Talk:Hoofer Sailing Club

Stub Class - comments
Please be more specific as to the reason for this classification.FleetCaptain (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stub Class to be removed unless reasons stated
I asked for the reason for this classification and have heard nothing more from the person who tagged this article. I will be removing the tag in two weeks unless reasons are given.FleetCaptain (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

Internal politics
If specific information about the boats and fleets are to be considered minutiae not worthy of Wikipedia, I fail to see how complaints about the internal politics of this club qualify as well. As a result I've removed the reference to the code of ethics proposal that was defeated. Regardless, the statement added to the article by Tortugadillo used a web forum as a reference and provided his own opinion about the potential effects of the code. Bugsmasher (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)bugsmasher

Criticism section needed?
Why are is there no critisicm section on this article?

I see two isntances of valid critisicms removed from the article and there was no discussion as to why.

Response from Joanfa
All criticisms are now in the Criticism section. Feel free to add there.

please read this on Edit Wars and Neutral Writing before modyfing the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war

if criticisms are inserted all over the page again, it will have to be reverted for a 3rd time, at which point it will be submitted for dispute resolution/arbitration.

remember: "Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanfa (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaint by Tortugadillo
The above entry seems to be directed personally. Please check wikipedia policies. Instead of attacking those who make changes/additions to a page, you should counter their arguments with evidence, i.e. supporting documentation. These can be links to reputable webpages. It is inappropriate to repeatedly remove whatever you don't like from an entry. Wikipedia's policy is to have neutral articles. This means points of view from all sides, even if you happen to feel that Hoofers is utopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortugadillo (talk • contribs) 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Response by Joanfa
I am only trying to make the page NOT appear like it's written by a disgruntled hoofer. I do think it's great to see the criticisms, but don't agree that they should be sprinkled everywhere. The history is a good start. Let's just try to keep opinions not shared either in the criticism section or this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanfa (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Counter by Tortugadillo
No, let's make sure the article is well balanced (neutral) as required by Wikipedia. This means not removing or glossing over the ugly warts that Hoofers does, in fact, have. You may add counterpoints, backed up with references, provided the page is kept well organized and concise. Wikipedia is not a venue for free advertizing. I will admit that the History section is better before the Criticism section which is how I intended to organize it at some point. (Tortugadillo (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Note from FleetCaptain
Changes were made that reflect the balance of the club's programs and activities. The user Tortugadillo wrote history of the keelboat program but ignored the windsurfing and snow kiting. Also, even though these programs are important to the club, the heart of the sailing club remains dinghy sailing on Lake Mendota.FleetCaptain (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes on membership rates increasing in real dollars were deleted as factually inaccurate. FleetCaptain (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism Complaint by Tortugadillo
Membership cost has increased in real dollars. Check your facts and check Hoofer budgets over the past 15 years before vandalizing the page. Deleting most criticisms violates Wikipedia's policy on neutrality of articles. Refer to Wikipedia's policy on Neutral and objective articles. Finally, Fleetcaptain (nice pun) and others, you can't just remove whole sections and then throw in a bunch of random stuff wherever you like. Someone removed the best-documented sections of the article! Racing is an important part of the club, but layout is important too. (Tortugadillo (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Again, completely rewriting the page while removing whatever you don't like is clearly a violation of Wikipedia rules. If it happens again, you'll be reported for arbitration. Wikipedia articles are not free advertizing for the Hoofer sailing club; rather, they are intended as a concise summary presenting all sides of a topic, i.e. a neutral point of view. Your grammar sucks too, which is evidence of hit and run vandalism. (Tortugadillo (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Re: Vandalism by "Fleetcaptain" from Jjaruwan
Today you made thirty nine (39) separate edits of this page--not including four or five from someone at IP 66.188.120.12. You divided this short article into a ridiculous forty one (41) separate sections with subheadings. Further, almost all of your references (links) were to  the Hoofer sailing website itself and thus are not useful as supporting third-party references.

Wikipedia wants concise, well written, and informative articles, not a bunch of junk. Details on Hoofer specifics, e.g. the Badger sloop or a particular boat, should be linked at the bottom of the article or referenced by a simple link within the article. Also keep in mind that only noteworthy items of interest should be included in an article. Wikipedia cannot be a detailed or comprehensive explanation of Hoofer sailing. Finally, further vandalism, e.g. a flurry of major changes, may result the page being locked so that only approved registered users can make changes. (Jjaruwan (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Re: Vandalism by "Jjaruwan" from FleetCaptain
Today you removed my 39 changes - additions to the article, deleting valuable and valid information. All of the information I added was true and contributed to an understanding of what the Hoofer Sailing Club does. The only thing I deleted was the inaccurate adjective "tiny" which does not describe one of the largest lakes in the midwest (excluding the Great Lakes). I broke things into categories to make a table of contents that would be useful to readers navigating the article.

You removed valuable, true information. FleetCaptain (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not free advertising - Comment by Jjarjuwan
"Fleetcaptain"--your 39 changes were almost all trivial. It may well be that everything you wrote is true, but that doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedic article. Most of what you added was minutiae, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia, e.g.:


 * A rating on the Badger Tech is required to take lessons on the 420s
 * A rating on the Badger Tech is required to take lessons on Badger Sloops
 * A rating on 420s or a crew rating on a heavy keelboat is required to take lessons on the J-22s
 * The classes recently constructed a main sail for the Soverel 30 and a spinnaker for the J-29
 * An event fee is charged of participants which is used to pay for meals / parties each night
 * People do not have to be club members to participate in Commodore's Cup or attend the Ball
 * The cost of a student annual membership is $185.00 which includes a refundable work deposit of $65.00
 * The food is varied and excellent; it includes some vegetarian fare (that's false anyway unless chips and salsa count as "vegetarian fare" while everyone else is eating burgers and brats)

etc. etc. etc.

Moreover, you removed MUCH MORE than the word "tiny", contrary to what you claim above (in any case, "tiny" perfectly describes Lake Mendota in the context in which it was used--readers can check the actual size of the lake in the infobox if they want). You also removed most of the criticisms, stuck the rest at the bottom, and added dozens of section headings to make the article unreadable. Your objectives are obvious, and your vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and vandalism.

