Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 14 June 2005

This page is reserved for the mediation between Katefan0 and Rangerdude concerning the content of Houston Chronicle. Other people should post their comment in the "Outside views" section.

Rules of this mediation

1. While the mediation is ongoing, disputants will restrict their editing to Houston Chronicle as much as possible. If edits on the article repeatedly cause problems with disputed content the mediator retains the right to close down editing entirely as per common mediation procedure.
2. No comments aimed at the other party or their edits should contain loaded language that can be construed as offensive or otherwise hurtful.
3. Mediation should be done in good faith without regard for previous editing behavior.
4. Comments should be made about the other person's edits and not them as a person. If possible you should try to bring sources to the table which the mediatior can review.
5. If, somewhere along the way, you think there's a possibility to reach an agreement on any of the disputed points, let it be known as soon as you can.

Katefan0's view

Before I begin my remarks, I'd like to reiterate my objection to leaving the article open to editing by the parties involved in this mediation. I agree that small edits would be no problem. But, as the histories show just today, while Rangerdude has yet to modify portions currently under dispute, he has begun adding content that I find somewhat questionable , as has User:Nobs01.

I have issues with the article in its current state on two levels. I will state pretty much all of them for now for the record, but I think it may be more useful and less daunting to try to take each other's points one by one once it's all been laid out.

Macro

On the macro level, I find the article in its current state to be bloated with "criticism" information that, in my opinion, does not rise to the level of seriousness that warrants being included in an article on a paper the size of the Chronicle; or, that does not rise to the level of seriousness that warrants the sheer amount of text included. This has the effect of unbalancing the article severely in terms of the article's overall NPOV treatment. I point to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, which states: The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance.

Major events or scandals, of course, deserve a proper airing. But, for example, does the Robert Jensen complaint warrant inclusion? If it does, does it warrant the amount of text currently used? The Chronicle surely receives complaints about many things; obviously, an editorial suggesting that the US may have brought some of 9/11 on itself published right after 9/11 when emotions were raw is going to draw fire; is "hundreds of angry letters" really enough to warrant this type of attention when the Chronicle reaches more than 500,000 people every day? Just like we would not list every gripe or even lawsuit against General Motors in a Misplaced Pages article, we should resist adding every gripe against the Chronicle, unless it rises to a level of seriousness that warrants it. We can discuss what this bar might be, but I argue that the article in its current state far exceeds it. Again, from NPOV: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

I also find some of the criticism in the article justified with questionable sources, primarily the Houston Review, a free conservative newspaper put out by some students at the University of Houston. Does this qualify as a credible source? Are their opinions expert? Is this limited circulation printed source really any different than a blog, which Misplaced Pages generally discourages for use as a source? Additionally, the paper is now defunct and its website no longer functioning. Rangerdude has provided sources by linking to the Free Republic, where some old Houston Review articles have been reposted. Is this appropriate? I won't press this issue because I have no reason to believe that the text has or has not been altered after being placed on Free Republic, but would like to raise the question. Some of these questions may be beyond our answering in this venue, more appropriate for a policy discussion. But they are worth asking.

Micro

1. Another recent addition, the Press Club of Houston section. This is a perfect example of a criticism that does not rise to the level of inclusion. It is nothing more than a cheap shot of the sort the Houston Press, a competitor tabloid, takes all the time. While no doubt embarrassing, did it impact the community by an iota? Did it change the nature of the paper? No. Therefore, it should not be included.

2. The section that has been entitled Editorial Practices. This is a dispute between User:Nobs01 and myself, who I believe Mgml has asked to participate in this mediation. Nobs created this section, in my opinion, as a way to criticize the Editorial Board's policy stance without actually having a critical source. He adds two quotes -- one from Jack Sweeney stating that the Chronicle's Editorial Board is nonpartisan, then underneath a quote from an editorial criticizing conservatives. He is cherry picking quotes and then presenting them so as to give the appearance of deception on the Editorial Board's part. I have removed this quote repeatedly and asked Nobs to cite a source if he wants to make that criticism, but he adds it back. In fact, the entire section is pointless, so I removed it entirely with my last edit. This is another example of why allowing disputed sections to be changed while mediation is ongoing is frustrating at best and ineffectual at worst.

