more that this article will never be neutral. I agree with DJJONE when he says that the website to the FFSTC should be included since it was clearly stated in the newspaper article and was the basis for uncovering the abuses. By only including Moon's quote, the article is not showing the whole picture and is therefore not a neutral article. I think this needs to be changed back to my last edit and should stay that way or have minor changes to maintain neutrality. Flyboi9 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"allegations in the letter date as recently as 2008" - and the letter is not a wp:RS.
"I think this needs to be changed back to my last edit" - I encourage you to propose wording here, with appropriate citations. Please expect to be asked for a quote appearing in that/those generally reliable sources to support the proposed words. I do think the current section needs wp:BALANCE, but that isn't what has been offered so far.
Offtopic - "By only including Moon's quote, the article is not showing the whole picture and is therefore not a neutral article." - an encyclopedia entry is not going to show the whole picture. That is what the wp:RS are for. Reviewing wp:five pillars, wp:NPOV, wp:V, wp:COI should have helped with this.- Sinneed 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if the letters are not a RS then you should at least include Brian Lombrowski's side from what he said in the article. Only including Moon's response is not neutral. What Lombrowski said should be included. I will type something up and post it.
Last comment was mine, I wasnt signed in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboi9 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I reworded it to be what I think is neutral. Its states both sides that are stated in the Daily Star article and didn't take away too much from your edit. The external links section also should include the www.TheFamilySchoolTRUTH.com website because it is linked in the daily star article and the EL section of WIKIPEDIA states "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."
It needs to be there. Flyboi9 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It is there... in the Daily Star. Interested persons may choose to read it. Or not.- Sinneed 01:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 activism - continuation 2

"CAFETY President Brian Lombrowski told the newspaper that testimonials received by former students date as recently as 2008." And? "testimonials"? Consider if we took this out and created moved this sentence to a section "Testimonials of former students". Suddenly this would look positive. I also again removed the advertisement for the web site. Please leave it out. The organization can have its own article if it merits one. This is not it.- Sinneed 01:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think makinga section entitled "Testimonials of abuse from Alumni" would be a good idea to maybe resolve our issue, but I think that without Lombrowski's quote and only Moon's quote, that is not a fair article. I think that the Family School TRUTH Campaign website needs to be in the links page. Many other editors have expressed their belief that it needs to be included and that outweighs one editor that believes its 'advertisement'. Flyboi9 (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I will defer to other editors to remove this. You need to understand that edit warring your changes into the article will not work. Instead, seek support of other editors and gather consensus.- Sinneed 03:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Instead of simply trying to force your views on us, it is generally better to propose some other change that while not as desirable, would still be a move in the direction you want. And no, no editor has come here to support your view.- Sinneed 03:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
yes there were supporters of placing the FFSTC website in the external links part of the article. There is a whole discussion page on that above in the "Family school Truth" discussion. I would like to understand why the article that I have edited you do not think is relevant. Please explain so I can understand why you do not consider my edit on the Activism website neutral or relevant. Thank you. Flyboi9 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please focus on the content. You might consider starting a section, or revisiting a section, about the link, to see if you can gather support for it. At the moment, I see 2 editors opposed, 1 (who appears to claim to be the author? see wp:COI, wp:OR, wp:SELFPUB, wp:external links) supporting.- Sinneed 03:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no editorial issue with the Activism Against section as it presently stands. The content is cited and referenced by WP:RS, and presents a reasonable degree of WP:NPOV. I will remove the tag, in response to SInneed's deferral. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In rereading the articles, I unfortunately have to restore the dispute tag. The reference to the Gainesville Sun article was not NPOV, as it only stated the partial quote. I've added more of the article content to balance, and fully expect that there will be opposing opinions about this addition. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 12:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

New addition about masturbation-guilting

1st, this is better than other contributions in the past and clearly represents some good effort.

However, it still fails wp:NPOV and uses unpublished synthesis. It also simply doesn't follow the source that I can see: The blogger doesn't say they visited the school... just "another school". We must hew STRICTLY to the facts. If we need to infer, we must let the reader do it, not do it for them.