You seriously need to take an English class, too. (Jjaruwan (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Joanfa--you replaced verifiable facts with personal opinions, i.e.


 * Many felt he did a fine job, was very dedicated to the job and maintained a high level of instruction. Others feel that the Head of Instruction should change more frequently.

I left it for now, but I think you'll agree that personal opinions are not really appropriate for an encyclopedic article. (Jjaruwan (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Note on edit to history "Instruction Program" para 2 from FleetCaptain
I changed paragraph 2 to add that administrative cost is a factor limiting number of instructors. I also deleted the "paid" and "volunteer" adjectives to the term instructor in this paragraph where they were too limiting. These factors limit the numbers of all instructors, not simply volunteer instructors. Likewise, all instructors, paid or volunteer, are invited to the meetings, parties, and retreats. FleetCaptain (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Tortugadillo: Editing War? from FleetCaptain
Tortugadillo - Let's stop the editing war and build a better article about the Hoofer Sailing Club. When I first read the article as you wrote it, I was appalled at what I saw as a lack of balance and objectivity. I mistakenly deleted much of what you had written in an effort to portray the club that I belong to in a more fair light. You reverted everything and called it vandalism. I apologize. However, you are doing the same thing.

If you have suggestions that would make the article more readable, please make them, without deleting the information and without insulting remarks. I restored your "tiny" descriptor rather than fight about it. I moved much of the information about socials from your history section into the current section but left the historical reference about alcohol policy in history. I restored much of what you said about the instruction program and conflicts of interest from edits by Joanfa even though I am not sure that the comments are accurate or reflect consensus view. I added formal headings to your criticism points just so that they would show up in the Contents and not get lost. I am trying to be fair. I am trying to write an article that gives people solid information in one place with links for details.

We can discuss this here, or on my Talk page. If you continue to simply revert the entire article, I will do likewise until one of us requests arbitration. FleetCaptain (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Revised FleetCaptain (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Repeated Vandalism by Fleetcaptain - from Tortugadillo
This is already explained above by "jaruwan", but let me try to explain:

Wikipedia topics are not intended to be exhaustive articles filled with every possible detail (see above for examples). Almost everything you've added is of no possible interest to readers of Wikipedia (again, see bulleted list above). Your endless minutiae and most of your links to the Hoofer website are more appropriate for the Hoofer website itself. If anyone wants to find that stuff out, they can link to that site.

Secondly, your reformatting the article to have 40+ sections is really unreadable. Didn't you ever take a writing class in college? (Tortugadillo (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

More on vandalism by "Fleetcaptain" - from Tortugadillo
Another reading reveals that you have inappropriately:

(1) removed/deleted almost all of the links (references) in the final few sections;

(2) added numerous links to the Hoofer sailing website itself, including to its recruitment page;

(3) divided the article into 43 separate sections, which is of course absurd. An article this length should have no more than 8-10 sections, max. For comparison, the Wikipedia Animal article--a much longer and broader article--has 16 sections, which is appropriate. Look at some other Wikipedia articles if you can't figure this out.

(4) Weakened virtually all criticisms with false information (e.g. suggesting that people were removed from the Union who "might have broken rules"--doesn't that admit that the Union is punishing people who aren't even guilty of anything..? sounds like more constitutional violations there!)

(5) etc. etc.

All of this demonstrates your intent to vandalize the page or to make it unreadable. (Tortugadillo (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Please check page before obliterating it again - another note from Tortugadillo
Fleetcaptain, I've combined your basic info on the different boats (FJs, 420s, etc) into the page as it existed before your 39 edits on Feb 21. Please do not simply replace the page with another mess, please don't completely alter the layout as you did on Feb 21, and please do not delete content. If you want to make additions, great, but remember that Wikipedia articles should be concise, relevant, well organized, and supported with links to third-party websites, if possible. Much information can be provided simply by linking to other pre-existing Wiki pages as I've done with the I-20, 420s, E-scow, etc. Take a look. (Tortugadillo (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Checked Page - Undid vandalism - response from FleetCaptain
Totugadillo, I've incorporated the additional links and information you provided. To address your concern about the number of headings, I changed a number of them to bullet points. Perhaps you want a separate article about "Problems with Hoofer Sailing Club." I am trying to make the article fit the current title.

I did not remove links or references since my first edit. I have been reverting to my previous edit in the face of massive vandalism. The removal of links may have been done by others. I will go back to your last edit later today and try to restore.FleetCaptain (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Links restored, number of headings reduced.FleetCaptain (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What's going on? Question from Jjaruan
What's going on with this page? I started this last year sometime and gradually built it up with what I thought was a good amount of information. Now I suddenly find it completely reformatted with tons of trivia added. I mean, a whole paragraph bout the food at Friday night socials..?! Much of this new stuff simply isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Please consult the following pages before making massive changes again:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article

and especially


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

Fleetcaptain and others: please do not redo the page layout again with point after repetitive point on fleet after fleet. This information can be found in detail at the Hoofer sailing site. Tons of detail like this is inappropriate for a Wiki article. It makes it unreadable. It's much better to link to other sites that have the information (and more), e.g. within Wiki itself or at Hoofer sailing or elsewhere. (Jjaruwan (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

More comments from Jjaruwan
I'm still looking at this article and y'all have made a real mess of it.

You've got lasers and Badger sloops under heading "Dinghies" now, although neither of those are dinghies.

You've added subsection headings for every social event you could think of, but these could all be in a single paragraph (as I had them).

You've replaced section headings with bulleted lists where there ought to be sections.

The layout was good and now it's crap. Please don't do this again after I revert it. Instead, *please* work within the layout framework as I designed it last year. You can still add info, add refs, etc.

The idea is to have a readable article with the right amount of information--not just a long list of stuff. An article needs to be organized logically to be readable. Look at some other Wiki articles to see how articles are properly laid out (not that there's any guarantee there, but many large Wiki articles are very good). (Jjaruwan (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Response From FleetCaptain
See Dinghy sailing. Lasers are classified as dinghys there, as they are on the Laser site. The Badger Sloop is similar in design and purpose to the Laser Stratos, also classified as a dinghy.

