Talk:Allynwood Academy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stating the name of the source in the article text...

Sinneed: Why is it necessary to name the Daily Star in the text of the article, when no other sources in the article are identified by name in the text of the article, in sections outside Activism Against? My concerns are editorial, because doing so IMO, is both unduly wordy and unnecessary, when the source is properly identified and cited in the reference, and I was the one to create the reference as presently used, in the first place. Stating that I've repreatedly removed it is factually incorrect, while claiming to know what I WP:LIKE in the edit summary sounds like your focusing on the editor (me) rather than the content. Given your repeated admonitions against such behavior, I'll thank you in advance to not do that again. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 10:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"necessary" - not. Value: This is a web site... weaker than a paper reference. I observe that the Sun was named previously (no idea if it is there now, and I suspect I added it). A great many readers will value, say, a Washington Post article over a CNN.com report. Or the reverse. It is valuable. It is not required (in some sense almost nothing in WP is required), though as I recall there were quotes, and to stay within wp:QUOTE generally one directly identifies the source of the quote.

repeatedly - I defer to your memory, but it does disagree with mine.

wp:LIKE - no objection given other than personal preference. One can argue that I like giving sources explicitly, and that is correct. In this case, though, beyond liking it: wp:QUOTE, factual, relevant, covered by the source.- Sinneed 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd see your point a lot better, if this were an Internet-only newspaper...but it's not (note the home delivery section), or if any of the other 30-or-so references currently in the article were predominantly paper vs. website. Surely you're not suggesting that for every WP:RS citation that comes from a website, it's necessary to include "according to StrugglingTeens.com," or "according to FamilyLight," or "according to Peterson's Educational Guide," etc. Respectfully, the argument doesn't fit the conditions. So again, why here and nowhere else?

I'd also see your point on wp:LIKE a lot better if you didn't ascribe the accusations to me, the editor (e.g. "I know you don't like...," which again was in error). It was not about content, but it's not worth an argument...just saying that I felt you crossed the line that you've stood firm against the rest of us for crossing; it frankly came as something of a surprise, coming from you.

Bygones. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I find this whole section of the article annoying. One of my several concerns about it is that I think the focus on identifying the source of the information (whether identified as "thedailystar.com" or "The Daily Star (Oneonta, New York)") is inappropriate. The focus of the discussion should be on the fact that CAFETY has been conducting a campaign against the school, not on who reported that CAFETY had mailed letters of criticism to area residents (nor how many letters were mailed).

As for how the source is identified, my vote is for "The Daily Star (Oneonta, New York)" in the reference citation and "a local newspaper" in the text. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts, Orlady. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also, for the cleanup of my work. It reads much better. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 01:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be guided in this by Orlady... much more experience with much better output than I.- Sinneed 01:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting these recommendations correctly (and edit based on them), this will significantly shorten the length and content of this section. I don't have a problem with that, but there will almost certainly be an outcry, a new edit war, and accusations of bias over it. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 14:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say: I called it. Predictable. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I had some time, so I took a stab at it. As always, if what I did is in any way out of line, please edit mercilessly ;-) Question: would the congressional hearings also count as activism against the school? If so, would it not make more sense to combine the sections?

NO, keep the sections separate, congressional hearings is completely different than activism. Flyboi9 (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding the use of the FFS acronym

It had not occurred to me before I'd seen this, that FFS has evidently developed an alternate meaning in Internet slang. I doubt the school will be changing its name (like the Wisconsin Tourism Federation did [1]). But in the interest of avoiding unintentional offense, I think it's probably wise to remove the acronym from the article and avoid using it in discussions. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Biased Article...not neutral

The recent edits have proved many other editors beliefs that this article is NOT neutral. The other editors seem to have given up on this article since Wikiwag and Orlady continually delete their edits. I am really taken back that the content of this article is only the positive and information that the school releases but all the other RELEVANT and RELIABLE information is being removed. I think this article needs to have neutrality tags on pretty much every section. The children do not all live in dormitories, but rather some of the students still live in trailers. The school's program is anything but therapeutic. Since when is a 12-step program therapeutic? Its to recover from drugs and alcohol but the school openly admits that they are a SCHOOL and not a TREATMENT FACILITY. The school has no mental health licensure or other addiction treatment center licenses, therefore all the references to the treatment should be removed. All the activism content was removed and I am really appalled at the recent edits. I am about to give up on keeping this article neutral and true. There is obviously at least one editor who has some affiliation to the school, but I know this will be discredited because we are focusing on the content but the content is not NEUTRAL...POV FLAGS ON THE ENTIRE ARTICLE This makes me really upset that the article cannot maintain some sort of neutrality. Flyboi9 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• What specific information that meets wp:V needs to be added? I have not checked the edits in detail (smarting a bit from a few verbal smacks on the head atmo).
• I would encourage you to avoid all caps. It will damage your credibility... and wp runs on wp:consensus, which is all about credibility and communication.
• Also to always avoid editing when angry. I try not to even read an article when angry, it colors my perceptions.
• "treatment" - remove all? So, since no one has been convicted of abuse, we should remove all mention of abuse? Even the testimony? I would not support either such extreme. I can treat a cut, bruise, sprain, mild headache, but am in no way a medical person, just an individual with access to first aid supplies. Thus, I can't see how removing references to treatment would be reasonable. Is there a specific use you don't think is reasonable?
• Why are the trailers not OK as dorms?
• Tags on every section: The article is now wearing a POV flag, that should adequately cover it, I should think. (not an expert on this). Overtagging (see Sikh extremism for a ridiculous example) just uglies the article up without encouraging anyone to help fix it, and without providing any useful warning to a reader stumbling upon the article.- Sinneed 05:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to upset you Flyboi9. The article has been edited to a degree of neutrality that is consistent with the available WP:RS, which happen to contain more data in support of the school than in opposition. There is no fault in that...it is simply the reality of the situation, at this time. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom croke's other source in the article

Since all the editors are calling Tom Croke's article not a reliable source, I am also disputing the section that has the citation 2, from Tom Croke's Familylight article on the school's staff. This is not a reliable source according to the other editors so I think this area needs to be removed. Flyboi9 (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you read above, a *VERY* experienced editor made note of this usage and proposed it for discussion. I seem to recall you did not join in. Reading up on the usage of sources might help. I support using the Croke source within reasonable limits... carefully.
• Which specific information do you think should not be included?- Sinneed 05:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Flyboi9, you opened the door to using both Croke and Argiros as WP:RS, vigorously supported it, and edited based on the content of both. WP does not allow one to pick-and-choose what from an agreed RS is acceptable in an article, only that it's verifiable from a RS; in other words, an editor cannot decide to use only the negative information from a source to the exclusion of the positive, and rightly call it WP:NPOV. It's frankly a little late to cry foul, when we're all drawing from the same sources that we've agreed are reliable. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• While I agree that since FB argued this was a good source, it is difficult to take the new argument seriously, "WP does not allow one to pick-and-choose what from an agreed RS is acceptable in an article" isn't quite true. wp:SELFPUB sources especially can be used only very very carefully. The school can be accepted as an expert on itself... within limits. Croke can be accepted as an expert on schools, in that if Croke goes and checks the school and says it is a school, has a facility at x location, has y services... I would believe him, based on his notability. But opinion... say, suppose he were to say the food was good... not so much. Finding of fact vs. opinion about fact. Just for example.- Sinneed 17:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