3. In general, the light rail memo controversy section is entirely too long and is a major reason why the article as a whole appears unbalanced. It takes up nearly 1,000 words of space for what has amounted to something that did not greatly impact the community as a whole. I do think the subject should be treated in the article, but it doesn't need this kind of detail (maybe it needs its own article, as User:Johntex has suggested). Beyond its excessive length, specifically, I object to these sections:

4. In late 2002, Chronicle website managers accidentally posted an internal memorandum to reporters on its home site Rangerdude and I have already spoken about this and I thought we had an agreement. I don't know who added reporters back in (maybe it was User:Nobs01), but who this memo was addressed to is in question. Therefore, reporters should be removed; the fact is that the memo itself only gives clues to who its audience might have been, without being explicit in its address. My personal opinion is that it was addressed to the Editorial Board itself, but it's just that, my opinion.

5. The memorandum then proposed several "investigative" news stories and editorials designed to examine "the campaign led by Tom DeLay and Bob Lanier to defeat rail expansion." DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past. This paragraph lists a specific charge in the memorandum about how the Chronicle wanted to examine DeLay and Lanier's opposition to light rail in the past, but gives no context about why. I inserted the following sourced context, which Rangerdude deleted for reasons I'm unsure about. Beyond the value the additional context adds, it seems only fair to me to DeLay and Lanier to outline their opposition to light rail, since we quote the memo accusing them of a "campaign" to defeat it. Of course, there is also proper criticism of DeLay's position, as NPOV demands. To me, removing the context about why DeLay and Lanier opposed light rail also argues for removing the specific quote in the memo, which can be accessed by clicking on the link anyway.

6. Later, the Houston Press tracked down Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen, who gave a statement in defense of the memorandum: Previously, this sentence characterized Cohen's remarks as unapologetic, which I objected to on the grounds that the quote stood by itself. There is no reason for us to characterize his remarks as one way or another, since the quote is obviously so. Now, this sentence reads "who gave a statement in defense of the memorandum," which I object to on the same grounds. Cohen's quote clearly defends the memo. There's no need for Misplaced Pages to assert such when the quote clearly stands on its own.

7. Consistent with the memorandum's stated "specific objective" (http://www.robbooth.net/chrnmem.shtml), the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption. This sentence asserts as a matter of fact that the Chronicle's memo affected its coverage, given that the "specific objective" referenced was to have a coordinated campaign of news articles and editorials about light rail. A more proper treatment would be something like: "The Houston Review charged that the memo affected the Chronicle's coverage of the light rail referendum, during which the editorial page remained ..." The language in use now is too authoritative.

8. (same paragraph) Additionally, I think the Review's content analysis is not appropriate for inclusion. Rather, there should be a link to this source that anyone can click on, but as it stands the numbers add no value to the article as a whole because they give no information about how many articles, opeds, editorials etc. the Chronicle ran prior to the memo. Therefore, it does not help our readers make a decision about whether the memo affected the Chronicle's coverage; rather, it just bulks up the section uselessly.

9. (same paragraph) I also object to this information: TTM declined to do so, indicating that they did not believe the Chronicle would objectively represent their position in light of the memorandum. It is not correct. TTM representatives stated publicly that their reasons for refusing were 1) because they didn't have to by law, 2) because they were afraid their donors would become the subject of Chronicle articles, and 3) because they were afraid it would infringe on their donors' Constitutional rights. Nowhere has Rangerdude shown that TTM said publicly that it was because they were afraid the "Chronicle would not objectively represent their position." Rather, Rangerdude has argued that one can infer that that is how they felt from their previous stances -- but we are not here to interpret, we are here to summarize.

10. (same paragraph) I also object to the characterization in this sentence: Among the election-related stories proposed in the memorandum was a project labelled "Ground zero for November" that proposed stories negatively portraying the "funding" behind METRORail opponents. (http://www.texansfortruemobility.org/press.shtml) This states authoritatively that the memo proposed "negatively portraying the funding behind metrorail opponents." In fact, the memo read: Ground zero for November: The campaign led by DeLay and Lenier to defeat rail expansion. Who is doing the funding? What is the history of the San Antonio-based think tank doing the the research to discredit rail? There is nothing in this question that says their funding will be portrayed negatively, per se; it simply raises the question of where the funding is coming from.

11. After TTM refused the paper's request, Chronicle lawyers filed a criminal complaint under chapter 273 of the Texas Elections Code against TTM with Harris County, Texas District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal accusing them of fundraising improprieties First, I think having the statute number in this sentence is unnecessary. It is meaningless information to the casual reader. It is better to explain what that statute is (see Misplaced Pages:Explain jargon). Secondly, I in the past have objected to using criminal as a characterization of the complaint. My personal opinion is that the complaint was just that -- a complaint, neither criminal nor civil. It just happened to be a complaint about a violation of a criminal statute. But the language gives the appearance that the Chronicle had the choice of filing a civil or a criminal complaint about this specific violation, and chose criminal, as one might if going before a court of law. Another editor supported using criminal so I have backed off of my insistence on changing it, though my objections remain.

