Talk:Green Mountain College/Archive 1

College sustainability

I'm not sure that "college sustainability" is really the correct title for that section. The information under that heading isn't about the sustainability of the college itself. It's all about environmental stuff.Flyte35 (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill and Lou controversy

• Note: between this section and the section titled "Protection" I have added new headings and subheadings - the heading names may not have been made by the user whose comment comes directly underneath them. Please see this diff for the exact changes made. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 05:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good morning. I have restored the Vermont Public Radio story to the citations, as it is a credible source. I have made some edits that are reported in the story.

~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by George McD (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

George McD (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another editor just reverted you, but I reverted back. I'm not certain that info belongs, but it is reliably sourced, and so it's time for the other editor to come here and discuss the changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary, assumed. Trolling wikipedia is not acceptable. You have made your POV clear and your bias known by your constant revisions. The appropriate authorities have been contacted. http://i.imgur.com/yHmFm.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vt catamount (talk • contribs) 13:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, editor is attempting to splice articles, turning a "barrage of criticism" into an "outcry." Dubious at best. This is not a good faith edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vt catamount (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, personal attacks are forbidden on Wikipedia, per WP:NPA. Second, nothing in here is trolling--it's reporting on information in sources. Third, you have no idea if the person on that Facebook post is the same as the editor adding the information: and please note that attempting to connect the two is absolutely forbidden per WP:OUTING and will lead to an instant block. As for the change in terminology, please read the source that George McD added: it actually uses the words "international outcry". Finally, what do you mean by "the appropriate authorities have been contacted"? If you mean Wikipedia authorities, well, we don't have a single authority system; some users (like myself) are administrators, which gives us a few extra tools, but most decisions are made by community consensus. If you mean outside authorities, please note that such threats may fall under our WP:NLT policy--that is, you can't use threats of off wiki action to influence how people edit on Wikipedia.

So, are you ready to stop the blustering and anger and actually discuss what, based on the sources, should be in the article? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An "international outcry by townspeople" is nonsensical, and is relying on a splicing of references. Should be reverted to "barrage of criticism" as initially writ and cited. I will refrain from discussing the obvious motivations, except to state that obvious motivations are obvious.Vt catamount (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"the plan has drawn international outcry and a massive Facebook petition to save the oxen". What part of that does not match what is currently in the article? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An "outcry by townspeople," namely. A "barrage of criticism" yes, but no where can I source an "outcry" by townspeople. It's misleading and, again, an unnecessary splicing of sources.Vt catamount (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC) The second revision, that the offer was "free," is verifiable by the cited source and, as such, is acceptable.Vt catamount (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say an outcry of townspeople. It's not a splicing of sources--it's one, single source. It says "international outcry". Apologies, but I don't know how to make that any clearer. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's combining two sources to make an uncited claim, that there was an "outcry from townspeople." Might I suggest the following: "The college's decision prompted international outcry [20]. A barrage of criticism was received from townspeople, animal rights activists and tens of thousands of online petitioners." This preserves the sanctity of both points and both sources.Vt catamount (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I added a clarifying phrase, which I think addresses the confusion. "Barrage of criticism" is non-neutral, and could only be used if attributed to a source. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is ok with me re: international outcry. Thank you. I do question, however, adding information about the Agriculture Secretary supporting GMC's decision, unless it is balanced with names of those criticizing the decision, which can be done and sourced. What do you think, is that important?

George McD (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see that Kingsrow1975 has taken out the reference to "international outcry" which is an an important and sourced fact. Thank you. George McD (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, for the record, "barrage of criticism" is verbatim from the New York Times story. Thanks. George McD (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove it because it wasn't sourced. It was removed because of clarity issues. Saying that locals, animal rights activists and petitioners worldwide fairly sums up the idea that there was international outcry. If you do not agree, that's fine, but find a better way to explain it. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that as a summary at all. However, it may well be that there is too much information overall. Any suggestions on better phrasing? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How is it not? Let's face it...99.99% of the world does not care one way or another. The ones world wide that do care are the ones who signed petitions or are animal rights activists. So, saying that townspeople, animal rights activists and petitioners worldwide sums up the issue of international outcry. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A credible news source called it, verbatim, an "international outcry" and we previously had wording that included that, so my position is that we go with the news source rather than someone's summary of a fact. Thank you. George McD (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That may be true. However, using the term "international outcry" leads the reader to assume that everyone around the world is against this, when in reality it's not true at all. It's a leading phrase. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia expert, but I believe the rules call for going with sourced material, such as a news story. Thank you. George McD (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the only outlet that uses the term "international outcry" is the NPR source. I have scanned many sources and none of the rest use that term. Most of them use the designation currently in place in the article. I will not argue the credibility of NPR, but suffice it to say, they have had their share of criticism in the past for showing certain biases. Cherry picking one term that is used by no other source lends to a bias in the article. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is already using a sourced description, one more credible because other news outlets have basically said the same thing. There is no need to add the NPR source since there is already one in place that describes the situation accurately. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Vermont Public Radio/ NPR reported that the decision prompted an "international outcry" - verbatim. The New York Times reported a "barrage of criticism" - verbatim. For those reasons, I respectfully request that we use the previously agreed upon compromise language, suggested by another editor, which I have copied and pasted from above: (see above for more details)

"The college's decision prompted international outcry [20]. A barrage of criticism was received from townspeople, animal rights activists and tens of thousands of online petitioners."

Thank you. George McD (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is still both redundant and misleading as it implies that there were more than a tiny percentage of people who actually cared enough to click on a petition site. It makes a mountain out of a molehill. Find a more unbiased source if you feel you must have another. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, why are so dead-set about including that little bit when the rest of the sentence sums things up accurately? That NYT quote is quite sufficient to get the point across. There is no need to state basically the same thing twice.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have agreed on the compromise language (see above), so one might wonder why you are so intent on reversing these sourced edits. I will defer to the judgement of the administrator. Thank you. George McD (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My intent is to make the entry as neutral as possible. Saying "international outcry" leads the reader to assume it's a bigger issue than it really is. Furthermore, you still haven't answered the question. Why have two citations that say basically the same thing in a row? How is it not redundant? Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with above editor, using both citations is redundant and unnecessary. Separating the sentences is also not ideal, and does not read well for a wikipedia article. Because one source repeats the other, I'd err on the side of the NYT language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vt catamount (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Vt catamount (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I will just briefly point out that you, Vt.Catamount, are the editor who suggested the agreed upon compromise language, saying "This preserves the sanctity of both points and both sources." Thank you. George McD (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated, George McD, but "Kingsrow's" rationale makes better sense than a compromise that doesn't read well. This is Wikipedia, after all, it should read well, all the while being informative and maintaining neutrality. Vt catamount (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Let's see what the administrator decides. Thank you. George McD (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, you all need to learn about talk page indenting. When you reply to someone, add one more colon to the beginning of your paragraph than the person before you used, just as I've done here. THis automatically indents your paragraph. The next person should start their paragraph with two colons, and so on.

Next, I want to jump to the bottom of the discussion, which is George McD's comments about administrators. I'm sorry if I mislead you, but, in fact, administrators don't make fiat decisions about what should appear in articles. All such decisions are made by consensus, guided by policies and guidelines. Being and admin just means that I can protect pages, block people, and other things of a technical nature. That won't help us figure out what to do here.

Going back to the issue at hand--whether or not to include "international outcry". Here, policy doesn't really guide us. First, while it is true that information must be sourced to be included in Wikipedia, simply because something is sourced doesn't mean it should be included. Otherwise we'd just copy everything we could (respecting copyright), including every tiny details and opinion. But that's not what we do--we're an encyclopedia; thus, we provide summaries of the most salient points. So whether or not we use the term "international outcry" depends on whether we think it's a particularly important detail. I can respect the argument that says that it's not, and that it's better to simply provide the factual list of who opposed.

One place that policy does guide us is with reference to the "barrage of criticism" comment. That phrase can not be used unless we specifically attribute it to someone, because that's a non-neutral phrase. WP:NPOV says anything in Wikipedia's voice must be neutral; thus, the only way to use such a phrase would be to say "According to the New York Times, the proposal resulted in a 'barrage of criticism'". But that's clearly not a worthy quote for inclusion--it's nothing more than journalistic exaggeration.

My personal opinion (and, again, this is me speaking as an editor, not "ruling" as an admin) is that we shouldn't use either piece of colorful language. However, I do believe that we should include the NPR reference. While we don't want to pile up a dozen citations on every sentence, there's nothing wrong with having several citations to cover the same thing.

There's other questions, regarding, for example, the last sentence in the paragraph, but I always find that discussions work better if we settle them one at a time. We can start a new section here on the "defended" part later. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information, and also the handy editing lesson! Apologies for not knowing, I should have looked more carefully. I would request one further clarification request, although it may now be irrelevant, I'd like to know to avoid similar issues in the future: Why would it be "According to the New York Times, the proposal resulted in a barrage of criticism..." and not "According to NPR, this prompted an international outcry..."? Why does one need the preposition? Is it because 'criticisms' are more tangible than 'an outcry'? Thank you, again.Vt catamount (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a judgement call. For me, "international outcry" is somewhat neutral, but I could accept that we should attribute it also (According to NPR). But "barrage" is clearly a non-literal term, intended to evoke emotions, and thus directly falls under the need to attribute the POV. But I think that the ideal situation is to use neither, and simply report what actually happened. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much Qwyrxian, as I said, I defer to your judgement. George McD (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

New edits by Crazytome

The latest edits by user Crazytome have revised the paragraph on the controversy very significantly to the point that it no longer resembles the paragraph that was arrived at by discussion. It appears to me that this page has entered an Edit War and I think guidance is required on how to proceed.Bunchipe (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have requested that the article be fully protected--this prevents everyone from editing it--while discussion ensues. Normally I could do this myself, but admins are not supposed to use their administrative tools while involved in the content dispute. I'm right on the borderline of being involved here, so, I'd rather err on the side of caution and have another admin make the call. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that the "paragraph that was arrived at by discussion" was not wholly agreed on, and that the language being used before my edits was extremely biased and inflammatory.Crazytome (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This controversy is noteworthy precisely because it has been controversial. If it wasn't it wouldn't be worth noting. The language that was used was directly sourced from mainstream news sources to accurately portray the nature and magnitude of the controversy. The opinion of being biased and inflammatory being expressed here is precisely that - an opinion. The paragraph accurately reflects the content from sources. Meanwhile the paragraph has been virtually mangled to almost exclusively present one side.Bunchipe (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph was "arrived at by discussion" but clearly (see the section above this) the discussion is ongoing. There are only like 5 people editing this, and it's not like any sort of agreement was reached. I'm not sure about "biased and inflammatory" but it seems that recent Crazytone edits improve the graf by adding information and making it more informative. The only deletion I can see has to do with the opposition sentence. And while it's true that "The college's decision precipitated opposition from townspeople, animal rights activists and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide" accurately reflects the content from sources, so does "The college's decision prompted opposition from animal rights activists." The latter sentence is simply more succinct.Flyte35 (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I want to focus on this sentence that Crazytome substantially revised: "The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights activists and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide." This sentence matches very closely to what's written in the NYT's article, which explicitly mentions "townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners." Crazytome's deletion of "townspeople" and "tens of thousands of online petitioners" is therefore unwarranted. "Townspeople" and "online petitioners" are not equivalent to "animal rights activists."PE2011 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's warranted because it's an accurate summary of what the article said. Granted, it's not necessary to keep the more succinct version but there's nothing wrong with editing to present a summary of what occurred rather than simply lifting from the sources. "Townspeople" and "online petitioners" acting on behalf of animals ARE animal rights activists.Flyte35 (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an incomplete summary--"townspeople" and "online petitioners" are not equivalent to "animal rights activists." I disagree with your claim that they are equivalent. Signing a single online petition, alone, does not make one an "animal rights activist," nor does opposing a single slaughter decision, alone, make one an "animal rights activist." Moreover, the deletion conceals the fact the protest opposition consists of a very large number of people--namely, "tens of thousands," which include people worldwide, not just in the United States. So even if I agreed with the above conflation on "succinctness" grounds, there is still the issue of deleting the phrase "tens of thousands" and "worldwide." PE2011 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Holistic understanding

I have issues with this sentence: "The college also emphasized a holistic understanding of the food cycle and raising animals humanely as opposed to purchasing meat from a 'factory farm.'" First, the citation of this sentence--which is to Fonteyn's October 31st press release--does not contain the word "holistic," let alone an "emphasis" on "a holistic understanding of the food cycle." Thus the phrase "emphasized a holistic understanding of the food cycle" is without support by the cited source. Second, although the source contains the phrase "raising animals humanely," that is a quote from Chuck Ross, not the college. And neither the college nor Chuck Ross "emphasized" "raising animals humanely," so that claim is without support. Third, the phrase "factory farm" does not appear anywhere in the October 31st press release. Fourth, nothing was said about raising animals humanely "as opposed to" purchasing FF meat, so that claim is without support. In conclusion, the whole sentence is totally unsupported by the cited source and thus needs to be either deleted or substantially revised for accuracy.PE2011 (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

On this issue, I do agree with PE2011. The sentence is unsupported by sources, so it should be deleted for now. If credible sources can be found to support the statement, by all means reinsert it. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Humane treatment was mentioned several times on the page I sourced, but it was not a significant part of the message and that statement did come from my own biased knowledge of the institution and the people there. I understand the decision to remove it.Crazytome (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the phrase "many of them threatening" needs to be revised to "many of them said to be threatening." The source cited for the claim does not state as fact that the protests were "threatening," but only quoted people who said that they were--namely, from Fonteyn and Carl Cushing. PE2011 (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

VT. Catamount, perhaps we could continue this discussion while the other is being resolved. I agree “many” should be changed to “some,” and I would propose: “some of them said to be threatening,” since the cited source does not report it as fact that actual threats were made. Another acceptable alternative: "some of them allegedly threatening." PE2011 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "said to be" as the threats were, in fact, real. Not only have I received them myself, but the sources linked to describe actual harassment received.Crazytome (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

“[S]aid to be” is accurate and conforms to the text of the sourced articles--rather than describe threats as fact, they describe what people said – namely, that threats were made. You are inferring accuracy from what people said. For the record, I do not deny that actual threats were made, and I come to that belief based on a similar process of reasoning. But we should let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. PE2011 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, rather than have a semantic debate about the inclusion of "said to be," I simply re-formatted the sentence and quoted an article, prefacing my quote with "GMC describing some emails as"Crazytome (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I made several additions and hope to discuss them with fellow editors, perhaps under a new topic heading. I made no reversions, for they are still the subject of ongoing dispute. The issues arising from Crazytome's edits can still be resolved here. PE2011 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, I just edit conflicted with you; I'm starting a new section below. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Before we get too far...

