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

6 May 2006: I took out all the "cute" language about how the professors did a novena to St. Thomas More and about "pouring new wine into old wineskins." This isn't an exercise in dramatic writing. This is intended to be a factual, journalistic piece outlining the problems between the faculty, alumni, Board of Governors and Monaghan. There's no need to be trying to paint the faculty/alumni as having the moral high ground; the facts will do so for us.

Also, I took out the part about Monaghan trying to sue Ann Arbor township and electing his own zoning board members. Why? There was no citation provided other than the word "Monaghan." Again, folks, it's important to have a source you can point to other than your own recount. Otherwise, we're reduced to rumor and hearsay. PLEASE, hyperlink to a citation before posting a new fact.--Resipsaloquitur 18:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I Don't know why you think this helpful!

-I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a knock or not...but there's a lot of facts which have been flying around in this debate for a long time. I believed it would be nice to get it down on paper and add to them as things happen. If you don't like it, don't contribute. --Resipsaloquitur 18:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Importance
I've just added an 'importance' tag to this article, as I'm quite uncertain as to whether this is actually encyclopedic - it is a timeline about a dispute involving one school, from the looks of it. I'd be interested in hearing why the editors believe it's important enough to be included as part of Wikipedia. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony: This is a real hot-button issue for people associated with the law school and, basically, Wikipedia has been used to push a certain perspective on the issue. I became aware of this page two nights ago and at first, I changed some of it to put my own two cents in. Since then, though, I've been editing the article to make it more balanced. All in all, I certainly sympathize with what you're saying about the unencyclopedic nature of it. I would be just as happy if this page weren't on Wikipedia at all. Regards, Gamisano 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I think I'm going to ask some other folks to review these articles to get some extra eyes on them. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge
An admin I had take a look at this page suggested that it should be merged into the main article rather than being a standalone piece. That would likely require it to be shortened substantially. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony- That could be a great idea, except that, taking a look at the main page for the law school, it is fairly short itself. For that reason, even a shortened version of the article would constitute a substantial portion of the main page. I propose that the article be removed from its present location and added to the main page as a short blurb, as follows:

"Presently, there is great uncertainty regarding the long-term future of the law school as its Board of Governors considers Monaghan's proposal to move the school to the newly-erected town of Ave Maria, Florida, where it would join Ave Maria University, another school funded by Monaghan. The proposed move has precipitated a significant controversy among those associated with the school.  Nonetheless, in the short term, the school is assured of remaining in Michigan at lease until 2009."

Gamisano 01:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds bang-on to me, I'd say. Make absolutely sure you have a source or two included in there, though, as that way it won't be considered original research and you should be able to get it in the article no problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony- What about discontinuing the current article? When would that happen and who would be responsible for terminating it? Also, I notice that this article has been aped on answers.com, so would Wikipedia send any sort of request to answers.com to discontinue using the terminated Wikipedia content?

Thanks, Gamisano 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


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

Man, leave the article alone. The whole reason it was created was because newcomers to Fumare and other debate sites kept contesting the factual content about debates around the law school. There were those of us who wanted to see a centralized point to find facts about what's been happening. You'll note that pretty much every dated event has some citation verifying the events or quotes. Given how many people keep saying "you can't prove that" or "he never said that," it's pretty apparent that this article is important..--Resipsaloquitur 07:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue with the article is that it is unencyclopedic as a standalone article or fork from the main article. Frankly, it should have been merged quite some time ago (which was the opinion I got from an administrator who I asked for a second opinion from), but it appears the fellow above hasn't gotten around to it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is important to have a detailed timeline of the controversy, including as many items as possible - one does not know when a past event in the timeline will be important to understand a current event. I disagree that the issue is unencyclopedic. I am not opposed to the merge, as prospective students, faculty and donors to the school need to be aware that the school is in the midst of a serious controversy. The attempt to delete this page should also be an event listed in the timeline.