At the same time, an editor can not select only the positive information from a source and rightly call it neutral as well. This is the complaint Flyboi9 is making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• And FB has not responded with what facts are being left out that are covered by the source. And please. Log in. And please. Sign posts. And please follow indention so we can tell who said what.- Sinneed 17:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, aside from the blog by R. Argiros, there is no legal evidence, or evidence at all, that any members of the school were ever really "foster parents." They may have housed kids at the school, but there is no proof at all that they did not simply pick up stray students. This is far from being legal foster parents. Entire section calling them foster parents should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Croke states that they were foster parents before they started the school. That particular fact is not sourced to the blog. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I should think that would fall within proper use of wp:SELFPUB source. Is there some reason to remove it other than "no proof"? If we were to go with "no proof", again: we would need to kill off virtually every negative in the article, and that I would not support either.- Sinneed 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That particular fact is sourced to Tom Croke's description of the school, not the blog, so it isn't a "selfpub" issue. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I confess that I don't understand that. :) I'll study the source, and the documents and if I can't figure it out I'll ask. I see his notability, but I don't understand how wp:SELFPUB doesn't apply. No worries, I certainly accept your judgement on this (I don't think I have yet disagreed with you and been right, so...), I'll either figure it out or come up with a useful question. I hope.- Sinneed 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but where does a history from the school, through a write up of a third party, show that the school was ever a legal foster care home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not an legal adjudication process to determine whether the Argiroses complied with New York state law regarding foster parents. Mr. Croke is an independent third party who apparently has visited the school multiple times over a period of years, and has accepted and disseminated the information that the Argiroses started out as foster parents. That's a good enough basis for including the information in the Wikipedia article. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. If you intend to sue the Argiroses for taking in foster children without a license, I won't stand in your way (but you would be a fool to try to use any Wikipedia article as legal evidence). --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed: Thanks for the clarification on WP:SELFPUB. I understand much better, now.

Mr. IP Address: If you care to check my edit history on this article, you'll note that I have done my own fair bit of work on the sections critical of the school, improving on the syntax and content submitted by other editors. Granted, I haven't done as much lately, as it seems to me that the school's detractors don't really need my help that much. Kindly consider me as a moderating counterpoint, who sincerely tries very hard to work within the accepted rules and guidelines. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I did fight rigorously for Croke's article to be included in the Program section in regards to Rita Argiros' article. If it is being removed from the Program section, it should also be removed from the other section as well. I am reverting the Program section to what it was after Orlady edited it. I believe her edits are respected and believe that Wikiwag made too many unjust edits to the article, including as much positive material as possible, and omitting almost every piece of negative mention of the school. That is unacceptable and not keeping the article neutral, keeping the POV of the article to that of the school's administration. The Activism section is also unacceptable in the edits. Saying "CAFETY disputes..." is not accurate and does not explain why CAFETY is disputing that, taking away from the section. This section is also being reverted to Orlady's previous edit that was accepted by Orlady, Sinneed and myself. For wikiwag to come and edit everything is definitely not moderating, but doing what he/she sees fit for wikiwags POV. Unacceptable and not in wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Also just a side note, lets not put off the "IP ADDRESS" editor, some people are not sure how wikipedia works and want their view to be heard, and that is respectable. Flyboi9 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyboi9: the edits you made are not in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS. I have reverted them to their prior state, as previously accepted by Sinneed and Orlady. Please take care not to accuse other editors acting in good faith of WP:VANDAL - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 11:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• To be clear, I do not support the reversion you made, Wikiwag, though I think your version is better that what you reverted out. I am waiting until I am not angry to thoroughly study the current and previous states.
• I encourage both of you to propose compromise thinking along the lines of "If I don't wp:revert, what can I do instead to meet the criticism of the opposing editor?" - but that is just my thinking.
• Flyboi, I encourage you to consider wp:AGF and remember that just because you don't wp:LIKE something does not make it incorrect and certainly does not make it vandalism. It is far better to cite WP guidelines or essays rather than making other comments.- Sinneed 14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• "If it is being removed from the Program section, it should also be removed from the other section as well" - This is not a horse trade and it is not a prisoner exchange. "if you do x then you should do y" is a bad argument, which will only cause conflict. If you argue against a source, make the argument. If you argue for the source, make the argument. If a source is an expert on medicine, and gives an opinion on astrology, the astrology usage would be no good, and the medicine usage *might* be good.- Sinneed 14:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I apologize for overstating it, then. What would you like to see changed? I am willing and able to compromise. To be clear, it was not I that opted for reverting over achieving consensus. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not an attack on other editors, but obviously english is not your first language. When did I accuse anyone of vandalism? Another editor on the date stated on the reversion wrote in their comment that they changed that section because of BLP or VANDALISM...I was in no way calling any editor a vandal...this is what the UNSIGNED EDITOR wrtoe "(cur) (prev) 16:08, 24 December 2009 68.172.217.182 (talk) (15,686 bytes) (→Program) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)" and they changed the program section. No explanation on the talk page for it. I wrote why I reverted the section. I explained it on this talk page and I wrote "revert from edit by unsigned editor who cited BLP or VANDALISM?!? on 12/24/2009)" as the explanation on the edit. It does not accuse anyone of it besides the unsigned editor who made an edit themselves because THEY were accusing someone of vandal. This is getting absolutely ridiculous that anytime I write something, it is taken the complete wrong way. As sinneed says, "Focus on the content" not the editor.

Anyway, the sections need to be the way they were, the current section is not ok and I believe that wikiwag is not a neutral editor. Does wikipedia have any editors we can call upon who are not bias in this article. Throughout all the archived talk pages I have read, I truly believe that we need another "moderator" besides wikiwag because all the undoing the reverts I made are unacceptable. I also took a look at his talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikiwag) and he is clearly joking about working for one of The Family Foundation School's affiliates, showing clear bias if true. Flyboi9 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyboi: Orlady and Sinneed are unbiased and highly-experienced editors, but you're likely not going to win any points by insulting anyone...if Sinneed were inclined to, he could call you out for your "obviously english is not your first language" comment as evidence of your violation of WP:CIVIL, which can lead to WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN. As I said above, you may consider me a counterpoint to your own, obvious bias; I'm happy to follow the leads of both SInneed and Orlady, even when I disagree with them, because I respect what they represent. Moreover, everyone here is well aware of the content of my talk page, and I have never joked about anything having to do with my edits on this article. Focus on the content. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to any editor individually, wikiwag, and the reason I said that is because everything that I bring up on here is misconstrued and taken as an insult or completely different to what I am saying, like the above on the whole vandalism thing. I actually end up coming to a clear consensus with Sinneed on many of the issues on this talk page and respect him as an editor, but do not respect editors who are not focusing on the content that I have and rather one tiny little thing, like the vandalism thing, or as above you focusing on the four words instead of the content of what I wrote. Focus on the content. Lets stay neutral and not biased. (sinneed that was not a comment towards you, or any other individual editor for that matter, it was just an expression of how all my talk page stuff is continually getting misconstrued, and that is not fair) Thanks Flyboi9 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bygones. For the record, that kind of statement is not wp:civil and is a wp:pa. FYI: English is my first language, and among the reasons I do not edit the German, Spanish or French editions of Wikipedia. While I can speak those languages enough to get by in conversation, I am not what I would consider fluent.