PE2011, I'd like to kindly ask to revert all of your recent changes. The section is now very very very much violating WP:UNDUE. As much as this may interest all of you personally...this is a dispute about whether or not to kill 2 pigs. Making this occupy nearly 3 times more space than the history section, and having almost half of the entire references in the article is just not appropriate. We don't need the support or disapproval of all of those people. In fact, I'm not sure that anyone in that section is notable enough to have their own personal opinion covered. I've so far held off on reverting, trying to set a good example, but that stuff just cannot stay in the article. One important thing to remember is this: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We need information of lasting encyclpedic value. Think about it this way: in 10 years, will we need to know the opinions of all of these different people? Will this controversy have had any lasting impact on the overall history of this school? Our editing should keep in mind a long term perspective. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwrxian; Oxen, and agreed.Vt catamount (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Qwrxian. Agreed. I think it should revert back to the more or less :) agreed upon version that we worked out yesterday, but without the unnecessary last sentence about GMC receiving support from the Vermont Ag. Secretary, as that will lead to the desire for other editors (myself included) to cite supporters on the other side. I do agree with PE2011 that the phrase "many of them threatening" should be revised to "many of them said to be threatening." Thank you for all of the time that you and others are putting into this! George McD (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with above poster, George, for the most part. The "threatening" line should be revised (reverted, actually) to say "some of them threatening," as that was the language of the source, in the headline as well in several places of the body text. Further, I believe the Agency of Ag standing warrants more consideration and discussion, as it is not often that a state agency is compelled to voice an opinion on behalf of an unaffiliated private business. I think that discussion should continue in the above Talk section, as this one appears to be devoted to the changes of CrazyToMe and PE2011. Sorry, Sinebot: Vt catamount (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, George, I think the final sentence should stay, pretty much for the reasons Vt catamount stated. Now, if you can write an opposing sentence from supporters of the opposition, then that would make it pretty balanced. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

VT. Catamount, I agree with continuing the above Talk discussion—see my reply above. PE2011 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather continue discussion after you've reverted your changes, as previously requested. It's far easier to discuss something you can see, rather than rely on the previews of previous edits. Vt catamount (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I will await further instruction from Qwyrxian about my changes. The “threatening” issue will not be affected, for that statement currently appears in the current version (and would appear even if I'm forced by the rules to revert my recent changes). PE2011 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I am new to Wikipedia and appreciate your guidance on this matter. Can you please help me understand how my recent changes violates the “Due and undue weight” rules? Is it because you believe that the views of those in support of Bill and Lou are in the minority? If so, I respectfully disagree and wish to have a discussion on this point, if that is what you had in mind; I do not believe the Flat-Earth analogy is applicable here. If the problem is that other viewpoints are not being adequately represented, I suggest the remedy is the addition of those viewpoints, not the deletion of others. You say the people represented may not be “notable enough to have their personal opinion covered,” though you qualify your statement with “I’m not sure,” implying that they could (might) be notable enough. Perhaps this merits further discussion as well—my understanding is that many of the people are quite notable public figures. Further, regarding “lasting encyclopedic value,” I believe there is good case to be made that the controversy will have “lasting impact on the overall history of the school,” that my editing is generally in keeping with the “long term perspective.” May we also have a discussion on this point? In summary, I wish to learn how my changes are in violation of any rules. PE2011 (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, having read the entry as it currently stands, it is biased and far too long with a lot of information that is not necessary to explain the issue to the reader. Frankly, I am dismayed that PE2011 and, to a lesser degree, Crazytome has taken what was pretty much a mostly agreed-upon and unbiased entry and made it into something that is bloated and unnecessary. I vote that it is reverted back to the original version before Crazytome abd PE2011 started editing it. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I strive to be fair and will revert any changes that violate the neutrality policy. Can you explain: (1) what information I added is not necessary to explain the issue?; and (2) what is “biased” about my additions? Every sentence I added is sourced and can be traced to specific text in those sources. PE2011 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My vote is also with reverting to pre- Crazytome and Pe2011 edits, as the section was neutral and the discussion productive. There is no reason that this controversy subsection should be more massive and detailed than the History section; this is the Green Mountain College Wikipedia entry, and a controversy spanning two months does not require two paragraphs. PE2011, please revert your edits of your own volition, as requested, and await response by Qwyrxian to serve as guidance for future edits. You can always resubmit information.Vt catamount (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the Crazytome were more or less useful, for reasons I've explained above. I think recent PE2011 edits, while not unduly biased or straight up inappropriate, do end up giving undue weight to this issue. If one were simply writing a summary of the B&L event it would be fine. But this is an encyclopedia article about Green Mountain College itself. We've now got almost 400 words about one incident that occurred in the last few weeks. A single graf is good enough.Flyte35 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount, the history section is a mere 82 words, containing very little detail, and it is short even by the standard of other colleges (e.g., Binghamton, Michigan State University, Columbia). Thus it is no surprise why the current section (a modest two paragraphs) is longer. The remedy would be to expand on GMC’s history, not to restrict length. PE2011 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Demonstration of undue weight

Regarding undue weight or bias, I would welcome a specific demonstration via Qwyrxian’s above linked page--the section on “Due and undue weight”--that my additions can be fairly characterized as such. PE2011 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This kind of clarification should be pursued prior to substantial edits. Please do not use blogs as references, I don't think they're very helpful in an encyclopedia, especially as they are subject to change.Vt catamount (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount, Qwyrxian requested that I (not others) revert the changes, about which I’m currently seeking clarification. Please make your case for reversion. Regarding McWilliams’ blog, I cited it merely for the fact that dissenting opinions have been made there—it was not sourced for factual content. Reliability concerns do not apply. PE2011 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What clarification could you possibly need? You made the entry far bigger than any entry about the college itself. You quote a huge amount of sources, some of which are questionable at best, and include information that is not necessary to relay the story. You changed what was generally a good entry into a rambling treatise full of filler. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

To add to Kingsrow's comments, Wikipedia is a public space, an encyclopedia. You were asked to revert hours ago, and since then, by multiple editors. It seems to me that reverting and /then/ seeking clarification is the appropriate measure in this medium.Vt catamount (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, please clarify how my additions are in violation of any rules—I also addressed the point about GMC’s history section. When you say my sources are “questionable at best,” you provide no support. Why are they “questionable?” Repeating this naked assertion has no argumentative or evidential weight. The same is true of your claim that I included unnecessary information. Furthermore, your characterization that my additions constitute a “treatise”--particularly a “rambling” one--is pure rhetoric devoid of substance. Please support your charges.PE2011 (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt. Catamount, Qwyrxian was gracious enough to ask me to revert my changes rather than do so himself/herself, and if she/he insists that they be reverted prior to any discussion about my additions, I will defer to his/her authority. In the meantime, perhaps you could explain why my changes need to be reverted.PE2011 (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, as I stated in my last reasoning for an "undo," the article should not suffer while you learn. Feel free to reinstate the facts once you know how to do so without violating the policies of Wikipedia.Vt catamount (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the blogs, both for the slaughter and against, are irrelevant and add bulk. I added Fesmire's and Ackerman-Leist's in the interest of balance, because I figured if I deleted the other ones altogether, there'd be a fit. Crazytome (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, according to the wikipedia guidelines, blogs “may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals” (Newspaper and magazine blogs) Every writer I cited is a “professional.” PE2011 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount, now that my revert-power has been temporarily depleted, perhaps you would like to engage in discussion as to why my additions were inappropriate. I assume your undo was made in good faith, as were my additions, so please explain your objections to the points I raised above. In particular, please explain how my additions violated clearly established rules regarding undue weight and bias.PE2011 (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My complaint isn't directly attributable to Undue Weight and Bias, although I think that Qwyrxian's response on the matter was quite clear. I'm sure Qwyrxian will return with a suitable answer that can clarify so the same mistake won't be made in the future. My biggest concern (aside from you ignoring Qwyrxian's reasonable request) was your use of multiple blogs as references. Blogs are not solid references, and we have plenty of valuable material to sort through without cluttering up space with opinion pieces; especially opinion pieces that are subject to change without notice.Vt catamount (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount, according to the wikipedia guidelines, blogs “may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals” (Newspaper and magazine blogs) Every writer I cited is a “professional.” Moreover, I cited blogs not for their factual content—that is, as a substitute for a news source—but because those are noteworthy (academic) dissenting opinions to GMC’s decision. The current version, as I explain below, is in clear violation of WP:UNDUE, so those dissenting opinions should be included. PE2011 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the clarification. Wasn't it you who posted a reference to the VINE Sanctuary blog? And what if they (or McWilliams, or whomever) decided to up and edit their blog? Will you be monitoring to ensure that the relevant information hasn't changed? This all has little bearing, as I do not believe the paragraph is necessary in any way, and lends itself to Undue Weight as this matter is pretty trivial in the scheme of Green Mountain College's existence. We should attempt to be succinct and neutral, without adding too much fluff. Vt catamount (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)(edit for erroneous word. Whoops.)Vt catamount (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also posted a reference to VINE’s blog—two actually (the first from VTDIGGER). First, I don’t know why the possibility of editing is an objection. What edits could they make that would render my citations no longer valid? I suppose if McWilliams went back and wrote that he agrees with GMC’s decision then his piece would no longer be a “dissenting opinion,” but I doubt this is what you had in mind. Since I don’t cite those blogs for their factual assertions, I don’t know what why they are a problem. Second, regarding undue weight, see my response below. GMC has the minority view in this controversy, though that is being represented as the majority; the rationale for slaughter is articulated but the rationales against it are not. How is that “neutral?” Third, the fact that this controversy made its way into various major news outlets shows that it isn’t “trivial” at all, but newsworthy (by definition). Fourth, the “fluff” I added were mostly from people with PhDs, which conforms to the "professional" requirement for blog sources. PE2011 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the second paragraph is necessary at all. Let's stick with the facts and keep it clean. I don't need to see Fesmire or Leist or Sanbonmatsu or McWilliams or VINE or the others to get an idea of the story. As Qwyrxian so eloquently put, "We don't need the support or disapproval of all of those people. In fact, I'm not sure that anyone in that section is notable enough to have their own personal opinion covered. I've so far held off on reverting, trying to set a good example, but that stuff just cannot stay in the article. One important thing to remember is this: Wikipedia is not a newspaper." Vt catamount (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount, the current version is not an adequate representation of the protestor’s views, and thus it violates WP:UNDUE (1) The current version tells us why GMC favors slaughter, but it doesn’t tell us why protesters are against it. And (2) it tells us who has defended GMC’s decision, but it doesn’t tell us who has opposed it, even though the opposed number in the “tens of thousands” from "around the world." Minority is trumping majority. As for facts, I didn't say anything that wasn't fact--if you disagree, let's discuss the offending sentence(s). Moreover, why do you think the people I mentioned aren't "notable enough?" What's your standard of notability? They are all, unquestionably, public figures, so how notable do they have to be in your view? I bet more people have heard of Bruce Friedrich (formerly PETA) than either Chuck Ross or Peter Shumlin. Lastly, there are a lot of "facts" to this story, not all of which are being represented. Consider the fact that this controversy has received attention in the NYT, Boston Globe, The Daily Caller, NPR, Opposing Views, Huffington Post, The Chronicle of Higher Education, VTDIGGER, Times Argus, and Reuters--all within a 1-2 month period. A meager paragraph representing only GMC's viewpoint is hardly an adequate (or "neutral") description of all the significant facts. PE2011 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Remember this is a page about Green Mountain College; there is no reason to have more than one paragraph, as despite your opinion on the matter, this subsection adds very little encyclopedic value to the page. If you have suggestions to improve the existing language, by all means, make those suggestions, but we do not need an additional paragraph. Also please note, it was Qwyrxian who originally mentioned that the scholars you list are not notable enough - I just happen to agree. The Governor and Secretary of Agriculture, I think, are notable; as I've stated, it isn't often that state government involves itself in such affairs.Vt catamount (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount, I think discussion would be more productive if we actually addressed each other’s arguments--they shouldn’t be read and dismissed. First, according to Qwyrxian, my second paragraph was in violation the rules in WP:UNDUE, but as I’ve argued, the current version actually violates them. You have not responded to this argument. Second, I also argued that the rules in WP:UNDUE also require the inclusion of my second paragraph. Again, you have not responded to this argument, and it is insufficient, at this point, to just say “we do not need an additional paragraph” without interacting with my comments on this. Similarly, you say “there is no reason to have more than one paragraph” but give no consideration or acknowledgment of my reasons for my second paragraph. Please conform to the requirements of good faith dialogue. Third, why do you think that the scholars I cited are not “notable enough?” Again, it’s unproductive to simply say you think so without explaining why--nothing gets resolved that way.PE2011 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Violation of WP:UNDUE

I believe the current version is in clear violation of WP:UNDUE, which requires that “all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable resources” be fairly represented. Minority views should not be given as much of as description as “more widely held views.” Here, the minority views of GMC are given more description than “more widely held views”—namely, the views of “tens of thousands” of protestors around the world. In fact, the “views” of protestors—who are in the majority—are not given any description at all, so not only is the current version lacking “all significant viewpoints,” it is heavily biased towards a minority one. The rationale for slaughter is articulated but the rationales against it are not. Hence I vote to re-add my original additions. PE2011 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement as originally written is extremely biased. First, the way the word "townspeople" was used implies that the whole town is in opposition to the decision, when reality is far different. Second "tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide" also implies that there is active protest, from "tens of thousands of people." The reality of online petitions is that they exist for every reason, from very important to the nonsensical, and they all have many people who sign them - but this does not indicate intent. You can 'mass sign' if you get newsletters from certain websites, people can certainly sign more than one petition, and the way the petitions were written was also extremely biased. The reality is that there are a few people who comment on all the newsletters and message boards (both for and against the slaughter, but the 'for' people are never mentioned here), and many who took a moment to type their name. To use the phrase "tens of thousands" implies a level of care that is not evident or supported by any proper news article. HOWEVER, in the interest of stopping this ridiculous back and forth, I edited the sentence to its current version: "The college's decision precipitated opposition from animal rights activists that included some townspeople and thousands of online petitioners." This sentence includes "townspeople" and "online petitioners" but is less inflammatory and biased overall.Crazytome (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, you replied to my comment about re-inserting my original additions, but you focus on a different matter: namely, the third sentence in the current version. So, I want to first note that that’s the focus of my comments to you. I do not find your objections convincing or your changes acceptable. First, “townspeople” in the NYT article does not imply that “the whole town” opposed the decision; “townspeople” does not mean “the whole town.” Therefore, your “some” qualification is completely redundant. Second, “tens of thousands of online petitioners” implies that there have been tens of thousands of online petitioners, which is true, and signing a petition is a form of protest. But the phrase does not imply that those “tens of thousands of online petitioners” are also actively protesting in other ways (which may or may not be true). The USA Today article also uses the phrase “tens of thousands of signatures.” Third, it appears your objection is with the NYT’s statement, and if so, your personal opinion that it is inaccurate or misleading – without citing a contrary source – should carry no weight. Fourth, your change deletes “worldwide,” despite the word being amply justified by other sources (e.g., “international outcry” in VPR, “around the world” in Rutland). Fifth, your change focuses on “animal rights activists” as the only category of people opposed to the slaughter, which is a departure from the source. See my reply to Flyte35 above. PE2011 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not reply in the right place; my computer screen is small and things get jammed up and hard to read sometimes. I do think that your statement is biased, and yes, the NYTimes statement was biased. My edit was not biased, yours was. I put "worldwide" back in, but the rest of my edit is simply factual.Crazytome (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the motivations behind everyone trying to get this sentence right but, come on. We can't say "worldwide." The source (the NPR story) says "international," meaning pertaining to more than one country. A blog post from someone in Toronto could qualify. "Worldwide" means throughout the world, which is both unsourced and not true.Flyte35 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Flyte, this still bothers me. To the average reader, "worldwide" would indicate massive, almost-universal protest. I changed the phrase to "all over the world" to indicate protesters come from more than one country.Crazytome (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35, does “worldwide” and “around the world” mean the same thing to you? PE2011 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(Listen I know is is kind of ridiculous, but) It's not about what it means "to me"; it's about what it actually means. International means "of, relating to, or affecting two or more nations." Worldwide means "extended throughout or involving the entire world." All over the world is more ambiguous but perhaps a little misleading. Again, my preference was just "precipitated opposition from animal rights activists," which is accurate and avoids this level of nitpickery, but there was some opposition to that one. But all we've got for sourcing says "international."Flyte35 (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35, you cannot separate “international" from “international outcry”—-the latter, in this context, simply means protests of GMC’s decision originating from different parts of the world, not just in the USA. “Worldwide” and “around the world,” in this context, mean exactly the same thing. Let me ask: How did you interpret the sentence ending in “petitioners worldwide?” I’m still not clear on that. PE2011 (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, I do not believe it advances productive discussion to repeat assertions of bias without addressing the relevant counter-arguments or taking into account the relevant evidence presented. For instance, in my reply, I noted that the USA Today article said “tens of thousands of signatures”—so the phrase “tens of thousands” is well-sourced. Please read and interact with my counter-arguments. PE2011 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Presenting one side