The blog won't cut it as a source for this article, not even an EL. Please drop the bits from the blog. The response from the school belongs in the program section. I won't be able to leave this in for long without it being rendered neutral, and sticking to the source firmly. If you wish to use the blog, you might wish to take it to wp:RSN and propose it. The source-knowledgeable folk there can provide guidance to us all.- Sinneed 23:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Family Light editorial, it states that the program contacted them to let them know that their policies have changed, which clearly makes it evident by the article from Rita Argiros. Also, Tom Croke has visited the school, I will fix that and reference the article that he wrote from his visit to the school. I will also change it to the program section. Let's propose this to the wp:RSN and see if this is a reliable source since it is The Family foundation School's website and is written by the owner of the facility. 74.73.112.25 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No, that makes it wp:SYNTH.- Sinneed 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Understand your point and wiki guidelines on that. With Rita Argiros' statement on their website, doesn't it make the Tom Croke Article relevant to the article? I will be sending a request for review on the RSN Flyboi9 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but I dont see how this is non-neutral. A verifiable, pertinent source made reference to the school's policies, therefore the information should be included. Why would anyone question the neutrality of this?CoreEpic (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

" made reference to the school's policies" - Where? Quote from the source please.- Sinneed 04:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Croke's article make's refernce to practices held by the FFS. Therefore, the source "made reference to the school's practices". Simply put, if the shoe fits...CoreEpic (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic
No really... please provide a quote where that takes place. It isn't there, as far as I can see. This is what is called "unpublished synthesis", and it isn't done in WP, unless it explicitly names FFS. We don't get to infer. Only the readers can do that. Editors must go with what is said.- Sinneed 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Either way, Rita Argiros, the owner of The Family Foundation School, responded to the article written by Croke saying she felt they were referring to FFS...that is enough to include his article in the wiki article on FFS because it is referenced and is the cause for Rita writing her article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.112.25 (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No really... please provide a quote where that takes place. It isn't there, as far as I can see. This is what is called "unpublished synthesis", and it isn't done in WP, unless it explicitly names FFS. We don't get to infer. Only the readers can do that. Editors must go with what is said.-- Sinneed 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am okay with SINEED's edit of the Tom croke piece but I think that after the quote about Family Light holding FFS in high regard, it should also include the quote from the article " They also have practices we would like to see changed. " since it is relevant to the Program section's clarity 74.73.112.25 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The above two statements were mine, I was not signed in Flyboi9 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm good with the Program part of the article. If you agree that the way it is right now is neutral, then let's remove the neutrality thing. Also I am okay with the Activism against part if two things can be fixed. First, I think that the Gainseville article section should be on a new line (new paragraph, because the two are completely different things. Second I think that on the last sentence of the Daily Star part, it should say "...Lombrowski told the newspaper that alumni who have sent in testimonials date as recent as 2008." The current 'web postings' is not clear and it does not say that in the newspaper article, it says testimonial, the sentence also doesn't make sense. Once these two things are fixed or we talk about them here, I think that the section will be considered neutral too. Flyboi9 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Not neutral, can't stay as it is. You might revisit your incomplete post at the RSNB, see if you can generate some interest.- Sinneed 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand that the school article mentions what the practices were... perhaps that could be expanded? No support so far for using the blog. Dropping. I leave the flag in.- Sinneed 23:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The blog is directly linked to in the article written by the school. As such, it should be at the least linked to in the same way in this article. Otherwise, it makes "a blog" sound as if it could be a blog from an opponent of FFS rather than a peer. The blog, as written, was written by a professional who generally refers kids to these types of places. It's important to note, as it is not just some random blog. Whether we include text from the blog is not at question here, we can leave that out. However, the link, as included in the article written by Rita Argiros, should be left in.68.172.217.182 (talk)djjone5 —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

Testimonials

"CAFETY President Brian Lombrowski told the newspaper that web postings by former students who had attended as recently as 2008."

Consider: "CAFETY President Brian Lombrowski told the newspaper that there were testimonials by former students who had attended as recently as 2008."