With that stated, I have serious issues with your additions to the Program section, for the reasons I've detailed below. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just to let you know I have very strong problems with articles that are not neutral, and I have continually felt with this article that editors are trying to "keep it clean", and have a feeling that an editor or two may have some kind of ties to the school, but it doesn't matter if they do or don't, what matters is that the article is neutral, which it is not when any type of negative information that is added is removed for some out of this world, explanation. I responded to why the edits in program are necessary, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboi9 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Ok, just to let you know I have very strong problems with articles that are not neutral" you've only ever edited two articles, so let us not pretend that there's some higher calling. you are here for this article and CAFETY, only.
• "what matters is that the article is neutral" I couldn't agree more. But wp:npov does not mean an equal amount of content in criticism. It means a proportion, no unpublished synthesis and no original research. As I've detailed below, your edits to the Program section fail both tests.
• "any type of negative information that is added is removed for some out of this world, explanation." just because you don't WP:LIKE the explanation, doesn't make it "out of this world." It also doesn't give you the right to wp: edit war. Continued reinsertion of fatally-flawed content will not prevail.
• Please sign your posts - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Template usage

Regarding the templates at the top and throughout the article:

• Have we addressed the WP:SYNTH issue? The edits attempting to combine Argiros and sex/guilting with Croke's source are no longer on the article;
• Have we addressed the issue of WP:NPOV, being defined as: "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"?
• The Template:POV-check seems superfluous as I interpret its use, since we have been discussing the neutrality of the article in various conversations, literally for years.

Regarding the templates in Family_Foundation_School#Program and Family_Foundation_School#Activism_against:

• I'll defer to neutral editors Sinneed and Orlady. It seems we need to continue to work on them to achieve a compromise, apart from the reverts here and here. I think they should probably stay for the time being... - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To your points,

1. Argiros and Croke's article need to be included, by continually removing my edits to include this show extreme bias and non-neutrality, you are not explaining why it should not be inlcuded.

2. the information in this article is NOT AT ALL being represented fairly, protportionately, and shows clear bias. This is not going to change and the tag needs to stay because you are only taking input from two editors, showing clear bias towards editors, isnt that against WP guidelines?

3. The POV check needs to stay, because we need a neutral POV since the current moderator is bias and is not keeping necessary information in the article.

4. Both the program and activism tags need to stay until the "moderator" is willing to not revert edits made my editors to keep that section clear, understandable, and not bias.

This is getting ridiculous how bias this is and the current, self imposed "moderator", has clear bias as seen in the talk pages, edits, and on his editor talk page. Flyboi9 (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyboi: I don't know how you've drawn the conclusion that I'm holding myself out as a "moderator." I'm just an editor, like you. I'll be interested to see what the others have to say. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Program section debate

Alright, I'm not about to get caught up in an WP:Edit War. So, I need someone to explain to me how discussions of masturbation and sex have anything to do with an encyclopedic description of the school's program.

Moreover, the quote "In the past, people who had particular problems that are sometimes associated with sex problems were often judged to have sex problems even though they denied it...That does not happen now — it hasn’t for a while. It was wrong. It placed students in a very frustrating position. It eroded trust and caused many other negative emotions. However, more subtle forms of absolutism are still present," is grossly taken out of context. The source expressly states that it's the students themselves that do this out of a misguided purity motive; it's not the faculty. This is brazen WP:SYNTH and should be removed. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is necessary, can you show me any other WP article or any other article for that matter where a school, not a treatment facility, presses students and makes the culture of the school so harsh that students assume there is a no-masturbation policy. Being that I have spoken to over 100 former students of the school over the past five years, it is clear that the school even addressing masturbation is something worth noting. It is a normal teenager behavior to masturbate and a school even addressing this issue in front of staff and students involves the staff. The quote is not taken out of context. Can you propose another wording for that quote? That is from the Family School owner's own posting, right from the source itself. It is not a normal "school" practice to even consider discussing masturbation with students, for any reason...leave that to a therapist. I hope you can understand the importance of this section. Flyboi9 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This argument is irrelevant. It's still wp:synth, and Sinneed, an editor you claim to respect, has stated no fewer than five times that this is an unpublished synthesis on both the points of discussion of sex and masturbation, as well as Tony Argiros' supposed homophobia...yet you persist in re-adding it. Your representation of the content of your source is misleading and factually incorrect. Cases in point:

• “It is not necessary to intervene in normal, healthy, safe behavior. It is necessary, however, to intervene in any behaviors that are so excessive or compulsive that the behavior places the adolescent at risk for harm, or interferes with their healthy and normal functioning and development.“

• "masturbation was natural—like eating and sleeping. [Tony Argiros] saw no reason not to talk about it."

• "[students] were asked to reflect on what they thought FFS stood for regarding sex and masturbation, what was practiced in their particular house."

• "adults do not discuss masturbation with students in public"

• "[some students] use sex for power."

• "In some cases, the student’s [overt sexual] behavior has ruptured or damaged relationships. Then [the school does] have the necessary and frank discussion of the issue with the relevant parties. Nobody is shamed. [The school is] careful to manage these groups with the utmost sensitivity."

• "On the negative side—[Rita] found places in the school culture where peer culture is still has coercive elements..."

and its from this section, in the context of peer pressure, that the quotes inserted into the Program section are pulled:

• "...In the past, people who had particular problems that are sometimes associated with sex problems were often judged to have sex problems even though they denied it. For example, if a boy was really sleepy and tired day after day, the assumption would be made that he was losing sleep masturbating when he might be depressed or over-medicated. That does not happen now—it hasn’t for a while. It was wrong. It placed students in a very frustrating position. It eroded trust and caused many other negative emotions. However, more subtle forms of absolutism are still present. In many of the dorms boys are still getting together at night and making commitments to be pure (to refrain from masturbation). Students do not feel really free to decline although no external consequences would befall them. What my student informants tell me is that the ritual is sterile. A few students are serious. Others lie. Among those who lie, fewer today feel guilty. Most feel justified. Most of us do are pretty open in our position that masturbation isn’t always a problem. Consequently, students have the cultural space to express mainstream views."

to continue...

• "In addition, some students still make purity pledges when they go out on overnight visits. That’s Ok if the individual student is voluntarily practicing a period of restraint. But according to student reports sometimes old practices will re-appear. Kids make commitments before they go out on a home visit to avoid old friends, not to smoke, not to do drugs and, at the very end, they throw in “to be pure.”

• "I found that many people in the school think there is a rule that we don’t masturbate. Neither my sister, my brother or myself, or any of our spouses or anyone in the counseling department believe this is a rule. So called rules just have a way of springing to life—or in this case repeatedly resurrecting themselves like count Dracula. We have been teaching a much more nuanced message about sex for several years now but it’s clear more needs to be done. Black and white thinking is a characteristic of many of our students. They think in rules."

• "We say no drugs, no alcohol, no smoking at the school. But our kids take that to extremes sometimes. They get the idea that we believe that all alcohol and drug use is wrong and that any student who ever got high and then got into trouble is an addict. That’s not our position. Abstinence from drugs and/or alcohol can be a smart choice for people with tendencies toward chemical dependency—at least consider it. That is our message."

• "FFS also teaches that loving relationships are wonderful."

• "There is a strong message at the school against casual sex."