The section on Bill & Lou is noteworthy because it is a controversy where notable people have spoken out on both sides (for and against). The edits by Crazytome are attempting to present only one side - notably the pro killing GMC side. A balanced summary will present the concise positions of both sides without having to revert to details such as people urinating on cars. The paragraph was well balanced before user Crayztome started mangling it. Bunchipe (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I was wondering when the personal attacks would begin. I made changes because the original paragraph was inflammatory and obviously biased toward the animal rights perspective. I put in information from the other side and changed a few words to be more neutral. The insistence on taking out the phrase "some of them said to be threatening" is because the language is biased. It sounds like the writer is saying "yeah, they said it was threatening, but that's doubtful" - *especially* given the biased language from the statements preceding it. The *fact* is that people received threats, and if you couldn't just leave that in, then it is best to quote what GMC said. I put in that GMC "described" the contact as threatening and then quoted a balanced article. It was not as concise as it had been before, but it seemed to be the best compromise between a biased attempt at discrediting GMC and simply stating what had happened. Crazytome (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The original paragraph was neither inflammatory nor biased. It concisely summarized the controversy and used language that was precisely sourced. The "some of them said to be threatening" is perfectly accurate based on the sources and the quotes attributed to the slaughterhouse rep who was referenced in the source. Every editor on here, with the exception of Crazytome, has agreed that the version that existed before Crazytome significantly revised it was both concise and balanced. Bunchipe (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Precisely sourced from where? Biased journalism? I found the original paragraph highly offensive, and blatantly anti-GMC. You didn't, because your personal opinion is skewed that way. What is best is if someone with no opinion or tie to this issue would write or edit the paragraph, but that seems unlikely. We have to compromise, and I do not wish to compromise on biased language.Crazytome (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome. First, Bunchipe made no personal attacks against you. So far, despite our disagreements and frustrations, it’s been pretty civil. Second, your claim of “bias” continues to be made without support—please interact with my above arguments regarding the second sentence sourced by the NYT. PE2011 (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I was accused of "mangling." If you don't see that as an attack, then I hardly think you are one to determine what is and isn't biased language. As I stated above, the use of the phrase "said to have been threatening" sounds like the writer is saying "yeah, they said it was threatening, but that's doubtful" - *especially* given the biased language from the statements preceding it. And, like I also stated above, the preceding statements were biased in that the language used made it sound like there was major, near-universal protest about this decision, which is most definitely not the case.Crazytome (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, it was an opinion assessment of your edits, one that I agree with it--and even if I didn't, it's not a personal attack. And as I said to Vt catamount above, the paragraph as written violates WP:UNDUE. If you disagree, please interact with my arguments and explain why. Additionally, please interact with my above arguments regarding the second sentence sourced by the NYT. PE2011 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that Lou has been euthanized, a statement to that effect needs to be added once some credible sources come forth. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Bill and Lou controversy - Second Paragraph

This needs to be settled. The only purpose the second paragraph of this subsection serves is to highlight the opinions of others. Personally, I never turn to Wikipedia as a source for other peoples' opinions. I've made an exception earlier to the Vermont Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets, as Mr. Ross was releasing an official statement on behalf of an agency of government; I consider that "notable," but what is "notable"? Governor Shumlin's remark was more of a personal opinion than an official statement from the Governor of Vermont, so I believe that addendum can be struck from the record, along with the rest. In my mind, the question becomes: should the second paragraph of this subsection exist at all?Vt catamount (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. We just don't need that last paragraph summarizing the for/against positions. It's important to think of this in terms of the quality of the GMC article. The article need not express a summary of the arguments and counterarguments for the slaughter of the animals. If it's important to maintain information about B&L incident at all the article should only present a summary of the incident, not all (or even some) views ABOUT the incident. GMC announced that it would kill the oxen. A lot of people protested the killing of the oxen. The college decided to kill them anyway. That is what happened. (Btw, it appears the wiki thing about notable has to do with notability in terms of basis for creating a whole entry about an event, not including an event in another entry. I don't think Wikipedia:EVENT pertains to what we're discussing here.) Flyte35 (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

VT catamout, there is nothing in the guidelines that prohibits citing and describing opinions—as has been pointed out to you, blogs are explicitly permitted. Please respond to my arguments above, which also apply to this section. Per the rules on Undue weight, my deleted second paragraph should be restored. Please explain why they don't apply here. PE2011 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

VT catamount and Flyte35: “Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion ,but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier” (Statements of Opinion) None of my blog references were used as sources of "fact," but sources of authors' opinion. PE2011 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the quality of your sources in the second graf. They are fine. It's just that the graf is isn't necessary or valuable to the GMC article as a whole.Flyte35 (talk)

Flyte35, thank for you acknowledging that my sources are unproblematic. However, I don’t know why it’s appropriate to judge the value of my second paragraph based on GMC’s entire wikipedia page—-most of which is unrelated to the B&L controversy-—as opposed to its value to the actual B&L controversy. In other words, it appears you are objecting to my additions because GMC’s history section only contains 82 words, but that section has nothing to do with the B&L controversy. Instead, why not consider my additions simply in the context of the B&L controversy? PE2011 (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the word count is the point (although I admit I may have used the word count argument myself earlier in this discussion). I think you're suggesting here that the second graf would be appropriate if the article itself were longer and more robust. I'll grant you that a 2 graf summary of a recent event would matter less in a longer article about an academic institution, but that's not really the point. NO INCIDENT would merit more than one graf. Granted, right after it happened editors would write a whole bunch of things, but both immediately and over time people would remove them, because they're not that important to the story of GMC as a whole. The thing is that the B&L controversy does say something important about how the institution, particularly as one that deals with environmentalism, approaches controversial topics of animal life and environmental sustainability. But everyone's take on this issue simply isn't that important. It's not that we're thinking about the opinion summary graf based on GMC's entire wikipedia page, it's that we're thinking about the opinion summary in terms of AN entire wikipedia page. Would you want to see a summary of opinions for every controversy here? How about when the school went co-ed? How about when they decided to offer the BA? How about when they decided to more environmental stuff? How about that time a freshman gave birth to a baby in her dorm (that really happened at GMC a few years ago)? All of these things generated opinion articles, as do most news events; there's no need to summarize the world's op eds. It's enough to say simply that there was an incident that generated national news, here's what the incident was. That's the most important thing to note.Flyte35 (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35, two things. First, the concern I have with the thin first graf is that it articulates GMC’s rationale for slaughter (“offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm”) but no rationales against it, which seems to offend both undue weight and neutrality--and add to that the very last bit about protestors being threatening. Doesn’t paint them in a very sympathetic light, does it? Second, I agree we should be very selective in choosing which opinions are described, but some opinions – because they are said by certain people – are important to the story. Consider one of my proposed additions: “VINE posted several open letters on their blog arguing that the meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen.” VINE is a huge part of the story, so their opinion (or viewpoint) can be fairly characterized as “important,” though at the very least, it should be included to achieve some balance (close to 50-50) in regards to neutrality and undue weight concerns. Why is this unreasonable? PE2011 (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I've stated it pretty clearly above: this entire paragraph is a list of opinions, which adds nothing to the Green Mountain College article. As for describing this particular event, the first paragraph successfully accomplishes this feat (though may need some minor edits) and does so while relying on several national sources (remember that national or global reporting is preferred - Wikipedia:Notability [see? it did come in handy!]). Personally I'm glad I live in a world where Wikipedia articles are not simply a listing of various opinions on a given topic.Vt catamount (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, opinions are not prohibited, and when you say they add nothing to the article, I don’t know what you mean. Opinions (pro and con) are part of the facts of the Bill and Lou controversy--who said what and why. A huge part of the Bill and Lou story are the various opinions (mostly dissenting) generated by scholars and other high profile activists. Moreover, nothing you said addresses my argument regarding undue weight, which is related. Please frame your arguments in terms of wikipedia guidelines. PE2011 (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at WP:UNDUE again, I'm actually not even sure it applies here. WP:UNDUE appears to pertain to guidelines for discussing intellectual controversies along the lines of Holocaust denial or evolution or global warming, controversies about factual matters (as in, don't give a lot of weight to fringe views). In this case there's simply no need to summarize the opinions, because the debate is ethical; the facts are not in dispute.Flyte35 (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The undue article talks about fairly representing “all significant viewpoints,” and it isn’t restricted to purely factual disputes--“viewpoint” encompasses ethical “viewpoints” as well. Moreover, that Mark Bekoff (for instance) criticized GMC’s decision is also a fact, one I added in my second paragraph. The same way it’s a fact that Bruce Friedich argued that GMC’s decision makes no sense, etc My second paragraph describes facts of the B&L controversy left out in the first paragraph. PE2011 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There are really only two significant viewpoints here: kill the animals or don't kill them. The kill them argument is justified by A, the college (present in graf one), and the don't kill them argument is also present in graf one B, (the protestors and that animal rights sanctuary). All of the opinions in graf 2 are only in support of A or B.Flyte35 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35, that’s not entirely accurate: my proposed second graf incorporated the mention that “Steve Fesmire and Philip Ackerman-Leist have written defenses of the decision.” In terms of numbers, here’s what we have on the pro-GMC side: (1) articulation of college rationale (“offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm.”), (2) decision defended by Peter Shumlin, (3) decision defended by Chuck Ross, (4) decision defended by Steven Fesmire, and (5) decision defended by Philip Ackerman-Leist. On the pro-B&L side: (1) articulation against slaughter by VINE, (2) articulation against slaughter by Friedrich, (3) dissenting opinion by Gould, (4) dissenting opinion by James McWilliams, (5) dissenting opinion by Marc Bekoff, and (6) dissenting opinion by Sanbonmatsu. 5 pro-GMC v. 6 pro-B&L. (Current graf has changed, but these figures are calculated from the earlier version I was working with.) PE2011 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35, here’s an additional proposal. Add the following as the second to last sentence (it is sourced): "VINE posted several open letters on their blog arguing that the meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen." Reasonable? PE2011 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs)

Agree with removal

I have read all the varying opinions on the second paragraph, and I have come to the conclusion that I agree with the editors that call for its removal. The entire paragraph is nothing but the opinions of others on the issue. The extreme basics of said issue (one side for it, the other against it) is dealt with in a concise manner in the first paragraph. The average reader of Wikpedia, if they happen upon this page, is not going to care how many PhD's thought the decision was great and how many thought that action stunk. They are going to want to know the basics of the story and that's it. The page is about Green Mountain College...not Green Mountain College and the Bill and Lou Controversy. Keep the section on the issue short and to the point. The second paragraph needs to go, and the majority of editors here agree with that. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

On that note, is it possible to reinstate the section as it was before Crazytome edited it? It was generally held to be a solid entry on the subject from all sides. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, WP:UNDUE applies to every Wikipedia article. In a nutshell, it says that we cannot overrepresent anything in any Wikipedia article. While the main thrust is aimed at over--representing a minority opinion, it also includes covering any one topic in too much detail. The reality is this: this is not an important event. It's "facebook famous". It has been covered, a little, in a few national news outlets, and thus deserves some mention in this article. But it does not deserve very much. It is not a shaping event in the history of the school. It's not going to cause the rise or fall of administrations, personnel, or donations. Rather, it's a human interest story, interesting enough to catch the eye of the NYT and NPR...but not enough to justify significant coverage here. With reference to the people's opinions, you yourself actually hit on the explanation for why they don't belong here: they are important to the "bill and Lou story". But what they are not important to is to the encyclopedia article about the college.

Kingsrow1975, with regard to undue weight concerns, I don’t see where the rules and policies would require us to judge the value of a graf based on its importance to the whole GMC page (most of which has nothing to do with the controversy) as opposed to its importance to the actual B&L controversy. In other words, I’m asking myself: are certain opinions an important part of the B&L story? They clearly are. Can you quote from the rules that say we should judge a graf’s importance by its value to the entire college page? I’m also going to repeat what I said to Flyte35 above. First, the concern I have with the thin first graf is that it articulates GMC’s rationale for slaughter (“offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm”) but no rationales against it, which seems to offend both undue weight and neutrality--and add to that the very last bit about protestors being threatening. Doesn’t paint them in a very sympathetic light, does it? Second, I agree we should be very selective in choosing which opinions are described, but some opinions – because they are said by certain people – are important to the story. Consider one of my proposed additions: “VINE posted several open letters on their blog arguing that the meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen.” VINE is a huge part of the story, so their opinion (or viewpoint) can be fairly characterized as “important,” though at the very least, it should be included to achieve some balance (close to 50-50) in regards to neutrality and undue weight concerns. Why is this unreasonable? PE2011 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, WP:UNDUE applies to every Wikipedia article. In a nutshell, it says that we cannot overrepresent anything in any Wikipedia article. While the main thrust is aimed at over--representing a minority opinion, it also includes covering any one topic in too much detail. The reality is this: this is not an important event. It's "facebook famous". It has been covered, a little, in a few national news outlets, and thus deserves some mention in this article. But it does not deserve very much. It is not a shaping event in the history of the school. It's not going to cause the rise or fall of administrations, personnel, or donations. Rather, it's a human interest story, interesting enough to catch the eye of the NYT and NPR...but not enough to justify significant coverage here. With reference to the people's opinions, you yourself actually hit on the explanation for why they don't belong here: they are important to the "bill and Lou story". But what they are not important to is to the encyclopedia article about the college.

As you know, I agree that there is no need to have the second graf and am pretty satisfied that the current version is ok except that the second sentence was changed in such a way that it sounds like all the protestors are animal rights activists. The New York Times story is clear on this point. It says animal rights activists are one type of persons who are concerned. It also says tens of thousands, which is one of the reasons this controversy is notable. So therefore, I request that the previously agreed upon second sentence be restored. Thank you all very much. George McD (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I changed that part of the second sentence to make it verbatim in line with the NYT article, save for the "worldwide" at the end of the petitioners bit, because I felt it emphasized the scope of the action. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I still hold that the way this sentence is phrased - here and in the original NYTimes article, which was a biased piece of journalism and *not* an encyclopedia entry - overemphasizes the protesters' actual numbers. As written, it sounds like the entry is saying "most people around the globe are actively protesting the slaughter." This is not true.Crazytome (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, the actual numbers are not being overemphasized. It’s been pointed out to you that “tens of thousands” appears in USA Today, not just NYT. Moreover, if you look at the care2 petition--the one referred to by the various articles--there are around 50,000 signatures. PE2011 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lou euthanized

Now the Lou has been euthanized, a statement to that effect and also one dealing with the fact that Bill will stay on the farm needs to be added, once credible sources appear. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, a statement about Lou will need to be added once an article appears - something to the effect of "Due to Lou's injury worsening, he was humanely euthanized on November 11, 2012. Bill is to remain with the College until otherwise decided." Crazytome (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Kngsrow1975, here’s an additional proposal. Add the following as the second to last sentence (it is sourced): "VINE posted several open letters on their blog arguing that the meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen." Reasonable? And I agree with your above regarding Lou. PE2011 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, I respectfully ask you to stop removing the reference in the article that says that the school received threats. As quoted from the Yahoo article: "Some emails threatened to shut the college down and hurt donations, the school said; the head of the farm and food project said he has gotten death threats and someone urinated on his car. School officials were not specific about the origin of the threatening emails." There is your proof. So, I ask you nicely to stop with these shenanigans. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I respectfully ask you to stop removing the reference to the school. In many articles, the fact that the school received protests (and threats) was part of the reason why they postponed the slaughter. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, the above quote from the Yahoo article (and published, btw, on Nov. 10, way after the end of the October) does not attribute the postponement of slaughter to threats to the school. If you can source that claim, I’ll remove my objection, but as it stands now, I see no basis for the current version. Please respond to this so we can have a constructive dialogue.PE2011 (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, please respond to my previous comment so we can have a constructive dialogue. I don’t deny that the yahoo article says threats were made to the school—-but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether threats to the school were part of the stated reason for the postponement. Where does it say that in that yahoo article? If you do not respond to my objections, I will revert the changes. PE2011 (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that threats to the school helped to aid the process of postponement. The way the articles are written, it shows implication if actions. Before you go and change the article again to suit your own vision, we should let other editors weigh in on the subject. You do not have absolute control on the content, so please stop acting as if you do. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Cars urinated on? Death threats to faculty? I think the article is clear and the line should remain.Vt catamount (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I do not believe you are being objective on this. Consider the USA Today article, where Fonteyn explicitly attributes the postponement to threats to area slaughterhouses—no mention of threats to school being a reason for the postponement. Regarding the yahoo quote, again, those threats to GMC are not attributed to the postponement, and it certainly doesn’t tell us when they occurred: did they occur before or after October 31 (original slaughter deadline)? So no implication can be drawn from those statements as to whether they played a role in postponement. As editors, we cannot just read claims into statements. PE2011 (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount, where does it say that the urination and death threats to GMC were part of the stated reason for postponement? I believe I’m asking a reasonable question. PE2011 (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, PE2011. I believe that separating the statements as Kingsrow1975 has done (talk below) is appropriate. Thank you for pointing this out.Vt catamount (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt. Catamount, thank you for your acknowledgment on this point. PE2011 (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edited to separate events

