Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Taylor Allderdice High School/archive1

Mediator statement
Thank you all for accepting the offer to mediate this dispute, and for your willingness to work together to come to a solution on this issue. I look forward to reaching a satisfactory conclusion with you all! Before we begin I want to just make a quick statement and set down a few ground rules.

Please remember that this is an informal mediation. I will not be issuing any kind of judgement or decisions, my job here is simply to facilitate the discussion. This will require the good-faith efforts of everyone involved to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion, and not merely try to "win the case". Please be willing to accept that the best solution might not be the one you had in mind, and remain open-minded to the suggestions of other editors.

Please remain civil in all discussions. This is a debate and not an argument. Everyone's opinion counts. Be patient and let people express their ideas and thoughts and don't be too quick to discount them.

Finally, be familiar with or at least be prepared to read up on the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning articles. Try to make your arguments founded upon existing policy. On the other hand, if you feel that policy is in fact hindering the improvement of Wikipedia we can always ignore all rules but if your argument depends upon doing that, be prepared to have a good reason why!  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening statements and clarification
This will be a semi-structured discussion format. I may ask for specific statements or answers from participants at certain times, but if ever you feel the need to bring something up or have a new idea don't hesitate to add anything you feel is pertinent to the discussion.

This will be the only exception to that rule : opening statements. I would like each of the participants to explain, in their own words, exactly what the problem is and the nature of the dispute. There isa short summary on the case page and I have read the discussion thus far but for the sake of fairness and clarity everyone should have the opportunity to explain the problem as they see it.

Please do not respond directly to another person's opening statement, but rather, keep it simple and just put the problem into your own words. Once we have that out in the open we'll let discussion proceed normally.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Relply to Hiding: as I see, you are maybe a bit confused on how to write a statement. Mainly, give a brief explanation of the situation and your position in a way the mediator can understand all opinions. As a guideline (always given by arbitrators), limit yourself to 300-500 words. --Neigel von Teighen 11:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've expanded per your advice, is that okay? Hiding Talk 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's OK. Something most people misunderstand is AMA advocates' work: yes, we do represent a party and defend it, but we are also compromised to help the dispute process itself towards a solution and collaborate with mediators/arbitrators so they can have an easier job. That's why we're not lawyers! --Neigel von Teighen 08:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiding's opening statement
I'm not really sure what you want, but basically I've just been editing the article to comply with the content policies, specifically in this instance WP:OR and WP:NPOV, as well as guidance on peacock terms and weasel words. Hiding Talk 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Expansion per Neigel von Teighen's advice
The problem here according to me is in utilising sources and interpreting them. I believe there is interpretation of sources in a manner which pushes a point of view or belief that an individual may hold, rather than what the sources allow us to summarise. Taking WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV together, per the three policies, the reliability of a source depends as much upon the usage of it as the existence of it. To me the dispute turns on: whether content published in the school newspaper is representative of, and can be used to verify, the school's official policies, positions and views per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; whether the amalgamation and conflation of sources equates to synthesis per WP:NOR, namely in utilising a definition of the term corporate author to deduce information from another source; whether we can interpret the fact that an image of the newspaper has been reproduced elsewhere in school literature as meaning anything more than a reproduction, per WP:NOR; how much weight to give to the angle of view of a security camera, per WP:NPOV; and the correct way to evaluate an archival record per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and guidance offered in WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK.

Hopefully this mediation will help to get a well-written article which complies with the content policies and that this issue is solved. Hiding Talk 13:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Neigel von Teighen's opening statement
The problem here according to me is the following: there is a school yearbook that shows some photographs about the students' newspaper called the Foreword. My opinion corresponds 0-0-0-Destruct-0's:


 * 1) The school yearbook is a verifiable source according to WP:V: the references are those links given by 0-0-0-Destruct-0; it can be treated as primary source according to the WP:OR (thus, not being against policy. Read last paragraph of that section).


 * 1) Part of the discussion is whether the school allows and endorses the Foreword's existence (if not also promotes it) or not. We think it does and it's almost common sense: if you put some photos there is because you want to show something; if you are a school that publicly shows the students' newspaper, is because you like its existence. Otherwise, the principal's authority would be seriously questioned.


 * 1) My vision on the dispute is that the main disputed topic is namely if the Foreword is or not a reliable source. I think it is, as the school yearbook is reliable and think it endorses the newspaper existence. There's a kind of official backup.

Hopefully, the mediation will help to get a well-written article and that this issue is solved. --Neigel von Teighen 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

0-0-0-Destruct-0's opening statement
I'll be following the discussion attentively, but since I've engaged Neigel von Teighen as my AMA for this mediation, I'll let him speak on my behalf rather than have my view seem like an independent third. I must, however, clarify a bit. The periodical the school corporately authored is entitled The Allderdice 51, in which it reproduces very limited content from the school newspaper, The Foreword. My position is that the school as corporate author endorses that reproduced content from The Foreword; all parties agree that the school does not in general endorse all of The Foreword's content. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A little more clarification
Thanks everyone for your statements, the information is very useful. There are a couple questions I would like clarified before we dive into mediation on the issue, though, just to make sure everyone is on the same page.

The core of the dispute seems to be the admissibilitiy of the school newspaper as a reliable source. There also seems to be two newspapers in question - The Foreward and The Allderdice 51. Is the question of reliability as a source regarding both of these publications, or just The Foreward?