On balance, it certainly seems to me that what I wrote is an awful lot closer to the spirit of this posting, and to an encyclopedic entry about the school's overall program, than an arguably puerile, objectively dishonest and misleading cross section of the original source, which pulls quotes to infer opinions and actions that simply do not exist. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And to put a fine point on it: the public school I went to discussed masturbation in health class. The Catholic School a friend's teenage son goes to discusses masturbation in religion class as being wrong, and my own teenage son who goes to a local private school, has discussions of sex and masturbation in his health class. So you show me any responsible school that does not discuss the subject, and I'll concede the point. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but you are talking abou health class, this is a therapeutic community that they are using it to humiliate and chastise kids in a primarily catholic school, but has students of all denominations. This should not be openly discussed to shame the students, but to teach what its used for. At 16 years old, a student who masturbates should not be called out for masturbating. In health class, they learn about it, they don't shame it. If there is substance in a rework of the program section, I will agree, but one sentence cannot sum up all of Argiros' article. Flyboi9 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Show me where in the source, it says that anybody but the students were (or are) involved in shaming/guilting, and I'll concede the point. On the contrary, the source expressly states that the topics of masturbation and sex are discussed only in very specific circumstances: either when a student volunteers it or when sex is abused by a student (or students) as a power play. This is what is meant when the other editors here write that the implications in this edit you're trying to push amount to an unpublished synthesis; this is not allowed on WP. There's also the distinction that when discussing this particular school, we are also talking about both an academic institution, as well as a JACHO-accredited behavioral health facility, where the counsellors are mandated to forestall negative and ultimately self-destructive behaviors. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the JACHO accreditation means absolutely nothing in this context being JACHO is a private organization, private organizations are interested in...well money...there is no regulation federally on these facilities. Why didn't Family School apply to become a mental health treatment center with the state of New york? You can figure out the truth about that. Masturbation in a school that believes in the four absolutes, which includes purity, does not approve of masturbation, has nothing to do with a destructive behavior. Come on...its 2010 Flyboi9 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about, if your basis for questioning the credibility of JACHO accreditation is that they charge for the cost of the survey, and that all of these institution's status is rendered irrelevant as a result. I somehow think that MGH, Brigham & Women's, Tufts, Johns Hopkins, UMC, and The Mayo Clinic would beg to differ. That's the company that the school is in; I'm sure it's not easy to achieve this status, especially in the company of such giants in the medical community. Are you seriously suggesting that if a giant organization like MGH couldn't simply buy its way in, that a tiny facility like the Family Foundation School could? Really!?

But all that's beside the point that nothing you've said effectively undercuts the issues I've raised with your edit: it's misleading, factually inaccurate and an unpublished synthesis. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in no way trying to accuse JACHO of taking money but FFS is a school, by their own admission, so if they are a health facility, why are they not licensed? Because they would not be able to continue their practices which are based from an abusive culture because they would be more regulated. JACHO doesn't mean too much to me, especially with the masturbation thing. Flyboi9 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...but you are frankly all over the map with your reasoning: you assert a premise, only to back away from it on rebuttal. Your arguments wither under the scrutiny of details, and I find it extraordinarily interesting that you seem to be evading the challenges that I put to you.

Obviously you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the mental and behavioral health care system works in New York State. Fact: in New York State, facilities are not licensed; people are. This renders your question "if they are a health facility, why are they not licensed?" totally baseless and completely without merit; there are many people on staff at the school with degrees in psychology (most with Ph.D's): Jeff Brain, Mark Vogel, Rita Argiros, Sidney Parham, Ann Janauer, Charles Moss, and Ivan Fras. There are many private practices with fewer practitioners on staff, yet they are qualified to treat people and don't carry JACHO accreditation.

So again: all that's beside the point that nothing you've said effectively undercuts the issues I've raised with your edit: that it's misleading, factually inaccurate and an unpublished synthesis of the sources you've cited. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 01:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To put a fine point on it, abandon the wp:synth and we might be able to find consensus. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 01:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fact check...Moss doesn't work at the school and hasn't in over 2 years. Fras never steps foot on site either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, then. But that does nothing to address the major issues with the edit as it presently stands. I'll be removing the unpublished synthesis and, since an impartial editor that both Flyboi and I respect has stated "I think your version is better that what you reverted out," it will go back to what I had written and we can go from there. I'll concede it's not perfect, but it at least more accurately conveys what's in the source without the wp:synth problem. I'll ask that this please not turn into an edit war. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not nuts about it, but I tried to give this a constructive rewrite that accurately portrays the spirit of the source. I agree that it's important to discuss how the school's program and its culture deal with certain behaviors. I'm just not sure this is the right source, because of the dominant discussion of sex and masturbation in the source article. So have at it, and please be constructive. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am semi-okay with the wording of your section about the sex thing. I fixed a few things and will take another crack at it after thinking it over. It is really important that the section includes that masturbation is made to be a bad thing by the administration at the school, its a private issue that should stay that way and staff should not be intervening in a private issue like that, especially when its in an open, mixed-sex forum. That tells a lot about this facility and is essential to the content of the encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboi9 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sincerely glad that we can actually work together. Though I disagree with your statement that "masturbation is made to be a bad thing by the administration at the school," when the opposite is stated in the source. Also, your addition the edit is beginning to weight an encyclopedic profile of the program to a discussion of masturbation, when it's a minor issue on the spectrum of the program. According to the source is handled discreetly, except in very specific circumstances. The reader can draw their own conclusions from the facts and their own reading, without implying something that's not true. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Masturbation discussion

I edited the paragraph to be more concise. But honestly, I'm really bothered by this being presented in the context of the school's program. Please explain what makes discussion of masturbation so important, here. I truly do not see that it has anything to do with the school's program. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 19:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The schools culture includes openly addressing masturbation...this is unheard of and not proven to help with anything. Honestly, the school's explanation is ridiculous and how can masturbation be used as power? Family school openly addressing masturbation among mixed sex groups and having students call each other out and have staff included in this is outrageous and tells a lot about the validity of family school's ridiculous program. Flyboi9 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So...it's a POV you're trying to push. Sorry, but In addition to being redundant, your most recent edit treads on the same wp:synth territory that rendered the original edit problematic in the first place. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 03:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the source states the complete opposite of what you're claiming. This is not going to stick. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 03:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No I'm stating my POV on the issue, but where is there any proof anywhere that masturbation asserts power in a residential treatment facility? I looked it up and found nothing, which shows that the schools rules and culture surrounding the issue are bogus, important to include in the article...not that its bogus, just that Family school forces students ot admit publicly that they masturbated. Its part of their program, hence why its in the program section. Flyboi9 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Again: the source does not say what you're attempting to edit into the article, and you are attempting to press a wp:synth. Proof is not the point, wp:verify is. With that again addressed (hopefully for the last time), I've created a new section that is more fitting to the subject matter at hand. Hopefully it will be used for constructive edits. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 13:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how important it is to add this whole new section instead of just keepign it in the "program" section, but lets keep it for now, I thikn that this new section is up for alot of more information added soon. Flyboi9 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've re-removed the redundant statement; it's not necessary to compound "mistaken impression" with the school denying there was such a rule. Stick to what the source says. The same argument applies to the drop of the word "discreetly," which was a distillation of the passage, "...we do have the necessary and frank discussion of the issue with the relevant parties. Nobody is shamed. We are careful to manage these groups with the utmost sensitivity. That is where we are today." If you can suggest an alternate word or phrase to accomplish the same spirit, then fine. But, back-door attempts to push the POV that open discussion was or is school policy without a WP:RS that says so, won't be allowed. This source doesn't do that. With respect to the additional content in the new section, that's why I did it. So long as all editors take care to follow WP:Standards, and this can be a great article. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the word 'discreetly' is the wrong word. I am taking out that word, and adding "and the administration claim that "nobody is shamed"...I think that this will take to your point. The school is not doing it discreetly when they are publicly humiliating a student and confronting them about masturbating in a mixed sex group. Flyboi9 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's likely to be rendered a moot point anyway. But again, this is not that the source says. Attempts to wp:edit war unpublished implications into the article will not prevail. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted the whole masturbation discussion, for two reasons. First, it gave undue emphasis to the topic of masturbation. Second, comparing the paragraph to the cited source (the Rita Argiros blog post), it was not at all clear that it was actually based on that source -- instead, it was a Wikipedian's essay, including subjective statements and interpretations. Unless the discussion of masturbation has been identified in some reliable source as being a major emphasis of the school's program, this material doesn't belong in the article. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WWWOOOHHHHH...absolutely not keeping that information out of the article. this information is necessary to the article. It is being included. That was absolutely ridiculous for the entire thing to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboi9 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to thank Orlady for giving her input (which I still do), when I noticed that Flyboi reverted Orlady's edits. I'll reiterate that I think this section is completely ridiculous and adds nothing to the article. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 00:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've manually reverted the article to Orlady's edits. Consensus is against inclusion. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 00:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. That section should be included in the article. Flyboi9 (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would argue this has been ridiculous for some time. Please read and understand wp:consensus, wp:edit war. I can say with fairly strong confidence that edit warring content into an article against multiple editors is highly unlikely to work well for you. "should be included" is not a useful argument. I think that, to get this to stick, an interested editor will need to show that it does not lend wp:UNDUE weight to the subject (it does), and that it is factual (iffy IMO), and that it is covered by the source (no opinion). - Sinneed 13:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll clarify: the only reason I spent any time at all on this was in a wp:agf attempt to work with the editor(s) that felt it was important (during a period where impartial editors were relatively quiet on the matter), and to demonstrate that I can stretch myself to editing a point of view that I personally consider flawed, yet is drawn from sources that seemed to be accepted. Sinneed and Orlady have much more experience than I, and I will always lean towards deference to more experienced people in any matter. With that said, I never felt this belonged in the article (but I didn't want to be accused of bias, either), so I worked to find consensus with Flyboi and see if it could be worked in, in a way that made sense; this should not be confused with "support." Now that Sinneed and Orlady have rendered their opinions, I consider this a closed issue and will spend no more time on it. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 14:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible new EL - Thefamilyschooltruth.com