In response to your objection that there were too many sections, I replaced formal headings that would appear in a contents section with bullets. The ones I did this with were ones that I had added. Prior to my edits, your criticisms or complaints were bullet items. I was the one that made each complaint a separate section. I did this so that they would show up in the table of contents after I added the information about the fleets. I felt that if each fleet was showing up in the table of contents, then each complaint should as well. When I reduced the fleet references to bulleted lists, I restored the bullets to the complaints as well. FleetCaptain (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)FleetCaptain (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another point from Jjaruwan
Another point--instead of creating separate sections (headings) for Badger Tech, sloop, 420s, lasers, etc., you can just put them in bold, i.e. within the paragraph. That way it's much more readable. Section headings should be limited to making the article *more* readable, not less so.

I will combine your stuff in (not every last detail) when I revert the article, but you've made such drastic changes that it's impossible to use your new layout as a template. Sorry. (Jjaruwan (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Response from FleetCaptain
I reviewed the articles you listed. One point was that a good article is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles. It seems that you want to focus on what problems you perceive in the sailing club and its history without providing information about what the club is and does. While there may be validity in some of your points, they are a minority view. The complaints / criticisms you raise are those of a small minority of a 1200-member club. The leadership of the club is elected. It is not a perfect system. The pool of people willing to serve on the Board of Captains is not large and getting people to repeat service can be difficult. The information about the different kinds of boats and the social activities is about what the club does in the community.

Without this information, the article is incomplete. It would be comparable to writing an article titled "United States Government" and focusing on the Electoral College and Congressional scandals. This article "as is" is far from unreadable. I intend to defend my edits and the structure of first providing an overview of the club before getting into criticism. You may want a separate article of criticism / problems if you want that highlighted and the main topic.FleetCaptain (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)FleetCaptain (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Details of latest changes made by Tortugadillo
I read through the above, and Badger Sloops cannot be considered dinghies by any stretch of the imagination. This seems to indicate a lack sailing experience for Fleetcaptain, so perhaps he should let someone more familiar with sailing work on the article.

Brief Reply from FleetCaptain
See where the Interlake 18 is classed as a dinghy. Or the Interlake website where it is classed as a dinghy. The Badger Sloop is based on the Interlake design. It has a centerboard, no motor, and no keel. How is it not a dinghy?

Back to Tortugadillo changes
My changes (00:53, 28 February 2008 on history page):

Intro
Replaced criticism on Friday socials in intro--its removal by "Fleetcaptain" violates NPOV policy; Removed nonsense about free food in winter. This is an enclyclopedia, not an ad for Hoofer sailing club.

Changes to Overview
Fixed paragraph structure Removed ridiculous point about taking classes on boats you already have ratings on Corrected false statement about no limit on number of lessons--it certainly IS limited Removed "on craft owned by the club"--this overstates the *obvious* Removed pointless intra-article link. (Tortugadillo (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Latest changes
Latest changes: Intro--removed redundant link to Lake Mendota. Removed verbose junk about it being one of Wisconsin's larger lakes. Moved corresponding map reference to bottom of article where it belongs; Removed "for use on Lake Mendota"--that's beyond obvious. Concisened UW lifesaving into one sentence, including link. (Tortugadillo (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

More small changes
More small changes: Fleets and Equipment-- Removed trivia and redundancies on ratings, boats, etc. Removed crap about Techs having a hiking strap, one sail, etc--that's standard for sailing dinghies! Tidied up Laser paragraph. Removed "designed for use with a main and jib"--That's what a sloop is, you dilwad. Reduced the sentence on BadgerSloops being daysailors to a single word. Removed more ratings details for scows--this is internal Hoofer minutiae!! Re-added link to Tech info/photo (http://www.sailingnetworks.com/boats/view/1041) and removed verbose, unnecessary description by fleetcaptain. THIS is an OVERVIEW in an ENCYCLOPEDIA--detailed info can be found at the Hoofer site if anyone's that interested.(Tortugadillo (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Redid section format with boldface in place of of lots of separate little sections which was inappropriate and unreadable.

Latest Changes - Keelboats section
Latest changes and corrections: Fleets and equipment-- Removed another redundant linked ref to Lake Mendota. Removed verbose, internal junk about J-boat names, how often they're sailed, how pretty they are, more ridiculous info on ratings that is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Fixed "Fleetcaptain's" lousy grammar in keelboat paragraph, including redundancies on lessons without any ratings. Removed "the club owns a" in Spray paragraph. Of course it's the club we're talking about!? Corrected "Both teach.." sentence--that's personification. Removed "by members on a sunday afternoon"--OF COURSE it's by members unless the boat was stolen, and nobody reading Wiki care that it was a Sunday afternoon.(Tortugadillo (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

More minor changes and corrections
More mostly minor changes, corrections, and removal of superfluous stuff inappropriate for an encyclopedia article: Fleets--still fixing layout--lots of little sections is really hard to read. Social events-- Various corrections including reducing to one paragraph. It was ridiculous to have FIVE separate paragraphs on Hoofer sailing social events. FOR EXAMPLE, saying "usually held during the third week in July" is rediculously verbose. All that's needed for Wikipedia (if even this) is "in July". Removed ridiculous "bowling" award information. That;s the type of extraneous nonsense that has no place in an encyclopedia article. Deleted sentence on non-members--that's irrelevant free advertizing on Wikipedia. ditto for Pirate's Day! And... why a "separate" prize for Pirate's..?? Why not just "a prize"..?? "around the end of October or beginning of November" is ridiculous.... the beginning of Nov IS around the end of October. Learn to write or get a brain. Again, AVOID PERSONAL OPINIONS, e.g. "the food is excellent and varied". That's crap. The food usually sucks, but i'm not putting that in the article. And there is usually no vegetarian food unless chips and salsa count. It's really offensive to anyone who actually goes to these socials to claim that they regularly have vegetarian food. Garden burgers are usually old and freezerburned or sold out. ALSO moved famous members info back to INTRO whwre it belongs.

Again, the is an OVERVIEW in an ENCYCLOPEDIA.(Tortugadillo (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Question by Fleetcaptain about famous members
Were both Harken brothers members? I added the names based on the "brothers." I don't know. FleetCaptain (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest changes on Badger Tech/dinghy section:
I removed the now redundant info on Pater Harken. When "Fleetcaptain" completely reformatted the page last week, he moved everything around, but he forgot that things follow in a logical order. Then he added redundant stuff all over the place, and it simply doesn't work that way. Perhaps Fleetcaptain is tipping some beers while working on the article..?