I have edited the sentence to better separate the events. Now it clearly states that the SH were getting threats and that led to postponement. It also states the GMC got threats as well. "The college planned to slaughter the oxen by the end of October but postponed the event, saying area slaughterhouses were deluged with protests, some of them threatening. While this was occurring, the college received protests and threats as well." Kingsrow1975 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, your edit seem basically good, PE2011. The only thing that doesn't sit well, it is sounds like VINE sent out the memo as a CYA (cover your ass) posting. Perhaps this would better reflect their intent? "VINE Sanctuary, in one of several open letters to GMC, denounced the threats towards the college." Kingsrow1975 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, I must dispute this line as it is unnecessary and relies on a questionable (borderline COI) source. If you can find this mention on any preferred source I would reconsider. For guidance on preferred sources please see WP:Sources "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy;" WP:SPS "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Furthermore, and this goes for everyone including myself, please refrain from bold edits at this time - any bold edits are bound to produce edit warring and revert bans. (WP:CAREFUL)Thank you.Vt catamount (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I think the article would be better served if you could work in a statement that explains that many ARA's denounced the actions, not just VINE. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to cite the animal sanctuary's public relations. It doesn't add "balance" in any meaningful senese. It doesn't matter how one animal sanctuary feels about the threats issued against GMC by some activists. The graf is fine without the last line.Flyte35 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35 does make a valid point. The article can stand without it. I vote removal. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.Vt catamount (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. We don't need that last sentence about threats to faculty, it is overkill from one side of this controversy and is unbalanced. I'm sure you must know this. Come on folks, let's try to be fair here. We were doing so well :) George McD (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is fact and it has been repeated in a lot of stories about the saga. It's worthy to remain.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In my area of expertise (journalism), you report that facts as they stand. The facts are that both the SH and GMC faculty received protests and threats. It is an integral part of the story. As such, it should remain.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear your opinion, George McD, but the threats and postponement [and eventually the subsequent euthanasia (as yet to be reported)] are both prominent facts in this "controversy." The reasoning for dismissal of VINE's opinion of the threats should not be extended to say that the threats themselves are unimportant.Vt catamount (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding VINE, they are a notable part of the B&L controversy—-the organization is already mentioned in the graf, and it is also mentioned in numerous sources, including NYT and others. Additionally, here’s a quote from VTDigger about VINE: “VINE, which has been vocal in advocating for the animals’ lives, has posted several open letters on their blog…” This sources my proposed addition, along with the actual memo itself. The current last sentence attributes a statement to GMC, whereas my addition attributes a related statement to VINE. Why is this not a fair balance? VT.catamount, my proposed addition does not state any facts, but merely attributes a statement to an organization—the same as the current last sentence—-so reliability concerns do not apply.Left alone, the current last sentence paints animal activists involved in the controversy, including VINE, in an unfair light.PE2011 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

While VINE may have been highly involved in the story, adding to the entry a statement that VINE denounced the threats is 1. highly-self-serving, painting VINE in a biased positive light, and 2. neglecting the other protesters who denounced the actions as well. VINE's first mention is appropriate because they were indeed the first to offer sanctuary. That is relevant to the main idea of the story. Your proposed second mention is not. Either include (in a general way) all of the statements opposed to the threats or none at all. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the VINE PR should stay out. Press releases should only be cited in very very rare circumstances, none of which apply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What are those circumstances? I believe the sentence is necessary for the above stated reasons. Here is my revised sentence: "VINE Sanctuary, in one of several open letters to GMC, stated in a November 1st memo that all of their communications to the college have been respectful." PE2011 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing, PE2011? We have been discussing this and so far the majority opinion feels that the sentence should not be in there at all. All the sentence you inserted serves to do is to kiss VINE's butt. You have no right inserting it again. Rewritten or not, it's still the same turd. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, In light of certain objections, I revised the sentence for neutrality. Again, the previous sentence about the college receiving threats, if left alone, creates an impression that AR groups – such as VINE – have been hostile. I do not agree with the consensus that my sentence should be entirely removed (perhaps revised). If the sentence will not be included, then the prior sentence about the college's statement regarding threats should be removed. Additionally, please conduct yourself in an appropriate, respectful manner. Thank you.PE2011 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the subsection has the effect of accusing VINE of such things. Further, the addition does nothing to balance the fact that threats existed, as posited in the preceding sentence. It is an addition of one organizations' condemnation of threats, and is superfluous.Vt catamount (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt vatamount, creating a misleading, biased impression is not the same thing as making an accusation: my concern is with the former, which occurs if the college statement about receiving threats (now deleted) is left alone. Moreover, my revised addition does not mention any condemnation, but only that VINE stated that their communications have been respectful. A statement attributed to the college about receiving threats followed by a statement attributed to VINE about not making threats is balanced. If my revised proposal is rejected, then the prior sentence should be completely removed. PE2011 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that threats have been received is important for the sake of this subsection, and does not create a "misleading, biased impression" that VINE is associated with said threats.Vt catamount (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, PE2011, it is not necessary to list VINE as not having made such threats. Imagine if a reporter were covering a news story about some people threatening the White house. That reporter would say that threats were made, and that's that. Said reporter would not start naming organizations that said they didn't do it, because it would not be relevant to the story, lest the entire newspaper be filled with the names of people and organizations who did not do it. It would be a pointless exercise. The same thing applies here. No one said that VINE threatened anyone, so there's no need to say they didn't. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Justification of college's statement

Kingsrow1975, you justified the inclusion of the college’s statement about receiving threats on the basis that that fact “has been repeated in a lot of stories about the saga.” If that’s the standard, then the statement should be removed entirely because it has not been “repeated in a lot of stories about the saga.” Yahoo news is simply one source (an internet news source). So unless you can source the statement to multiple news sources, it should be deleted--because bias and misleading impression concerns. PE2011 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Another reference for the college receiving threats is here: http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/11/11/vermont-college-euthanizes-one-its-oxen-after-controversial-decision-slaughter-them/8DeO1Lr2gG5wh0OwD1MfCJ/story.htmlVt catamount (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, the point is that the claims of threats are sourced by a legitimate entity. Vt catamount has found another source as well. The statement is legitimate.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the site itself in question? The article is from the Associated Press, and as such is syndicated in both full-length and summary form on many news sites. If you'd prefer to pick a different news agency, that's fine with me. The facts remain.Vt catamount (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975,There are problems with the way the current sentence is phrased, but my main concern is bias and misimpression—if left alone, the graf creates the impression that threats might have been made by AR groups, such as VINE. So the current version is not balanced. A statement attributed to the college about receiving threats followed by a statement attributed to VINE about not making threats is balanced, and you have not responded to this argument. Why is balance not achieved here? My other concern is that the statement has far less visibility than other statements made about the story – probably not enough for the graf. In the above article cited, the only mention of threats to college was in this one short sentence: “Many messages were heated and some were threatening.” Many other statements pertaining to this story have received far more attention, so why include this over others? Your justification for inclusion is inadequate; if the VINE statement can’t get in, then college statement should be removed. PE2011 (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is not necessary to list every person or entity who did not engage in threatening behavior. In all fairness, if you include VINE, you'd have to include every other person or group who didn't do it. Your argument is invalid.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I take this to mean that there's no longer any question as to the legitimacy of the cited reference. Please continue to address this topic where it is already under discussion above.Vt catamount (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Vt catamount (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kngsrow1975, VINE isn’t just “every other person or group,” but an organization that is intimately a part of the B&L story (it’s mentioned in numerous sources, including NYT). So your fairness reductio doesn’t work.PE2011 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, VINE only had one major part in this tale: they made the original offer for sanctuary. Other than that, they made a few blog posts about it. That's it, and it is hardly an "intimate" part of the story.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Twofold concerns

(Placed here for readability) VT. Catamount, I do not object on the grounds that the statement (which may need revision in terms of phrasing) isn’t sourced—I acknowledge that it is. But again, my concerns are twofold: (1) Unbalance and misleading impression, and (2) graf importance. First, my misleading impression concern, more precisely put, is that your version creates the impression that VINE – in particular - might have been involved in those threats. The possibility is certainly left open. If your statement is to be included, my revised sentence would achieve balance. Second, although the college statement is sourced, how important is it to the graf? Your latest source mentions bit about threat in 3 words, with no further elaboration. PE2011 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On the matter of "Unbalance" - GMC received threats, and that is sourced; there is no reason to "balance" this opinion against the opinion of VINE, unless VINE does not believe that GMC received threats. On the matter of "Misleading Impression" I do not believe this is the case, nor do I believe this should be satisfied with the proposed line. On the matter of "Graf Importance," threats received are part and parcel of what makes this ongoing interest piece a "controversy."Vt catamount (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying the college received threats in no way implies that VINE did it. Yet again, it is not necessary to include the names of every organization or person who *didn't* make the threats. There is no implication. At all.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VT catamount, GMC received threats, but VINE did not make threats—that’s an important clarification, one which is omitted in the current version. Without this clarification, the reader will not know whether VINE made threats (or endorsed those threats) or not. Both statements are sourced. According to GMC, some received emails have been threatening, and according to VINE, their communications to GMC have not been. I don’t think one source is more legitimate than the other in this case. On graf importance, it is false to say that threats to GMC are “part and parcel” of this controversy: what’s “part and parcel” to this controversy is GMC’s decision and the numerous opposition to it. PE2011 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again...again...again, you do not have to list every entity that didn't make threats in an article. There are no implications that VINE did it, so there is no need to say they didn't. Furthermore, as an aside, the only source that has said that VINE didn't threaten anyone is VINE itself. There is no independent corroboration. That makes the whole argument highly suspect, at least in terms of its credibility. I am in no way saying they did do it, by the way.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the most reliable sources of information, the controversy is in fact the protests and threats. Please review the headlines of accepted source material at least, full articles ideally.Vt catamount (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, it appears to me that whatever threats VINE did or did not make, or whatever they have felt about threats that were or were not made, belongs in an entry about VINE, and not in the entry about Green Mountain College. If it belongs on Wikipedia at all.'Italic textVt catamount (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, again, VINE isn’t “every entity,” but one that is an important part of the controversy—not only did they make the original offer, they were responsible for the publicity that this story has received, and have been mentioned in all major outlets covering it. Second, my misleading impression concern isn’t that the graf implies that VINE threatened anyone, but that it may leave the reader with the impression that the AR organization –just mentioned couple of sentence ago – might have involved in making threats. To avoid this, a clarification is in order. Third, regarding “independent corroboration,” there is no such corroboration for GMC’s claim either: articles are merely reporting that, according to GMC, threats were made. So it’s still GMC’s word v. VINE’s word—equal credibility.PE2011 (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Constantly repeating the same point over and over again does not make it any more valid. The article, as it stands, is a basic, unbiased account of what happened. Anything you propose to add would tip that balance into a bias. As an aside, VINE is not a credible source.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I’ve been addressing all of your points, not just repeating my own—I wish you would do the same. My misleading impression concern went unaddressed, as did my importance concern. Additionally, I responded to your “independent corroboration” argument but received no reply on that point. (Btw, my proposed sentence is merely describes VINE’s statement, which is no different than the college’s statement). Pleas respond in good faith to my arguments. Thank you.

VINE's statement is irrelevant since they were not named as one of the offending parties, plain and simple.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VT catamount, that GMC received threats is part of the controversy, but that’s not the relevant question. Rather, the relevant question: how prominent is that part of the controversy to justify inclusion in the graft? Again, the sources you cite mention threats to the college in only a few words and without any elaboration—they are not focus of those articles. So you still haven’t adequately addressed my “importance” concerns. PE2011 (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the negative and threatening reaction from a portion of the public is highly relevant. Would you just gloss over it all, painting the situation as one where none of the protesters acted out of line and everything was all rosy?Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, you are being overdramatic—-and uncharitable—-in your rhetorical question. Without the disputed statement, does it paint a situation that “none of the protesters acted out of line and everything was all rosy?” Of course not, because there’s still the preceding statement mentioning threats to SH, which I have not been objecting to. Please refrain from these kinds of hyperbolic comments. I propose either: (1) delete the disputed statement entirely, or (2) follow it up with my proposed clarification (or something very similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd go further to suggest that the biggest reason this story made national headlines in recent days (AP, Reuters, Globe) was due to the shocking nature of protests and threats received. As it stands, the statement by GMC is uncontested, so its inclusion is fair, while the statement of VINE is an opinion, and is not warranted in this entry.Vt catamount (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VT catamount, your suggestion has no basis. What’s your source for your speculation?

Back and forth

We can go back and forth on this until the cows come home (no pun intended) and the fact remains that the majority of editors here appear to feel that the article is pretty good as it stands. You seem to be the only one with issues. Like it or not, the majority rules. You do not have the right to override the general consensus and paint the picture as you like. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I just got back from dinner and am very disappointed to see the graf is more unbalanced than before. You added a sentence that was not agreed to by consensus about Lou's injury and you did not remove the recently added sentence about threats to the faculty. I, too, have a background in journalism. Come on folks, please be fair here. We were almost there until you did this. Come on now. George McD (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said below, I open to ideas to make it more balanced. What say you?Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

George, if you have something to add to the discussion, Lou's injury is discussed below and the source to the faculty (new, AP article) is discussed above. Be specific.Vt catamount (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(I wrote the following before seeing George McD's latest comment) Kingsrow1975, actually there is no majority here. GeorgeMcD earlier voted for deletion, saying that “We don't need that last sentence about threats to faculty, it is overkill from one side of this controversy and is unbalanced.” PE2011 (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am open to suggestions...as long as it has NOTHING to do with any statement by VINE.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, as I said above, I propose either: (1) delete the disputed statement entirely, or (2) follow it up with my proposed clarification (or something very similar). PE2011 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, the 'statement' that the college received threats is not disputed.Vt catamount (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount is right. It's documented that the threats occurred. If you have a clarification that's neutral (no VINE), then post it up.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrows1975, actually the sentence reads that the college “stated that” they received threats—which is more neutral than a sentence that the college received threats. My proposed clarification is similarly neutral: VINE “stated in a memo,” which is true—they did state what I described. But again, my objection isn’t so much with source but with (1) Unbalance and Misleading and (2) graf importance. I have articulated my arguments and responded, in good faith, to every one of your objections (see above). If you continue to object to my proposed sentence, please do the same. Otherwise, let’s compromise and remove the dispute sentence entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, "Stated that" seems fine in front of the school threats issue. VINE is still out. This isn't about VINE.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Making an acceptable graf

i think it would be an acceptable graf if those two above mentioned sentences are deleted. Not every point can be included on each side. George McD (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The threats are somehow unimportant? Or the threats against the college are unimportant?Vt catamount (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I second George McD’s proposal--both the college statement about threats and VINE’s statement about not making threats should not be included. Although my preference is for inclusion (of both), I am willing to compromise in this regard.PE2011 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You cannot say that the SH were threatened and leave out the threats to the college in good faith.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You cannot leave out the threats, period, and insisting this is somehow contingent on one organization's opinion of the threats is invalid.Vt catamount (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, please explain why the threats to the college is so essential to the story, and please respond to my objections in good faith (i.e., refrain from ignoring them). As I already explained, the threats to the college are given little coverage in the articles cited for it. Moreover, as written, the graf is unbalanced--your objections to including VINE’s statement do not take into account my concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned author - To clarify, you only have issue with the college being threatened, not the slaughterhouse, correct? The slaughterhouse threats are necessary. I would not budget on that. But the threats to the college's faculty and staff, though real, I would consider removing if it ties this up.Vt catamount (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I will agree with Vt catamount. In the interest of fairness, I would be willing to let the college threats go. Anything about VINE outside of what's already been said is out.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That was precisely my proposal: keep the SH threat language but remove the college threat statement. PE2011 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hearing no further objection (Kingsrow), I'd consider the matter closed and have already removed the subject sentence. If there are any new references or revelations it should be reconsidered in a new thread.Vt catamount (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Lou's Euthanasia