• Thefamilyschooltruth.com

1st, if this belongs, it will be a single wp:EL.

While I see how adding the link will improve the exposure of the website, I do not see how it improves the article. The newspaper article that mentions the site is a source in the article. I believe this provides adequate wp:BALANCE. I am certainly ready to be swayed.

If this is the new CAFETY site, I think it would belong in the CAFETY article, which is (or was) linked here adequately, as I see it.- Sinneed 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the same WP:EL that has been previously dismissed as a hate site. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It it not NEW...it has been an EL...check the edits..I added the testimonials but we can remove those, but not the main site. It is not a hate site and is NOT owned or operated by CAFETY...they may be affiliated with CAFETY, but it is not a cafety website. Look at the "who we are" section. It seems that we are assuming too many things about this site. It no longer has the biographies of current staff, but does include accusations with fairly impressive evidence to prove it. I think that this site should be included in the article, but will setlle for it being only in the EL section. It does add information about the school that is not released by the school. Flyboi9 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is new in that no one else was editing when it was warred into the article. Now, there are others. I have removed it more than once. Someone else will need to remove it this time, or it will stay. It does indeed include serious accusation, and no evidence, impressive or otherwise. I understand that there are ex-students who hate the school. That is in the article.- Sinneed 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 03:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again...forget about edit warring...this is school warring. It shows much evidence of giving money from a scholarship fund to staff, not students. It shows how the owner of the school has search and rescue dogs to catch runaway students. It shows how the school is ignoring emails from alumni. It shows that the school manipulates parents. There IS evidence. This whole deleting things over and over and over is ridiculous. I think I'm about done with this ridiculousness. Flyboi9 (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed link to official school website, as it is self advertising and no more evidence than the "hate" site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.217.182 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and I believe that any references to the official school websites should be removed because it is self advertising. If it goes one way, it needs to go both ways. Flyboi9 (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see wp:EL#What should be linked for specific guidance. - - Sinneed 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL states that sites to be considered are "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" and since the family school truth site fails RS because you and orlady are disputing its use, it should be an external link. The unsigned agrees with this by his postings. Flyboi9 (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• The information is in the article. The site is referenced in the wp:RS, which is cited in the article. wp:NOT a list of links. wp:ELN might be a good place to try to gather support. Or a wp:RfC, though a very narrow group is likely to be interested in an article about a small, minor, private school.

• The anon could be ME... the individual is anon. I will read what they write with interest, but that won't really contribute much to wp:consensus.

• At the moment, 1 individual supports inclusion, 2 oppose. Arguments against: wp:NOT a list of links, single purpose website, content covered by wp:RS included, including the link to the site. It would seem to qualify for Wikipedia:ELNO#Links normally to be avoided, unverifiable, links primarily promoting the website.- Sinneed 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Specifically Wikipedia:ELNO#In_biographies_of_living_people - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WIkiwag, once again you are misconstruing the site. There are NO biographies of living people on the famiyl school truth site...if you are seeing something I am missing please show the link to the section that has a biography of a living person Flyboi9 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

wp:BLP does not apply to wp:EL as I understand it... they can say what they want, within the laws that apply and what their ISPs will allow. However, there is indeed nasty biographical content about living persons there. But I don't see how this adds value to the article. Not verifiable, just nasty chatter. Again: the link is available through the linked article.- Sinneed 03:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?? The entire investigation page on the FFSTC has clear files showing fraud, deception, and various other abuses of power by the school. While the "Losicco Chronicles" may be a little amiss, the rest of it has clear evidence.DJJONE5NY (talk)djjone5ny —Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

"clear evidence" - No. One can say anything on the Internet. It is evidence only that someone caused the content to appear. Please use the ~~~~ to sign your posts.- Sinneed 15:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? The documents presented on the investigations page are signed and dated by FFS staff in many cases. How is that any less use than the official website for the school is? Once again, the views of those opposed are clearly overlooked here, as, for some reason, the official website is deemed more useful and "reliable" than a site that opposes it. As an EL there is surely enough merit to include the "hate" site just as much as there is merit to include the official site.DJJONE5NY (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)djjone5ny

AND it clearly states on the TRUTH site that it is not a hate site. Its inclusion in the article should be used as an EL. Flyboi9 (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

...in an effort to pander to the objections raised against the original EL's inclusion on this very article. Sorry, but what was originally stated on the about us page is closer to the actual truth, we believe. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 03:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's "we" in we believe?!? Sites change, and so do campaigns. There was never any biographies on the site. I remember very clearly that either sineed or wikiwag stated the biogaphy thing because the site "promised" to have information on staff. Well, it appears that that page is gone. The site should be included and certain information on the site should be considered a RS. Seems like DJJONE and the unsigned author agree with this. Flyboi9 (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"we" as in people that work for and at FFS. Right? The site has taken a completely different approach to its material since its creation, and is nowhere close to a personal attack page, but rather many different cases of people speaking out about their own abuse, as well as investigative research into files obtained from students own records, as well as correspondence from the school and public tax records. Once again, Wikiwag and his friends at FFS want to include all their EL's like the school's site, but leave out any information that may be negative.DJJONE5NY (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)djjone5ny