Still doesn't say anything useful that I can see, though the lost words "there were" are restored. "testimonials" is misleading, imo. It is loaded positive, and I don't think these were positive statements. YMMV.- Sinneed 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"...Lombrowski told the newspaper that alumni who have sent in testimonials date as recent as 2008." - reread source. It doesn't say they were sent that recently. They came from people who attended as recently at 2008. As written in the paper, the testimonial from a freshman in 2003, who flunked once, would meet the criterion.- Sinneed 16:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lombrowski was referring to testimonial from students who attended the school as recent as 2008. If the actual mailing was permitted to be a source on this article, it would be extremely clear what he is saying because on the mailing, there is a quote from a student who was a student through 2008; since the mailing on the Family Foundation School TRUTH Campaign's website is not being considered a reliable source, this quote is being removed unfairly. I think that his quote should be included and the following sentence after Lombrowski's quote: "On the letter that was mailed out to residents, there was a testimonial from a student who attended the school during the year 2008."(with the source being the actual mailing on the FFS TRUTH's website, which is posted for the general public to read. Also, on the FFS TRUTH site, there are numerous testimonials that are from students who were students at the school after the year 2000, and again date as recent as 2008. This validates why I am disputing that this quote from Lombrowski be included in the article. Not including it, again, is not a neutral section of the article and not being fair to show both sides. Lombrowski's quote, along with the testimonials posted from alumni on the FFS Truth's website disprove Moon's statement and NEED to be included in the article. Flyboi9 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggested reading wp:V, wp:CITE - WP relies on published sources that meet those, and wp:RS. Things that don't meet the kagillion WP requirements, and that belong on the web, belong on other web sites.- Sinneed 05:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll rephrase: Proposed edit "CAFETY President Brian Lombrowski told the newspaper that there were testimonials by former students who had attended as recently as 2008." - - Sinneed 05:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That sounds fair...please do that Flyboi9 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • wp:five pillars, wp:NOT - WP is an encyclopedia. It is not a school selection guide, nor consumer protection organization, nor a news source.- Sinneed 05:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Understood that Wikipedia is not a school selection guide or a news source, but if there are firm allegations of abuse that should be included in the article as it is essential to get the content needed to make this an encyclopedia article, neutral and fair. Thats all I am saying. I am not disputing whether or not FFS Truth website should be considered a reliable source or not (because who is to say The Family Foundation School's website is reliable?). I am simply stating that for this to be a neutral article, it must incorporate all sides of the school. Flyboi9 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The school's site is *NOT* reliable. It can be used for information about the school, ONLY VERY CAREFULLY, under wp:SELFPUB. No SELFPUB site is reliable. They are inherently a forum for the owner to say whatever their laws and ISP let them get away with. :) Thus, if the information that has not made it into wp:RS needs to be published... it belongs on such a site... not WP.- Sinneed 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But yet, there is no problem posting the link to the school's site, yet there is an issue posting a link to the FFSTC site? If both are *NOT* reliable, then why aren't both links just as valid/invalid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

wp:SELFPUB - Also, wp:TE, wp:talk page guidelines. The talk page and the article can be partially protected if the offtopic posting continues.- Sinneed 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
First off the Program section should have the educational consultants quote there and be restored to what it was. Rita Argiros' quote means absolutely nothing without the ed consultants information at least referenced to. It should be put back. I think if you are even showing FFS' website on this wikipedia article, the FFS Truth Campaign should also be referenced i.e. with the mailing to Delaware county, otherwise all FFS website stuff should be removed from the article. I think it important to note that many of the referenced information like how many students etc is very outdated and doesn't get updated with time. there are various websites that all have different information. for instance, the enrollment at the school, some websites say 250, some say 220, last I heard from an alumni visitor to the school, it was down to 160, but its probably lower now since there was a recent graduation. In essence, this entire article is not reliable so why are we not using FFS Truth Campaigns stuff when is should be a reliable source. Flyboi9 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"First off the Program section should have the educational consultants quote there" - perhaps I missed the part where the quote mentioned the school. If so, the quote can be included, with that part added. If not, no, not about FFS... source is weak, no support for keeping it at all.- Sinneed 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I also cannot find any place where "the educational consultant" (referring to Tom Croke) mentioned FFS by name in relation to his comments on masturbation and sexuality. I believe he was talking about FFS, but he expressly refrained to identify the institution. Under those circumstances, for Wikipedia to say that he was talking about FFS would be a severe case of original research. I suppose it possibly even could end up involving Wikipedia in a libel lausuit. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood....however, even the article by Rita Argiros of FFS links directly to the blog by Tom Croke regarding this matter. When the statement About "a blog" is found in the article, it is hyperlinked directly to that mention. Showing that connection is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Rita Argiros' quote means absolutely nothing without the ed consultants information at least referenced to." True.- Sinneed 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"FFS Truth Campaign should also be referenced" - wp:SELFPUB. No.- Sinneed 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"some websites say 250, some say 220, last I heard from an alumni visitor to the school, it was down to 160" - thus: balance. If there is a wp:RS with a different number, it can be included by an interested editor. If there is non-RS source, it should not be.- Sinneed 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"so why are we not using FFS Truth Campaigns stuff" - Because it fails wp:RS - - Sinneed 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"is should be a reliable source" - If interested, you might gather support for it being considered a generally reliable source. I would not expect that to succeed, but it would at worst waste a bit of our time. - - Sinneed 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Sinneed that FFS Truth Campaign is not a reliable source for information about the school. Furthermore, the recently-reverted addition to the article was a promotional mention of the website; it did not add information value to the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality flags - Dec 2009