Okay, all...a solid source has written about Lou's euthanasia today. I'll post the link here and we should come up with a final couple of sentences here to close out the entry. Here's the link: http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/11/11/vermont-college-euthanizes-one-its-oxen-after-controversial-decision-slaughter-them/8DeO1Lr2gG5wh0OwD1MfCJ/story.html Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another article: http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/vt-college-euthanizes-farm-ox-at-center-of-uproar/article_11a746ad-79fc-53e9-b93d-3634419b9b82.html Kingsrow1975 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

How about my suggestion above - "Due to Lou's injury worsening, he was humanely euthanized on November 11, 2012. Bill is to remain with the College until otherwise decided." Also, here is the official memo to the school on the topic - http://www.greenmtn.edu/memo/111112_memo.asp Crazytome (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The above is a little bit of a POV problem. How about "In November the college had Lou, the injured ox, euthanized, and buried his body off campus. Bill remained on the campus farm."Flyte35 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I might have just missed it in my reading, but does it say he was buried off-campus? I thought he wasn't. Regardless, that sentence sounds fine to me. If he was buried off campus, okay, if not, then I would just change it to 'on campus.' The college memo was more for reference here, not that it should necessarily be cited on the entry.Crazytome (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's an issue with adding this line; the subsection no longer references Lou's injury as prompting the decision-making process. This line had existed but has since been reverted. I believe the addition came from Crazytome originally. We will need to reinstate that line to move ahead.Vt catamount (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have retrieved the line, to be re-embedded upon satisfactory consensus. It would be reinserted as the second sentence of this subsection. Link provided. "The community decision was made after Lou was injured and it was determined that Bill would not accept a new partner."Vt catamount (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this, tying in Flyte's idea with what was said on the memo? "In November, the college had Lou euthanized and buried his body off campus. Bill is slated to remain with the college and be cared for in accordance with GMC's ideals of a sustainable, humane livestock practice." Kingsrow1975 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe we'll need to further attribute these sentences to the college, eg, "According to a statement released in November," or similar. We're getting there.Vt catamount (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

NYT summary of Lou death says buried off campus. There's no need to say "be cared for in accordance with GMC's ideals of a sustainable, humane livestock practice." Obviously animals on campus are treated according to the college's policies for caring for animals.Flyte35 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, Flyte35. How about this? "According to a statement released on November 11, the college had Lou euthanized because veterinarians agreed that his condition would only worsen. His body was buried off campus."Kingsrow1975 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Prefer "In November, the college had Lou euthanized and buried his body off campus. Bill is slated to remain with the college." Just facts.Flyte35 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I like this, but please see my point above, we will need to reinsert language into the beginning of the graf.Vt catamount (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35, I only included the bit about the vets because it was in the story. Should it not be there?Kingsrow1975 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The fact about the animal being injured (and that his condition would only worsen) appears to have always been the case. Yes, vt_catamount is right, thing about ox being injured is what prompted the whole controversy and should go back in the graf.Flyte35 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I will add this sentence, then, to the entry.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Timeline Issue - VINE Offer

There is a clear timeline issue in this subsection. The offer from VINE came before the protests and petitions. I know this will surely be a cause for an edit-war, so I'd rather begin the discussion here. The facts of the matter are verified by the most recent AP article, as well as by VINE's own admission on their blog (which I would not dare use as a source, I say this only for the sake of discussion). I proposed to move lines as follows:

The college made national headlines in the fall of 2012 over its plan to slaughter its two 11-year-old draft oxen, Bill and Lou, and serve their meat in the college dining hall. The community decision was made after Lou was injured and it was determined that Bill would not accept a new partner. GMC declined an offer by VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school, saying that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm. The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide. The college planned to slaughter the oxen by the end of October but postponed the event, saying area slaughterhouses were deluged with protests, some of them threatening. The college stated that faculty received similar protests and threats.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/vt-colleges-oxen-slaughter-plan-riles-activists-185318275.html "The uproar began after VINE Sanctuary, which stands for veganism is the next evolution, was contacted by students and alumni who opposed the decision. It then posted an action alert on its blog asking readers to "please contact the folks at Green Mountain College and urge them to reconsider." It provided a form letter, free of threats, that readers could send to Throop."Vt catamount (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a play-by-play summary of the incident, but I don't think there's anything wrong with your proposed edit.Flyte35 (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The timeline change makes the entry more factual. I say go for it.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional proposal

Kngsrow1975, here’s an additional proposal. Add the following before the sentence "The college's decision prompted opposition..."(it is sourced): "VINE posted several open letters on their blog arguing that the meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen." Reasonable? If not, why not?

No. The article is not about VINE. The general statement about opposition encompasses everything, including VINE's efforts.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, Please refrain from making additional proposals here that are unrelated to the timeline change.Vt catamount (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I was forced to make this proposal here because it was ignored above. The rules on undue weight apply. Currently, while the graf articulates GMC’s decision for the slaughter, it does not articulate any justification against it—so unbalanced. Please respond to this concern in good faith. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, I am going to go ahead with the timeline changes as noted above.Vt catamount (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's kept to general reasons put forth by the public (not just VINE), why not? What have you got?Kingsrow1975 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, why is my proposed sentence unacceptable? I articulated arguments for this which have gone answered. I was repeat what I stated above: I believe the current version is in clear violation of WP:UNDUE, which requires that “all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable resources” be fairly represented. Minority views should not be given as much of as description as “more widely held views.” Here, the minority views of GMC are given more description than “more widely held views”—namely, the views of “tens of thousands” of protestors around the world. In fact, the “views” of protestors—who are in the majority—are not given any description at all, so not only is the current version lacking “all significant viewpoints,” it is heavily biased towards a minority one. The rationale for slaughter is articulated but the rationales against it are not. (Here, I'm only proposing one articulated rationale against slaughter - I am willing to compromise. Please respond in good faith, thank you). PE2011 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can claim majority based on an easily falsifiable online petition. You have no means of weighing the views of those who do not care (the true majority).Vt catamount (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll humor you, PE2011. Present a couple sentences with opposing views and NOT from VINE. Remember, we are talking about the protesters' views at large.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My proposed sentence is well sourced (VTDigger), and so I don’t understand your objections to it just because it came from VINE. VINE is one of the main AR organizations against the slaughter, so its viewpoint is “significant.” Please explain why it’s not. If it is, then on the basis of the wikipedia guidelines, it should be included. (Btw, VT catamount, you are applying the wrong standard. There are more people opposed to the slaughter than there are against it—-those who don’t care aren’t part of this calculation).PE2011 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

AR Interests are a vocal minority, to be certain.Vt catamount (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt. Catamount, in terms of this controversy, the anti-slaughter viewpoint is not the minority—again, there are more people opposed to slaughter (“tens of thousands”) than there are against it. And even the anti-slaughter viewpoint was in the minority (it’s not), VINE’s viewpoint is a “significant minority” viewpoint, and thus it should be included as well (see the undue weight rules). PE2011 (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VINE's opinion was basically the same as other individuals' and groups' opinions. There is no need to single them out, because if you're going to mention their opinion, you'll need to mention *everyone's* opinion. They are not special.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, unlike the opinions of “other individuals' and groups',” VINE’s opinion has been reported, which makes their opinion generally more noteworthy than non-reported opinions. The “need” to single them out, as I said, is due to the above cited rules on undue weight: that “all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable resources” be fairly represented. VINE’s opinion is a viewpoint “published” in a reliable source. Please frame your objections in terms of the wikipedia guidelines. PE2011 (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The only thing VINE did that is requisite to the story is the initial offer for sanctuary. Anything else needs to be in general terms. There were many viewpoints expressed about the situation by other animal rights groups. VINE did not hold a monopoly on opinions. There were many efforts put forth by different animal rights groups. VINE did not hold a monopoly on that, either. So, that is why you speak in general terms. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow, you are incorrect--that is not the only thing VINE did. They also articulated their rationale against the slaughter, which has been reported (VTDigger). I like to know the basis of your claim that “Anything else needs to be in general terms.” Where do the guidelines say that? Please frame your arguments in terms of the wikipedia guidelines. My argument from undue weight concerns quotes those guidelines directly. PE2011 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I know VINE did other things, but they were not the only show in town. To single them out would give unfair weight to their actions. Many people articulated their rationale over the period of this issue, who why not include their voice as well? I come from a common sense side, and frankly, I must question why you are so adamant about pushing VINE's opinion over the THOUSANDS of other protesters' opinions. There is no undue weight concern. Simply saying that protesters complained to GMC using the rationale of points X, Y, and Z still presents their side and gives no undue bias.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It would greatly help if we heard from PE2011 what exactly the "controversy" is. I was under the impression that the decision to slaughter oxen who had been worked for 11 years was the "controversy." If that were the case, the matter would be resolved, but here we are. Please enlighten. Vt catamount (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Singling out

Kingsrow1975, if singling out is your concern, I’m also willing to include the opinions of Bruce Friedrich, Marc Bekoff, James McWilliams, John Sanbonmastu, and Rebecca Kneale Gould. Do you have a preference? Regarding undue weight, here’s the relevant portion of the wikipedia guidelines: “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” My addition satisfies these requirements. (1) VINE’s viewpoint is a significant viewpoint, (2) that viewpoint has been published in a reliable source, and (3) it is more prominent than the contrary viewpoint (GMC’s viewpoint) published in reliable sources.PE2011 (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VINE's viewpoint is not significant. They're a group that tried to use this "controversy" to gain attention. They succeeded, and were oovered in some stories. We've represented their relevance to the story. Their viewpoint is not relevant. And no, we should not include all of those other viewpoints. There is no reason to include the viewpoints of any individual groups or people. Don't worry, a lot of people make this same mistake about NPOV. But if you read the whole thing, the goal of WP articles is not to include a long list of "he said, they said, she said", but, instead, to represent factually what happened. In cases where interpretation of events is relevant, we have to include various people's interpretations, taking into account WP:DUE. To be honest, PE2011, you're getting near to WP:DEADHORSE territory. And since there is a clear consensus not to include the information, it should stay out. As I've said before, you can follow dispute resolution; in this case, since we're specifically questioning the importance of a particular viewpoint, WP:NPOVN would be relevant; alternatively, an RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to lock this page, Qwyrxian? The issue has been discussed ad nauseum and PE2011 refuses to budge, even if the evidence is against the claims PE2011 makes. The horse is getting to be mush with all the beating it has takenKingsrow1975 (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow, that’s not fair and you know it. We’ve only began discussion of this particular issue--my proposed addition. Please refrain from misstating the facts.PE2011 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, that's balderdash and you know it. Your insistence to insert VINE's opinion has been going on for some time outside of this section. Please to do insult my intelligence by saying it hasn't. You have argued this point incessantly.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, the current issue is the proposed addition of the following sentence: "VINE posted several open letters on their blog arguing that the meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen." This proposal has not been subject to adequate discussion—-it only just started.PE2011 (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, no. VINE does not deserve special recognition for what they did. Many people used many tactics and methods to try to accomplish the same goal. Speaking of only VINE's actions lends to heavy bias and promotion of VINE. And yes, the topic has been discussed, debated and beat to death. Get over it.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I do not believe your casual dismissal of my proposal, in the face my arguments citing wikipedia guidelines, constitutes good faith. Second, it’s just not true that my proposal has been “discussed, debated and beat to death”—like I said, we only began discussing the issue of my proposed addition in this section. You are conflating my current proposal with our previous discussion regarding VINE’s about not making threats. Third, your “Get over it” remark is not appropriate, civil discourse. PE2011 (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You can choose to deny it until you're blue in the face, but the fact is, you've argued this point for a LONG time. There is NO REASON to include VINE in anything but the original reference. They did not spearhead this campaign, they did not run this campaign and they certainly did not speak for this campaign. You have zero logical arguments for its inclusion.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I must question your objectivity if you believe that VINE’s motive in this was to try to “gain attention” (and I noticed you put “controversy” in scare quotes), as if to imply that their primary motive was not to save Bill and Lou. I read the undue weight rules and quoted from them. Your claim that VINE’s viewpoint is “not relevant” is wholly unsupported. How is it not relevant? First, VINE’s viewpoint represents the opposition—those against slaughter, which number in the “tens of thousands.” Hence VINE’s viewpoint is in the majority. Second, VINE’s viewpoint is directly contrary to GMC’s viewpoint, which is relevant and being represented. So the relevance is obvious: VINE takes a contrary view. If you disagree, please respond to my above arguments. Thank you. PE2011 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant about getting VINE out there? VINE was not ever the official voice of the protest, so they are certainly not significant. Frankly, Qwyrxian is right: VINE did use this to gain attention and the spotlight. Again, to get the story across, the article as written does a good job. Again, I question your motivation to so endlessly promote VINE in all of this.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I’m adamant about getting in an articulated rationale from the protester’s side--doesn't necessarily have to be from VINE. How about this? Let’s use something from the care2 petition referenced by the articles(which has received 50,000 signatures). PE2011 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No specifics. If you feel you MUST get that side, present it in a neutral way with no specific references to any group.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see my suggestion at the bottom.Crazytome (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And please, PE2011, post it here, no more edit wars. The topic is very much under discussion; I am notified of Talk posts just as much as Edits. Let me know if this is out of line, but in seems pointless and not in good faith to follow BRD at this point.Vt catamount (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, we are not in the “deadhorse” territory

Seriously? You have argued this singular point for HOURS!Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Other sanctuaries

Honestly, I'm not sure it is necessary to even reference VINE specifically. Several other sanctuaries and individual farmers offered Bill and Lou a spot, including Farm Sanctuary. I believe the sentence could read "GMC declined offers from several farm animal sanctuaries to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school, saying that the offers did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm."Crazytome (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to dispute this, as it was the VINE offer that initiated the protests (by their admission and referenced at the top of this section).Vt catamount (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

True. I like the general idea, though. Absolute neutrality.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, VINE was the first, but not the only. I don't really care if the two that made public offers are named (Farm and VINE), but I agree that anything beyond that is unnecessary. I was just looking for a neutral solution.Crazytome (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer just "an animal sanctuary", because I don't really think it much matters, in terms of Green Mountain College as a WP entry, which institution offered to take the animals this fall, but I don't suppose indicating the organization hurts the entry that much, at least not at this point.Flyte35 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

New proposal

New proposal: I will describe a rationale articulated in the care2 petition letter, which received 50,000 signatures. If neutrality concerns are met, will there be any objections to the source? (google "Spare Bill and Lou care2 petition") PE2011 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no need to mention the care2 petition as a specific entity, either. At best, it's a very weak argument since such petitions are not regarded as having much weight due to the high potential of abuse.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow, the “tens of thousands” of online petitioners refers to the care2 petition. If you will not compromise and allow a neutral description of the letter’s rationale against slaughter, then I will have to insist on my proposed VINE statement. PE2011 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean to tell me that you cannot present the general arguments of the AR activists *without* mentioning a specific one? That is laughable. I can do it in two minutes or less.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow, please re-read what I wrote. Like I said, I am willing to settle for a neutral description of a rationale articulated in the care2 petition letter (no need to mention any particular person), the same letter than was referenced in the NYT and others. Why is this an unacceptable compromise to you? PE2011 (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No. again, there is no need. The article accurately explains what happened, just as Qwyrxian explained.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a need—undue weight concerns. Something I explained above, specifically by quoting the wikipedia guidelines. (And btw, Qwyrxian's explanation didn't interact with my arguments). PE2011 (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think that Q knows what he's talking about in this matter, and I will stand by his opinion.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the rationale is irrelevant. The is the GMC wiki page, not the VINE or Bill&Lou wiki page. Crazytome (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is implied by the extended name of VINE (Veganism is the next evolution) and the offer of sanctuary that the rationale is an opposition to eating dead animals. No further explanation is really necessary. Crazytome (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

But the rationale is irrelevant. The is the GMC wiki page, not the VINE or Bill&Lou wiki page. Crazytome (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The opinions on the matter are unnecessary. The facts are stated. If the reader wishes to learn more on the topic, they can follow links to the appropriate news sources. I see nothing in the PETA petition (care2) that would warrant inclusion. I invite you to post something here first, before editing the entry, but alas I believe it will be to no avail.Vt catamount (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's already been said in the article that there were petitions that garnered tens of thousands of signatures, so discussing care2 is redundant.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

