Talk:Controversy at Ave Maria School of Law

Draft of Rewrite
Okay, I've just placed a draft of the rewritten article up for discussion. Let me explain the process I used in this rewrite, and then I'd like comments on the article.

I have gone through this article and removed a substantial amount of unrelated material that was more background of the school than anything to do with the current controversy. That material should be in the school's main article, not here. More importantly, however, I have also removed a large amount of material that was based on primary sources - letters and e-mails, mostly, as well as some unsourced information. This was based on the guidelines at Verifiability and Reliable sources. I've used a touch of Ignore all rules as well, in including a bit of information from the AMSOL website and press releases that help to provide the necessary background. There is one point where I've included a 'citation needed' tag referring to the feasibility study in 2003, which I can find just passing reference to in the other sources. If someone can find a reliable source for that, I'd like to hear it.

At this time, I'd like comments - HERE, please, not on my sandbox page - on the rewrite and any suggestions that you folks might have for additions, removals, changes, etc. I will be doing my best to ensure that the neutral point of view is enforced, however, so be advised. I'm out of town for the rest of the week, so you'll all have lots of time to comment; when it appears there's a consensus on the draft, I'll replace this page with that content, and I'd like to look at the possibility of moving the page to Ave Maria School of Law move controversy, since the rewrite removes the "timeline" aspect.

So: Comments below, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony- The draft looks pretty good, but I will just put my two cents in. I would take the last sentence of the fourth paragraph ("Students and alumni...") and put it at the end of the third paragraph, with "Meanwhile" in front of it. Then I would take the first sentence of the fourth paragraph ("In 2005, the Board...") and make it the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, where it should flow nicely in a narrative. After that, I would do without the middle two, and only remaining, sentences of the fourth paragraph. The reason for this is that while Professor Rice's objections to the Florida move are important, it would seem more suitable to the general narrative approach of the article to make note that he was one of the objectors whose arguments are generally described in the narrative rather than attributing particular significance to Professor Rice's particular arguments by reviewing them in more detail. Thanks, Gamisano 02:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony--

The rewrite needs to reflect the fact that alumni concerns are not solely with Florida, but with Monaghan's governance of the school. (This was how the timeline article was written until somebody changed it.) A quick check of any of the AMSOL debate sites reflect that the protest comes from how people perceive Monaghan's treatment of the Board of Governors, the faculty, and the school itself. Florida is at the center of the debate, but is not the cause of it.

Also, there's been some recent public updates from Dean Dobranski, which you can read about at fumare.blogspot.com. They're pretty relevant to the whole debate, particularly in that the BOG has decided to freeze term limits even though that was their reason for removing Charlie Rice....I'd be happy to add these to the timeline article if someone wouldn't keep deleting them... ResIpsaLoquitur 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony- In response to Ipsa's concern, I would like to posit that first, an article about internal dissatisfaction with the governing structure of a school has substantially less encyclopedic relevance than even an article about a possible move to Florida. For example, I can't imagine that the national media coverage that the Florida move has gotten would have been given to mere internal dissatisfaction with a school's governing structure. In fact, an article focusing on such a thing could smack of an airing of petty grievances, particularly since Ipsa's and his associates' concerns revolve around dissatisfaction with one individual. Second, if the article were to be about dissatisfaction with Tom Monaghan's approach to the school, it would have to focus on that with the Florida move as a component of the larger argument, rather than focusing on the Florida move with the governance issue as a component of the larger argument, as is the case with Ipsa's and his associates' drafts. I read the earlier drafts' framing that as an issue when it wasn't treated as such in the body of the article as a way to frame the debate in a particular fashion by inserting another doubt about the Florida move, i.e., the Board's failing to act independently in making its decision. That is why I left the Florida move as the only issue referenced at the beginning. Best, Gamisano 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony,
 * First my name isn't "Ipsa," and I expressed my annoyance at Guy for calling me such. #2, the parties causing the ruckus have expressly stated that their concern is with Monaghan's governance and the illogic in his preference of Florida to the detriment to the school.  Monaghan may be "one individual," (arguably two if you include Dobranski) but the facts point to him holding all the cards, players, and money in his hands.  Again, if you check with any of the Ave debate sites, you'll find that the debate centers around Monaghan's governance.  A number of individuals have stated that they wouldn't object to Florida were it in the school's best interest; the focus is Monaghan.


 * I direct you to this article to illustrate the point. If the article is going to be about the debate, then it needs to focus on the parties' concerns as those parties have raised them.  Guy's rewrite of one side's concerns is downright sneaky.User_talk:ResIpsaLoquitur 11:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, looking at the discussion thus far, I'd like to talk about some of the points being made.
 * Gamisano's first comment regarding the paragraph discussing Dr. Rice: I have made an adjustment to note that several other people also left the board at that point in time, as I realize that my focus on Dr. Rice was somewhat strong. However, that particular paragraph is sourced and is obviously one of the key points in the debate, and thus I feel discussion of Dr. Rice's concerns as expressed in the Wanderer article is necessary.