Tony- I have added the proposed language to the Ave Maria main page, but it is not yet adequately sourced. Gamisano 03:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony-- If you can suggest how to make this specific article more "encylopediodic," please make it known before you delete it. Perhaps it could be renamed "Ave Maria Debate" and the "timeline" format could be altered into a narrative. A lot of people worked hard on this page. Additionally, by keeping it independent of the main law school article, there's less risk of it getting noticed by members of the Ave Maria Foundation, who have been known to go on the offensive against persons who say things they don't like to hear. I'd hate to see one of them hop on here and delete it entirely. I'd advise getting a second opinion from Gamisano. He's an alumni from the school (his user name gives him away to those who know him) who's attacking this article from a political, not procedural standpoint. I get the impression that you wish to see this page cleaned up from a purely journalistic standpoint, keeping things in Wikipedia's standards. That, I can appreciate it. Gamisano is, however, motivated by a desire to shut down parties he disagrees with. You might give your actions here a second thought before proceeding. ..--Resipsaloquitur 07:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S., I note that one of Gamisano's recent edits of this page asserts that the Alumni Association had no power to issue a public statement in April 2006. This was an extremely minority view fronted by a few persons, one of whom was Gamisano himself. The position that the Alumni Association had no such power was a narrow interpretation of the AA bylaws and was solely a matter of opinion. That Gamisano asserted it as fact in his edit of this article should be highly illustrative of his motives here. Talk about non-encyclopediotic! ..--Resipsaloquitur 10:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to work this page, but I would like to throw in my 2 cents. First, wikipedia has a page dedicated to the "election controversies of 2004." cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies

I would respectfully submit, that if there can be a page dedicated to that, then there can be a page dedicated to the controversy at Ave Maria School of Law. Otherwise, for consistency sake, I would suggest merging the Controversy of Election 2004 page with the Main Election 2004 page. I would also note a page dedicated to the Janet Jackson controversy which could be merged into the Super Bowl 38 page. cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Jackson_controversy

As to this current "controversy." While it may seem small potatoes, the fact is this controversy has been covered in local papers such as the Ann Arbor News, to catholic circles such as the Wanderer, to National Media Outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

Obviously different side are lobbying to have different facts emphasized (as it is clear mr. Amisano is trying to do), but make no mistake, there is definite room for this to be considered its own factual, journalistic occurrence. As echo'd from above, I would request that you give us suggestions as to how to make this presented in a more journalistic/factual matter, before deleting the page and/or merging it. I am confident that this subject matter will be able to meet the standards set by wikipedia for its contents. Thanks.

-Joel Osteen (not the guy from TV, but Joel nonetheless)


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

Tony- You can take a look at the history of this article and see that it is much more objective as amended by me than it was as originally presented by Res Ipsa and his associates. You may also notice that my original edits strongly expressed my opinion about the Alumni Board, but after reading that Wikipedia articles were supposed to have some measure of objectivity, I changed the article to merely recite the fact that objection was taken to the action, which objection was made in a notable manner, even if Res Ipsa doesn't think many people agree with it. The fact is that I have made this article much more objective. I think it is farcical for Res Ipsa to complain about a mere recognition of a notable opinion when he and his associates originally produced an article that cannot honestly be called anything other than completely one-sided propaganda. In particular, the original article pounded its readers over the head with the opinions of people it agreed with, but now Res Ipsa faults me for putting in one sentence acknowledging a contrary view. Witness the fact that the original article had long recitations of arguments advanced by people opposed to the Florida move and even goes as far as to recite the rallying cry of one of Res Ipsa's side's champions--i.e., "Gubernator Ejectus"--and recites it as an objectively important fact. The edited article has nothing analogous. Bottom line: I have made this article fairer and more objective. Gamisano 01:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Res Ipsa- Please divulge your real name, as I have divulged mine. No hiding behind pseudonyms! If your content is good enough to post, it is good enough to put your name behind! Gamisano 01:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, no dice. You KNOW there's a reason the bulk of AMSOL grads post with anonimity: those who are publicly known have been threatened by members of the Board of Governors. Need I remind you that one of your classmates was fired from his job recently after Monaghan's people called his employer? We haven't cited to those instances because 1) we want to respect the individuala threatened, and 2) there's no reasonable way to cite to it. Me, I don't need to see my job threatened, so the mask stays on. Deal with it.