General and neutral statement

As a matter of fact, I will prove how easy it is to write a general and neutral statement of the reasons behind the protest and the push for sanctuary: 1. It's compassionate towards the animal, 2. It can benefit humans as they can visit the animals and learn from them, 3. It means that the animal would not have to be subject to potentially cruel conditions, 4. People would look upon the school favorably for its kind treatment of the animal, and so on....Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, Where would I source those reasons? Care2, or some other source? PE2011 (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, the “tens of thousands” of online petitioners are those that signed the care2 petition I mention, the very same petition referenced in the NYT and others. Since the graf contains an articulation of GMC’s rationale for slaughter, it’s only fair that it should also contain an articulation of protesters’ rationale against slaughter. One proposal is to describe VINE’s rationale; another is to describe the rationale contained in the care2 petition letter. One rationale for slaughter v. one rationale against. Why is this not fair? PE2011 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments above about relevancy to the GMC wiki page.Crazytome (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, your comments do not take into account my arguments concerning undue weight, which included quotes from the wikipedia guidelines. Your comments are just your mere opinion, unsupported by any established policies or rules.PE2011 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As are yours.Crazytome (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The rationale has already been explained. VINE advocated sanctuary, which is what the opposition wanted. We know what their rationale was. As I said, Q has already explained that there is no need to elevate any specific entity in this matter.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, the rationale has not been explained. Offering sanctuary is not an explanation of a reason against slaughter. My care2 proposal does not mention any specific entity, so your concern is addressed. Moreover, inclusion is warranted by the wikipedia guidliness, from which I quoted. Again I ask, why is my modified proposal unwarranted? Why are you unwilling to compromise? PE2011 (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is about Green Mountain College, first and foremost. The discussion about the oxen is a footnote as far as the page goes. The section is designed to say what happened and nothing more. There is no need to get into reasons. If people are curious to know more, then Google is just a click away.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Kingsrow; further, the "care2" article you're "proposing" does not appear to be among the preferred sources that quality WP entries rely upon.Vt catamount (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, your remarks continue to ignore my undue weight arguments. Again, here’s the relevant portion of the wikipedia guidelines: “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” My proposed VINE statement satisfies all of these requirements, but you are unhappy with it. So I’m willing to compromise and go with the care2 petition, the very same one that was referenced by the NYT and other sources. PE2011 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Both Q and I have stated the reasoning. There is no need for rationale at all in the article. The facts are, B&L were set for slaughter, VINE offered sanctuary, GMC said no, people protested, the slaughter was put on hold because of threats to SH, and Lou was euthanized. That's it. That's the story. There is no need to anything else. I have stated my reasoning and so has the admin Q. I will not keep arguing the same fact over and over. It is what it is, and the article stands. If you wish to debate anything else about the article, fine, but the reasoning discussion is done.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, I quote from Q earlier: "the goal of WP articles is not to include a long list of "he said, they said, she said", but, instead, to represent factually what happened." This has been achieved.Vt catamount (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VT catamount, my single, proposed addition will not be “a long list of "he said, they said, she said,” and part of the facts includes the stated rationale of protesters.PE2011 (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, PE2011, you have not proposed language, you have proposed a source. Certainly a dubious source, but I would entertain your proposal of language. I don't see anything in the care2 language that you could use, nor is it a preferred source by WP standards.Vt catamount (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VT catamount, I was referring to my proposed VINE statement (sourced by VTDigger): "VINE posted several open letters on their blog arguing that the meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen." Before proposing a statement sourced by care2, I first want consensus that the source is acceptable, and that a neutral description of a rationale in the letter will be included. (And again, that petition is the VERY same petition referenced in the NYT, the one which received "tens of thousands" of signatures) PE2011 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to your "care2" proposal, the language of which has not materialized. The source is certainly not among those "preferred by WP," nor could I find in that petition any language suitable for this entry.Vt catamount (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VT catamount, before I propose any language, I first want to know if the source is acceptable to people. If I write a neutral statement of a rationale articulated in the care2 petition, will you object to it on source grounds? Yes or no? So far, the objection seems to be for exclusion regardless of language. PE2011 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussed at length

You are beating a dead horse, PE2011. This issue has been discussed AT LENGTH and there has been no resolution. An admin has weighed in and still you do not budge. We do not budge, either. You have no logical reason to include anything by VINE or care2 because that is singling out entities and it has no place in the article. Again, I question your motives in all of this, especially your insistence about VINE.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, your questioning of my motives is not conducive to polite, civil discourse. Again, my modified proposal does not mention any entity, but merely describes a rationale articulated in the petitioner letter—the very same letter which received “tens of thousands” of online signatures. Undue weight requirements justify inclusion, and I supplied my logical reasons—by quoting from the wikipedia guidelines, something you continue to ignore.PE2011 (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Both Q and I have stated the reasoning. There is no need for rationale at all in the article. The facts are, B&L were set for slaughter, VINE offered sanctuary, GMC said no, people protested, the slaughter was put on hold because of threats to SH, and Lou was euthanized. That's it. That's the story. There is no need to anything else. I have stated my reasoning and so has the admin Q. I will not keep arguing the same fact over and over. It is what it is, and the article stands. If you wish to debate anything else about the article, fine, but the reasoning discussion is done.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, in that case, then I must vote to delete the following: “saying that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm.” If no articulation of a contrary rationale is to be permitted, then this articulation of GMC’s rationale should not be included either--given undue weight concerns. So now I move to debate the deletion of this part of the graf. PE2011 (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant. VINE offered the sanctuary for retirement ("to retire"), GMC said no for the reason stated. Not a comparable deletion.Vt catamount (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

GMC’s reason for declining the offer for sanctuary is their rationale for slaughter (because slaughter “align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm.”) PE2011 (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And VINE's stated rationale is for retirement. What more is there to add? Please see above discussion. Vt catamount (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, the thing is, the article *is* balanced. When VINE proposed sanctuary, their reasoning was a life of retirement. Gmc responded with their reasoning. So...it is balanced.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no rationale articulated in the graf for why B&L should be given retirement. Again, an offer for retirement isn't a rationale for retirement--no balance.

There does not need to be rationale articulated as to why retirement is a good thing. The proposed language from VINE you suggested earlier is not appropriate in this entry. May I remind you the offer was to take them so that they could retire Let's work with that sentence to come to a compromise, not add unnecessary opinions from less than preferred sources.Vt catamount (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VT catamount, yes there is a need—-namely undue weight concerns. “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” All significant viewpoints. The viewpoints of protesters are not being represented at all. Why does GMC favor slaughter? Because slaughter aligns "with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm." Why are people against slaughter? The graf doesn't say. Hence one "significant viewpoint" isn't being represented at all--namely, the opposition. PE2011 (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Retirement in itself is a rationale. See above, edited for clarification. Let's move this forwardVt catamount (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

eta: Protestors aren't against the slaughter, they are seemingly against the decision to slaughter in spite of the offer for retirement.Vt catamount (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your above does not refute what I said in regards to the distinction between an offer to retire and a rationale against slaughter. And protestors are against the slaughter decision—that’s why they are protesting! Again, we know GMC’s articulated rationale for slaughter, but we don’t know any articulated rationales against it. That violates the undue weight rules. I feel that I must keep quoting from the rules: “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents 'all significant viewpoints' that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” (emphasis added) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Core rationale

How about this. The core rationale of both sides is explained: "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm."Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The core reasoning behind the protest was humane treatment of the oxen, so I added that part and GMC's is stated already.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That is marginally better, but I’m afraid it will not do. The GMC’s rationale is explicitly attributed to something stated by GMC--refused “stating that...” But there is no rationale attributed to something stated by VINE. Moreover "humane alternative" is two words, whereas "values of a sustainable, production-based farm" is 6 words. Hardly even. PE2011 (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"[M]eat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen." THAT is VINE's core rationale. PE2011 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Counter proposal: "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, stating that meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives. PE2011 (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your neutrality argument puts far too much weight on VINE's involvement in the matter. Your latest suggestion is that Green Mountain College is 1:1 with VINE on representation on reliable sources? Kingsrow's first suggestion is an excellent if not overly gracious compromise. "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” No emphasis required.Vt catamount (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

“[M]eat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives” is directly sourced from VTDigger, and as I explained above, VINE’s view is a “significant viewpoint”—in fact, the majority viewpoint in this controversy. So the one being overly gracious in compromising here—by not insisting that other prominent dissenters are included—is me. PE2011 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "live their lives in retirement ... as a humane alternative" has 9 words. You're right, it isn't even. And "is not a worthy trade-off" is hardly a logical rationale; not in the sense that I disagree with you, but that it is not a well-supported statement in and of itself. "Humane alternative" is much more effective to the common reader. Also, you have failed to establish that VINE holds the majority "worldwide" viewpoint. You have established that VINE holds this viewpoint, that a couple of townspeople hold this viewpoint, and that easily-refuted petitions were "signed" by people. Your insistence of the "worldwide" use above and this discussion would imply that internationally, most people in the world agree with VINE. In reality, most of the world eats meat, and many people eat meat from their own or their neighbors' farms and would find this discussion absolutely ridiculous.Crazytome (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That said, since we're being technical here, you have VINE's reasoning longer than GMC's. Try again.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything, GMC's prominence at this point in the saga is greater than VINE's.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As it should be, since this is GMC's wiki page. I recommend PE2011 put all of this "imperative" information on VINE's wikipedia entry.Crazytome (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, VINE’s stated rationale is only slightly longer. Unlike my counterproposal--which is directly sourced, and attributes something to what they said--yours doesn’t. And again GMC’s viewpoint here—that B&L should be slaughtered—is the minority one. Loud, but minority. PE2011 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Crazytome (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your ideas

We tried to accommodate your ideas. We tried to alter the language to better suit things, and this is the best you can do? Just face the facts and own up: you do not want to compromise. You want your way or no way. Well, that isn't going to happen. I bid you farewell. So...I state again...Both Q and I have stated the reasoning. There is no need for rationale at all in the article. The facts are, B&L were set for slaughter, VINE offered sanctuary, GMC said no, people protested, the slaughter was put on hold because of threats to SH, and Lou was euthanized. That's it. That's the story. There is no need to anything else. I have stated my reasoning and so has the admin Q. I will not keep arguing the same fact over and over. It is what it is, and the article stands. If you wish to debate anything else about the article, fine, but the reasoning discussion is done.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do NOT take this as permission to alter the entry. Any alterations will be done after we discuss it here.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I've lead you all astray, but we absolutely don't need to be balancing wordcount, at least not when we're talking about counts under 10. Here is the question: who's opinion is relevant? Who are notable groups/people/organizations, particularly experts on the subject at hand? Those people's opinion are what matters...if any. But, hey, why don't we stop arguing about this minor point, and focus, instead, on just what factually happened...Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Qwyrxian. I offer the original compromise wording again: "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm."Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This wording sounds acceptable to me.Crazytome (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I agree that’s the relevant question. According to the wikipedia guidelines, “all significant viewpoints” should be fairly represented. The viewpoint of GMC—their reason for slaughter—is represented, but the viewpoint of protestors—their reason against—is not. Let me ask: is this in line with the undue weight guidelines? PE2011 (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My edit satisfies it. Again, I offer the original compromise wording again: "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm."Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I'm afraid your proposal does not. Your proposal, like I said is problematic for the following reason: GMC’s rationale is explicitly attributed to something stated by GMC--refused “stating that...” But there is no rationale attributed to something stated by VINE. My counter-proposal resolves this concern. Why do you object to my counter-proposal? What do you find problematic with it? PE2011 (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary stated they would take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm." There. Now VINE has stated something.Crazytome (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not bad.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, here's the text from the sourced VTDigger article: "VINE, which has been vocal in advocating for the animals’ lives, has posted several open letters on their blog, arguing that hamburger meat that will serve the college dining halls for just a few months is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen." My counter-proposal condenses that to "[M]eat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives." Please explain why my counter-proposal is so unreasonable to you. Your revised proposal is problematic because "humane alternative" is not a phrase sourced from any article I'm aware of. PE2011 (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Pare it down. Rework it.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of 'inference,' PE2011? Because that is how the phrase "humane alternative" was arrived at.Crazytome (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, that is not a reasonable response to my question. Why is my counter-proposal so unreasonable to you? Can you explain? You haven't. Moreover, consider the fact that the phrase "did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm" is lifted virtually verbatim from the NYT article. So in fairness, the articulated rationale for VINE should also be lifted close to verbatim from a sourced article. My above proposal does precisely that.PE2011 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, PE2011, that's why we used the rationale from the NYT. Remember to give weight in proportion to what is found most often in most reliable sources.Vt catamount (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, "is not a worthy trade-off" is hardly a logical rationale; not in the sense that I disagree with you, but that it is not a well-supported statement in and of itself. "Humane alternative" is much more effective to the common reader. My objection to it is that it is heavily-valued while holding little substance (which is not how an encyclopedia entry should be). But if that is how you want VINE to come across ... Crazytome (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, that you believe VINE’s stated rationale is not “logical” or has "little substance" is wholly irrelevant. If that was the standard, then we should exclude the "little substance" offered by GMC, which is also hardly "logical." You haven't articulated a legitimate objection for exclusion.PE2011 (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, we don't have to do anything, much less agree with you. The article as it stands gives the facts of the case in a clear, concise manner. Q has already said that reasoning of VINE is irrelevant. Their part in the story has been told. Be lucky that we're even entertaining your ideas, because we certainly do not have to. So, if you'd like to rework your words, go for it. If not, the matter is closed.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, your reliance on Q’s argument is misplaced, and you have not addressed my counter-arguments to it (which consisted of me quoting the relevant wikipedia rules). I asked a reasonable question: why is my counter-proposal, which is sourced and described in a neutral fashion, so unreasonable to you? You have not explained why my proposal needs reworking. Moreover, your unwillingness to explain and eagerness to shut down discussion is not an indication of good faith. PE2011 (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN, for the third time (the first two having received no reply) - As I stated above, "is not a worthy trade-off" is hardly a logical rationale; not in the sense that I disagree with you, but that it is not a well-supported statement in and of itself. "Humane alternative" is much more effective to the common reader. My objection to it is that it is heavily-valued while holding little substance (which is not how an encyclopedia entry should be). But if that is how you want VINE to come across ... Crazytome (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(My reply) Crazytome, that you believe VINE’s stated rationale is not “logical” or has "little substance" is wholly irrelevant. If that was the standard, then we should exclude the "little substance" offered by GMC, which is also hardly "logical." You haven't articulated a legitimate objection for exclusion.PE2011 (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC) PE2011 (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sustainability and production have built-in, coherent logic - that can be disagreed with, yes, but the logic is implicit. There is nothing implicit about your phrasing. In fact, your phrasing would be counter-productive to VINE's cause to the lay reader without a heavy understanding of animal and agricultural ethics. Why do you want VINE's side to be represented by a phrase that will be a turn-off to most readers?Crazytome (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, that you believe the rationale is illogical is no basis for exclusion. Can you cite to any wikipedia guidelines on this? No, you can’t. Moreover, your belief that the rational is illogical is merely your opinion, one that many do not share. PE2011 (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is based on three semesters of advanced logic and basic reasoning skills. While I understand the *sentiment* behind your phrasing, the words *as you insist on them* are not a coherent argument. Though if wikpedia guidelines allow for illogical statements, then fine. However, it is still creating an unbalance with GMC's perspective, particularly due to this being GMC's wiki page, not VINE's.Crazytome (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your obsession with including the words from VINE (or any of the other issues with including VINE-related topics) makes me highly question your motivation, to the point that I must wonder if you are indeed doing their bidding. That said, we tried to accommodate your ideas. We tried to alter the language to better suit things, and this is the best you can do? Just face the facts and own up: you do not want to compromise. You want your way or no way. Well, that isn't going to happen. I bid you farewell. So...I state again...Both Q and I have stated the reasoning. There is no need for rationale at all in the article. The facts are, B&L were set for slaughter, VINE offered sanctuary, GMC said no, people protested, the slaughter was put on hold because of threats to SH, and Lou was euthanized. That's it. That's the story. There is no need to anything else. I have stated my reasoning and so has the admin Q. I will not keep arguing the same fact over and over. It is what it is, and the article stands. If you wish to debate anything else about the article, fine, but the reasoning discussion is done. Do NOT take this as permission to alter the entry. Any alterations will be done after we discuss it here.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I must remind you again to conduct yourself appropriately in these discussions—questioning my motives is uncivil behavior, forbidden by the rules. As for accommodation, you have yet to explain why my counter-proposal, which is sourced and described in a neutral fashion, is so unreasonable. I explained, patiently, why your proposal is problematic--I didn’t just assert that it was. Good faith requires that you return the favor: explain what’s so objectionable with my counter-proposal. If you have no objection, then you have no basis for exclusion. If you do have an objection, then let’s talk about it. You say “[t]here is no need for rationale at all in the article.” Fine, then we’ll take out the rationale articulated by GMC. Are you okay with that? I must insist on this alternative if my counter-proposal (or something comparable) is rejected without adequate reason. PE2011 (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You have no grounds to be insisting anything. It's been explained numerous times by others that VINE's, care2's or any other entity's reasoning it irrelevant to the story. You refuse to bend at all and constantly use circular arguments. We have "discussed" this issue for FAR too long, certainly in violation of the "dead horse" rule, and it will end. If you have a reasonable solution, state it or don't say anything at all. Your attempt at browbeating your opposition into submission is pathetic. The story as it stands is concise and to the point, and it will remain as such unless you do some bending (and no, you have done little, if any). Admin have weighed in on this and yet you still feel yourself righteous. So. Ball's in your court. Do not reply with anything other than a legitimate solution.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I’ll go with yours: “There is no need for rationale at all in the article.” I have taken out the rationale articulated by GMC. PE2011 (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Now there is rationale from VINE, in the form of "retirement at no cost," and nothing from GMC's perspective, *on the GMC wiki.* This is ridiculous.Crazytome (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, you are incorrect: an offer is not a rationale. PE2011 (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do NOT conduct edits of the article without the approved consensus of the group. I repeat what I said earlier: Do NOT take this as permission to alter the entry. Any alterations will be done after we discuss it .Kingsrow1975 (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your attempts at hijacking the article are sad. What even more sad is that you cannot even compromise, when we have done so...or tried, at least.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, you have closed discussion on this point, whereas I wish to continue—so you’ve left me with few options. Do you want to resume discussing my counter-proposal and the reasons why you object to it? If so, I will refrain from further reverts. PE2011 (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Reason for revert: No consensus on previous discussion. To forward the discussion, I must remind PE2011 of the policy previously sited (NOT rule, Wiki does not have rules):

“Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.”::::::::

Emphasis added. Certainly what you've requested does not follow. After reviewing several of the reliable sources already referenced in the text, and more that have just come to light, it appears that VINE's rationale for non-slaughter is in fact the option for retirement - the only sentiment I see recycled is their general "shock" at the refusal of said offer. It was the refusal of said offer that prompted what followed. Your suggestion goes above and beyond what is required by principle, and although the language is sourced by one article (though not nationwide, as preferred), it appears that it is simply not important enough to report here.Vt catamount (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, the emphasis does not help your case, but it helps mine. VINE’s viewpoint is a “significant one,” in the majority, and the articulated rationale is sourced (VTDigger). “Option for retirement” is not a rationale for why VINE is opposed to slaughter. PE2011 (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Redundant sentence

Since VINE's offer was technically a form of protest, the whole sentence is redundant. I propose to remove it altogether, for a complete paragraph of: "The college made national headlines in the fall of 2012 over its plan to slaughter its two 11-year-old draft oxen, Bill and Lou, and serve their meat in the college dining hall. The community decision was made after Lou was injured and it was determined that Bill would not accept a new partner. The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide. The college planned to slaughter the oxen by the end of October but postponed the event, saying area slaughterhouses were deluged with protests, some of them threatening. In November, the college had Lou euthanized and buried his body off campus. Bill is slated to remain with the college." Crazytome (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, I do not find your proposal at all acceptable--there is no redundancy in the current version. PE2011 (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As I stated, the offer and the blog entries surrounding it were all a form of protest. This is covered in "The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide," as VINE is an animal right supporter. So the inclusion of VINE at all is redundant. Furthermore, it does not add anything significant to the timeline, which is - 1) GMC planned slaughter, 2) protest, 3) threats, 4) slaughter cancelled, 5) Lou was euthanized.Crazytome (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, offering sanctuary is not a “protest” – an offer is not a protest. There is nothing “technical” about it: the two are not the same. Moreover, the offer is an important fact of the controversy.PE2011 (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

First, protests can take different forms. Saying, "Don't do that, do this instead," is true to both the dictionary definition and the spirit of the word 'protest.' Second, please tell me how the call to action here: http://blog.bravebirds.org/archives/709 is not a protest. Third, lots of things could be said to have been important: the gopher digging a hole, the intensity and violence of the threats, the other sanctuaries offered - these are all not discussed but played their part. They are not essential to this entry, though, and neither is VINE. Crazytome (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome. First, I’m aware of no definition of “protest” which includes “offer.” Since you said VINE’s offer was “technically a form of protest,” are you aware of such definition? Please quote from it to support your claim. If you can't, then there goes your redundancy argument (which wouldn't anyway, even if you're right). Second, the call to action page is entirely irrelevant because that’s not one of the sources in the graf. Third, I do believe the offer is an “essential” part of the story because it is mentioned in virtually every source on the controversy. Fourth, even if the offer isn’t absolutely “essential” to the story, that wouldn’t justify exclusion: it is well sourced and a major part of background facts of this controversy. PE2011 (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia (haha), "A protest is an expression of objection, by words or by actions, to particular events, policies or situations. Protests can take many different forms, from individual statements to mass demonstrations. Protesters may organize a protest as a way of publicly making their opinions heard in an attempt to influence public opinion or government policy, or they may undertake direct action in an attempt to directly enact desired changes themselves." The offer included an expression of objection. Therefore, VINE was a protester and the inclusion of the sentence about the organization is redundant and unnecessary, especially in the context of a wikipedia article on GMC.Crazytome (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytom, you are clearly grasping. VINE is a protestor, yes, but their offer was not--an offer is merely a proposal, not an objection. “I offer to take Bill and Lou off your hands for free” – not an objection. PE2011 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are the one grasping, for relevancy.Crazytome (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

PE2011, might I remind you to reread your talk page, specifically this:

"As a side note, we definitely cannot include that information from VINE--they are not an important enough group to have their opinion represented. Perhaps if Greenpeace, PETA, or a similarly notable organization made a comment, perhaps we could include it--but not the comments of a random, non-notable activist group. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, here's a better, more general point: stop editing the article, and keep discussing on the talk page. If you're having a discussion on something on the talk page, stop reverting on the article. The whole point is to stop edit warring, which you are very much doing on the article (as are some other editors). Another way of saying that is that just because you're talking on the talk page doesn't give you justification for continuing to force your preferences to the article. There is absolutely no hurry on the article--we'll fix it over time. But we cannot functionally do that if people don't stop reverting and talk instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Take Q's advice. This is a war you will not win.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975. Although you quoted Qwyrxian, you neglected to quote my response: “[Y]our characterization that the VINE is a “random, non-notable activist group” is wholly inaccurate: as I mentioned--and as it’s been documented in numerous sources, including the NYT--VINE is a big part of this controversy.” Also notice that Q said to stop editing and “keep discussing on the talk page,” which is precisely what I prefer to do, but you recently indicated that discussion on the matter is closed. Will you permit further discussion? PE2011 (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, being documented in news articles does not make one a "big time player" in an issue. The reporter was simply trying to get all the facts. No more, no less. So, quit using that argument.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, my argument adequately refuted Q’s characterization of VINE being “a random, non-notable activist group.” VINE is an important part of this controversy—there is no rationally disputing that.PE2011 (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please. Had it not been for the B&L saga, most people outside of the northeast would have never known about VINE. That is hardly the mark of a "big-time" player.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you actually discuss things and not try to shove your views down others' throats. I will not discuss VINE anymore. That issue is dead. Anything else is fair game.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I'm afraid that won't do, because I wish to discuss my VINE counter-proposal and your reasons for objecting to it--reasons which I do not yet understand. Your characterization that I'm shoving my views down anyone's throats is false; I've been conducting myself in a polite manner as required by the decorum of this forum, which includes patiently articulating my arguments and addressing yours. Moreover, as for "war," it's one that I rather not have at all, but let’s be frank: I can 'easily' recruit 20+ B&L supporters and have them weigh in. Who would “win” then? Again, I absolutely don’t want to do that, since I prefer to resolve this rationally and civilly. So I ask again: will you permit discussion on my counter-proposal?PE2011 (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I can easily find 100 people who would think this discussion is ludicrous and would have loved a Bill and Lou hamburger. And VINE and its 20 people would be included under the "protesters" umbrella. You seem to think that VINE is bigger or more important in this issue than it is.Crazytome (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Threats do not sway me. I will, however, take a screenshot of your statement you just made just in case anything like that were to happen...just so we know why. That said, you are not playing by the rules. No matter how you slice it, VINE is not a major player in the saga; if anything, the mass of unaffiliated people protesting are. So, you have one more chance to play by the rules. Go.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, how am I not playing by the rules? Again, I wish to continue rational discussion on my counter-proposal—rather than to resort to an edit war—and you yet have decided to close it. So I ask again: will you permit discussion on my counter-proposal? Yes or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are not playing by the rules because you insist on talking about VINE, and that discussion is worn out. You have no proposal other than the same old and very tired one that has met resistance at every turn. There is no more discussion on this dead horse of an issue. I do want you to think about this: We tried to offer a compromise and you threw it back at us in favor of one that heavily favored your point of view. I am, however, a tolerant guy, so I'll give you one more chance to play by the rules. Go...Kingsrow1975 (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, that discussion seems worn out because my arguments have been ignored—that is not good faith. I discussed your proposal at length, explained my objections to it (which you have not refuted), then offered my counter-proposal, explained why it’s preferable to yours, and then asked for your objections against it. The discussion halted when you refused to explain your objections to my counter-proposal. To my very reasonable question (“Why is my counter-proposal so unreasonable to you?”), rather than patiently explain yourself, you chose to close discussion, which left me little choice but to revert the graf to address the undue weight concern. Are you now willing to patiently explain why my counter-proposal is so unreasonable to you? Here it is again: "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, stating that meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives.” PE2011 (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You insisted on including unnecessary information that weighted a bias toward VINE and the protesters. You refused to accept this compromise. If you cannot be pleased with a succinct summary, then truthfully, the entire extraneous sentence should just be eliminated. Leaving the VINE sentence in at this point would be a courtesy, not a necessity.Crazytome (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong answer, PE2011. You see, we haven't been ignoring your arguments - we just reject them. We've been rejecting them all night, as a matter of fact. As I have said before, in what seems to be a hundred times, VINE's reasoning is irrelevant. They are not a major group like PETA, the ASPCA and so on...they are a tiny, local sanctuary that hardly anyone would have known about except for this issue. They are not a big-time player, ergo, they do not deserve a voice of their reasoning. This, too, has been explained to you repeatedly. That said, you have failed to play by the rules. Discussion over. Remember, this does NOT give you the right to revert the article to suit your whims. It was agreed-upon a long time ago that any edits would be done after an agreement made per discussion, so do not go there. I wouldn't call anyone to your aid, either, to do your dirty work. You have exhausted any chances of discussion by your own volition.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I remind you that according to the wikipedia guidelines, “all significant viewpoints” should be fairly represented. The viewpoint that B&L slaughter shouldn’t be slaughtered is a significant one—in fact, in the majority—and yet there is not a single articulated rationale for it in the graf. That’s hardly a fair representation, and definitely in violation of the rules. Your argument that VINE isn’t a major group is a red-herring: VINE is a more important to this controversy than PETA, despite the latter being a bigger group. Again, “all significant viewpoints” means “all significant viewpoints,” which includes the viewpoint that B&L shouldn’t be slaughtered. That viewpoint warrants at least the meager explanation for why people hold it (13 words): because “meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives.” Your objection to this has not been explained. PE2011 (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected status achieved

Now that protected status has been achieved, can we please have a rational, good-faith discussion about my undue weight concerns? PE2011 (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are not acting in good faith, so cut the crap. Since you're incapable of seeing anyone's point of view on this subject other than your own, I wouldn't hold your breath.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are having problems reaching a consensus between yourselves, the proper thing to do is to seek dispute resolution. What you should not do is edit war or make personal attacks about the other contributors. Telling someone to "cut the crap", etc., falls foul of our policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and persistent personal attacks may result in editors being blocked. I think the best thing you could do in this situation is to file a new request at the dispute resolution noticeboard so that you can get help with the content issue from a fresh pair of eyes. Does that sound like something you would all be willing to do? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the "cut the crap" remark. However, I do not think we need dispute resolution. Throughout the course of the day, this issue has been discussed ad nauseum with at least three other editors and one admin and none have sided with PE2011. In this case, the majority opinion has been stated, yet PE2011 refuses to accept it.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your guidance on this matter. I believe dispute resolution could be helpful. Since I’m new, I’m puzzled by the majority rule stated by Kingsrow. Consensus means universal agreement, whereas majority rule does not. Is majority rule—as opposed to my understanding of consensus—the standard here? Moreover, I note that Kingsrow’s “majority” consists of 3 people, which is hardly a significant number. If majority rules apply, is a majority of 3 a sufficiently large number for overruling a minority? PE2011 (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, majority rule is not the standard, consensus is. And consensus on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean unanimous agreement. Consensus on Wikipedia can be quite a tricky concept for the uninitiated, so I suggest you all have a close read of Wikipedia:Consensus and let me know if you have any questions about it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and I will be sure to read the entry. Later today I will fill out a dispute resolution request, as per your suggestion. PE2011 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good morning all. You must have been up most of the night! In reading through all of this, here is my take - while I agree that including the rationale from ViNE would be appropriate, in the interest of reaching consensus and bringing this to a close, I think that adding the language "as a humane alternative" is a fair compromise. George McD (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC),

No, the graf is fine as is. It's factual and neutral and balanced. As we've explained above, there's no need to make any edits to improve "balance;" its already balanced.Flyte35 (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

George McD, thanks for your input and your willingness to compromise – I find that admirable. However on this issue, I must respectfully disagree. The “humane alternative” compromise does not strike me as an acceptable compromise; the phrase is very generic, whereas "align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm" is specific and lifted from a source. That hardly seems fair. My counter-proposal, on the other hand, provides an equally specific rationale that is also lifted from a source. I feel strongly enough on this point that I'm willing to go through dispute resolution. PE2011 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35, when you say “we,” you can’t mean you since you have not been involved in the discussion on my counter-proposal – so you haven’t explained anything above. But if you wish to do so, I welcome a discussion on the issue. Please explain why my counter-proposal seems so unreasonable to you. PE2011 (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is precisely what I was talking about earlier. The user PE2011 refuses to bend or accept anyone else's ideas other than his own. This is not conducive the a healthy environment, certainly not one of civil debate, for which the Talk section was designed. How can anyone respect his views and be willing to work with him when he is so steadfast in his opinion and refuses to even compromise? People far more familiar with Wiki have expressed their opinions and, no offense, this extremely new person refuses to listen to reason. I find it telling when, at this point, virtually everyone involved in this entry would like to move on to other issues.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, it’s not true that I refuse to compromise: I’ve compromised a lot actually, and my latest counter-proposal is a compromise as well—for I am not insisting that other “significant viewpoints,” such as from Bruce Friedrich, Marc Bekoff, and others, be included. As for refusing to listen to reason, that’s also not true: I WELCOME reasoned discourse, which I have been seeking with you. I asked many times to explain why my counter-proposal is so unreasonable to you, and yet you refused to answer. Moreover, as for civility, I am not the one who has been engaging in personal attacks here – so please reflect on who is contributing to the decline in “healthy environment.” (Just saw your response below, which I’ll get to). PE2011 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Compromised a lot? You are still steadfastedly intend to give far more weight to VINE than it actually deserves. VINE was NOT a major player in this saga. The group of internet protesters were...far more relevant than any organization on their side, in factKingsrow1975 (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975 (still intend to get on your comment below, but will await your reply on this), if you recall, I ALSO proposed the rationale articulated in the care2 petition letter—the very one referred to in the NYT with “tens of thousands” of signatures—as an acceptable alternative. (I didn’t propose any language yet but first wanted consensus on the acceptability of the source). You rejected this proposal, and now you say the “group of internet protestors" is more relevant. If that’s true, then I must now raise my care2 proposal again: would you accept a neutral description of the rationale articulated in the letter? If not, then I’m afraid we’re back to VINE.PE2011 (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is, the rationale of any group opposed to the action is not needed. This has been discussed before.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, yes it has been discussed before. As I pointed out (by quoting the wikipedia guidelines multiple times), neutrality requires “all significant viewpoints” to be fairly represented. All. Significant. Viewpoints. Are you really suggesting that the opposition viewpoint is NOT significant and thus needs no representation? I find your casual dismissals of proposals (plural) baseless and not conducive to rational, good faith discourse. Again I ask: would you accept a neutral description of the rationale articulated in the care2 petition letter? Yes or no? PE2011 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of not keeping the same circular arguments going, entertain me with what you'd say in a general way.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, you give far too great of a prominence to generally-held ideas.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I’m afraid I’ll need a stronger commitment than that. I already suggested my proposal in a general way: a neutral description of the rationale articulated in the care2 petition. If that is achieved, will you object? Please answer this directly, or explain why you won’t. Further, your persistence in asserting that the opposition to slaughter viewpoint—which is not a “generally-held” idea, but a “specifically-held” idea—has little “prominence” is baffling, especially in light of the very clear wikipedia guidelines. All. Significant. Viewpoints. I ask again (though more rhetorically): Are you really suggesting that the opposition viewpoint is NOT significant and thus needs no representation? PE2011 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I will not commit to anything without seeing what you have to offer. It would be foolish to agree to go with your edit without the other editors reviewing it first. So, if you have a legitimate idea, post the passage as you'd have it. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Same page