12. accusing them of fundraising improprieties paired with the jargony sentence that comes later (However, TTM was registered as a non-profit 501(c)6 organization rather than a political action committee (PAC) and thus not obliged to submit a PAC financial disclosure under state law. ) is too little detail, too clumsily delivered. NPOV compels us to explain why the Chronicle felt its complaint was justified, just as we must explain why TTM felt it was not. This is the version I wrote, which I believe is superior, which Rangerdude replaced pretty much in its entirety:

At the time, the Chronicle's critics noted that the paper's Editorial Board continued being a vocal advocate of the expansion of Houston's light rail and charged that the paper became a partisan participant in the debate over light rail expansion. Most notably, the Chronicle filed a complaint with the Harris County District Attorney's office asking that Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main organization opposing the referendum, be investigated for potential violations of Texas election law for refusing to reveal its contributors' identities. Violation of the law, a misdemeanor, is punishable by a maximum $500 fine.

Under Texas election law, candidates and political action committees must make financial disclosures. The Chronicle's complaint argued that this law covered TTM because, though it was registered as a non-profit organization, it made "paid political moves" regulated by state election law when it sent out direct mailings saying "Metro's Rail Plan Costs Too Much ... Does Too Little" and "Metro's Plan Won't Work Here"; and running television and radio advertisements denouncing light rail the day before the referendum.

Texas campaign law allows nonprofits to run "educational" advertisements, but those advertisements cannot endorse specific political positions or people or make a specific recommendation in a pending election.

Later that year, the group revealed that that their TV and radio ads were funded by $30,000 in contributions made the day before the election by two PACs controlled by DeLay. Rosenthal later dismissed the Chronicle's complaint, finding it without merit on the grounds that the statute did not apply. Rosenthal's involvement in the probe itself came under fire by the Houston Press, which in editorials questioned whether Rosenthal was too close to TTM: from 2000 to 2004, Rosenthal accepted some $30,000 in donations from known TTM supporters.

Simply including a link to 501(c)6 and stating the Texas code is not enough and does our readers a disservice. There are other small problems with the article, but these are my main objections. · Katefan0 21:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude's view

Here's a summary of my positions and my views of what should be done. First, I will note that I am content with the light rail section in a form similar to its current version found here . To date the bulk of the dispute has revolved around a couple different points surrounding this section's various components. I'll address each by number corresponding to those in the discussion section.

1. A dispute has waged over how we should present the Chronicle's role in implementing the light rail memorandum. I am content with the current version reading "Consistent with the memorandum's stated "specific objective" (http://www.robbooth.net/chrnmem.shtml), the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption." The initial dispute over this section was whether or not a previous wording implied that the Chronicle had changed its positions around the memo. I propose that the current version makes no such implication though, and is factually accurate in its present form. The following sentence regarding the Houston Review content analysis was added in response to requests for additional sources by willmcw, though Katefan apparently wants it removed, saying that it is "cluttering up" the paragraph. I believe at minimum a link should be retained.

2. A dispute has emerged over the inclusion of the word "criminal" to describe the type of investigation the Chronicle initiated. I favor its inclusion. Katefan desires its removal. I am very strongly in favor of its inclusion because it is the word used in the Texas statute that was used by the Chronicle to make the complaint (see here ). Furthermore, I believe that its removal removes needed specificity from the article. I also believe that removing it obscures the exact nature and severity of the Chronicle's action, especially in light of the fact that the complaint was found to be frivolous & thus would be an edit that favors the Chronicle spin.

3. A dispute has waged over whether we should characterize TTM's activities with the word "refusal" to indicate that they "refused" to release their contributor lists. I objected to this terminology on NPOV grounds after Katefan added it because "refusal" implies that TTM chose not to or failed to meet an obligation under the law, yet Texas law in fact makes no such requirement of them. The Chronicle itself in its self-coverage of the dispute purported that TTM had supposedly "refused" to disclose its donors, so repeating their characterization of it also carries with it their POV. Furthermore, the original phrasing by Katefan was vague in that it did not clearly specify who or what TTM supposedly "refused," hinting strongly that it was some legal obligation - which is factually inaccurate. In response I've offered the following current language and favor it: "During the campaign the Houston Chronicle made a request to Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main critic of METRORail, to provide the paper with a copy of their financial contributor reports. TTM declined to do so, indicating that they did not believe the Chronicle would objectively represent their position in light of the memorandum."