No. "We," as in the other editors here [Sinneed, Orlady] that have told you and others in crystal-clear and unequivocal terms that this is not an acceptable WP:EL. Consensus is against inclusion. For the last time: focus on the content and not the editors or your baseless suppositions. Continuing this conduct will land the matter on WP:WQA. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's kick this up a notch: If after I completely rewrote the paragraph about masturbation (which I personally feel is utterly ridiculous and adds nothing to the article), you truly feel that I have an untenable conflict of interest and "leave out any information that may be negative," post it on WP:COIN and have it settled once and for all. I dare say you'll be disappointed and may end up having it backfire, as I have a long history of tolerance of opposing viewpoints that meet WP:Standards. On the other hand, if you're not prepared to do that, kindly and forever abandon the ad-hominem attacks. They have no place here and I will not tolerate it further. 'nuff said. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am saying "The EL appears to fail wp:EL, and I oppose its inclusion". I further suggest that if the adding editors wish to pursue this, hopefully with more compelling arguments, wp:ELN or wp:RfC are ways/places to gather other opinions, seek support, find guidance.- Sinneed 04:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sinneed: The EL appears to fail WP:EL. It's not clear who is behind the site, and the stability of its content isn't clear. (I did learn a little -- but only a little -- about "who's behind it" by looking at the familyschooltruth page on Facebook. I see that Flyboi is one of the "fans" of the page.)

Furthermore, the article prominently discusses CAFETY's opposition to FFS, so the article does not give undue emphasis to the school's side of its story. Anyone reading the article would quickly see that there is controversy about the school, and any curious reader could research the opposition easily. For example, the Wikipedia article on CAFETY (which is linked in this article) links to the CAFETY website, which has more information about FFS and features a link to familyschooltruth on its links page. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Orlady's comments have no merit. Just because you saw someone with a name of "flyboi" does not mean that is me that is assuming and I'm pretty sure that this is against WP policy. Even if I was a 'fan', it wouldn't make a difference to this article. Please Focus On The Content!! Flyboi9 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing your name on the familyschooltruth page on Facebook has nothing to do with my opinion that the FamilySchoolTruth website fails WP:EL.
Since there were no actual people identified on the FamilySchoolTruth.com site, I looked at the fan list on Facebook to see if I recognized any names of real people (such as the people involved with CAFETY), and it happens that "Flyboi" was the only name I recognized. I mentioned it only as interesting information. (And I don't buy your story that there is some other person who has sh*t for this school and uses the moniker "Flyboi." Regardless, whether or not it's you is irrelevant to Wikipedia. It's also not relevant to Wikipedia that there are several Facebook groups and/or fan pages for alumni, critics, and/or supporters of this school.) --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, wp:assume good faith, wp:soapbox, wp:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion, and wp:No personal attacks policies have all been violated on your recent posts. Focus on the content. Even if it was me, it only says that that person is a fan and it gives updates on Facebook to the campaign or whatever kind of fan page it is. Please wp:assume good faith and focus on the content. If you want to attack an individual, do it on facebook or elsewhere, wikipedia is not the place. Focus on the content. Flyboi9 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyboi9, I don't believe you know what you are talking about. --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You comments, referring to me, "And I don't buy your story that there is some other person who has sh*t for this school and uses the moniker "Flyboi."" is a personal attack and not relevant to wikipedia or this article. Please focus on the content Flyboi9 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

EL - random break for easy editing

While the use of the "sh*t" might be undesirable to some, the mention is in no way a wp:personal attack as I read the guideline. I don't always see eye-to-eye with this highly experienced editor, but I see nothing inappropriate here.

Please see wp:COI for an understanding of why the use of "Flyboi" in both locations, especially in light of edits made under the Flyboi9 account in WP, seems appropriate. Edits under the account seem to be based on wp:original research, personal knowledge of the individual, and have a strongly anti-school wp:point of view. Other editors on both pro- and anti- school positions have struggled with this.- Sinneed 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when do we try and see who other users are, isn't our privacy considered high on WP guidelines? Even if that person was me, Orlady's personal attack is not called for and has nothing to do with this article, nothing to do at all. Orlady, please stick to the content. Flyboi9 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All three remarks are addressed in my response immediately above, and/or in Orlady's, just further up. At this point I would encourage you to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Is there anything further to be added about why the EL meets the requirements for inclusion and adds value to this Wikipedia article?- Sinneed 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but Ive gotta ask, what are you (sineed) smoking and where can I get some? Orlady came out and very clearly issued a pesonal attack against Flyboi, and not through the editor's words, but rather through their use of irrelevant information in an attempt to discredit an editor in a public forum. Information about an individual obtained off of wikipedia is completely irrelevant to goings on on wikipedia. Orlady's comment would be equivelant of me going onto the FFS' website, finding someone with the last name "sineed" and saying "because there is an individual there named sineed what you have to say on here is wrong and non-npov". Think about it.CoreEpic (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)CoreEpic

...and almost as if on cue, the moment I decide not to post the missive I was drafting...

If anyone really wants to complain about wp:npa, this is the place to go: WP:ANI. Do take care though, lest your own (many) personal attacks come into view. This will likely backfire to the detriment of those who appear to feel such conduct is justifiable in the face of being told simply: "You are wrong. This avenue is closed. Move on."

It would be wise to heed that advice. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] Sheesh... If I had wanted to attack Flyboi9, I surely could have come up with something far more offensive than using a salty slang expression to say that he (I presume Flyboi9 is a "he," based on name) has a strong negative view of the Family Foundation School. For example, if I wanted to attack him, I could simply copy the nasty things that were said about me just recently on my talk page. It appears to me that this accusation of "personal attack" is an effort by two anti-FFS WP:SPA editors (Flyboi9 and CoreEpic) to divert attention away from the problems with the content that they are persistently trying to add to this article.
As Wikiwag has suggested, your efforts to invoke "policy" to discredit the people who are trying to play "neutral party" in this article run the risk of backfiring on you by showcasing your continued POV-pushing and edit-warring. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel like you were attacking me and assuming that I was someone who was on the page. That has nothing to do with this article and my identity is not important, for all I know you could be Rita Argiros, but I don't say anything because it has nothing to do with the article. Flyboi9 (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where to get help

The section at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Request an administrator intervention and assistance in editing of wp: Family Foundation School is misplaced. Editors unhappy with the path the article is taking may want to consider wp:dispute resolution. I have suggested places to go/things to do to gather support for, or gather guidance about, the edits one may wish to make to the article. wp:ELN for the EL, wp:RfC for the general squabble about what does or does not belong in the text of the article. However, there are already 2 heavily experienced editors, one of whom knows WAY more than I and is an admin, and this is a very narrow-appeal article: I don't really expect it to generate much more interest, though I have been wrong before.- Sinneed 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It moved here. - Sinneed 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Template usage: Part deux

Now that things have perhaps been resolved to a reasonable degree, I'll raise the issue again (in a new section for convenience sake)

Regarding the templates at the top and throughout the article:

• I've removed the WP:SYNTH tag, since the edits attempting to combine Argiros and sex/guilting with Croke's source are no longer on the article, having been rejected by neutral editors;
• I've removed the Template:POV-check as superfluous, for the reasons I stated earlier. Please restore if I am in error;
• I've removed the template in Family_Foundation_School#Activism_against, since I was the one who put it back after removing it in the first place. The edits are fundamentally the same as when I restored the template, so it seems there's no challenge.