We've kept the facts here objective and traceable to a direct source. I admit that some language can be perfected to make it more balanced (although this doesn't equate to saying that some students opposed the Alumni Board's actions when "some" meant "three,"). Can YOU admit that your desire to see the article deleted is based entirely on your minority, pro-Monaghan view? ResIpsaLoquitur 10:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ipsa- I would hardly say you have the courage of your convictions! You accuse your benefactor of sabotaging someone's career, but you won't let us know who you are. You throw wild accusations from behind a curtain. I frankly don't think there's much honor in that. But I also have to wonder about this thing you keep saying about how a billionaire has a band of famous and well-respected people (i.e., the Board) out to get you and you need to keep your name secret or they will catch up with you and destroy your life. That seems to indicate that your rage has turned to delusion. Gamisano 02:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil, folks. Accusations back and forth are less than constructive. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I'm saying no more on this point and will continue to report verifiable facts on the main page. My reasons for my anonimity remain my reasons. You should have enough contacts in the alumni community (such as in your Google groups) to verify the rest. The fact that you need to publicly question what you yourself know to be true does nothing but reveal your own intentions and allegiances.

Ipsa- It is simply untrue that I am disputing things that I know to be true. As to the matter to which you refer, I had heard that before from one person, but I doubt its accuracy. I do not believe that the dean or Monaghan's associates would be bothered to demand that someone be fired. Now maybe some unfavorable comments were made in passing or whatever and maybe those had some bearing on the situation, but I do not believe that things are the way they have been put. Beyond that, you seem to believe that not toeing your party line disqualifies someone from contributing to this article. You post completely biased material motivated by an anti-Monaghan view, which is all well and dandy, but when I filter the bias from the material based on a desire to be fair to Monaghan et al., my motivations are suspect. At worst, you could accuse me of very mild editorializing for the Alumni Association comment, but even in that case, I have just done very mildly what you did in the extreme. For the most part, I avoided editorializing and aimed to leave the content in fair and objective form. I did not aim to leave the article favorable or unfavorable to either side. Your objection to my contribution based on my viewpoint is off base. Gamisano 04:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What editorializing? Heck, someone made this article VERY fluffy a few days after I created it. I had to tone it down considerably. I post things as they come, facts only, maybe focusing on things that fuel the controversy. Show me the "editorializing" and I'll show you a "guy" who doesn't like what he's reading.--Resipsaloquitur 18:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Guy, I'm trying to compare earlier versions of this page with your alterations. I can't find the earlier versions, and I note that there aren't many changes attributed to ME in the last few months. You accuse me of editorializing, but it's unclear as to how much of the original article came from me versus how much has come from additional contributors, including those who tweak and touch up language. So not only have you not established editorializing, but you haven't established that *I* authored any. (You also haven't established any intent on my part versus, perhaps, frustrations with the situation which subconsciously manifest in writng style.)--Resipsaloquitur 18:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ipsa- The editorializing was manifest in long recitations of arguments against the move and in the fact that the sheer volume of arguments recited against the move greatly outweighed the arguments for it. You may say that this is because there are a lot more good arguments against than there are for, but regardless, if it is an encyclopedic article about a controversy, it must give each side its fair say, even if one side is dramatically stronger than the other. Another example is the recitation of negative facts about the school's standing that are not directly related to the development of the controversy but are only offered to make the other side look bad and to bolster your side's arguments. As to content attributed to you, I don't remember exactly what content came from whom, but only that it was all of the same mind until I contributed. As to bias in your writing, I don't think it matters for our purposes whether it was conscious or sub-conscious, but only that it was not written objectively. In fact, the great benefit of having the article reviewed by people of different minds on the subject is that they can detect each other's biases. Gamisano 01:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you attributed it to ME without justification. I'll wait here for that apology, thanks. Although I do note that I don't think it was editorializing, just thorough. Compare this version:

January 4, 2005: AMSOL Professor Charles Rice sends a letter published in the Naples Daily News. Rice refutes a December 28, 2004 article from that newspaper which indicates that the law school will be moving to the proposed site of Ave Maria University in Florida. Rice notes that "most of the AMSL faculty who made that visit [were] overwhelmingly negative with respect to any move of AMSL to Collier County," and that in his own view, "the suggested move would be imprudent and contrary to the best interests of AMSL." (Source: Paul Likoudis, "Ave Maria Law School Alums Upset by Rice Removal," The Wanderer, October 13 2005)

With your edits:

January 4, 2005: AMSOL Professor Charles Rice sends a letter published in the Naples Daily News attempting to rebut a December 28, 2004 article from that newspaper which indicates that the law school will be moving to the proposed site of Ave Maria University in Florida. In that article, Rice is sharply critical of the proposed move to Florida. (Source: Paul Likoudis, "Ave Maria Law School Alums Upset by Rice Removal," The Wanderer, October 13 2005)

Looks to me like you just removed stuff you didn't like which made Rice's argument clearer. Here's a larger comparison illustrating how many facts, spin or no spin, have been removed since you started editing.

Ipsa- This is a perfect example of bias. "Refutes" assumes that Rice's efforts did in fact refute the article. "Attempted to refute" doesn't assume anything--it just says that Rice took a certain position. In fairness, maybe "took issue with" would have been a more objective way of saying it, since I guess you could say that "attempted to refute" could be taken to imply that he failed to refute, but that wasn't my intention and if I had thought of saying "took issue with," I think I would have. Then your version is a long recitation of Rice's arguments against the move--these are arguments and not facts. To recite that Rice is critical of the move is all that is necessary or appropriate to describe the controversy. You can't say you're being objective when you are just piggybacking your arguments onto an historical event. Gamisano 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, quit calling me "Ipsa." It sounds condescending.--Resipsaloquitur 22:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm ducking out of this conversation. I'd love to continue debating, but this is eating too much of my time, and I'd rather spend it with my family than debating yourself, especially since this is not the forum for it. Do feel free to pop into Fumare--I'm sure your classmates would love to hear your justification for your alterations here. Resipsaloquitur 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony-- I'm willing to transform this page into an "Ave Maria Debate" article that would otherwise keep the substance intact. I'd like to hear from the vox populi first, though. Your thoughts? ResIpsaLoquitur 10:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamisano, I compared previous versions of the article with your edit and I have to disagree that ResIpsaLoquitur is "editorializing" and you are not. Yes, there was a list of "anti-move" arguments that you removed, but they were part of the earlier feasibility study's findings, rather than an argument by ResIpsaLoquitur or whoever inserted them. Making something a source of balanced information does not mean removing information not favorable to your interests or beliefs. Balance would mean, for example, that if the current feasibility study has pro-move reasons, then, if/when it is released, those reasons would also be posted. Honestly, this discussion is getting pretty old. Dollie 08:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dollie- If arguments are going to be listed, they have to be listed for both sides. You can't be objective by quoting other people's arguments that you agree with and then saying that you are laying out the objective fact of what other people said. Gamisano 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, then you need to add facts which you think are relevant--not subtract facts which you don't like. Now who's editorializing? This page deals with historical FACTS surrounding the controversy. If you want an "arguments" page, start one.

Request for Comment
I've posted a request for comment to get greater comment on this article, as it certainly looks like it's necessary to get someone (besides me) from outside of the school's sphere of influence to help with this discussion.