I am dubious of ever being able to handle this in a way that will be widely accepted as neutral. The school proponent (not currently posting, I offended them) and the school opponents (mostly not posting currently) are so far apart on views that I cannot envision how a neutral article will ever be accepted by either side. The only examples of behaviour in the article are not abuse, as defined by law. The "abusive conditions" is OR, and I'll be taking it out, again, eventually (just conditions - the site is linked, the notable example is included). I expect this will not be well-received.- Sinneed 16:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that as long as the edits are being made in a way that the abuse allegations and negative publicity for the school are removed, this article will never be neutral. The NYS Regents board regulations and laws that were implemented in 2007 state that many of the practices of FFS are illegal and justify removal of the school's regent's accreditation. The neutral tags should stick now because of the recent edits that remove negative feedback against the school. It seems to me that this article is going to be forever edited to make the school's glamour stick. Lombrowski's statement and the link to the FFS TRUTH Campaign are necessary for this article to be neutral and should be included. Flyboi9 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I just want to clarify: my lack of participation of late has nothing to do with having taken offense. It rather, has more to do with me following the rules that I agreed to uphold in being a responsible editor to be as neutral as possible and leave much of the fight to the detractors and those who are indisputably neutral. For my own part, including the disputed section under the Program section of the article gives it undue weight on balance with the other facts there, having little to do with the program. The only thing that could legitimately remain asit is central to the program, is the statement about absolutism and purity pledges. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 19:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
In taking another read of this discussion, I'm curious about Flyboi9's claim about the NYS Board of Regents withdrawing the school's accreditation and would like to see a reference supporting it, a finding of illegality or any kind of sanction whatsoever. This is all that I appears on the official site of the NYS Board of Regents, in the timeframe identified that, if anything, illustrates that additional rights have been granted to the school. I see Lombrowski's ex-post-facto opinion on Facebook, but nothing more anywhere. This is not a challenge, I truly would like to see the references, if they exist. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 11:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality flags