Also, is this in regards to specific content (ie. the "drug culture" section found in the talk page) or is the concern just over the general usefulness of the school paper as a reliable source? Thanks!  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We aren't disputing the admissibility of the school newspaper as a reliable source. The periodical entitled The Allderdice 51 is not a school newspaper. It is a hardbound book corporately authored by the school each year, and is currently cited in footnote #9 of the page in question. This periodical reproduces content from the school newspaper The Foreword and the dispute is over whether or not the school endorses the content from The Foreword it reproduced under its own, separate authorship. The Allderdice 51, I claim, sources statements I've written that Hiding claims it cannot source, and so deletes. We aren't currently disputing the "drug culture" section found on the talk page. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As 0-0-0-Destruct-0 states, this dispute is not centring on the admissibility of the school newspaper as a reliable source, but rather disputes whether or not the school endorses the content. As I stated in my summary, I believe asserting this endorsement violates our policies on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  Further, I would like to state that it is my understanding that the publication, The Allderdice 51, is a yearbook, and has also been assembled by the student body.  I believe that the reproduction of an image of a page of the school newspaper, The Foreword, within this yearbook, The Allderdice 51, cannot be interpreted as meaning that the school endorses the content of that newspaper, such that one could write that the "school believed" or "the school took the position" or "the school represented".  I believe that such an interpretation of this chain of events is against the no original research policy, which notes that original research is, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, (that which) would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."  Interpreting the decision to reproduce an image of the paper as meaning the school specifically chose that page because they wished to convey the message that they held the same opinion as expressed on that reproduced page, with no other supporting sources and no regard for other equally valid explanations as to why that page was chosen, is a novel narrative, an historical interpretation and original research.  Our policy makes this quite clear.  Using the fact that the school is listed as corporate author to attempt to assert that the school therefore authored the image and thus the content of the image also qualifies as original research, being a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.


 * What is happening is that 0-0-0-Destruct-0 is using one source, which defines the school as corporate author, using another source which defines the term corporate author, using a third source, the yearbook, which reproduces a fourth source, the newspaper, to verify the school's endorsement of the views expressed within the school newspaper by named authors, namely students at the school. Our original research policy contains a section which quite clearly delineates this as synthesis. It states that we require a reliable source that specifically comments on the matter at hand and makes the same point. So we need to find a reliable source where the school expresses the same opinion, or a reliable source which makes the claim that by reproducing an image of the school's newspaper within the school's yearbook, for which the school is listed elsewhere as corporate author, this means the school endorses the views expressed within that portion of the paper so reproduced. I hope that helps to clarify somewhat.  Hiding Talk 17:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiding, I think you are a bit confused on the policies you are basing your argument.
 * 1) WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias". There's no bias discussion, but reliablility and use of a source. And careful: citing a source is not against this policy (a common misintrepetation)
 * 2) WP:NOR: "1) Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. 2) Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis. 3) Content should not be synthesized to advance a position". The source 0-0-0-Destruct-0's citing is a link to an Allderdice copy showing content of the Foreword (that's a fact). A source backing the endorsement is the same Allderdice: it is a primary source showing information taken from other place without further analysis in there.
 * 3) WP:V: The only policy I think there could be a discussion... if Allderdice is or not a reliable source to say what we're trying to say. And I'd appreciate to focus the discussion in it. --Neigel von Teighen 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Niegel, but I think you are terribly confused as to what the dispute here actually is. I am well aware of what policies upon which I am basing my argument, and I would like to point you to the fact that all three policies state: Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.  That aside, I am not sure you are as yet grasping what my argument is. Nobody disputes that the yearbook publication reproduces an image of The Foreword. What we dispute is whether we can ascribe any meaning to the reproduction of such an image.  Here's the facts.  The publication The Allderdice is a school yearbook compiled by the student body as part of the curriculum. On page 74 of the 1980 edition of the yearbook, The Allderdice 51, a front page image of the Foreword is reproduced.  Those are facts, and that is the source we are discussing.
 * Hiding, you don't adduce a basis for your claim that the student body compiles The Allderdice whether part of its curriculum or otherwise. That's just not the case. See my comment below. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we state that the school believes or endorses x, simply because x is visible within an image of the front page of an edition of The Foreword as reproduced on page 74 of the 1980 edition of the yearbook, The Allderdice 51? Is that a reliable source which supports the claim made, or is attempting to make such a claim based on that source original research, point of view pushing and unverifiable? Let's ask ourselves this.  If Wikipedia reproduces an image of The Foreword, does this mean we could state that Wikipedia holds or endorses statements or views expressed or visible within the reproduced image?  Hiding Talk 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia including a piece of the Foreword is a different case. WP is a tertiary source that works as a neutral compilation, not a primary like the Allderdice 51 that wants to show things considered important (thus, not neutral per se!) for the school during the year (that are yearbooks for, or am I wrong?). --Neigel von Teighen 06:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussing the problem
Okay, unless I am horribly mistaken and on the wrong track here I think that the debate can be fairly well crystallized by the following.
 * The Foreward is a school newspaper authored by the student body. This is a fact no one disputes.
 * The Allderdice is a school yearbook also authored by the student body. This is also an undisputed fact.
 * I do dispute this. Per its title page (provided in the referenced online excerpt, currently footnote #9 at Taylor Allderdice High School) and its OCLC database record #29780373 found using WorldCat, The Allderdice 51 is corporately authored by "Taylor Allderdice High School." Its online card catalog record reads "Corp Author(s): Taylor Allderdice High School (Pittsburgh, Pa.)" Hiding provides no basis for his claim that the student body authors the periodical. Furthermore, The Allderdice 51 contains no student bylines (except in the few reproduced images from The Foreword) and no attribution of content to any student. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That difference is rather integral to the dispute, then. I will review this information and I encourage all of the involved editors to consider this information as well.  For future reference, please try not to reply inside someone's comment, instead reply after it to preserve the flow of conversation.  It can be hard for future readers to figure out what's going on when replies are interspersed throughout a comment.   Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but how am I supposed to respond to this? Hiding Talk 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Allderdice reprints some material from The Foreward in the annual yearbook. Undisputed.

The question, therefore, seems to be whether this reprinting of material constitutes an official endorsement of The Foreward by Taylor Allderdice High School and its administration. Hiding has already pointed out the relevant policies and guidelines that I believe are pertinent to this discussion, particularly, WP:V and WP:NOR.