All that remains is the Template:NPOV at the top of the article:

• I submit that (at least for the time being...though I have my doubts that it will remain that way) we have addressed the issue of WP:NPOV, being defined as: "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I'll defer to Sinneed and Orlady, adding my own opinion that it can be removed. Is there consensus for removal? - - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 23:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

/bonk - Don't forget to breathe sign. :) - Sinneed 22:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing those templates was a good call, Wikiwag, and I agree that the NPOV template is still justified. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. From your perspectives, what needs to happen for this article to be considered WP:NPOV? - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, all parties would acknowledge that the article is reasonably balanced. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, but it would be nice...
I think the current article is pretty close to the goal. I do perceive that there is still a bit too much puffery about extracurricular activities and faculty credentials. However, that's a very minor matter relative to the serious allegations that have been made against the school, which I think are now covered appropriately. Trying to take the perspective of folks like Flyboi9 and CoreEpic, I wouldn't think that details about honorable mention in a math competition or the recognitions received by a faculty member would be sufficient to cause the parent of a prospective student to ignore the existence of Congressional testimony against the school. The article presents a factual and balanced perspective on the school, rather than propaganda for it or against it. --Orlady (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a (minority of perhaps one) view that while the any article POV tags are distracting, killing them in the face of strong feeling against is not the ideal. I do not oppose removal of the tags, but I do hope we can hear from anti-school editors, there may be new and coherent arguments against removal. Perhaps a few days? Say, Sunday, unless there are WP-centric reasons given why they should remain? - Sinneed 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts are consistent with mine, Sinneed. I hope that all parties can agree -- and Sunday is a good target date for removing the template, if there are no objections before then. --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I still believe that the tag for neutrality needs to stay. I am still very concerned that this article is slightly biased. I respect most of Sineed's edits on the activism section, but do not believe that Orlady's edits are neutral, WHATSOEVER. I also still dispute the fact that The Family School's Official website can be used as an EL but the Family School Truth Campaign cannot be used as such. Until this is resolved, Sunday's date for removal of the tags is not going to happen. Flyboi9 (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but your concern about a perceived nonneutral POV in the article cannot be addressed if you define it only as "I don't trust Orlady; for all I know she is really Rita Argiros." Please focus on the article, not personalities. Is there content in the current article that you perceive to be point of view that is biased toward Family Foundation School? If so, what? Or is your concern about lack of balance? If so, please identify what aspects of the article are unbalanced.
Regarding the inclusion of the school's web page as an EL and the exclusion of familyschooltruth, let's look at WP:EL in detail. WP:ELYES and Wikipedia:EL#Official links indicate that the official site of the article's subject should be linked: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." This is done as long as two criteria are met:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

I submit that the FFS website clearly meets these two criteria. The school is the subject of the article. The website is controlled by the school. The school is notable for being a high school, and the content of the website is primarily about the school.
The acceptability/nonacceptabilty of familyschooltruth is not as clear. It clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:ELYES because it is not an official site for the school, nor does it "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article." It might possibly fall under WP:ELMAYBE (a site possibly to be linked) as a site "which fail(s) to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain(s) information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." However, we still need to consider WP:ELNO ("sites normally to be avoided"). (The ELNO criteria do not apply to official sites.) Item 2 in the ELNO list is "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting." I don't think the the "truth" website intends to "mislead the reader," but to the extent that the site does not identify who stands behind it and mostly presents anonymous testimonies, its content has to be considered "unverifiable research." Items 10, 11, and 12, warn against linking to sites that consist mostly of user-contributed content, including "social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists," "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites," and "open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." The "truth" website does not clearly fit into any of these categories, but it has aspects of all of them, in that most of the content is submitted "testimonies" from former students. Additionally, there is a history of substantial changes to that site, leading me to wonder whether the site we linked to today would be the same site next month. Furthermore, many of the testimonies make specific or general accusations against teachers -- and name those teachers; this content would be considered to defame living people, which creates a potential WP:BLP issue. Considering all these factors, I concluded that the "truth" site does not qualify for listing as an EL in this article. If the article did not discuss CAFETY's activism and the Congressional hearings, I think I would want the link to be included for a modicum of balance, but the sections on CAFETY and the hearings provide a strong counterbalance to the school's own publicity, so a link is not needed for balance. --Orlady (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Until this is resolved, Sunday's date for removal of the tags is not going to happen." - Please read wp:consensus. If you cannot provide reasons WP would not, as a community, remove the templates, then anyone interested could (and I expect will) remove them. I encourage you to remove your focus from the editors, as that is disruptive. What change to the article do you believe should be made (citing appropriate WP guidelines/rules/essays for support before the neutrality tag is removed?- Sinneed 06:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I fear I see the opposition to use of the FFS official site as beating a dead horse (wp:STICK). - Sinneed 06:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I've really learned a great deal in this go 'round. Almost as much as I learned when I was editing the Waldorf Education article (when my approach could be rightly equated with the CAFETY folks on this article). Thanks to everyone (yes, even you, Flyboi). It's been illuminating. I'm fine with removing the tag on Sunday. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Dropped the POV tag. If restored, I most respectfully request that an explanation, in terms of WP guidelines/essays/whatever, be given.- Sinneed 14:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Activism Against" addition

Given the vigorous back-and-forth we've recently had, I'm curious why this edit was made without discussing it here first. With that said, I applaud Flyboi for what appears to be the addition of a moderating counterpoint. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I also was surprised. Additionally, I was generally impressed by the way the school is responding to the criticism, but I think Argiros went "too far" in characterizing the personal history of one of the former students who has been among the school's most outspoken critics. It would be a good idea to discuss the best way for the article to discuss the school response. I propose that the article should say the Argiros described the efforts of CAFETY and others as a "smear campaign," and that it should provide only minimal details of the rest of her statements in the school's defense. I thought that the "smear campaign" label was the most important element to report, but others might easily have other viewpoints. --Orlady (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As always Orlady, your points sound eminently reasonable to me. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My question here is this. Rita's blog is clearly just as "factual" as the info on the truth campaign site. How are we going to include one and not the other? First off, I'm the one they personally reference in their postings on the school's smear campaign blog. The information they posted is incorrect and slanderous for myself, a NYS certified teacher looking for a job. How is including this information, even with a link to the blog post, any different than linking to the "smear campaign" itself, which most editors here have vehemently opposed? If we are going to include even a link to this article, which is clearly slanderous towards myself, I demand that the link to the Family School Truth Campaign be included as well to balance the article and give a direct link to exactly what Rita is talking about in her post. The school's blog posts fall under the same exact guidelines when making statements about living persons. You can't hold us to one standard when trying to add a link about the abuses of the school, and another when it comes to information they post. DJJONE5NY (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)djjone5ny

We can use the school's site as a wp:SELFPUB source about itself. This is also the objection to including its comments about the students and the organizations... it is an expert on itself, within limits... but it is not an expert on the former students nor their organization. This has been addressed repeatedly. Yes, we can take out the opinions of CAFETY and the Campaign about the school, and the school's opinions about them, if that is the wp:consensus, but that seems to be too much like wp:censorship for my taste. Is that what you propose?- Sinneed 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to use the blog that is full of opinions by FFS, and not based in fact, then the same right should be given to those opposed to the school, and the truth campaign site should be linked too. Nobody has had a problem with wp:censorship when it comes to including material from the truth campaign, but now it's an issue? Allowing this blog from Rita Argiros to stay, without giving the truth campaign the same right constitutes undue weight once again. I'm not sure why Flyboi added it, although I can only assume it was to point out that Rita is calling all the testimonies (including my own in Congress) lies rather than admitting to the facts.68.172.217.182 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)djjone5ny

furthermore, the blog posts that are connected to the Family School blog also make personal statements against living people (again something that has been vehemently opposed as the grounds for why the truth campaign can not be included.) These statements are personal statements that are NOT included in my testimony. Again, can't have it both ways here folks. I'm not going to sit back while my name is posted with fraudulent information, while the editors here have no problem with not allowing the same treatment of others.DJJONE5NY (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)djjone5ny