 * ResIpsaLoquitur's comments regarding the AMSOL debate sites and information available on a blogspot.com site: blogs are very highly discouraged as sources, and thus any information there would not meet the reliable sources guidelines. I've tried to specifically focus on secondary published sources as the main focus of the article, and only used a couple of primary sources as background rather than central information. You'll also notice that I listed the Wall Street Journal reference as an external link rather than a reference; this is because editorials are generally not appreciated as sources either. If you have reliable sources that aren't blogs, letters, forum posts or others, I'd appreciate you listing them here so I can include them into the article, and that goes for both sides.


 * So that's what I need right now: sources for these various discussions. I'm happy to listen to more suggestions, but I'd prefer sources. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony- Thanks for editing the draft responsively to my concerns. However, I still think that the Rice paragraph could be pared down a little bit better. Please take note of the following sentences:

"He also stated most faculty had toured the Collier County area and had expressed negative opinions on the move. Students and alumni expressed concern regarding the move, and whether it might result in a loss of the school's accreditation with the American Bar Association."

Please note that the paragraph following the Rice paragraph addresses the fact that faculty, students, and alumni have objected to the move, so saying that Rice said it really seems redundant.

Also, please note that the Rice detail comes from what is effectively an editorial in the Wanderer. You will notice that there are extensive quotations from different people opposed to the Florida move, including a number from people who are not by any means important figures in the controversy (e.g., Mr. Manos and Miss Doran). There is not a single quotation from anyone who supports it. So to me this is an editorial and if editorials are not appropriate sources for Wikipedia, the Wanderer article must be excluded. Gamisano 00:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, I'm waiting for further comment before moving forard. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, note that the original Naples Daily News article is no longer available on that site. The Wanderer article is the best available evidence of what happened in Rice's original article.  Also, I don't think this article qualifies as an "editorial" merely because it doesn't offer anything to Guy's side...ResIpsaLoquitur 19:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony- Ipsa says that an article about a controversy shouldn't be considered an editorial merely because it is one-sided. Hmm.... Gamisano 03:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From the article Editorial:

"An editorial or op-ed is a statement or article by a news organization (generally a newspaper) that expresses the opinion of the news organization or one of its members. The term op-ed originates from the tradition of newspapers placing such materials on the page opposite the editorial page. "op-ed" is a combination of the words "opposite" and "editorial."

...

Editorials are almost always printed on their own page of the newspaper, and are always labeled as editorials (to avoid confusion with news coverage). They are often about current events or public controversies. Generally, editorials fall into four broad types: news, policy, social, and special.

The editorial page contains editorials and the op-ed page contains opinion columns and sometimes cartoons:

Editorials are (usually short) opinion pieces, written by members of the editorial board of the paper. They reflect the stance of the paper and do not have bylines. The opinions expressed on op-ed pages reflect those of the individual authors, not the paper. The articles have bylines and are usually written by individual free-lance writers or syndicated columnists. Sometimes editorial writers write signed columns for the op-ed page. Most op-ed pieces take the form of an essay or thesis, using arguments to promote a point of view. Newspapers often publish op-ed pieces that are in line with their editorial slants, though dissenting opinions are often given space to promote balance and discussion."

The entire Wanderer article is factual. It may report on some people's opinions, but is essentially a story about Rice's actions and public statements, and the fact that a growing number of faculty, staff, and alumni are concerned about the direction of the school. There's no "I think..." or "The author suggests..." anywhere in the article. Maybe it's too bad that Monaghan didn't give a comment to the article; maybe that was a good idea given his disastrous comments to the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago. Regardless, the best argument you can make is that the article reports on one point of view. That's still not an editorial, since the article doesn't endorse that point of view.

So, try again, buddy. The increasingly antagonistic stance of your postings here isn't helping your side. Charity isn't your strong suit, is it? And I'm still waiting for that apology from several weeks back. I'm not expecting it, merely pointing out that one is still owed.

Tony, good luck and have fun. I recommend keeping your eye on things, as the AMSOL alumni board elections are coming up. Should be interesting and newsworthy....ResIpsaLoquitur 01:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ipsa- OK, in fairness, according to the Wikipedia definition, the article is not an editorial.

If you have a problem with me, I encourage you to discuss it with me man-to-man, off the Wikipedia discussion page. If you would like to do this, please e-mail me your identity using the alumni directory and I will forward my phone number. If you do this, I will neither divulge your name on Wikipedia nor encourage anyone else to do so. Gamisano 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh.


 * Alright, I'm going to make a sincere apology for any uncharitable aspects of my debating style here. I hope you can do the same (notably, continued use of the "Ipsa" name comes off as chain-jerking.)