I would like 0-0-0-Destruct-0 to briefly explain in his own words why he feels the sources supplied in the article satisfy the guidelines and policies in question, and how he feels these sources constitute an endorsement by the school. As the user has already indicated his AMA advocate Neigel von Teighen essentially speaks for him he may answer this question as well.

I would also encourage Hiding to elucidate or reiterate his reasoning as to why the supplied sources do not satisfy guidelines as it appears to be his stance. However I would again ask at this point all views be presented neutrally and to please refrain from responding/refuting the opposing viewpoints before all parties have had an opportunity to express their opinion in their own words.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * N. v. Teighen: The source satisfies policies because Allderdice is a corporate work by the school intended to show what considered important for the institution (as every official yearbook); so anything shown there is something that the school endorses. This satisfies with WP:NOR's requirement of using only primary and/or secondary sources and with WP:V because it is verifiable. --Neigel von Teighen 06:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've invited me to comment on why I think the supplied sources do not satisfy guidelines. Sources can only be evaluated in the context of the information being sourced.  We don't give a blanket license to a source as being reliable or not.  The New York Times would not be a reliable source for information it has not published. My feeling on these sources, however, is that they are at best what we would call questionable sources.  They are self-published and I would call into question the fact-checking facilities and editorial oversight.  I can't really comment any further unless we start to discuss specific instances.  My stance in this dispute is not that any one source is invalid, but rather that I want content to comply with our policies and guidance.  You state that we should not reply to each other's statements, but that is the very basis of my stance.  My stance in this dispute has been to edit the article such that it complies with policies.  I fail to see how I am supposed to outline my position without direct reference to Neigel's statement above. Hiding Talk 11:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, if I'm allowed to then I'd like to speak on how sourcing works. WP:NOR states that The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.  We need to make sure any position we wish to advance is already published.  We also need to take care with how we use sources.  Like I say, we've got questionable sources here, and sources which are also primary sources.  Our original research policy also states that Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them.  We have to ask ourselves, is it possible that sources are being misused.  Whenever we look at information on Wikipedia, we check that it has a source, but that isn't the end of the checking, the end of the verification.  We also have to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published.  We have to read the provided source and make sure it supports the claim being made.  We have to make sure the position being advanced, the quotation supplied, the statement or fact has already been published in a reliable source.  Like I have said before, I think this is an issue in which WP:NPOV applies.  That page notes that we should assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." (snip) By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." Hiding Talk 12:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if what I said was unclear. I just wanted everyone to have a chance to speak their minds prior to someone else jumpting in with a "Yeah but".  Once everyone has made their point clear we can begin a civil discussion on the matter, which is where the "yeah but" can come in to play!  In any case the information you provided above is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for, a statement of where you stand on the article and the debate at hand.  Since Neigel von Teighen has spoken his mind and effectively speaks for the other side of the debate, both sides have spoken and we can continue with the discussion.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more points that have been brought up in the discussion thus far. I believe that everyone agrees that The Allderdice as a source is verifiable, as we all have access to the PDF file provided. The literal content of the source is available and undisputed. The fact that information from The Foreward is supplied in the yearbook is also fairly evident.

The question has been raised that The Allderdice may not be reliable, however, as it is self-published and its editorial oversight may be in question. The example of the New York Times is brought up - we consider it a reliable source because it has a long-standing and widespread reputation as well as a fairly well understood editorial process and fact-checking mechanism. The Allderdice may lack any or all of the above and may indeed be of questionable reliability as a source. By the same token, however, our policy on WP:V states that material from self-published sources of questionable reliablity may be used in articles about themselves, with a few qualifications that I invite you to look over.

There is also some concern about the claims of The Allderdice being corporately authored and whether the information contained therein may be interpreted as being "officially endorsed" by the school. I would also like discussion to address this concern.

Feel free to discuss these concerns or any others you wish to voice at this time.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I would just like to address a couple of things about The Allderdice. The online scans have been placed online by 0-0-0-Destruct-0, or at the very least at the user's direction, as detailed on the article talk page and the user's own talk page. Also, the pdf referred to does not represent a complete scan of the yearbook in question, it reproduces only selected portions. I think the only one of us here who has access to a complete copy of the yearbook currently is 0-0-0-Destruct-0. I'm not sure how reliable or verifiable we can determine the pdf to be, therefore. I've been searching online stores for a copy but have yet to turn one up. Regarding the compiling of the school yearbook, the school website states the yearbook is compiled by students as part of the curriculum.  Beyond that, I'm not sure what more is expected here? There are many other points of dispute within the article.  Are we limiting ourselves only to this one? If I am allowed, I would like to ask what it is 0-0-0-Destruct-0 would like the article to say.


 * Regarding the corporate authoring of The Allderdice and interpreting this as meaning the information contained therein may be interpreted as being "officially endorsed" by the school, I would like to draw everyone's attention to the synthesis section of WP:NOR. I would like to list the area where we may both agree: Taylor Allderdice is listed as a corporate author in the world cat database.  Where we fall apart is in using this listing to mean anything other than a listing in a database.  What we have is a synthesis of sources, as follows:


 * Source one, the world cat database, lists the school as corporate author of the title The Allderdice. Utilising 0-0-0-Destruct-0's definition of the term "corporate author", we are then stating that the printing of an image of The Foreword within the yearbook implies the school officially endorses the content. Source two is The Allderdice itself. We are synthesising a novel argument from two sources, and this isn't allowed per our original research policy.


 * I would also like to clarify that nowhere within the scans provided of the school yearbook does it state that the school is the corporate author, certainly not on page 74 which we have been directed to as a source. I would also like to point out that when using self-published material, we have to make sure there there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.  I would suggest we have a reasonable doubt as to who wrote the material.  We can be sure that the school published the yearbook, we can be reasonably sure the principal authored the note seen in the scans provided, but as to the rest of it, can we be reasonably sure who authored the yearbook?