To visitors from the RFC: please review the above comments on the talk page, look over the relevant articles, and weigh in below this point. Much appreciated! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm an outsider and uninvolved in this controversy; I just happened to see the entry on the RFC page. My first reaction is that both the main article and the timeline article are fairly encyclopedic now; I'm sure more work can be done on both, but overall they both seem dryly factual and sourced. I believe the level of detail on the Ave Maria timeline is appropriate and should be available somewhere on Wikipedia for anyone looking for a factual, blow-by-blow history of the controversy. The controversy itself is certainly notable, given its press coverage and the involvement of some very notable figures in the school's history.


 * As I see it, the major question now is whether this should be merged into the main article. That's a subjective question; my own opinion is "no" when I try to put myself in the shoes of the readers. Many people looking for information on the law school are just not going to want to wade through the timeline's level of detail; they want an overview of the school and will want to know that such a controversy exists, not the details. Yet the details are still readily available for those that do.


 * There's been some work on web page user-friendliness and studies made of how users actually use the web; most readers quit if they have to scroll down a page very far -- they prefer shorter articles with more links so they can pick and choose what and how much to read. The main page/detailed subpage forking strategy is used all over Wikipedia. Go to the main article for just about any country, state or big city and you'll find a "History" section with an overview of the place's history, along with a hyperlink to a more detailed article "History of ___". The same goes for "Economy" and "Economy of ___", etc.
 * --A. B. 12:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also coming to this article from the RFC page. I've read through the comments placed above, and glanced at the two articles.  It seems to me that people have very strong opinions regarding the Controversy covered in this article, and there's nothing wrong with that.  It does mean, however, that people have a lot to say about it, with the result that this article is longer than the article on the school itself; if the two articles are merged, the Controversy will swallow up most of the page and unbalance it.  Since I don't see there being a way to successfully trim this page down enough to prevent it from swallowing the page about the school (as it presently exists), I have to argue against the merger.
 * I'll also say that this is all hypertext - just a click brings the intrested reader from one page to the next. I do notice, though, that the controversy is only linkehttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_italic.pngd via the "See Also" section of the school's page; perhaps placing a link in the text might better tie the two together, for example:
 * "The proposed move has precipitated a controversy among those associated with the school. In the short term, the school is assured of remaining in Michigan at lease until 2009."
 * which would not enable the reader to click over to this page without figuring out how to do so (finding the "See Also" section, though for the moment that section lies just below the quoted sentence.) A. B. also makes some good arguements regarding the common use of forking subpages and how willing users are to scroll down and find information, which I agree with.  --Badger151 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops - that should be "which would enable the reader to click over", not "which would not enable the reader to click over". I changed not to strikeout to make that clearer.  Sorry.  --Badger151 18:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My main concern with these articles is just as mentioned above - the timeline is twice as long as the main article, and my biggest question is: who, outside of the folks involved with the school, will really be concerned with the minutiae of the discussions? My second concern is that a lot of the citations in the timeline go directly to the school's website and press releases, which I believe is rather discouraged in terms of sourcing. But, this is why I've asked for more opinions, so it's good to see we've got some input coming in. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An outsider's suggestion: I came to this article yesterday via the RFC. Without getting into the merits of various adds and deletes, I suggest that if folks see a need to cut a large chunk of text (and assuming it's not garden variety vandalism) they at least paste it to the talk page and critique it. That seems more consistent with the Wikipedia way.
 * --A. B. 13:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see blogs are sourced and even comments posted by others to blogs. See Reliable sources, especially Reliable sources. In bold print, this is what what the Wikipedia guideline says:
 * "Personal websites, blogs, posts to Usenet or wikis, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources."
 * --A. B. 13:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a major problem. If we removed links to blogs and links to letters, press releases, etc. from the school, and so on, the article would lose a lot of its content. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, all I can say is. get rid of the blog-based content. Just do it, even if it guts the article. This is an encyclopedia, which means we are extremely conservative with facts. If the blog content is not good enough to interest the NY Times, Newsweek, the Michigan press or the Wall Street Journal or someone to research it to our level of quality (and accountability), then it's not ready for this encyclopedia. --A. B. 03:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to comment on an edit made..."April 10, 2006: The board of the AMSOL Alumni Association publicly issues a resolution of "No Confidence" in Dean Dobranski. The alumni at large are not consulted on the matter prior to the board's vote. Some students assert that the Association has no right to take such an action under its bylaws, which do not seem to suggest any politicking role for the Association (Source: Bylaws of the Ave Maria School of Law Alumni Association), but the resolution is nonetheless emblematic of continuing communications by the Association's board apparently aimed at fostering disapproval of the proposed Florida move and the circumstances surrounding it."