 * No, I'm not going to call you. I still intend to remain under the wire.  As I've said, given that some of our classmates have been threatened, and at least one fired, I really don't need to put my family through that kind of nonsense.  I have no reason to believe you'd spill my name, but I intend to keep a tight lock on who I am for now.


 * My problem is what I perceive to be a flaw in your manner of engaging this hot-button issue, namely that it's been in a lateral manner. People are discussing the legitimacy of Tom and Bernie's authority, and you've raised the ultra vires issue over what most people believe to be a legitimate protest.  People contributed to a fact heavy Wiki here; you've deleted facts in the name of "balance."  (On that particular point, it strikes me as one who believes the winning team in a 42-7 football game needs to have their score lower to make it fairer.)


 * I'm inviting you to engage the topic on the merits: is the school being governed legitimately, and if so, is the move to Florida a wise or poor decision? If you believe in Monaghan and in Florida, find facts which support that position and add them to the Wiki; let the world at large make a fully informed decision.  Altering text to make it balanced is fair; deleting facts comes off as vandalism.  (On that note, Tony, PLEASE consult some of the older versions and consider reincorporating some of the facts which have been removed.)


 * Obviously, Tony's getting chagrined by the amount of space this debate is taking. I invite you to discuss these issues on the merits over at Fumare.  You're more likely to get a stimulating and spirited debate over there than you will in starting a Wiki War.  Believe it or not, there are Pro-Monaghan, Pro-Florida folk over there who engage the topic and aren't subjected to personal assaults.  OK?  ResIpsaLoquitur 10:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you may have a hard time believing this, but I really don't have a strong position on the propriety of the Florida move. I genuinely am a believer in the rule of law. You may have a hard time believing that, too, since you seem to think that I'm just being opportunistic with this, but I really do believe in the rule of law. I also have an incredible gratitude to Tom Monaghan because he really did a lot for me. And I'm still a believer in the school. What you call a "lateral attack" is really just a reflection of the things I care about. I think that some people are so angry about this Florida thing that they are betraying the values they said they believed in when they were in law school, like the rule of law, and they are showing absolute, in fact filthy, disregard and disrespect for a man who has done a ton for them. It seems that people think of the parable of the widow's mite and think that because Tom Monaghan has a lot of money, they don't need to be grateful for the $70,000 he gave each of them, but they should think of the parable of the ten lepers and realize that gratitude is owed even if it didn't take a ton out of the giver.

I also think it is flatly wrong of you to make serious allegations, like that the dean has gotten people fired, and make those allegations anonymously. If you are going to say something serious like that, you have an obligation to divulge your name. I will stop calling you "Ipsa" if you either reveal your name or stop making these accusations and delete where you have already made them.

Your analogy to a football game is inapposite because a football game is a competition and is not per se supposed to be balanced. An encyclopedia article is per se supposed to be balanced. If it can't be balanced, it shouldn't be written. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, which is what it had become with this article.

Regards, Gamisano 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I made one last attempt at being nice, and it didn't work. So I'll close with four points.  #1, I believe in the rule of law as well.  It just so happens that I believe the Alumni Board acted within its enumerated, if not inherent, powers.  #2, I can be grateful for Monaghan's donations and still condemn his poor treatment of the school.  #3, your argument went out the window when you resorted to calling this "propaganda."  You could make a sincere effort at edifying this article while still remaining within your political stance, whatever it may be.  Instead, you've degenerated it, as illustrated by the length of the comments here.  #4, call your classmates and find out if anyone's been fired.  I won't expose names for risk of ruining their, or my own, privacy.


 * Sayonara, you know who.

Ipsa- I'm much more concerned about being honorable than about being nice. My comments have been tough at times, but always fair. And you know exactly from whom they are coming. Gamisano 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (On that note, Tony, PLEASE consult some of the older versions and consider reincorporating some of the facts which have been removed.) - Point'em out, show me reliable sources, and I'll gladly include them. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the discussion civil, folks; I know there's a lot of animosity here and I'm wading into it from the outside, but we're all better off to not snipe back and forth as we work out a viable middle ground.


 * Regarding the Wanderer article: as someone who's written literally hundreds of editorials, I can say it's definitely not an editorial, which is a statement of opinion backed up by facts and rarely including any quotes, etc. It does include comments from the administration early in the article, I note; however, I have shortened the paragraph that concern was expressed about, as the concerns were indeed repeated in the next paragraph to some extent.


 * Are there any other thoughts on the article? I'd really like a source for the feasibility study that's marked 'citation needed,' if someone can turn that up, along with any others. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been a few days; if there are no more suggestions on the rewrite, I'm going to take it live, probably tomorrow night. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And it's up. More sources gladly accepted. I've also archived the extensive discussion prior to this section. Thanks for the input, folks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone going to add the part about the Dean announcing that there has been a compaint filed with the ABA and the school is under an ABA investigation? ~Anonymous