I also added a *concise* summary for the Tech: small (11 ft) fiberglass boat. I had to say "boat" instead of dinghy because it's already the dinghy section so that would be poor grammar. Follow? The article can continue to be a MESS or i can continue to fix it, or someone else who's passed a college level writing course can have at it. (Tortugadillo (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

To Fleetcaptain: Please DO NOT change MY section titles above
Thanks.(Tortugadillo (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Brief response to Tortugadillo from FleetCaptain
I removed the redundant historical information on alcohol from the overview but left it in the historical section.

Can we have a civil discussion here or does name-calling and belittling somehow make you feel stronger or more important?

I had added section titles where you had none but used section heading markers resulting in blanks in the Contents. I added notations about who was making the comments and something about the subject when it was otherwise lacking. It makes finding information much easier.

The reason I put the infobox where I did was so that it balanced the expanded table of contents, otherwise there is a blank area on the page since the article does not wrap around the table of contents. I thought it gave just as much information there without impeding the flow of the article.

BTW: Good job on the dinghy and keelboat paragraphs. FleetCaptain (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My changes to History sections

 * I had to reformat this whole section because someone (Fleetcaptain? Tortugadillo?) randomly recombined sections when vandalizing the site recently, resulting in lots of things being described twice or discussed before they're described. Really bad form.(70.226.130.55 (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

COMMENT ON RATINGS: This is internal Hoofer stuff that doesn't seem appropriate (in detail) for this type of article. However, leaving one or two, e.g., "a dinghy rating is required to take J lessons.." shows that there is a logical organization to the instruction program. I think everyone will agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.130.55 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT ON PHOTO PLACEMENT: The white space will be at the top if the photo has that infobox below it thus making it taller, and forcing the Overview section down. Try it. (70.226.130.55 (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

A few corrections... are we reaching equilibrium?
Well, it *looks* like maybe we won't need arbitration after all. However, my main objection still is that all criticisms do not necessarily belong in the criticism section. A NPOV (neutral point of view) requires that pros and cons be presented together--not all shunted to one section at the bottom. That is to say, facts need to be presented in context. Therefore, I have


 * Removed any ref to free food from intro (not overview)--if you don't want the note about alcohol having been banned ~2002, then let's not have any nonsense about free food or Friday socials there. That's trivia anyway.
 * Also removed redundant sentence about free lessons from Overview--it already states in intro that lessons are included in membership price! (I did leave the addition about lessons mostly being full in KB classes, although I've seen scow lessons and sometimes Tech fill up awfully fast too....)
 * Removed Fleetcaptain's misleading info on membership cost. OVER the past 15 years (1992-2007), average inflation was 2.6%, and costs (consumer price index) in 2007 were 146% of 1992. YET, non-student sailing club memberships (i.e. Union members) have gone from 99$ to 196$ (not incl. work hours dep). That's far more than the rate of inflation. If you're going to include stats, you need to use unbiased stats!! Check club records or get a BOC person to do it for you.
 * I'm not even sure that $99 in 1992 didn't  include  the work hours deposit--if it did, then non-student costs have almost tripled in 15 years (which would mean they'd have doubled in real dollars).... I'll have to check that. At a minimum, they're now at least 135% of what they were in 1992, after adjusting for inflation.
 * Changed An Uncontrolled Environment back to its own section the way I had it originally. I really like it so much better that way. Thanks. (Jjaruwan (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Governance
Instead of making remarks like "uncontrolled environment", it would be more relevant to discuss how Hoofer Sailing Club is governed. The stuff about the Union and Ben Masel has nothing to do with Hoofer Sailing...but fine, it's interesting as a criticism not shared by many. Same with the pier collapse. It is trivia used to criticize...the piers have collapsed many times, just like boats break, etc. If you want to rant about bad budgeting & planning & governance, fine. Do so in the Criticism section (but really, it should be in THIS PAGE). Do people really want to see a list of all good and bad decisions ever made in Hoofers in a wikipedia entry? Joanfa (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Windsurfing
Axolatls, thanks for the additional information. FleetCaptain (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Club - unverified information deleted - other changes
Removed: "Club members have been removed for complaining about this conflict of interest and other inequities in the administration of club resources, and club leaders have been taken to court. The courts ruled that there was evidence of wrongdoing on the part of club leaders, although no damages were awarded because of qualified immunity."

Is there a written decision that could be cited here? Was the person a member of the club when removed? I can recall only one instance of a person being removed from a Sailing Club meeting, that was a former member wanting to speak during an election meeting. Even if verifiable, is this something for an Encyclopedia?

Changed "prices" to "membership dues" to be specific as to which prices we are talking about.

Changed conflicts of interest section. "unencumbered" is editorializing. The club has its own constitution and bylaws, it is goverened by the Hoofer costitution as well. Specified that complaint was about having specific ethics rules. This section still needs work. FleetCaptain (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts in criticism section reworked
I moved three related paragraphs so they are adjacent to one another. "Instruction issues" and "Teaching experience moved to follow "conflict of interest" section. Paragraphs renumbered to accomodate this. FleetCaptain (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Instruction program changes
First paragraph - clarified that it is keelboat instruction being discussed and control over keelboat instruction. Keelboat instruction is provided by keelboat skippers.

Second paragraph - removed redundant information from first sentence. The second sentence tells the reader that instructors are members. Added concern about supervision time requirement as number of instructors grows. FleetCaptain (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

apology
I see you are in the midst of rewriting. While I may disagree with what you are writing as well as your deletions, I'll wait until you finish to comment.FleetCaptain (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revisions
1. Reorganized criticism section for better readability (some people apparently don't want it to be readable, i.e. they don't want anyone reading it) 2. Removed some superfluous junk and corrected some facts (accidentally removed 300 youths bit in moving it, but i see that's already been restored). 3. removed self-promotion and references to Hoofer's own recruitment page 4. In criticism section, you repeatedly remove valid criticisms or replace with weaker language. For example, people are ordered to leave the Union,. If a building manager or a cop "asks" someone to leave under threat of arrest, that is an order, not a "request". Don't keep watering down anything that doesn't reflect favorably on the Hoofers. 5. The UNION is owned by the Board of Regents, same as every other building on campus. Your erroneous assertion that it's owned by a trust is deliberately misleading.