I think with the lack of responses or opposition to the article, I think that we can remove the neutrality tags from the Activism section and the Program section. no one has made any new suggestions or wording and I believe both sections are fair and consistent with wikipedia terms. Any objections? Flyboi9 (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In a sense, you are correct. With no support for the bits that caused them other than the special-interest-group, we can remove them.
Unless you have further arguments for inclusion of the blog, I'll go ahead and drop it, and then if you are OK, and no one else objects, perhaps we can drop the tags.- Sinneed 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I have dropped the blog bits again. I leave the tags in for further discussion.- Sinneed 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
And of course you can re-add them, but... please see the discussion below of why they don't belong.- Sinneed 04:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Sineed, I completely understand that Croke's article should not be included, specifically the paragraph you removed. I think it is imperative to the clarity of the section to explain what Argiros is speaking about in her statements. Without some reference to what Argiros is referring to here ("In the past, these issues were discussed openly among the whole family in mixed sex groups."), what do "these issues" mean?!? I am fine if we keep it short which is why I added only the part that says "in reference to a blog that was written about a school that allowed staff to detect when boys would masturbate" after Argiros' first quote. I think this is fair and is not using Croke as a source, but because Argiros linked Croke's article in her FFS blog, I think that the reference should be there to allow an outside reader, with no knowledge of FFS, to understand what Argiros is referring to. I think that is fair and is NOT using Croke's article as a source, but as a reference, to understand Argiros' article. Fair? I think so Flyboi9 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
WOOOOHHH....wait a minute, Orlady's edit is completely not acceptable and is clearly making the article a clear advertisement for the school. That needs to be undone. I would be fine with the "[in regards to staff detecting boys who masturbate]"...but all those other edits are unnecessary and need to be undone. Completely not acceptable edits!!! Flyboi9 (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I would encourage avoiding the all-caps and multiple exclamations, it won't help build credibility, very generally.- Sinneed 06:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Believe me when I tell you I understand how very very frustrating it is to have information you feel needs to be published... but it won't fit into WP guidelines. All those things that do need to be published, but don't fit into WP, will either be unpublished, or published somewhere else on the web. Ideas below:- Sinneed 06:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you want to add that appears in published, generally wp:reliable sources, to the article?- Sinneed 06:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What is in the article that you want to take out, and what WP guideline indicates it should be taken out?- Sinneed 06:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you want to change, which will still be supported by the sources?- Sinneed 06:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Orlady's lack of explanation for her recent major edit should be grounds for undoing her last edit. I guess I wont get anywhere with the Croke article, which I am fine with but I am not okay with Orlady's edits to the paragraph and taking most of the quotes out. I do not think that her edits are legit and I am putting it back to how it was, which you edited Sineed so I believe I would have you support on the previous way the paragraph about Rita's article was. I am forgetting about including the croke article, just reverting the Argiros article to the way it was. The last edit does not have an explanation why it was completely re-edited horribly. Flyboi9 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for letting real life interfere with writing a longer explanation of my edits than I provided in the edit summary. In that edit summary, I said "edited out some wording that is inherently original research (see talk page); added some wording to clarify the context of long quote."
If I didn't have a clue (from this discussion) why that quote was in the article, I would have deleted the whole thing. There was no context for it. After a short crisp paragraph giving basic facts about the school, there was a long, obscure paragraph about some blog post and "the past" and "sex problems." Basically, I think this content is out of place in an encyclopedia article. However, knowing of the talk-page drama that has been associated with this topic, I tried to play along and add some context to give the reader the beginning of a clue about why this was here (that's the reason for "Family Foundation School owner Rita Argiros discussed some of the school's methods", which was the best I could do to create a transition from the previous paragraph) and what Argiros was talking about (that's why I added the word "masturbation," the reference to "purity pledges" to provide some context for her allusion to "more subtle forms of absolutism", and the various wikilinks to help define what she was talking about). I also made at least one edit to avoid a run-on sentence. I am restoring my edits, as I find this paragraph meaningless in your version. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I deleted the sentence "Also mentioned in the article was the homophobia present in both the dialogue and attitudes of the founders of The Family School" that was just added by an anon. Yes, Argiros said that her father was homophobic, but this sentence totally distorts what she said. For the record, here's the relevant passage (trimmed by me because the whole essay is very long-winded -- one of several reasons it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia):
"He also believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong because people got hurt. ... He encouraged young people to marry early. He was homophobic at least in his pronouncements but he had openly gay friends who somehow managed to overlook what he said. He also expected both men and women to follow very stereotypical gender patterns in dress and behavior."
--Orlady (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Flyboi9 - The quotes are too long, and I remain unsure this needs to be here. I think that if it does belong in the article, then this seems to be the right section. As I have said, was sure it did not belong as you had it, and did not see easily how to make it work. I still don't, but Orlady's changes were as I see them substantial improvements.- Sinneed 17:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember if I added the homophobic addition or not, but come on...regardless if he has good friends or not, homophobia instilled in the schools culture is a vital issue, especially in 2009. Not to be offensive or off topic but I am sure that some KKK members have friends who dont have the exact beliefs they have, but the issue still remains, they believe white supremacy should reign. The founder of the school being openly homophobic and placing that into the school's culture (i.e. expecting students to maintain gender roles, is an essential necessity to this article. It shows that the school's methods are outdated and I firmly believe (which I'm sure I will be shut down, like always in this particular article) that if the school's positive "the won this" and "they are accredited by so and so" is included, so should the negative information about the school, especially when it has to do with their program. THIS I will not back down on and will continue to add it to the article unless another editor can explain how the founder being openly homophobic and instilling that hate into the school, is not an important piece of information about the school. Please explain that. I can live with Orlady's edit (even though I do not agree with it, but the homophobic piece should be included...period)! Thanks Flyboi9 (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
It takes a giant leap to go from Rita Argiros' saying that her father was homophobic "in his pronouncements" to making a statement in an encyclopedia article to the effect that homophobia is instilled in the school's culture. There is no reliable source for the statements that you want to make.
Furthermore, what she is describing might not be at all unusual. Up until the last decade or two, the vast majority of American adults (including a lot of seemingly open-minded and enlightened people) were homophobic. She doesn't say when her father made those homophobic pronouncements, but it is very likely that he simply expressed the same attitudes as 90% of his neighbors. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom Croke as a source?