 * We are also asked to question whether material sourced from questionable sources is contentious. I'd state that the fact that this has been discussed by a number of editors on the talk page and is now under mediation demonstrates the contentiousness. I would also like to state that as, in this instance The Allderdice and the worldcat database are both primary sources, we are bound by the policy at WP:NOR, specifically that For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.  So we can't interpret this primary source material.  We can't analyse the two sources and deduce a meaning from them.  It has to be clear to our readers that the primary source material supports the claim that the school "officially" endorses material within the yearbook, such that it represents the then school board's official position.  I think we have to stick to the facts, we have to assert only what can be verified.
 * We can verify that the worldcat lists the school as corporate author of the title The Allderdice, but this is a pretty meaningless fact. Maybe it would be useful in an article on the yearbook, as a publication detail, but that is all it is, a publication detail.  We also know it is a fact that the yearbook reproduces an image of an edition of the school newspaper.  But again, what does this mean?  It has no real value, we can't interpret it to mean anything.  If we wish to comment on the school's official policies at that time, then let's at least use some local newspapers as sources.  I'm sure there must have been local press coverage of the school, the school must have detailed its positions on issues.  Let's use the right sources to source the school's official position, let's not commit original research to do so.     Hiding Talk 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am 100% supportive of the idea of bringing to the table ideas on where to go with this. You mention a desire to have 0-0-0-Destruct-0 tell us what his proposed wording for this article would be, and I feel that is a reasonable request.  I would also be curious to know if you had a proposed wording that would alleviate the concerns brought up, if you can think of any that do not resort to outright removal of the material.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the article as it currently stands. At the minute we are, I believe, disputing the difference shown here, .  I've always attempted to collaborate, as can be seen in the way the dispute has moved from this edit  to where we are now. Hiding Talk 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Hiding, please, could you explain us how do you interpret the sentence "Serving Allderdice High School and the community" you can read at page 8 at the pdf? If an official school publishes a photograph of it is because it has some interest in showing it.
 * 2) Second: page 3 shows a stamp from the school and the names of the principal and viceprincipals. Aren't that signatures?? (I also interpret the handwriting below to be A. G Fisher's but need more evidence and it's not so relevant too...) --Neigel von Teighen 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, sorry, can we clarify what page numbers we are referring to? On page 74 we can see a reproduced front cover of The Foreword, in which image the paper's motto "Serving Allderdice High School and the community" can be seen, yes. I don't interpret that fact at all, however.  Our policies are quite clear on that, any interpretation or attempt to ascribe a meaning to that reproduction is original research.  Can you source your assertion that "If an official school publishes a photograph of it is because it has some interest in showing it"?  As the school website states, the yearbook is produced by the student body as part of the curriculum.
 * 1) As to your second point, I have already stated we can see an introduction from the Principal, a hand written note on headed paper, although I would note this is found on page 27 of the yearbook, not page 3 as you state. Isn't it common practise for school yearbooks to include a note from the Principal?  I'm not sure what your point is here, are we supposed to be interpreting this note as being relevant somehow?  Again, any interpretation would be original research unless you can source it to a secondary source.  Let us remember that anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.  We can verify that the yearbook reproduces an image of the newspaper.  We can verify that the paper's motto can be seen in that image.  We cannot verify that the school, in an official capacity, endorses anything.
 * 2) If I may, I would like to ask why this is so important. What is the intention here, what are we trying to say to the reader.  Maybe if we can ascertain that, we might be able to agree on a wording.  It would also be very beneficial if we could be allowed access to the rest of the yearbook, there may be relevant material we do not currently have access to.  Perhaps there is a listing of the staff of the yearbook.  It's a shame we cannot interpret this source, because I'm curious as to what the Principal means when he commends the students: 'you did "get it together"'.  Is it possible the "it" he refers to is the yearbook?  It's an interesting idea. Hiding Talk 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

putting the discussion back on track
I am concerned that the discussion is becoming disoriented. The publication in question, per its title page, binding, and OCLC database record, is entitled The Allderdice and its binding specifically indicates issue number 51, so I have consistently referred to it as The Allderdice 51. Perhaps it doesn't matter on what convention we agree to refer to it for this discussion's purposes; we could denote it by "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin", and that convention would suffice--until the discussion misguidedly and confusingly turned to Benjamin Franklin. The Allderdice 51 has been designated by others in this discussion as "the yearbook" but now that imprecision has led Hiding to presume that, as a yearbook, it is "compiled by the student body as part of the curriculum." As I said earlier, "Hiding, you don't adduce a basis for your claim that the student body compiles The Allderdice whether part of its curriculum or otherwise." Hiding says the school web site supports his claim, so I request he state exactly where. I do see a course entitled "Yearbook A,B" on this page, but it does not say the students actually publish a yearbook; it does not say the students contribute in any way to the periodical entitled The Allderdice; it does not say that such a course was offered in 1980 when The Allderdice 51 was published; and it does not say that students compiled or published a yearbook in 1980. This mediation began with confusion as to what was being claimed about which documents by which parties. All ambiguity is easily resolved when we refer to the documents by their designated titles, and with care to their correct spelling: The Foreword and The Allderdice. I request, now that the hitherto tolerated imprecision has disordered the discussion, that all parties adhere to the documents' correct titles when referring to them in the discussion. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but are you stating that The Allderdice is not in fact the school yearbook? The school website states that The Allderdice is in fact a yearbook, as seen here,, along with the following supporting sources, ,  and.