Much of the above that had to be redone, or undone, was vandalism by by Joanfa, Fleetcaptain, and 70.226.173.169. Also, contrary to what Joanfa claims, the Union is very much relevant to Hoofers because Hoofers is part of the Union. (Tortugadillo (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Links Question
A good deal of the criticism here seems to come from a mailing list, which isn't a reputable secondary source. It's like using a blog as a source, there's no verifiability. What's everyone's thoughts on using the "https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/" lists? Redrocket (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's as valid as citing the club's own website, which clearly violates the WP policy on verifiability. The club's website should only be cited where: (1) it is not contentious; (2) it is not unduly self-serving; (3) there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; (4) the article is not based primarily on such sources. Obviously, the citations/links fail on all counts. Forum posts may not be any better, but at least they were written by third parties--unlike the club's own website where only club leaders can change the site. They can (and do) put whatever they want on the site, then claim it as fact. Do you see anything circular in that..? If you want a list of examples, give me a day or two to put it together. (Tortugadillo (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I totally agree on some of the other sites referenced here, the entire article seems a bit self-serving and in need of serious editing. However, that doesn't mean that a mailing list is a relaible source. Two wrongs, etc. Redrocket (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Large edit
I have just removed two sections from this article which are classic examples of unverifiable, inappropriately sourced original and as such cannot be included in this encyclopedia. I urge all editors to read and inwardly digest the relevant policies and guidelines for inclusion of material here, in particular how websites, blogs, forums may not be used as sources here and synthesis of original material is not permitted.

I also question whether this club is actually notable of an encyclopedia entry here. Feel free to add some independent reliable sources to show why this club is considered important, otherwise the entire entry may be nominated for deletion.

A final word: please do not bring your external dispute to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground.--Slp1 (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Slp1
I hope you can continue to monitor this page. There are some here that want to use this site to vent their frustrations with the club. And others who want to copy everything from the club's website here.

As to the importance of the club...I believe the club has more members and boats than say, the New York Yatch Club and any other sailing club in the USA. It is almost 70 years old. It is well known around the world in sailing circles (hundreds of people every year learn to sail through hoofers, possibly more than any other sailing club). Yes, it is hard to find unbiased sources for these statements.

I hope that anybody who edits this page from now on realizes that we are being monitored and no more editorializing or overt club promotion will be allowed. Joanfa (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thanks, Joanfa. Unfortunately, the more I look, the more concerned I am about why WP would need an article about this club. You have made some suggestions above about its notability, and commented that these are difficult to establish from reliable sources. However these need to be found according to the guidelines for notability of clubs/groups, where it states

"Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found" and "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". I strongly suggest people concentrate their editing efforts in finding independent books, newspaper/magazine articles, TV documentaries etc about the club (not just mentioning it in passing) in order to establish notability. --Slp1 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Prodded for Deletion

 * I have prodded this article for deletion as it does not come close to meeting the notability requirements set out in WP:ORG. At the moment it is a prime example of a vanity article. This may be fixable, but to do so the article needs independant secondary sources.  Far too much is cited to the organization itself. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Still a work in progress
I tend to agree with Joanfa above, less so with some others. A number of people have put substantial time into creating this page, but keep in mind that it is a work in progress. I have been collecting more secondary sources, but it's hard to add them when others keep reorganizing the page. It is irksome that SLP1 just removed the entire "criticism", section, claiming that it was original research and inappropriately used Forum archives for references. WP policy does not bar all citations to Forums. Rather, it states "...forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable," meaning that in some cases they are acceptable.

Strictly speaking, Forum postings are primary sources. It's just that they aren't always supported by secondary sources. Forum references are certainly as valid as references to the club's own website! But to go and remove all criticisms, as SLP1 did, simply because they were supported primarily (and I should note not entirely) by Forum links, is a much more serious violation of NPOV, regardless of other issues.

As for some of the article being OR, see this page which states:


 * "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources...is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

Syntheses is not original research. The determining factor is how well things are documented. Conclusions should not be drawn unless they are evident in the supporting references. But it is impossible to write anything without doing some synthesis. Essentially, Wikipedia articles are like newspaper articles (on par with the Science Times, we hope): everything must be attributable. As explained above, this article is still a work in progress, and I am in the process of adding citations.Tortugadillo (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you continue to want to claim that webfora are reliable sources, then I suggest you discuss with the editors at the reliable sources noticeboard, here  and  .  Currently the unanimous opinion is that they are not appropriate for as a reliable source for this article.
 * The section of no original research that you should look at is WP:SYN, The section contained multiple references, some of them from reliable sources, but none of the reliable ones made the argument contained in the criticism section.  Putting A and B together to prove C is not allowed here, (even if A and B are reliably sourced).Slp1 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tortugadillo, you seem to be new to Wikipedia and aren't familiar with the policies and guidelines yet for writing an encyclopedia article. Original synthesis is *NOT* allowed. Indeed, it is a major policy violation under WP:NOR. Like the other third-party opinions stated here, I strongly encourage the contributing editors to find independent, reliable secondary sources to prove the notability of this article. Otherwise, it soon risks deletion on notability grounds. J Readings (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Will document better
The above comments are appreciated. I am indeed relatively new to Wiki, though not to writing. I have published papers and technical articles in peer-reviewed journals and know very well what original research is and is not. I'm afraid some are confusing [original] synthesis with original research. Check WP's guidelines again--synthesis is fine as long as you aren't drawing new conclusions.

Nevertheless, I have removed any parts of the article that were not well documented with supporting third-party (secondary or tertiary) references. Since most of the article was documented with links to the club's own website--which in my opinion is worse than documenting with Forum posts (at least those are third party)--much of the article was deleted. Anything that is added must be documented with secondary or tertiary refs.

