Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Family Foundation School

Where's the dispute?
Family Foundation School wiki and talk page

What's the dispute?
Based on the contents already on the page, (namely the inclusion of an individual alumnus and an individual staffmember which the school and the prior editors have thought important to mention) and this link http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/familyschoolsuicide.html it is important to include this statement on the family foundation school wiki "In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School." this has been removed several times by several users who claim that it is POV and that it is "sensational". The information is 100% factual and should be included. CoreEpic (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Don't include--I came to this page from the community portal and was wondering what a cabal is. I think I understand what it is now and I was curious enough to read the article, and the talk page. I am of the opinion that there must be someone with an axe to grind with this school. I don't think it is ridiculous for the first part of the article to be about a suicide and congressional testimony about alledged abuse. The students that a school like this are dealing with are going to pre-disposed to all kinds of destructive behavior. It is how they ended up there in the first place. I think that it is unfair to presume something nefarious is going on in this school and to feature the two controversial items in the beginning part of the article is unfair. Many universities have several students commit suicide each year and the articles about those schools don't feature that in the first part of the article. While I don't dispute the factual accuracy, it's presence insinuates something that is prejudicial and unfair and should not be included. I hope this is useful Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I will contend with each point sequentially: 1. I don't think it is ridiculous for the first part of the article to be about a suicide and congressional testimony about alledged abuse.- the location on the article has never been an issue, I think that people fighting to have the inclusion of this information in the article would be more than happy to have the information in the middle or even at the end of the article. 2. '''The students that a school like this are dealing with are going to pre-disposed to all kinds of destructive behavior. It is how they ended up there in the first place.''' risking putting my own spin on this, if the students that the school is dealing with are high risk, they should be treated as such. The school takes on the liability of high risk students, and any serious incident on school grounds is the school's liability. 3. I think that it is unfair to presume something nefarious is going on in this school There is no presumption being made, you can add your own meaning to the facts and draw your own conclusion. 4. Many universities have several students commit suicide each year and the articles about those schools don't feature that in the first part of the article. Yeah, and? Universities do not assume the liability of holding a population defined as "at risk". The vast majority of students in universities are legally adults and therefore responsible for their own actions, whereas the student who committed suicide was still a child, and under the care and custody of the Family Foundation School. CoreEpic (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic


 * This topic has been discussed extensively on Talk:Family Foundation School, specifically in the following sections: Talk:Family Foundation School, Talk:Family Foundation School, Talk:Family Foundation School, Talk:Family Foundation School, Talk:Family Foundation School Talk:Family Foundation School,  Talk:Family Foundation School,  Talk:Family Foundation School,  and Talk:Family Foundation School. The only participants who think that this information belongs in the article are a couple of users who have personal axes to grind against this school. Several users with no apparent COI related to this school have opined that the information does not belong in the article (see the talk page for the reasoning provided), but the proponents of its inclusion continue to shop for a new forum where they can get a different answer. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Extensively. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc - putting it into the article invites people to feel that the school and the suicide are somehow linked.  Undue weight.  While the loss of a child to suicide is a terrible thing, it is not in and of itself notable in the Wikipedia sense.  The only citation anyone has presented (I wanted one too, and looked) is the press release from the schoold.  No internet-searchable body picked it up, that I can find.  Disrespectful to use the death of a child to pursue an agenda..."My purpose is simple: if Jan Cheripko and Wells Thompson are importat enough to include on this wiki, so is the suicide. And I insist that it be included in the same forum, if you want to keep Jan and Wells on there, it is your obligation to also allow the suicide to be mentioned" and "It should be included because it is a noteworthy piece of information about the school. Because it allows for a NPOV of the school showing positive as well as negative examples of things that have gone on there"...as I read that it is a statement of intent to use the logic falacy already cited.sinneed (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I am aware that my edit history tends to favor the school and has understandably called into question my ability to adopt a NPOV, I wish to go on record in support of everything submitted by Elmmapleoakpine, Orlady, and sinneed, in addition to this thread: User_talk:CoreEpic, initiated by B. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 11:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My arguments for the inclusion have been discussed extensively on the talk page, please refer to them.CoreEpic (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC) CoreEpic

I don't think that the incident belongs in the article because I have yet to see any indication that this sad incident had an important impact on the school or its reputation. If there were reliably sourced information indicating that it led to a big spate of negative publicity, led to changes in school policies and procedures, or otherwise affected the school in any important way, then it would make sense to include it. --Orlady (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi CoreEpic, could you list the secondary sources which support inclusion of this content? PhilKnight (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the linkCoreEpic (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC) CoreEpic
 * The problem is that's only a press release. Is there any other coverage in reliable sources? PhilKnight (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from the press release there are no other online sources that I am aware of. What makes a press release unreliable/unverifiable?CoreEpic (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic
 * Press releases, even when republished by other organizations, are considered to be self published sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with CoreEpic on the merits, in part since I don't seem to see press releases on the list of self-published works. But moreover, the editor of a publication decides what s/he publishes (a.k.a. editorial control). Therefore by definition and practice, how can a press release be considered self-published? - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that the suicide really happened. The press release was issued by the very same organization that it casts in a bad light -- self-reported negative information is unlikely to be fabricated...