 * I would note the 1934 edition is stated as being the fifth, simple maths would allow us to state it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the 1980 edition, being 46 years later, would be referred to as the 51st edition, or as you state, The Allderdice 51. Can we at least garner agreement that The Allderdice is in fact a yearbook? Would it be factually correct to state that the sources we are discussing here are a school yearbook and a school newspaper? Hiding Talk 10:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hiding, what 0-0-0-Destruct-0 is saying is that to avoid confussion, we better talk about The Allderdice instead of calling it simply as "yearbook". The same for The Foreword, instead of "newspaper"... I repeat: just to avoid confussion. --Neigel von Teighen 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold up just a second here. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 is implying that Hiding's use of the term yearbook in reference to The Allderdice is imprecise and is causing the debate to wander. I would like to know how the use of the term yearbook to describe something that does, in all honesty, appear to be a high school yearbook is improper or imprecise. I believe it's well understood what Hiding is refering to when he says "yearbook" so honestly I do not see the problem. If however it is to be understood that The Allderdice is not exactly a yearbook that may be highly relevant to the discussion, and I'd like some clarification on this.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The crux of this matter turns on the distinction between the corporate authorship of The Allderdice versus the faculty oversight/student columnist relationship of The Foreword. The distinction's blurring has previously confused this mediation, as well as other discussions. It is thus worthwhile to maintain the correct designations as well as easy. The document's title page, binding, and OCLC database record all indicate "The Allderdice" so that designation is unambiguous, short, precise, and easily typed.


 * I would have no difficulty with designating The Allderdice a yearbook; in our discussion, however, the problem arises with genericizing as a yearbook the specific document The Allderdice when Hiding goes on to take that as a license to introduce his personal generic assumptions regarding yearbooks, namely that they are compiled and produced by students. He then imputes his assumptions to The Allderdice in clear contradiction to the plainly stated corporate authorship on the title page of The Allderdice and to its OCLC database record. Hiding avers "As the school website states, the yearbook is produced by the student body as part of the curriculum." I have twice asked that Hiding specify exactly where the school web site states that the yearbook is produced thusly, but he has not answered and I am asking again. As explained earlier, I examined the school's web site, and can find no such indication of how the school's yearbook is produced, let alone how it was produced twenty-seven years ago. The title page and OCLC database record of The Allderdice 51 indicate "Taylor Allderdice High School" as the corporate author, which means the school's administration. The one link to the school's web site that Hiding did provide here is consistent with such current corporate authorship because it designates the faculty member currently overseeing one of the "Club/Activities" entitled "The Allderdice, yearbook," so the reference gives us further reason to believe the administrative corporate author, Taylor Allderdice High School, represents itself as fully responsible for the publication's content. The other links Hiding provided, to eBay etc., do not support his assumption that The Allderdice--by any variation of title designation--is or was ever produced in the manner he claims. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we all agree it is a yearbook. That's cool.  Now, I think the next points of contention are that 0-0-0-Destruct-0 claims that there is a title page in the scans he has provided for us to view, and I can find no such thing.  In fact, I'd like to state that I now believe that the scans, as they have been provided by 0-0-0-Destruct-0, are not a reliable source full stop.  I would argue that we cannot ascertain anything about The Allderdice from these scans, as we have no proof that I can see that these scans in fact are from the publication in question.  Also, can I request a link to the OCLC database to verify that it refers to the 1980 publication, thanks.
 * Regarding me being asked where it states the yearbook is produced by the student body, I think I did provide a link to the school's website, which you state you have read, but I'll happily provide it again.  which states:

Yearbook A, B This activity class is scheduled at the end of the day and is designed to allow students to apply skills in reading, writing, speaking, and cooperative learning to the production of a yearbook. Students are expected to take an active role in designing layouts, scheduling, organizing, and taking photographs, selecting and cropping pictures, interviewing, writing and typing copy, selling yearbooks and ads, and in general, organizing the various activities required to produce a publication. Students will use Pagemaker software and Yeartech, a related program created by Josten’s Publishing for production of school yearbooks. Whilst this page,, shows the yearbook to be a club. Now, whether this applied in 1980 0r 1979 is something only 0-0-0-Destruct-0 can tell us, having been a student at that time and having a full copy of the work itself. Perhaps it would be useful to ask on an internet forum and see if we can find another member of the student body of that time. Would that help move us forwards? Hiding Talk 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Another point
I'd like to revert this edit, or at least ask for the edit summary to be explained. I agree with both Ned Scott and Chris Griswold, and I can find no consensus on the talk page by many editors that the such reversions should take place, and there is certainly no consensus amongst admins that Griswold's edits should be reverted as 0-0-0-Destruct-0 states on the talk page. Hiding Talk 13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A third point
Can I just ask what it is we want to inform our readers here. This dispute seems to be getting reduced somewhat to incredibly minor points, when it isn't, it's a big picture dispute from my end. My end is that we don't violate WP:OR or WP:V or WP:NPOV. Now, do we want to tell the readers that at one time there was a school newspaper, and it had a motto, or do we want to tell our readers at one time the school administration played a part in the choice of motto and endorsed all content published within the school newspaper. This might help us move forward a little. Hiding Talk 14:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I too would like to know what the big picture here is. Hiding has previously asked 0-0-0-Destruct-0 what he would like to see this article say, and at this point I think an answer to that question would be extremely relevant.  Much of the debate seems to be boiling down to whether or not the school endorses the content of The Foreward - but what is the end result this will have on the article?  Please share.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it confuses matters to raise many issues all at once. To help the mediator, I think we should focus, for now, on the admissibility of The Allderdice as a source, and what content of The Foreword the school endorses. At the end of the first paragraph in the section on The Foreword I want to write "During the 1970's, the school considered the Foreword to be 'Serving Allderdice High School and the community,' stating that it reached more than 5000 readers," sourcing The Allderdice 51 for what the school considered. Hiding changes this to its present form: "During the 1970s, the paper carried the motto 'Serving Allderdice High School and the community,' and claimed to reach more than 5,000 readers" because he claims the page referenced in The Allderdice 51 does not source the school's endorsement. In short, I claim the phrase "the school considered the Foreword to be" is adequately sourced by page 74 of The Allderdice 51 (page 8 of the pdf), but Hiding disagrees.