I also recommend that everyone keep in mind that WP is not a free advertizing board for the Hoofer Sailing Club. Although in my opinion the club is noteworthy, it is probably not worthy of a very long article.(Tortugadillo (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Actually, sourcing stuff for this article from the club's website is acceptable under certain limits (see WP:SELFPUB). And as for synthesis and original research, take this sentence you added:

"Every August, the club's president, or commodore, is elected along with the vice-commodore. The commodore then appoints the remaining 18+ Board of Captains (BOC) members and he can remove individual BOC members at his own discretion. Thus, the club's commodore has tremendous power within the club, and each new generation of club leaders can dramatically change things for the better or worse. Due to the meager checks on the Commodore's authority, there is great opportunity for abuse. As in Lord of the Flies, civility is artificial, and in the absence of a consistent, equitable, and enforceable set of rules, savagery takes over and unpopular individuals are denied access to resources and eventually eliminated." It is totally unsourced, and your original research and opinion (I presume), and not allowed here.Slp1 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a sample of citations drawn from LexisNexis (Major Mentions):
1      A MOMENT IN HISTORY The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin), October 9, 2006 Monday, FRONT; Pg. A2, 49 words, Research by Beth Wick ... pier in front of the Hoofers Sailing Club boathouse collapsed. Nevertheless, the ... 2	PUMPKIN RACE A WET SUCCESS; SOME PEOPLE WATCHING LAKE MENDOTA REGATTA ARE DUMPED INTO THE WATER WHEN PART OF A PIER COLLAPSES. Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wisconsin), October 10, 2005 Monday, LOCAL/WISCONSIN; Pg. B1, 275 words, LISA SCHUETZ lschuetz@madison.com 608-252-6143 ... pier in front of the Hoofers Sailing Club boathouse fell into the water. 3	BEHOLD THE RITES OF SPRING; UW CAMPUS IS A GOOD ARENA FOR WATCHING A SEASON ARRIVE Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wisconsin), March 29, 2005 Tuesday, FRONT; SUSAN LAMPERT SMITH; Pg. A1, 542 words, Susan Lampert Smith ... begun, and the first meeting of the Hoofer sailing club is just weeks away. 4	UW sailing team makes a splash University Wire, May 5, 2004 Wednesday, 544 words, By Benjamin Worgull, Badger Herald; SOURCE: U. Wisconsin ... team, a branch of the Hoofers Sailing Club, have been all business on the ... 5	TERRIFIC TERRACE;   MOVIES, MUSIC, BRATS, BEER MAKE THE UNION A SUMMER HOT SPOT Capital Times (Madison, WI), July 30, 2003 Wednesday, ALL Editions, 473 words, Jesse Quinn The Capital Times ... UNION ART GALLERIES&HOOFER SAILING CLUB (82%); ... UNION ART GALLERIES&HOOFER SAILING CLUB (82%); 6	AGED WILLOW TREE MAY NOT SEE ANOTHER LAKESIDE SPRING;   A CITY STUDY FOUND THE TREE TO BE A HAZARD Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, WI), July 15, 2003 Tuesday, ALL Editions, LOCAL/WISCONSIN; Pg. B3, 312 words, Tim Ruzek Wisconsin State Journal ... afternoon.The tree's proximity to the Hoofer Sailing Club and the UW-Madison Lakeshore ... 7	STILL MAKING WAVES; TURNING 60 YEARS OLD HASN'T SLOWED HOOFER SAILING CLUB Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, WI), August 2, 2000, Wednesday,, BREAKAway/Daybreak,, 911 words, Matt Mullins Wisconsin State Journal ... just over 60, Hoofer Sailing Club shows few signs of ... 8	SAILING A GREAT ESCAPE; SPORT PROVIDES COMPETITION, FUN BREAK FOR UW STUDENTS Capital Times (Madison, WI.), May 10, 2000, Wednesday,, 1805 words, By Todd Finkelmeyer The Capital Times ... pledges most of its allegiance to the Hoofers Sailing Club, which supplies the squad with boats and ... 9	CITY TO HOST HIGH SCHOOL SAILORS Capital Times (Madison, WI.), April 26, 2000, Wednesday,, 143 words ... in Madison this weekend.The Hoofer Sailing Club will serve as headquarters ... HOOFER SAILING CLUB (90%); ... HIGH SCHOOL (95%);  HOOFER SAILING CLUB (90%); 10	SHOW TO FEATURE DECLARATION EXPERTS Capital Times (Madison, WI.), July 3, 1999, Saturday,, 704 words, By Chuck Nowlen The Capital Times UW-MADISON HOOFER SAILING CLUB (73%); MATC DISTRICT ... UW-MADISON HOOFER SAILING CLUB (73%); MATC DISTRICT ... 11	MADISON TRIATHLON TO OFFER $ 25,000 Capital Times (Madison, WI.), February 4, 1998, Wednesday,, 535 words WISCONSIN UNION (89%); HOOFER SAILING CLUB (62%); ... WISCONSIN UNION (89%); HOOFER SAILING CLUB (62%); 12	LAKE MENDOTA WILL HOST COLLEGE SAILORS Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, WI), June 6, 1996, Thursday,, Sports,, 123 words ... group from the University of Wisconsin's Hoofers Sailing Club, will take to Lake ... 13	Confident C of C sailors aim for spring titles, May 30, 1996, Thursday,, 697 words, KEITH NAMM; Of The Post and Courier ... titles.The University of Wisconsin's Hoofers Sailing Club is host for the three ... 14	BOATERS SHARE THEIR SAILING ABILITY; DISABLED PEOPLE RIDE FREE ON BEAUTIFUL DAY Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, WI), June 13, 1994, Monday,, Local/Wisconsin,, 448 words, By Rochell Denise Thomas; Wisconsin State Journal ... message UW-Madison Hoofers sailing club volunteers sent Sunday when they ...