4. There has been a dispute over whether technical names of TTM's legal designation etc. should be mentioned in the article. The initial purported concern was that most readers would not know what a "501c" organization, or specifically a 501(c)6 organization is. To resolve this I expanded the wikipedia articles on 501c's and added this text link. I contend that 501(c)6 should be retained because (1) this legal status was, and its falling outside of the Texas law that the Chronicle alleged to have been violated, was the main reason their case was dismissed, (2) the article uses legal specifications such as Political Action Committee to describe other types of groups, and (3) it is easy to accomodate an explanatory link through 501(c)6.

5. This dispute has involved what sources should be used and cited in describing the dispute. Katefan made revisions to this paragraph that were overwhelmingly based upon the information and presentation containted in the Houston Chronicle's self-coverage of the criminal complaint. I responded that this is inappropriate without disclosure because the Chronicle, being a party to that complaint itself, should not be taken as an objective source on the matter (and indeed it was not - the Chronicle's self-coverage portrayed TTM as if they had broken the law, which the DA found they had not done). I noted both then and now that I do not object to using material from the Chronicle's self-coverage IF (1) that material is clearly attributed to the Chronicle and (2) it is properly contextualized to indicate it is representative of their POV in a contentious case. It should not, however, be used as the primary piece of source material for the article especially when others exist, foremost among them being the Texas statute itself.

6. A dispute over citation styles has also emerged. This stems from a couple of article sources added by Katefan with her initial edits. The original format of this article has consistently employed the footnote style of citations throughout. The sources added by Katefan, however, were cited using the hidden embedded text style of citations. I immediately noted that this was inconsistent with the rest of the article and asked her to use a consistent style - particularly with the Houston Press article entitled "Ties That Bind?" which could be easily linked using the footnote style. This matter of dispute IMO has a very simple solution and is a clear cut case per all the style manuals. It could be rectified in a matter of moments, but my requests for this to be done have gone largely unanswered. Rangerdude 03:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response

A couple of things may be said in light of Katefan's comments above. On each point where we differ I will indicate my position and justification and, where applicable, some compromises:

1. Article balance in general First, it seems to be a recurring issue that Katefan's objections are with the amount of negative material in this article. They are not nearly as much directed to the facts I have added to this article as to any piece of information that is negative about the Chronicle in general. One of the original issues was the deficit in positive material about the Chronicle, however this complaint is now moot as an extensive history and awards sections have been added as the article developed, thus counterbalancing critical material. In its current form the article contains an extensive and relatively balanced mix of positive and negative factual information about the paper. I have not objected to the addition of facts that reflect positively on the Chronicle, however Katefan seems to object to each and every fact that reflects negatively on the Chronicle. I believe this is an untenable position to hold. Loading the article up with information that is favorable to the Chronicle while excluding all that is unfavorable results in an article that strongly tilts towards the Chronicle's own POV and thus violates wikipedia's NPOV policies. As noted, I did not object to Katefan's desire to include more positive factual material about the Chronicle right down to each and every little obscure journalism award they've received. I do, however, object to her attempts to remove any unfavorable factual material while simultaneously retaining favorable factual material as that severely tilts the article's direction. Like it or not, there is extensive ongoing controversy presently surrounding the Houston Chronicle, its alleged political biases, and the manner in which the paper is administered. When a major broadcast media outlet and one of the two major political parties in Houston are actively and openly boycotting a newspaper as large as the Chronicle it's a problem and an issue worthy of full discussion in this article. Removing all critical material about the paper constitutes cleansing and spin that appears designed to water down the severity of current problems and controversies involving this newspaper.

2. Sources - Katefan has objected to the use of sources in the article, calling several critical sources (specifically Free Republic and the Houston Review) "questionable" and attacking their credibility. Despite this, I have yet to see any valid information that disputes the accuracy of the material cited from any of these sources leading me to believe that her challenges to the use of these sources are not in fact critiques of their validity but rather ad hominem attacks upon the sources themselves. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that both the Houston Review and Free Republic have played various roles in publicizing several of the scandals and controversies that have given rise to allegations of bias at the Houston Chronicle itself, most notably the light rail memorandum - which, if I am not mistaken, was first publicized by them. To exclude them for the reasons Katefan has suggested would accordingly be akin to excluding the Powerline and Little Green Footballs blogs from the article about the forged Dan Rather memorandums, even though they broke the stories.