 * The excerpt of the school's web site Hiding quotes above demonstrates only that the school offers instruction how to produce a yearbook, but does not support his claim that the students have ever compiled, published, or distributed a yearbook or The Allderdice. It would be as unjustified to infer such production as it would to read the school's course description for "Chemistry 2 CAS", which says the students are instructed in "Energy of Nuclear Reactions," and then conclude the students have built any of the thousands of thermonuclear devices in the United States' possession. On the other hand, the title page of The Allderdice 51 is page 1, which is also page 1 of the pdf and clearly indicates the corporate author is "Taylor Allderdice High School," as does the OCLC database record. To access the OCLC database record, you need to go to any of the many worldwide institutions and libraries affiliated with the OCLC and WorldCat. For the convenience of this discussion, I have had screenshots of the pertinent OCLC database record put online at the UC Berkeley repository. That database record indicates The Allderdice is in the collection of the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania at the University of Pittsburgh. Anyone may search its online catalog. Their database record for The Allderdice is here and note that volume 51 is in their collection.


 * I have also arranged with the librarian at the University of California at Berkeley to add The Allderdice 51 to the collection of the library of the Department of French. Anyone can access their online catalog, select "Comparative Literature," then log in as a guest to find the database record of The Allderdice 51, which is their record #4429. Contacts are available at both universities' web sites to arrange an interlibrary loan, a photocopy of desired excerpts, or any other assistance or verification the librarians can offer. Anyone may go to these libraries and freely view the original documents for themselves.


 * I received a note today from Neigel von Teighen that a very important matter has caused his current absence from WP. He says he anticipates returning by Sunday, so I request we suspend our activities related to this matter for a couple of days until he returns. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no rush. We don't have a deadline or a time limit that we have to adhere to for this mediation :)  I will consider things "on hold" until Neigel von Teighen returns but that is in no way a prohibition on further discussion between now and then - if Hiding (or anyone else for that matter) has comments they would like to make there is no reason to prevent them from doing so.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm back! (Bolded so anyone can see it)
 * 1) Hiding, how would the disputed point violate WP:NPOV? I just don't understand why do you say that.
 * 2) I have the impression, Hiding, that you're going too legalistic here and trying to use policy in a quiet abusive way, specially with WP:NOR; you say we interpret sources and that's againts the policy. But you are doing the same with the school's website when saying the Allderdice is done by students. What I want to say is the following, Hiding, you are misinterpreting NOR in a such extreme way that, following your criteria, no Wikipedia article would be possible, as any use of source implies a sort of interpretation.
 * 3) Policy is against inclusion of arguments that have no source. The inclusion of 0-0-0-Destruct-0 is just a description of a fact that is quite obvious: no one includes in a corporate publication something against the corporation itself.
 * 4) Do you agree with the idea (not the inclusion in the article) that the Foreword served the school and the community? If you do, you must then accept WP:IGNORE. --Neigel von Teighen 12:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In all fairness I reckon I've already described how I believe the edits violate WP:NPOV. I can't see the value in restating the arguments.  If we disagree on that, fine, let's perhaps move on for now. Regarding the matters you raise in your second point, I am aware that my summations breach policy, that was part of my point, I was building to a case that there are competing conclusions which can be drawn, therefore we draw neither. I refute completely your allegations regarding my interpretation of policy, and the assertion that I am abusing policy. Again, we can argue the toss or move on. On your fourth point, for what it is worth, I have no idea whether the school paper served the school and the community or not.  I also see no value in a debate of the meaning of WP:IAR and how to apply it at this time.  I would reckon we both have different interpretations of how to use it anyway.


 * It's the third point that is the meat of the matter for me. On your third point, you are incorrect. WP:NOR states An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.  Now I think that's quite clear.  Now, stating that "the school considered the Foreword to be 'Serving Allderdice High School and the community" is original research.  It involves analysing and synthesising a number of sources, explaining their meaning and interpreting or evaluating a number of things, not least the reproduction of a cover of the school paper in the yearbook. I think the arguments made above pretty much show that. A descriptive claim would be that "On page 74, the 1980 school yearbook, The Allderdice reprints a front page of the December 19, 1979 edition of the school newspaper, The Foreword."


 * Now, can we perhaps establish why it is so important for the article to state that "During the 1970's, the school considered the Foreword to be 'Serving Allderdice High School and the community,' stating that it reached more than 5000 readers," as opposed to "During the 1970s, the paper carried the motto 'Serving Allderdice High School and the community,' and claimed to reach more than 5,000 readers". What's the actual difference? What's the big picture - what is the end result this will have on the article?  Hiding Talk 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplifying the problem
Hiding asks a question in the previous section that I had actually intended to ask myself. So I will ask it again here in an attempt to simplify the problem and try to back down from the intense policy discussions.

There exists very little difference between the current statement in the article and the wording that 0-0-0-Destruct-0 would like to see. We basically have :


 * During the 1970's, the school considered the Foreword to be "Serving Allderdice High School and the community," stating that it reached more than 5000 readers. or
 * During the 1970s, the paper carried the motto "Serving Allderdice High School and the community," and claimed to reach more than 5,000 readers.