Here are the results from LexisNexis (3 or more mentions):
1	TERRIFIC TERRACE;   MOVIES, MUSIC, BRATS, BEER MAKE THE UNION A SUMMER HOT SPOT Capital Times (Madison, WI), July 30, 2003 Wednesday, ALL Editions, 473 words, Jesse Quinn The Capital Times ... Union Art Galleries and Hoofer Sailing Club, which offers sailing instruction ... ... UNION ART GALLERIES&HOOFER SAILING CLUB (82%); ... UNION ART GALLERIES&HOOFER SAILING CLUB (82%); 2	STILL MAKING WAVES; TURNING 60 YEARS OLD HASN'T SLOWED HOOFER SAILING CLUB Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, WI), August 2, 2000, Wednesday,, BREAKAway/Daybreak,, 911 words, Matt Mullins Wisconsin State Journal ... just over 60, Hoofer Sailing Club shows few signs of ... ... crew of up to nine.The Hoofer Sailing Club manages an annual  ... ... awful lot of things that the Hoofer Sailing Club has done for sailing here ... ... Formal Sail portion of the Hoofer Sailing Club Commodores Cup. 3	SAILING A GREAT ESCAPE; SPORT PROVIDES COMPETITION, FUN BREAK FOR UW STUDENTS Capital Times (Madison, WI.), May 10, 2000, Wednesday,, 1805 words, By Todd Finkelmeyer The Capital Times ... pledges most of its allegiance to the Hoofers Sailing Club, which supplies the squad with boats and ... ... competitively as a part of the Hoofer Sailing Club.The team competes nationally  ... ... become a member of the Hoofer Sailing Club.The team also asks that new ... ... Regatta, hosted by the Hoofers Sailing Club, on Lake Mendota. ... 4	CITY TO HOST HIGH SCHOOL SAILORS Capital Times (Madison, WI.), April 26, 2000, Wednesday,, 143 words ... in Madison this weekend.The Hoofer Sailing Club will serve as headquarters ... ... Sanford, a graduate of the Hoofer Sailing Club youth program, last  ... ... Wisconsin Sailing Team, Hoofer Sailing Club and the Mendota Yacht Club. HOOFER SAILING CLUB (90%); ... HIGH SCHOOL (95%);  HOOFER SAILING CLUB (90%); 5	SHOW TO FEATURE DECLARATION EXPERTS Capital Times (Madison, WI.), July 3, 1999, Saturday,, 704 words, By Chuck Nowlen The Capital Times ... by the UW-Madison Hoofer Sailing Club and the Mendota Yacht Club.The ... UW-MADISON HOOFER SAILING CLUB (73%); MATC DISTRICT ... UW-MADISON HOOFER SAILING CLUB (73%); MATC DISTRICT ... 6	MADISON TRIATHLON TO OFFER $ 25,000 Capital Times (Madison, WI.), February 4, 1998, Wednesday,, 535 words ... but this is the time of year when the Hoofer Sailing CluBold textb is accepting applications for ... WISCONSIN UNION (89%); HOOFER SAILING CLUB (62%); ... WISCONSIN UNION (89%); HOOFER SAILING CLUB (62%);

Discussion
I won't bother searching on Factiva or Google News, but if another editor would care to cross-reference my findings with other news media search engines that might be useful. For the record, I have absolutely no affilation with the Hoofer Sailing Club or any interest in them for that matter. I'm here simply in response to a general request for third-party opinions posted on the reliable source noticeboard.

In fact, I notice that another editor proded this article for deletion citing WP:ORG as the policy/guideline reasoning. Tortugadillo then removed it. Fair enough. He's allowed to do that for the Prod, but not for an AfD. (Please keep that in mind, Tortugadillo). The problem of blatant advertising (a speedly deletion violation) on Wikipedia is always a concern. That's why it's necessary to have (mostly) independent, third-party sources that discuss the subject. Based on the LexisNexis results, we have a total of 20 articles. Is that sufficient? I don't know. Editors who are equipped with either LexisNexis, Factiva or Google News need to read carefully through these articles for the sake of assessing them based on guidelines and policies. Personally, I see enough evidence here to avoid a simple Prod nomination, but it still risks an AfD if reliable sources aren't added ASAP to demonstrate notability. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes
I originally created this page last year sometime, planning to reformat it and add references with the help of others over time. Since then, it's grown big, gotten messy, had some references added, been hammered, and now it's small again. It's pretty much back to where it started, which is amusing in a sad sort of way.

The obvious problem is the subject matter: an organization/group of people. Some are thrilled with the club, and they naturally want to portray it as utopia. Others are apparently disgusted and think that's relevant to any article about the club. Any longtime club member will tell you that Hoofer Sailing is a charybdis of cliques, petty abuse, and misappropriation of resources. I know that sounds terribly opinionated and isn't easily verifiable, but any article that paints the club as a happy suburban wonderland really is inaccurate. On the other hand, it is a great place to learn to sail different types of boats. It's a microcosm of state government. It functions. It does a lot of good. And periodically there are scandals. You can't have an objective article without including the latter.

All of this begs the question: What is the purpose of a Hoofer Sailing article in Wikipedia? Whoever added the "Lord of the Flies" analogy was not too far off. But was it original research..? If you see an shattered bowl of soup lying on the floor, is it original research to say "that's a mess"? Wikipedia's OR, verifiability, and NPOV policies are not black and white. (Jjaruwan (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Short follow-up to my own post. I just read the above on articles in LexisNexis. Most of those were articles in the local paper, and many are on the Union/UW more than on Hoofer Sailing. Most are typical "Local" section fodder describing how warm and wonderful Madison is in the summer, etc. Nevertheless, the club is certainly notable for the simple fact that it's the largest inland collegiate sailing club in the country and the second largest college club. Where is the supporting reference..? Not sure. I know that from being a Hoofer. What I don't understand is the threat to place it up for deletion. There are already four or five citations in the shortened article right now. (Jjaruwan (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes on WP it would be original research. The reason is because nobody of any import has actually documented that the bowl is broken or the soup on the floor. In fact, to continue the analogy, based on the citations gathered above, virtually nobody noticed the soup bowl even when it was whole, with the possible exception of a few people who were enjoying the soup and a few who thought it had an unpalatable taste and tried to smash the bowl to the floor.  The current article has four citations, but only one (from a student newspaper) might be considered an independent reliable source by WP criteria. Even that one is not about the club, but about an incident at the club.  Since so few people have really taken notice the soup bowl, broken or whole, why does WP need an article on it?  Not sure, guys.--Slp1 (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aww, come on. I get your analogy (and I kind of like it), but I'm not sure you got the point of mine. Let me change it to this: A herd of mammoths is discovered living in a remote valley in Nunavut. It's reported in The Nunavut Times, but no place else. Apparently, everyone else thinks it's a hoax. I create a Wiki article, and somewhere in it I claim that it's an incredible discovery that could alter our understanding of Pleistocene ecology. Is that "original research"..? No third party has described it that way. The Nunavut Times article focused on the mammoths as a new source of meat. By your standards, it's impossible to put anything in a WP article except dryly regurgitated factoids. Is that really what Wikipedia wants? (Jjaruwan (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC))


 * The analogies are giving me a headache, like a herd of mammoths crushing a bowl. Short answer, yes. If you say it's a discovery that could change our society, that has to be backed up. Otherwise, anybody could say anything, and there's no verifiability. If the world believes it to be a hoax, that's what an encyclopedia will report. Otherwise, I could say that tonight's twist on Big Brother was an incredible revelation that could alter our understanding of social dynamics forever.


