Talk:William H. Doughty

Quality editing needed
The use of the phrase, "alternative lifestyle commune" is leading and sensational. The lead section does not give citations for the following: leader of "commune", leader of MVI, founder of ICE, formerly part of NCCS, faculty member at GWU, author of Track II. Upon removing uncited material, this article ceases to exist. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These things are cited in the body of the article. Summarizing them in the intro is appropriate. --TrustTruth (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They are "cited" with links to other Wikipedia articles (with similar deficiencies in citational support), not outside sources. My concerns still remain. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Right away when people here the term "alternative lifestyle," readers will think gay and lesbian. And then to follow that with conservative is irrational. The two don't go together. This needs some fixing fast! How about changing "was the leader of an alternative-lifestyle conservative community" to "was the leader of a conservative lifestyle community." or "wanted to start a conservative lifestyle community." Either of those is much more fitting to what happened.--Truecolors (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no one has commented on this, I went forward with some changes that would make the wording much less inflammatory. If there is a problem with it, let me know. I just think it's important to have the article be as objective as possible.--Truecolors (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Recommended for Speedy deletion
Subject not notable.

Other than the WP article a web search brings up only older genealogical-type listings not referring to the subject, who is presumably still living.

In addition, there are tonal problems (the use of the word "commune" is inflammatory), factual errors (The Institute for Constitutional Education was not a part of the National Center for Constitutional Studies), deficiency in supporting documentation (the citations provided are to a site that does not mention Doughty, and to some bizarre pdf document from 1965, the significance of which is not clear--OR?).

The only other link is to an article regarding an investment project gone bad. It seems like the whole point of this article is staging for that particular link. The link to the Meadeau View Institute template is relevant, but that article is likewise deficient in quality and notability, and seems to be devoted to giving air to grievance regarding the same failed investment deal. I noted on its own page the issues with Meadeau View Institute.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some newspaper articles from a reliable third-party publication (the Deseret News) helping establish Doughty's notability:


 * http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/366360/BACKERS-TRIED-IN-VAIN-TO-RECOVER-LOSSES.html
 * http://www.deseretnews.com/cgi-bin/cqcgi_plus/@plus.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=RUHYDCAZMEFI&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=10&CQ_TEXT_MAIN=YES
 * http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/366287/EX-DEVOTEES-WANT-TO-KNOW-WHERE-DID-THE-MONEY-GO.html
 * http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/366944/PERSPECTIVES-ON-DOUGHTY-STORY.html
 * http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/369008/DOUGHTY-IS-A-PIONEER-OF-OUR-DAY.html
 * http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/371363/DEVELOPMENT-DOOMED-IDEAL.html
 * http://www.desnews.com/cgi-bin/cqcgi_plus/@plus.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=WOLXAAYAMEYI&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=5&CQ_TEXT_MAIN=YES
 * --TrustTruth (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Recommendations for Improving This Article
I will readily concede, on further consideration of Doughty's relationships and accomplishments, that my previous assertion that he was not notable enough to merit an article in WP was in error. Mr. Doughty should have his fifteen minutes, same as anybody. Let me move on to suggestions on how to improve this article:

1. LEAD: I'm not sure what Doughty called his hoped-for community; but by all accounts it never existed as a community as such, but only as a failed investment opportunity. The term "Meadeau View Institute" has been used to describe an educational organization, but never as an alternative lifestyle community. This confusion of terms needs to be cleared up.

2. LEAD: ICE was not a part of NCCS. This unsubstantiated and non-factual declaration needs to be removed.

3. LEAD: The leading and inflammatory comment about the collapse of the "commune" is BLP-problematic editorializing, with POV problems. Furthermore, the newspaper articles cited just above that no development, communal, conservative, alternative or otherwise-oriented, ever existed. The language of this sentence is highly misleading on several levels.


 * I think the term commune needs to be changed to development or some other term with less negative connotations. Remember factual, encyclopedic, and objective are the goals.--Truecolors (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

4. The declaration regarding Doughty's position on faculty with GWC and residence in Mammoth Valley, Utah, are linked to a source that makes no mention of either of these factoids.


 * I checked the citation that is supposed to show Doughty is faculty and it actually proves that he isn't. He is nowhere on the list. Therefore I deleted the reference to his being faculty. When we have real proof that he is faculty, we can put it back up. --Truecolors (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

5. A question on privacy: is it necessary or appropriate to list the residence of the subject of an article?

6. Reference #1 is a forum response to a newspaper article by a reader. Not a reliable source. The two factoids that it supports should be left with a notation that a citation is needed, or removed entirely.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that they sold lots (or promised lots in return for donations and loans), but few people actually lived there. I heard Brooks and his mother actually lived there. The same snow storm that drove GWC from the lodge drove these people from Mammoth Valley.


 * It's my understanding that ICE was indeed part of NCCS, and that Doughty took it over in 1986, but I've scoured the cited sources and can't find this backed up. I'll put a cite tag on it and try to find a reliable source to cite.


 * Doughty's status with GWU can be easily verified and cited. I don't see why you can't just add a citation for it. As for Doughty's having a ranch there, here is a reference for that: http://newsletter.gw.edu/pre/statesman_08_07.pdf. I know he lives there, because I've gone to Hatch and spoken with people about him and I've also learned this through other sources. But if that's the extent of it we can just reword to say he's got a ranch there (or did as of 2007). I don't see the big deal about listing someone's residence -- it's not like we're putting his home address in the article. DeMille's article notes that he lives in Enoch, Utah.


 * The letter to the editor cited could be replaced with a couple sources to back up the statement that he helped found GWC. I can't find any source other than this that he wrote that book. Do you have a source to back that up, Ibinthinkin? --TrustTruth (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I found where I got the idea that ICE used to be part of NCCS. At the end of this article (http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/366360/BACKERS-TRIED-IN-VAIN-TO-RECOVER-LOSSES.html), the author gives a timeline of events, including "December 1986 ... Doughty begins laying plans to move International Constitutional Education, an arm that has split from the National Center for Constitutional Studies, from Cedar City to the lodge." I assume the author meant to say "Institute for" instead of International, but there it is. That's where I got the idea that they were one and the same. Probably not a good enough source to cite in the article, but based on this I do think ICE used to be part of NCCS. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Not a good enough source, and the only one you'll likely find. It is a misstatement on many levels, as you note with the error in the name. I suggest you remove the assertion that ICE was a part of NCCS from the family of articles where this appears.  ICE was not a part of NCCS. And even if you continue to believe it was, for whatever reason it suits you to do so, the unsubstantiated claim that is was should not appear in WP. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From reading the Deseret News article, it sounds to me like he broke from NCCS and started his own thing which is very different from being a part of NCCS. And if it's not a good enough source to cite, then it shouldn't be in the article at all.--Truecolors (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)