I think that educational consultant Tom Croke's webpage about FFS (this is a page expressly about FFS; it is not the criticism page in which he did not name the program) could be a good source for factual information about the school's history, particularly how it was founded. Considering that the author identifies himself, is clearly independent of the school, and makes his motives clear, the factual content on his site ought to be considered a reliable source. (His opinions and the rumors he describes are, however, just opinions and rumors that do not belong in Wikipedia.) Does anyone have a different opinion on this? --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral at the moment. I have no objection that I know of. :) - Sinneed 06:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Croke should be a source at least pointing to his blog in Rita's quote. I will think of a way to reword the sections with Rita's comments and see if we can make it more so both of us will agree Flyboi9 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Not unless it mentions the school. wp:SYNTH... you are assuming she was talking about that, that he was talking about the school. Can't stay as is. Does her article link to this article specifically, or just to his web site? - Sinneed 21:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
My intent was to use him as a source of factual information on topics such as the founding of the school. His website has a page about FFS that talks about the Argiros family (Rita's parents) taking in foster kids, and how "The Family" became "The Family Foundation School." His blog posts about unidentified schools are not appropriate to cite in articles about specific schools, even when there is a strong basis for guessing which school he was talking about. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I added a small paragraph to make the section on Rita Argiros' response to sex more clear. Without the Croke article referenced in this section, it is impossible for a reader to even understand what Rita is saying and I think that it should be included. Take a look and what does everybody think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboi9 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose.- Sinneed 21:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
why is this section opposed. Rita sites the article in her article and without the paragraph I added, the second paragraph is not needed in this wiki article because it is not clear what it means. Flyboi9 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
"Does her article link to this article specifically, or just to his web site?" - - Sinneed 01:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
DIRECTLY to the article. If you go to her article, it has the link where she talks about the article that does not name the school specifically Flyboi9 (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Sinneed. Rita Argiros thinks that Tom Croke was talking about FFS (and several of us agree that this is likely), but that does not give Wikipedia a basis for saying that he was talking about the school. In the words of Carly Simon, "You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you" -- but it might not be. For Wikipedia to say that Tom Croke was talking about FFS in that blog, we would need a published statement by Tom Croke affirming that this was the case. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not disputing what Orlady is saying. I am simply saying I think that the paragraph stating that there was a blog that was written should be included in the article, otherwise Rita's article does not make sense. I in no way am saying that we should say FFS was the mentioned facility, simply state what the article said, which leads an outside reader to understand Rita's statement. Flyboi9 (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
...and thus the content cannot stay as it is, and needs to change so that it makes sense, and says in the words of the editors what appears in the sources, and no, not the blog.- Sinneed 05:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Dropped again. I leave the tags in for discussion above.- Sinneed 02:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my absence of late, and it's taken me a few days to get back up to speed. I frankly find myself bewildered by all the talk of using blogs as references in the article, either by Croke or Argiros, as it has always been my understanding (and have therefore long edited on the understanding and to the consternation of CAFETY) that blogs do not meet the WP:RS test, as they are objectively WP:SELFPUB, and self-published works (e.g. open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc.,) "are largely not acceptable." This seems especially so in the case of the Argiros post, since she is self-publishing about the school's program when it is widely known that she is one of the owners of the school. I can see a possible case for using Croke as a WP:RS, if we consider that he's evaluated a lot of schools and has developed a comprehensive rubric against which to measure them. But isn't a self-published source only considered a WP:RS under very specific conditions that (unless I'm missing something) these fail to meet? - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 19:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • A blog by a noted individual might well be useful as a generally wp:reliable source within the area of expertise (with appropriate caution), and this is the basis of the Croke thought in my case.
  • Arigos would be useful under the tight requirements of wp:SELFPUB, always with care.- Sinneed 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Sinneed. Then as written, I truly do not see what the paragraph at hand in the article has to do with the program, beyond identifying that the school takes a conservative position on the factors that are subject to addiction or abuse, which are already identified in the section. If not considered to be "unduly self-serving," this source might be appropriate as affirmative evidence that the second generation of the school's leadership is engaged in ongoing self-evaluation; or to state that students take pledges of purity that their peers expect them to follow; that though there is a culture of non-dating at the school, the school teaches "that loving relationships are wonderful." Frankly, the way the paragraph is present written makes it sound as though the poster is sex-obsessed, and the "more subtle forms of absolutism" are driven by faculty; in reality the poster states that it's the students themselves that are engaging in it. Bottom line: this paragraph is factually incorrect, misleading as it pertains to the cited source and as such, amounts to unsubstantiated, unverifiable WP:SYNTH; it should be significantly reworked to correct these issues, or removed entirely. If you trust me to do it, I'll be happy to take a crack at it. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've decided to be WP:BOLD while I'm thinking about it and have the time to apply. If it's inappropriate, feel free to rework. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allynwood_Academy/Archive_3&oldid=1040554342"