 * It's a stretch, I know, but that's what requiring secondary sources is for. Wikipedia shouldn't be doing original research. Redrocket (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that really what Wikipedia wants? Errr, yes. To be painfully blunt. "Dryly regurgitating factoids" has a specific name: it's called an "encyclopedia," otherwise known as a "tertiary source" -- compiling information from secondary sources only. That's what we do here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's not propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment, it's not opinion pieces, it's not shameless self-promotion, it's not a publisher of original thought, it's not a repository of links, etc., etc., etc. Most editors know the drill. For the relatively new editor, I understand how this stuff might be a little irritating, but like it or not, those are the rules. Sorry. J Readings (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, assuming that's all true, it brings up a question: Why is Channel 15 News considered a more reliable source than the nearest blog..? They're both written by people. Moreover, why are thousands of other articles in Wikipedia full of unreferenced, unsupported "facts"? What is the procedure for getting that all fixed..? That is to say, why this focus on the Hoofer Sailing Club page? (Jjaruwan (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC))


 * There's a useful essay that discusses your concerns in depth. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. While I'm mentioning this essay, it might be useful to mention words to avoid when writing Wikipedia articles, too, only because a couple editors here keep making references to "good writing". In any case, to answer your question, the reason that blogs are largely considered unreliable (with minor exceptions) is because they have no editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking with a clear and transparent editorial policy in place. Taking an unknown editor's word that his or her blog is somehow more reliable than mainstream newspapers, peer-reviewed academic journals, and books published by reputable publishers is something that the community of Wikipedia editors decided against for the simple reason that the former doesn't have legal teams, editorial boards, advisory groups, etc. etc. etc. The latter, on the other hand, do have these things (by and large). Therefore, the chances -- albeit remote -- that the latter screw up the facts are relatively less probable than the chances of it happening on someone's blog. That's why blogs are unreliable. J Readings (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD)You should probably read up on wikipedia policies, starting with the five pillars. Short answer, Channel 15 is legally responsible for everything they put on the air, just like The New York Times, Time Magazine, etc. Bob Loblaw's blog is not, because it's not published. Blogs are not even respected enough to be sued, in most occasion, and there's no responsibility there because anyone can write and publish a blog.

And this is happening on this page, just like it's happening all over wikipedia. If you see an article with unsupported assertions, go ahead and tag it, or look up a reference for it. It's what we all do as wikipedia editors. Redrocket (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Harken edit
I was the one who replaced "Harken brothers" with their names originally. However, I do not know that Olaf was ever a member of Hoofers. I noted that question at the time. In view of the "citation needed" note, I decided to limit the statement to what I know. Citations to Peter Harken's membership in Hoofer Sailing Club added. , FleetCaptain (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Found additional citations including one from Peter discussing both of them being members of Hoofer Sailing Club. Restored Olaf Harken's name. FleetCaptain (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge?
I am making an informal proposal to merge Hoofer Sailing Club into Wisconsin Hoofers. Any comments? – Lordmontu  (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and OR
Recent edits (9/29/08) reflect a controversial point of view and original research. I am reverting them.FleetCaptain (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

Merger proposal
I don't think this sailing club meets the notability guidelines for organizations. The references given are very minor mentions in rather local news sources. I would suggest that the article be merged with the [Hoofer outdoor adventure clubs]. I confess that an additional motivation is that the article has also been subjected to multiple attacks from (presumably) disgruntled ex-members for several years now, and keeping the article free of serious BLP violations is becoming rather tedious. (BTW, I have semi-protected it for now). There is point to this when a topic is notable, but I really don't believe this club is. Frankly, I suspect club members may actually prefer not to have to worry about the defamation that has been hitting this article over the years. Comments please.--Slp1 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT I agree with Slp1's comments about Hoofer Sailing Club's lack of notability. But even if the club was notable, that should not prevent the article from being merged into Wisconsin Hoofers, as I believe is the proposal.  Lordmontu made the same suggestion a year ago, and 76.210.61.64 has shown below that he also agrees. --BaronLarf 06:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

HSC isn't worthy of Wikipedia
Hoofers--and Hoofer Sailing in particular--is run by abusive frat boys who do whatever they like in spite of club rules. Don't like someone..? More work hours for them, or maybe a public reprimand, or maybe they never get a rating (i.e. can never sail a boat). Incredibly, three out of four people who join HSC never advance beyond a Tech Light rating! The Tech is the club's smallest boat, a tubby little dinghy. The best boats (sloops, J-boats, etc.) are all reserved for club "leaders", i.e. frat boys and their buddies. These trolls check wikipedia on a daily basis to see if their glossed-over point of view has been tampered with, e.g. by one of a number of individuals who are wise to the ways of HSC and want to see an unbiased article, and if it is, they quickly revert it to their free-advertizing-everything-is-peachy POV and scream "vandalism!"

Delete the article. The trolls--most or all of whom are getting a free annual membership to boot--will never allow a fair point of view. As someone above pointed out, all the "references" are fluff articles in local papers, and guess what..? All of those articles got written in the first place because the HSC commodore rang up the paper and said: "Hi, I'm calling from Hoofer sailing club...a great little place...anyone can join...how about doing an article on us to let the communicty know what they're missing...it's cheap, lots of members, make friends, meet your significant other, free beer every Friday, hoo-ha, hoo-ha..." Check any one of those Wis. State Journal articles. They are all eerily similar to the wikipedia article in its slanted state.

HSC is worth a paragraph in the Wisconsin Hoofer article. That's all. And it had better be neutral pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.61.64 (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your advice will be taken into consideration. However, due to your edits with ongoing violations of WP:BLP using this and other IP addresses/accounts on this and the Wisconsin Hoofers article, your current IP  has been blocked. --Slp1 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)