The same basic information is presented in both of these sentences. The only difference that I can see is that the first is an interpretation of the school's stance, while the second is a simple observation of the paper's motto. Regardless of policies and whether or not the statement is sourced, and regardless of what constitutes original research, I think there is a much simpler question at hand. What advantage does the first version of the above statement have over the second, and what new encyclopedic information does it present to the reader that is absent in the second version?  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The second version presents the bare existence of a motto. Encyclopedically, the first version is preferable because the school's endorsement of that motto provides the more incisive information of how The Foreword fits into the community, how others see it, its journalistic reputation, etc. For example, relevant and included in the section on The Foreword is Columbia University's recognition of its superior journalistic performance. That the school sees the student newspaper as serving the community and not just an incidental by-product of an academic course or an underground operation to be disavowed is part of what distinguishes The Foreword from other school newspapers; it speaks to the paper's advertising, as cited in the second half of the sentence, that it reaches more than 5000 readers, which number is significantly beyond the school's campus population. It also tells us something of how importantly the school views the purpose of its program and courses in journalism. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me present a scenario to you based on the opinions I have heard thus far. Your claim seems to be based on the following facts:
 * According to the Worldcat database, The Allderdice is corporately published by the school rather than individually authored by the students.
 * Corporate authorship implies an endorsement of the published material by the corporate author.
 * The Allderdice 51 reprinted one or more pages from The Foreward, including the page displaying the paper's motto.
 * These facts, which are verifiable and sourced, are used to support a concluding statement:
 * The information republished by The Allderdice 51 constitutes an official endorsement of the republished material.
 * While as a moderator it is not my place to pass judgement on either side of the argument, I must confess that Hiding presents a compelling argument that this conclusion based on the previous evidence does indeed constitute a synthesis of published material. To that end, here is a similar scenario that I would like you to consider:
 * In 1995 the Unabomber authored his Manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future. The full text of this manifesto is available on wikisource.  This manifesto was republished, in part or in full, by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the US Justice Department.
 * I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue the inclusion of an anarchist manifesto in corporately authored documents of the US Justice Department constitute an endorsement of the manifesto, in part or in whole. It is equally difficult to argue that either The New York Times, The Washington Post or the Wikimedia Foundation endorse the content of the manifesto.  Nevertheless, by the reasoning used above that a reprint of written materials is the same as an official endorsement, one would come to that conclusion.  While the circumstances are vastly different, I do find it difficult to justify the same argument here - without a statement to the contrary, we cannot assume that the reprinting of material from The Foreward constitutes an endorsement of that content by the corporate authors of The Allderdice.  Again I have to pose the question - what are we trying to tell the readers of this article by asserting that the school endorses the newspaper's motto, and even adopts it as an official stance?   Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow the argument you're making. I'm concerned that arguing it via your analogy will lead us into a lengthy discussion of the status of the Unabomber's text. But can you clarify whether or not the newspapers and institutions you say published the Unabomber's manifesto clearly attributed that manifesto as a contribution from Ted Kaczynski with his own by-line or other indicator of separate authorship? Wasn't the newspapers' publication of the manifesto negotiated as a condition of Kaczynski's plea deal and a payback to him in exchange for his confession? Are you arguing that we must view the relationship of The Allderdice to its content the same way as a newspaper's publisher/columnist relationship? The school's administration is also publisher of The Foreword--what, then, would you argue is the school administration's relationship to the paper's motto, which stands outside all by-lines? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider this more apt scenario. The issue of The New York Times that published the Unabomber's manifesto bore the motto "All the news that's fit to print." This sources that The New York Times Company considers that issue of its paper all the news that's fit to print. Suppose, in addition, that The New York Times Magazine (or, if you prefer, one of those compendia of images of front pages from The New York Times that The New York Times Company produces and sells) reproduces a front page from The New York Times along with its well-known motto. That also sources that The New York Times Company considers The New York Times all the news that's fit to print. It does not source The New York Times Company's endorsement of any of its credited contributors, whether Carl Bernstein or Ted Kaczynski. All parties to this mediation have stipulated, for now, that the school, as corporate author of The Foreword, doesn't necessarily endorse all its authors' content. Whether the school, as corporate author of The Allderdice, necessarily endorses all the content of The Foreword it reproduces under a named author's by-line is interesting, but moot: I don't refer to such attributed content, only the motto of The Foreword the corporate author publishes in The Allderdice 51. Interestingly, Taylor Allderdice High School and the Pittsburgh Board of Education expressly take full responsibility for content of The Foreword it currently displays on its web site. This supports the more plausible scenario that the school, which legally must always be acting in loco parentis, takes. always has taken, and is legally compelled to take full responsibility for all the content the child authors in their charge produce under the school's auspices. As the Supreme Court has stated, "First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." The item of WP content I'm currently arguing for relies, however, on much more limited and modest claims. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 04:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire purpose of my example was to illustrate the point that reproduced content is not generally to be interpreted as being an endorsement of said content. In any case there's been a lot of "lawyering" going on in this issue, both in terms of Wikipedia policies as well as real-world legal definitions.  I'm somewhat regretting bringing up that example as it seems to be fomenting more of the same.
 * What I am hoping for is not to simply say one side of the debate is more correct than the other, but rather to try and get everyone to see eye to eye and come to a mutually satisfactory agreement on the issue. The simplest method, in my opinion, to determining if something is original research or not is to ask yourself a question - Is the information presented explicit and clear in the sources given?  If the point being made is merely implied by the sources and requires explanation, there is a decent chance that it is, indeed, OR.
 * Is it important to state that the school expressly endorses the motto of The Foreward? Is it possible to do so without relying on implied information?  And finally, is there some more succinct, clear and direct way of making the point you are attempting to make without asserting that the school adopts the position of The Foreward as its own?  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't indicate what you thought of my scenario of The New York Times Company's relation to its newspaper's motto, though I think the analogy is fitting. If we now disregard the other supporting facts of U.S. law I just provided sources for, the question comes down to whether or not a corporate author endorses his own content. Common sense dictates yes, but even more so in the case of Taylor Allderdice High School because common sense dictates that schools act in the parents' place and exercise complete control over the content their children produce and publish under their imprimatur, as in the case of The Foreword. To simplify the debate and the mediation, and as requested, I have indicated a very specific, focused, small change of content and have adduced more than abundant justification for this one small change. After a perusal of the pertinent issues of The Foreword not only does common sense indicate the school considers that The Foreword serves Allderdice High School and the community, but out of all the content from The Foreword the school might have chosen to reproduce, it chose to reproduce--thus explicitly endorses--the statement that The Foreword serves the school and community. It's interesting and distinctive that the school thinks so highly of its newspaper that it says so in other publications. Columbia University has also repeatedly recognized the superior achievement of The Foreword and it would be strange to exclude the same recognition when the school's administration itself publishes it. The answers to your questions are: yes, the information is explicit and clear in the sources given; yes, it is important to include this information; yes, it is possible to avoid implied information: The Allderdice 51 is explicit, not implicit, as is, in fact The Foreword itself, which is entirely the administration's responsibility, though my argument here doesn't rely on that fact; and no, there is no more succinct way to say "the school considered the Foreword to be "Serving Allderdice High School and the community,'" which consists of 14 words compared to the 13 in Hiding's phrase. I appreciate the many questions you've asked me to assist me to clarify my position. Perhaps, at some point, Hiding would also appreciate the same kinds of questions. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Arkyan, sincerely, I'd like to ask you if you think we can treat newspapers and school publications in the same way. Shouldn't the goal of both be also considered before comparing them? I mean, a school publishes a yearbook and includes whatever it's considered as important and good to show. It is not intended to be impartial. In the other hand, newspapers are supposed to be neutral and to show facts, so whatever they publish means no endorsement. Thoughts? --Neigel von Teighen 10:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in saying that a school yearbook is treated differently than a newspaper in that it is something that is not intended to be impartial, and rather the contrary - they are designed to try and include content that is promotional, supportive of the school, and uplifting. I also agree, in concept, that a newspaper is supposed to be factual and neutral and thus shy away from any sense of endorsement of republished content.  The problem is we are still implying facts in order to reach this conclusion, by making the assumption that The Allderdice is like any other average school yearbook, and it's exactly that assumption that was discarded when Hiding made it.  That is the problem we have been having here, a reliance on assumptions or implied information.  I have to apologize if it seems like my questioning has largely been focused on 0-0-0-Destruct-0, but it's my opinion that Hiding's position, based on the arguments presented, has been the stronger.  More to the point, I have been making these questions in an attempt to find an angle of approach for a solution.  The attempts haven't been as productive as I would like but I am willing to offer some direction as far as a solution and will do so below.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for moving toward a solution
The goal of moderation is not for me to decide which side is correct and which side is wrong, I am not here to pick winners and losers. My questions and comments thus far have been made in an attempt to drive the discussion toward some kind of conclusion where all participants can be pleased with the outcome. In a perfect world the solution would present itself, but that's not a perfect world - so instead I will offer some ideas.