That edit is complete "hearsay" to borrow a legal phrase. If we are going to be factual about this discussion, then the reasons given by the alumni board should be listed. For someone to edit this and attribute their opinion of what the intentions of the board are is completely irrelevant to a factual account as to what happened. As the Alumni Board publicized its resolution, I would reccomend providing a copy of Resolution which listed the actual reasons and supporting logic for the vote. -Joel Osteen

Joel- The offending words were mine, so I have removed them. Gamisano 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki War
Tony- This is turning into a full-fledged Wiki War with competing versions of this article being posted. The sourcing is poor, the article is unencyclopedic, and this has become a forum for propaganda. I am forced to be vigilant in order to keep up with this and keep propaganda against my school from being propagated on Wikipedia. I sincerely request that this article be merged immediately. Gamisano 16:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see above, there's outside viewpoints saying that the article should probably exist. However, I'm disappointed with the edit war that's starting to break out, and I'm intending, when I get the opportunity shortly, to go through this sucker with a fine-tooth comb with regards to verifiability and reliable sources and, most importantly, neutral point of view to find a balance. If it's going to exist, it's got to be entirely neutral, and I get the impression the main editors involved in the discussion are having problems finding that neutrality. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, I note that the neutrality article mentions that we should "let the facts speak for themselves." I hope this means that we'll favor including facts rather than deleting them for convenience.  I'm disappointed that Guy has chosen to delete material for the sake of "balancing" the article.  I invite anyone to add facts which favor the school's administration, but we shouldn't be removing facts in order to hide evidence.

Dear Whoever- Opinions stated by one side are not "facts" in the sense that they belong in an encyclopedia. Certainly, one side in this controversy is able to be much more vociferous about the move than the other side, but that does not mean that all the opinions stated should be included as "facts" in a Wikipedia article. If that were true, then a vociferous side would always be entitled to an advantage in an article about a controversy. Second, the fact that one side marshals more facts than the other does not give that side the right to an advantage in a Wikipedia article, because it is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, which must be fair at all times, rather than a debate, which may be won by one side, perhaps on the basis that it marshalled more or better arguments. In writing an encyclopedic article, the writer must seek to include opinions on both sides fairly, rather than seeking to demonstrate an advantage in the evidence for either side.Gamisano 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell me if any of these articles need to be more balanced to represent "both sides."

Completely irrelevant. Gamisano 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How curt of you. How's it irrelevant?  The Holocaust article, for example, would be more balanced simply by adding "some people believe..." to every paragraph.  Why not give equal time to folks who believe it didn't exist?  How about a substantive answer?

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be balanced, particularly articles about on-going controversies. There is no on-going controversy re the Holocaust, the rantings of some crazies notwithstanding. Gamisano 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony- I look forward to seeing your edits. When your edits are done, will the article be locked from editing? I'm afraid that even if you get this thing pretty neutral, it will have a lot of propaganda added to it afterward. Best, Gamisano 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


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

Thank you for your work on this Tony, it is much appreciated to many people, and I am sure it is a pain in the neck to you. As I stated before, with a little guidance for the Wikipedia Staff/moderators, I am confident that this page can conform to the standards set by Wikipedia. -Joel Osteen