Just so we're on the same page, here is Kingsrow1975's proposal: "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm." My counter-proposal: "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, stating that meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm." PE2011 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying "a humane alternative" is basically saying the same thing! However, I will play along. How about this? "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that it did not align with their values of sustainability." Now, both reasons are summarized and not direct quotes. What say you?Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I find both compromises objectionable. PE2011, though VINE has made that statement, there is no source that establishes that statement was made as part of the offer, which is the topic of the sentence. Indeed, I think no further rationale is necessary, as its implied by the facts of the case. See below.Vt catamount (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is, this is an encyclopedic entry. It is to provide the facts and nothing more, certainly not a barrage of "He said, they said, she said, they said again" reasoning. If people want to go deeper into the issue, they have Google.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, hence my proposal above to remove any reference to VINE, as they are included in the group 'protesters' - "Since VINE's offer was technically a form of protest, the whole sentence is redundant. I propose to remove it altogether, for a complete paragraph of ..." Crazytome (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

I have been previously asked to explain my last revert, I imagine the following was hidden above. I have improved it, slightly, but stand by the main thrust. Reason for revert: No consensus on previous discussion. To forward the discussion, I must remind PE2011 of the policy previously cited (NOT rule, Wiki does not have rules):

“Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.”:

Emphasis added. Certainly what you've requested does not follow. After reviewing several of the published, reliable sources already referenced in the text, it appears that VINE's rationale for non-slaughter is in fact the option for retirement - the only sentiment I see recycled (in reliable sources) is their general "shock" at the refusal of said offer. It was the refusal of said offer that prompted what followed. Your suggestion goes above and beyond what is required by principle, and although the language is sourced by one article (though not nationwide, as preferred), it appears that it is simply not important enough to report here. WP:SPS "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." I think our biggest issue going forward is "what defines a majority" re:NPOV and UNDUE. I do not think that the opinions of VINE/petitioners are in the majority; as the case is unfolding, the focus in reliable sources has shifted away from the complaints of the protestors and onto the absurdity of the protests. This is why the existence of "threats" is so important, and this is why any further rationale VINE may have for making the initial offer (beyond "retirement") is unimportant. Please review the relevant reliable sources. Some of them are ceasing to mention VINE at all - and the rationale given for the protests is always the fact that 11 year old working oxen are slated to be slaughtered for dinner, which is presented as fact in the first line(s) of the subsection. Vt catamount (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's readily apparent that the issue of prominence is at the krux of the issue. PE2011, you give far more weight to these opinions than are warranted. Again, as an encyclopedic entry, their reasoning is not warranted, as the story is told in a concise manner. You constantly regurgitating the same issue does not make it any more valid. You state that you wish to have a discussion about this, but your discussion amounts to an "I'm right, you're wrong, so bend to my will" exercise.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VT. First, the policy on neutrality is expressed in mandatory language (“requires”), so your distinction between policies and rules is without any noticeable difference here. Second, VINE’s rationale for non-slaughter is explicitly stated in the VTDigger article which I condensed in my counter-proposal. Third, as I pointed out to Kingsrow1975 above, the opposition to slaughter viewpoint is significant, almost by definition—the fact that there’s strong opposition to the GMC’s decision is what makes this a “controversy.” Hence the opposition warrants fair representation. Fourth, your quote from WP:SPS is inapplicable: it’s from the section on “self-published sources.” My counter-proposal sources VTDigger, not self-published material. Fifth, even if my counter-proposal was sourced by a self-published source (e.g., VINE’s blog), there would still be no violation. Scroll down two sentences in that section and you’ll see the following: “Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.” (emphasis original)PE2011 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Conflict Resolution page. You have not addressed the fact that VINE and Opposition are not the majority view, and I'll chalk that off to the fact that this is an ongoing piece. In light of the most recent and most reliable sources, VINE et al are the minority view. Fair representation is already given in the form of facts; protestors are against slaughter because the oxen have been worked for 11 years and are slated for dinner. There is no need to further the Animal Rights agenda on this page, the reason for opposition is already outlined, again, in facts.Vt catamount (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Debating this longer

That said, what's the point of debating the issue any longer? You cannot, in good faith, put the *general* reasoning (because that's all it is, when you boil it down) of the protesters, as they were seem as more or less communal ideals, lest you have an article that lists every person or group that held those ideals.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Any further discussion of this issue is pointless as you refuse to see our point of view. As such, an appeal for conflict Resolution has been filed.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to go on record for the conflict resolution, etc., that I am ok with any of the following edits that have been suggested by other editors (below). I feel that it is important to include one of them. 1) "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm." 2)"VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, stating that meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm." 3)"VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that it did not align with their values of sustainability." Thank you. George McD (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, George McD. I will be sure to pass what you say along, once the comment phase is opened.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that this discussion is continuing on another page (conflict dispute) and that other editors, including myself, may not see it there. I also see that Vt. Catamount is now saying that he doesn't want to give the anti-slaughter side's rationale any space what-so-ever in the graf, and that he doesn't want to use the word "humane" which was suggested vigorously as a compromise by other editors. I want to go on record saying that it is vital to briefly mention the rationale for BOTH sides in this story - not just one. It's 101 journalism. George McD (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt. Catamount was always saying that. And he's right. For the reasons we discussed above. "Live their lives in retirement" is redundant. "As a humane alternative" is a POV problem. "Meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives" is irrelevant, since GMC never argued that it wanted to slaughter the oxen because it needed the maet, the college's reason for slaughtering the animals was that that was what sustainable farms do. But, ok, I'll go check out this conflict dispute.Flyte35 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, GeorgeMcD and Flyte35, you are both more than capable of participating in the discussion on the dispute page. That you were not included initially is likely an oversight.Vt catamount (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article for 2 days due to the recent edit war. If you can come to a consensus about the disputed content before that time, then I can lift the protection early. If there is more edit warring after the two days are up, then I may protect the page for longer. (Or I may possibly issue blocks.) Please see Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Protection policy for the relevant policies, and please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. If there are any uncontroversial edits that you want to be made to the article in the meantime, you can request them by using the {{edit protected}} template on this talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradavrius. Unless something close to a miracle happens, I doubt that the current content dispute will be resolved soon – certainly not within the 2-day time frame. So I suggest a longer lock period while dispute resolution is ongoing: how about 2 weeks?PE2011 (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, PE2011! We agree on something! Please, Mr. Stradivarius, freeze the page until our dispute comes to an end. The one mod we had going for us got bogged down in his or her own post dispute resolution. Vt catamount (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I third this! :)Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, consensus is achieved, and without long hours of back and forth debating! PE2011 (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we don't protect pages preemptively - I can't just protect the page because you want it to be protected. It will be much easier if you just all agree not to edit the page until you have a consensus on how to proceed. How does that sound? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 04:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like I'll be tethered to my inbox. Thanks anyway, Mr. Stradivarius! (Note all - I absolutely agree to not edit without a discussion, either here or in the Dispute Resolution page. No funny stuff. ;)Vt catamount (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Vt catamount. Let’s make an informal agreement: no additions or deletions of any kind until this entire current dispute is resolved, unless there is unanimity for those edits among the participants here (everyone in dispute resolution + Flyte35 and George McD). Additionally, before achieving resolution, we’ll revert any new edits made by any new editors who may arrive on the scene. How does that sound? PE2011 (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

About the "additionally" part - better would be to leave edits by new editors in place if they are not too bad, or to ask them to self-revert. Just reverting might have the effect of scaring them off, which we don't really want; instead we want them to join in the discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. We’ll encourage new editors to discuss any contentious edits they might make – I’m all for discussion, even long ones. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem respecting requests by other editors to not edit while discussion is occurring.Crazytome (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, Crazytome. Thank you.PE2011 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Headings

I have added new headings and changed the old heading levels from level 3 to level 2, as seen in this diff. I have tried to be objective and use neutral names, but feel free to tweak them or remove them if you disagree with them. Normally we don't add headings for sections that we don't start ourselves, but this discussion was getting so long and so hard to read that I felt obliged to put them in. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 05:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC):

The headings really clear this up and make it easier to read, but they actually should be level 3; these are all subsections of B&L controversy discussion.Flyte35 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Headings! I haven't spent much time looking at the script, could we have done this ourselves?Vt catamount (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could have, although it's usually best to stick to creating new sections for your own posts. Creating sections for others' posts can change their tone, which is almost a kind of refactoring, and we aren't allowed to refactor other editors' talk page comments (except in obvious cases of abuse). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35: Feel free to change them to level 3. Maybe change the level 2 headings to level 3 and the level 3's to level 4? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So what's next?

Dispute resolution failed, and I'm willing to take this all the way. Who wants to put in the next request? Kingsrow1975? Here is my latest proposal, which Vt catamount objected to: “The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition stating that the two oxen, after working for 10 years, deserve to retire in a sanctuary.” I sincerely doubt that this proposal would be rejected in mediation or EC, but I'm more willing to find out. PE2011 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to post a comment on the dispute resolution page just as it was closing down. I don't think I hit "save" fast enough. So, I am posting it here as well -- I am sorry to see that this can't be worked out here. The petition has been reported on numerous times in several news outlets, including those cited in the existing graf. The fact that the oxen worked for the college for 10 years has been reported multiple times as well. Readers of Wikipedia deserve to know why tens of thousands of people were concerned about the fate of Bill and Lou. To not include that information is a disservice to Wikipedia and weakens its credibility. Thank you for your efforts to help Gwickwire. George McD (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll wait around 24 hours. If no one puts in a request for either EC or mediation by then, I'll do it myself. PE2011 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

To Kingsrow1975: What do you think of my above latest proposal? Is it acceptable to you? PE2011 (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that you asked, but here's my take: Source is important. I'm disappointed you couldn't find a meaningful rationale in any of the reliable sources, and yet you still feel an expansion is necessary. I also much preferred George McD's last proposal in DR which relied on the short and simple rationale expressed in the NYT article. That said, since you seem to be moving on without consensus, and it is your proposal, I'd think that the onus is on you to get the petition url whitelisted. You will need an admin's help in this matter. While doing so, please have the courtesy to note that not all involved editors agree with the decision to use that language. Obviously, I'd prefer citing a source directly for this summary, and not referencing a site (Chronicles) that doesn't provide such a summary; talk about weakening credibility! So if you can get the source whitelisted, the above proposed may be acceptable; I would like to hear from Flyte35, CrazyToMe and Kingsrow before anything is finalized, so that we may avoid unnecessary reverts.Vt catamount (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What's unreliable about the care2 petition? PE2011 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's far too beautiful a morning to go rounds with you on what makes for a "preferred" source, so I will defer to those editors 'in charge' of whitelisting.Vt catamount (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

gwickwire had no problem with the care2 petition (or with my proposed language). If the same is true of other editors during EC, will you accept their opinion on the matter? Or will you dig in your heels no matter what? PE2011 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with your reliance on a blacklisted reference. I preferred using the rationale George McD took from the NYT. If you can get the source Whitelisted then approving your proposal becomes possible, while it currently is not. Stop the cycle. Whitelisting has nothing to do with EC[sic] or Mediation.Vt catamount (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you recall, gwickwire explained that getting the care2 petition whitelisted isn't a problem, and even if it were, we could still use the Chronicle of HE article, which links to the petition directly. I just don't understand your objection to source. PE2011 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've stated why I object to the Chronicle of HE article - it does not summarize the petition, and should not be the reference for a statement summarizing the petition. I suggest you talk to gwickwire about getting that url whitelisted.Vt catamount (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Two things. (1) If gwickwire can get the url whitelisted, will you have anymore objections to my latest proposal? (2) Although the Chronicle of HE article doesn't summarize the care2 petition, I don't know why that's an objection. Where are you getting that standard from? PE2011 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) I don't feel it's appropriate to approve a proposal that may not be legitimately sourced, but if you can get the petition whitelisted, I will consider it a compromise. (2) You can use the Chronicle of HE article to state that the petition exists, but if the HE article doesn't contain a summary of the petition, you shouldn't use it to summarize the petition. This is common sense, and the article would be better off with George McD's NYT wording.Vt catamount (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Since we're on the verge of compromising, I'm not going to address your point about the Chronicle of HE article. Perhaps you misunderstood gwickwire, but his suggestion was to get the care2 petition whitelisted, something I thought you objected to. So now we have agreement, at least between us, on the acceptability of my latest proposal if the care2 petition is whitelisted. At this point, I think we should wait to hear from kingsrow1975 and crazytome (Flyte35, in his or her talk page, indicated that my latest proposal is something s/he can "live with.") PE2011 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I was asked how you would proceed with getting the petition whitelisted. Here's what I know: in order to have a link placed on the spam whitelist, you go here. Fill out the request, and make sure the only link you request is the one to the petition in question. Also, I'd make sure that included was an explanation of how the link was to be used (to cite the position explained in the petition) and that there weren't other sources for the information that could be found. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, gwickwire. Before I fill out the request, I'll wait 48 hours for input from kingsrow1975 and crazytome on whether they find the above compromise with Vt catamount acceptable.PE2011 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

All right now. After looking at everything, the suggested compromise sentence addition - “The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition stating that the two oxen, after working for 10 years, deserve to retire in a sanctuary.” - seems pretty good. Before we go with it, however, let's see if you can get the whitelist thing accomplished. It won't take much effort and either way, at least we can say we have given it a shot. Thanks! Kingsrow1975 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'll wait to hear from crazytome first before filing in the request (he has around 40 hours or so). PE2011 (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I waited more than 48 hours and still heard no response from crazytome. Today I put in the request here. PE2011 (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry; for some reason I never received any other emails with these updates until just now; otherwise I definitely would have responded two days ago. As for the sentence; I don't like it and don't think the added opinions are at all necessary to the GMC page. But if everyone else has come to a consensus, I will not impede that (unlike some).Crazytome (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, there is no actual consensus on whether or not the language is necessary. I, for the umpteenth time, do not think that it is. If, however, the administrative editors of Wikipedia will allow a whitelisting in order to approve the summarization of a petition, I've lost the will to edit. ;) Therefore, the proposed language is acceptable. IF it can be approved. In which case, shame on all of us.Vt catamount (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Whitelisting declined. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests#Petitions and read it carefully. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Now that it is established that a fringe opinion stated on a petition website cannot be accurately described as a credible source, we can move on from the debate about inserting an irrelevant group's feelings on a factual encyclopedic article about an institution.Crazytome (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)