 * Don't include suicide material unless there is more reliable 3rd party reporting that somehow shows relevance to this article. --72.221.70.224 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the consensus a the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point Im not quite sure I understand what's going on here. As a source, I think that the struggling teens article is as valid and verifiable as anything else, for whatever reason it was never reported anywhere else, but that's neither here nor there because as Wikiwag pointed out press releases dont fall under a category that can be defined as self published.  As far as definable relevance, its a suicide, anytime something major happens it's relevant.  I don't know what effect it has on the policies at the school because i dont work there, I doubt that they would put on their website "The following practices were influenced by a suicide that occurred on campus in 2004", but that's not the point, I maintain that anyone researching the school for any reason would want to know notable events that have occurred on the campus, this to the best of my knowledge would fall under that category.  Moreover at this point it seems that the consensus isnt against the source but rather the merits of the information, both of which I am trying to defend.CoreEpic (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

My sense after reading the discussion is that I cannot see any reason to not have a mention of the suicide. It seems relevant to the article. There clearly is a problem with the lack of RS, but everyone involved seems to agree it happened. I'm also concerned about the tone of the debate. Given the nature of the issues, this is going to draw more heat than a fictional topic (which draws plenty of heat). But the forms of the arguments are not good. Finally, I think everyone involved should be fully upfront about COI issues. It seems everyone, or almost everyone, has a dog in this fight (if not with this specific school, with this type of school). My 2 cents. I hope they aren't out of place. Hobit (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do think the press release is probably a reasonable source given the "against interests" nature. But it isn't an ideal RS.  Given the nature of the school, I thinking a passing mention doesn't have a WP:WEIGHT problem and it seems to pass WP:V.  Hobit (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate a bit, Hobit? *Even including the link invites readers to tie the suicide to the school. I argue for including the link simply because the event itself is a tragedy, and it happened at the school. *This is a thought exercise I used in considering this:  If someone commits suicide in a GM car, would it be appropriate to add it to the GM article?  Another:  If a student at MIT committed suicide (and they have), would it be appropriate to have it in the article?  The answers as I see them are no and no, unless there were some reason the suicides themselves were Notable in the Wikipedia sense. *On a lightly related note, I see that the description on the External link has been "nerfed" to remove "suicide" from it.  I need to check to be sure that the descriptions on external links are just that, rather than titles, then change it back unless I am mistaken...which brought me back here to have a look.sinneed (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I did change the description (per wp:EL a description is better, with a source, than a title) to something similar to what it was a long time ago, I think. I do think this is the correct way to provide this information to interested readers...if any.sinneed (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to. This school appears to deal with troubled youth and from the discussion it appears that some blame might be cast on the school for the death.  I think the GM analogy is a bit of a stretch, but the MIT one is pretty good.  See .  Of course the MIT suicides have significantly more press, but then again there is a whole article on the topic (probably more than one).  I don't think a sentence or two in the school's article would be too much weight to the topic relative to other notable things about the school. Hobit (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The MIT analogy is a very appropriate one. However, what strikes me hardest when I compare the two situations is the contrast in the amount of information available about the incidents and their impact. With extensive sourcing, the MIT article says (in part) "A number of student deaths in the late 1990s and early 2000s resulted in considerable media attention to MIT's culture and student life," and it recounts that MIT "began requiring all freshmen to live in the dormitory system," implemented a "task force's recommended improvements in student mental health services, ... including expanding staff and operating hours at the mental health center," and notes that the school faced lawsuits that "sought to prove the negligence and liability of university administrators in loco parentis." In contrast, the only thing we have about the FFS suicide is the fact that it occurred. The lack of documentation regarding the reaction to the suicide is troubling and a bit spooky (it's as if a boulder fell into a pond and didn't make a ripple), but it leaves us without a basis for saying anything in the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We can say it happened. If that's all the sourcing can support, that's what we can do.  And in fact spending much more time on it than that would likely put undo weight on the issue.  Hobit (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "from the discussion it appears that some blame might be cast on the school for the death" - exactly my concern: it can't.  The *ONLY* way to prevent a 15year old from jumping from a 2nd floor window would be such restrictions as bars on the windows, or total restriction of the individual.  Neither course should even conceivably be acceptable for an ordinary high-school.  And yes, there are troubled teens in every high-school.  Should every high school in America (or the world) have bars on every window above 1 to prevent suicide-by-jumper?sinneed (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that that sounds critical. It isn't. :) I just don't agree.sinneed (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the windows on my high school (or my office actually) open wide enough to jump out of. This isn't an accident.  My college dorm did have windows that opened that much and it was considered an issue.   Just saying. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My 2¢: it may be worth considering that, on the continuum of all discussions of a particular school and suicide across all of Wikipedia, this page (here, now) tops the list; this includes MIT and all the other discussions on this topic. On Hobit's comment "from the discussion it appears that some blame might be cast on the school for the death," that's a dangerous conclusion to draw without some pretty solid evidence. While it may be true in some isolated cases (I haven't seen data one way or the other), the parents and guardians of young people who take their own lives aren't automatically to blame, and the suggestion that they or even this school might be, is a very slippery slope to start down. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 17:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The slippery slope is a risk that I think is necessary. Facts are facts, if you want to interpret the facts to mean that the school was at fault, then that's your decision.  As far as the MIT comparison, again MIT is NOT a school for at-risk teens, it is not a school for children, students at MIT are not generally in the care and custody of the school, moreover at public schools if a student threatens suicide they tend to be hospitalized in a place that DOES have bars on its windows.  But that's all neither here nor there, a person doing research on the FFS would want to know this information, this is pertinent and valid information, there is a clear consensus that the information in the link is valid and that the link can be classified as wikipediable material, there should be a passing mention of the suicide on the wiki page along with the external link. CoreEpic (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic
 * "Facts are facts, if you want to interpret the facts to mean that the school was at fault, then that's your decision" agreed. And thus, the EL is included.sinneed (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why then are we not including a reference to it in the main body of the text?CoreEpic (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) CoreEpic