I think I hear you saying that you share Orlady's concern, above. "right" - it isn't a right. I must tell you that your return to the "if you do this then you must do this" is not constructive. This is not a prisoner exchange and it is not a swap meet. If you object to the inclusion of the School's remarks, perhaps the adding editor will tell you why he or she thought it was appropriate in this case. I would not have included them. As to why the school's site can be used under wp:SELFPUB, as this has been reviewed with you a number of times, and it hasn't "taken" yet, going over it again seems pointless. wp:STICK seems to apply. Please focus on the content you think should be changed, and the change you think should be made, and why. The "No including the school's site in the school's article!" horse is dead. The protests of the CAFETY/campaign/angry former students are in the article, they are not censored. If you look into the record, you may be able to find my repeatedly restoring, editing to compromise, and otherwise making sure anti-school content made it into the article. Remove your focus from the editors, and focus on the content. You still have not proposed a new change, that I can see, and the school's site belongs in the school's article.- Sinneed 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We have included their blog, not only the school site. What should also be included is a link to the so called "smear campaign" she refers to in her blog. Yes, there is a link to CAFETY. However, CAFETY and the so called "smear campaign" are not the same entity. As written, the article implies that CAFETY is the smear campaign. Adding the link to the truth campaign would alleviate this confusion for readers. And try not to pretend I'm just not getting it with the self pub. I'm not questioning why the school can't selfpublish FACTS about their own program. My gripe is with the fact that they selfpublished fraudulent information about myself and their opinions of alumni, not just facts about the school, in those blogs. This "living persons" thing has been the reason many editors refuse to include the truth campaign. This is why I am seriously questioning its inclusion. The schools opinions of former students, and false information about myself are no more legit for these purposes than that of the truth campaign. This is what I find issue with. You just fail to understand this.137.140.196.138 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)djjone5ny

Ah, I see, Flyboi added a new site. I'll defer to Flyboi to explain why this site belongs. "we" haven't included it. Flyboi has. "the reason" - I have not read that. I have read that it was a reason, and it is one of mine. Very different.

"Try not to pretend..." - my apologies, were you not arguing the site should not be used? I am not pretending, but certainly I may have misunderstood, please don't do that again. The school site belongs, under wp:SELFPUB, with care.

"My gripe is with the fact that they selfpublished fraudulent information about myself and their opinions of alumni" - perhaps the adding editor will defend his/her edits. If not, is there any objection to removing the content? - Sinneed 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify....while the school continually fails to understand this, CAFETY and the "smear campaign" at www.thefamilyschooltruth.com are two SEPARATE entities. While Rita states that CAFETY is behind the site, they are not. I sit on the board of advisors for CAFETY and we have made this clear, as has the Truth Campaign on the "who we are" section. We have members that overlap in each organization, but the actions of the one are not indicative of the other. I happen to be one of the ones who works with both groups, but my statements do not speak for CAFETY as a whole. This also needs to be clear in all of this, as it is slanderous to CAFETY as an organization to infer that they are a "smear campaing," when in reality they are a reputable organization that has participated in many professional conferences, congressional hearings, etc. There is a distinct difference.DJJONE5NY (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)djjone5ny

That is all offtopic, as best I can see. That said: "members that overlap" is key. Also 'slanderous to CAFETY as an organization to infer that they are a "smear campaing,"' - Please be wary of wp:no legal threats. Minor point in this: "infer" is what the listener/reader does, and is never slanderous. "implying" would be something the speaker does, and I decline to get into what is or is not slander, I am not a lawyer, this is not the place. Is there a proposal in the post? I can't see it.- Sinneed 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, there is an issue with calling the statements by FFS as slanderous, but not when people refuse to post the link to the truth campaign on the same grounds?DJJONE5NY (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)djjone5ny

No, those would be your words, and have no obvious relation to anything I typed.- Sinneed 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I look forward to Flyboi's answer: Why does Flyboi disagree with DJJONE5NY about using the school as a source for this content?- Sinneed 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

flyboi9 has spoken...This section with Rita's comments are really important to include. As she stated only less than two years ago, the school will NOT dispute any experiences from former students and not she is calling them "lies". If either of you can point out any other therapeutic boarding school or residential treatment center that has called their former participants, who paid upwards of $50,000/year, liars, I will revert that section to the old. Its ridiculous that this facility has so mucch controversy behind it and yet they continue to push the envelope. We should be including this section of her blog because no other facility has ever taken on a group of survivors like Family school administration has. At first they were nice, but when they realized they needed to make drastic changes in their policy, they throw a tantrum and call everyone liars?

It should be included in the article and I do also believe as all of you know, that I believe the truth campaign should be included too. It includes relevant, and factual information about the school's history and program. Thats how I feel, lets not twist the new material into how the family school has changed, because Rita is saying that practices were wrong in the past nad then right after saying all the abuse allegations were lies...really?!? Also she said that the practices that were used were accepted at the time...when in the world was duct taping a kid wrapped in a blanket and shoved in a closet for days to defecate on themselves accepted practice in a residential treatment center??? Definitely not in the 1990's when it was taking place. Family school is doing what a typical abuser does, deflecting and blaming someone besides themselves. Deflection is a typical form of deception. Flyboi9 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And to answer SINEED's question, my view is that the truth campaign be included, but you, orlady, and wikiwag disagree. DJJONENY, COREEPIC, and unsigned author, and myself all believe it should be included. Thats four agianst 3, support is swayed to inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboi9 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

wp:NOT a democracy. What WP quideline will let us include either site? I *think I* share DJJONE5NY's concern about the blog. It does not have the level of credibility, and direct control by the school, as an entity, as I see it, that the school website has.- Sinneed 23:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I dropped the addition. I don't feel strongly that it does not belong but am very dubious of using the source, and don't right away see any coverage in the press to use instead.- Sinneed 16:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia is not a democracy does not mean that a general consensus is meaningless. When more people agree with inclusion of a link than dont, the link should be included. CoreEpic (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)CoreEpic

"When more people agree with inclusion of a link than dont, the link should be included." - Not as I understand you to mean it, no. As WP means it, that is correct. wp:dispute resolution may help. You may want to consider wp:RfC. - Sinneed 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The "general consensus" is that this link, and its type, are not generally useful, as has been reviewed in detail. I understand you don't accept this.- Sinneed 18:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Core Epic, this is a lost battle. (wp:PA redacted by Sinneed) I have tried to have the Truth Campaign's website included but it has been fought tooth and nail to NOT be included, even though the actual facility's website is included and is not a credible source. Ehh...talk about credibility, WP isn't that credible anyway. The TRUTH Campaign seems more credible than this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboi9 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for moving forward

I encourage you both to consider wp:dispute resolution, perhaps study up on how to do a wp:RfC, or perhaps ask for help, perhaps by adding {{helpme}} on your talk page, and explaining your concerns. wp:NPOVN - might be a good place if you feel the article is not neutral, though there were no responses to the query about removing the flags above. wp:RSN - might be a good place to go to gather support for proposed sources.- Sinneed 06:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) - expanded and generally refactored - Sinneed 15:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)