Based on the arguments and discussion made so far, I must say that I feel Hiding has made the stronger case. His arguments have been made more firmly based on policy, and his wording of the disputed content does not require any additional explanation or interpretation of the sources. Restating the school newspaper's motto is a clear statement of fact, as it is purely observational. The other wording, asserting what the school "considers" or not, is more confusing in that it requires the reader to interperet the source material, requires an explanation, and moreover the phrase is gramatically hindered - it feels forced and contrived.

Nevertheless I do not believe we have to outright discount 0-0-0-Destruct-0's ideas or position. If I understand his statements correctly, his contributions are made in a desire to communicate to the reader that The Foreward is more than just a "typical student newspaper". This may be the case. He has pointed out that the paper has recieved some kind of accolades or other recognition from Columbia University, and that's great. I have not fully reviewed that information, but if it is sourced and relevant then including that information is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Furthermore, if other sources - independent of the newspaper and the school - can be found to support the idea that the paper has recieved recognition for "superior journalistic performance", then by all means add them in.

However I feel it is unecessary to include the statement about whether the school "considers the paper to be serving the community". There is dispute over whether that fact is adequately sourced. I put forward the idea that even it if it was overwhelmingly evident in the form of clear sources, it would be irrelevant to the point. It is generally understood that an academic institution will be supportive of its own student paper. In fact, using one school publication in an attempt to prove any kind of special status or recognition for another school publication is flawed in that it is not a reliable, independent source. Consider for example, the statements "According to the newspaper, it had a readership of 5000 people" and "According to the school, the newspaper had a readership of 5000". Neither of these is more factual or authoratative than the other, and both convey the same information. If, as it has been asserted, The Foreward is also a corporate publication of the high school and, as has been asserted, the school endorses the content of the paper, then in statements like these the terms "School" and "Newspaper" are practically interchangeable. All that is accomplished by attributing a statement the paper made to the school is an attempt to make the statement appear more authoratative than it was to begin with, but this additional layer of authority is fictitious.

In short - I propose that the specific line in question, regarding the paper's motto, stick to Hiding's wording in making it clear that it is indeed the newspaper's motto and not, by implied extension, an official school stance. The statement about the readership numbers can go either way - whether it be "according to the school" or "according to the paper", the net effect is the same, although in this case the latter is preferable as it again is a simple observational fact and requires no additional interpretation. Finally, any sources independent of Taylor Allderdice High School that provide evidence for the paper's journalistic excellence should be included and expanded upon to provide an unrelated, secondary source for this claim. Thoughts?  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your analysis and suggestion, Arkyan, I'd like to take it and move on as you suggest. All I have ever asked for is an impartial outside opinion, and from the start I made clear to my AMA that I only wanted him to advocate a case he first impartially agreed was sound. Neigel von Teighen has now indicated to me his opinion of the strength of your argument. I myself agree with your analysis to an extent that allows me to abandon my suggested alteration with a clear conscience.


 * Thank you for giving us your time, and please continue to feel free to ask me as many questions as necessary to best do your job. It was only your Ted Kaczynski/New York Times analogy that I thought was off kilter. Please stay with us because, from the start of this mediation, I have felt we are finally making progress, and we still have a ways to go. I'd like to see you stay on to mediate the following item: Mediator note : following item has been broken off into the next section.