3. Houston Press Club awards - Here it is contended that inclusion of the Chronicle's shunning by the judges in the Houston Press Club awards despite being a shoe-in for the prize is a "perfect example" of information that "does not rise to the level of inclusion." Yet if you look at the "awards" section all sorts of awards the paper has won, both major and downright obscure, are listed in full detail. If its okay to list a gazillion awards they have won for good news coverage etc., is it not a fair balance to list a single award where they were very noticeably shunned for bad coverage? Removing this would be yet another example of trying to cleanse the article of all that is unfavorable about the Chronicle while retaining only that which is favorable with an end result in violation of NPOV.

4. Rail Memorandum Controversy - issues:

• It does not bother me to state that the memorandum was a "memorandum to reporters" as it clearly proposed stories for reporters to write. There is also little doubt that at least some, if not all, of the recipients of it regularly write material that appears in the Chronicle. If somebody has an alternative phrasing though I am open to it. Perhaps we should state that it was a "memorandum to writers" or a "memorandum to staff" or something along those lines.
• Tom DeLay - I removed the additional content offered by Katefan regarding Tom DeLay for several reasons, which contrary to what has been implied, I stated in full detail at the time. First, its length and detail was excessive for the context in this article. It was asserted to be a "response" to a factual description of what the memorandum itself said (including direct quotes from the memo), yet the "response" was more than twice as long as the original sentence. Second, this "response" went way off topic on issues of political fundraising that, if anywhere, belongs on the Tom DeLay article (which I also suggested at the time as an appropriate compromise). This article is about the Chronicle's memo controversy - not a complete history of Tom DeLay's highway lobby contributions. Third, the section added by Katefan exhibited strong characteristics of original research, consisting primarily of a link to the Opensecrets.org campaign contribution database and making original conclusions based upon data found in that database. The current form of this section, to wit The memorandum then proposed several "investigative" news stories and editorials designed to examine "the campaign led by Tom DeLay and Bob Lanier to defeat rail expansion." DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past. is far more balanced by contrast as it includes a one-sentence description of the memo itself followed by a one-sentence description of the memo's context, indicating that DeLay is indeed a long time rail opponent but without extraneous original research material attacking DeLay.
• Cohen's quote - It is obvious from Cohen's statement that he defended the memorandum in an extremely unapologetic manner, to wit "I make no apologies for having a thorough discussion of the issue. We have nothing to apologize for…There was an inadvertent posting of it to the Web site, and I'm sorry about that, but I make no apologies for the contents of it." To object to a simple factual assertion in the article that Cohen defended the memo is to deny the obvious here. It is pertinent to note that the Chronicle defended and stood by the memo in the article's text because this indicates the nature of their response to the controversy. Since they stood by it we should say just that! There's no fault in stating an obvious and undisputed fact.
• Memo and editorial consistency - I strongly dispute that the current text says the memo affected the direction of the paper's coverage. It does nothing of the sort, though this straw man mischaracterization of my position has been made against me previously. Rather it says simply that the editorial position was "Consistent with the memorandum's stated "specific objective"" - as in they both strongly endorsed and promoted rail. This is an undisputed fact, and to state that the memo and the editorials took the same position is 100% factually accurate. As to the proposed change "The Houston Review charged that the memo affected the Chronicle's coverage...," this is unnecessary as the current wording does NOT assert that the memo affected the coverage on its own and a subsequent sentence already attributes this assertion to the Houston Review.
• Houston Review content analysis - I added this sentence describing the Houston Review's content analysis after User:willmcw, who agrees with Katefan's position, specifically requested that I include it as a source rather than a summary sentence of their position. In fact, Willmcw even requested that I go further than the current sentence and ADD specific quotes from the Houston Review, so I'd suggest that he and Katefan reach an agreement on this issue. I'm generally content either way, be it a specific statement of their results or a summary sentence followed by a link to the effect of "A Houston Review content analysis of the paper's editorials suggested..."
• TTM's reasons - Contrary to Katefan's claim I have shown multiple places where TTM explicitly indicated their concern over the Chronicle's biased rail coverage as a reason for not providing the paper with their donors. First, the Chronicle itself paraphrased TTM's spokesman on 10/23/03 in their self coverage asserting this: "the donors want to preserve their right of free expression as a group rather than as individuals who could be vulnerable to criticism from powerful institutions. He listed Metro, the city and the Chronicle as examples of such institutions." Second, TTM published several articles on its official website attacking the Chronicle's bias including a copy of the memorandum on a link titled "Chronicle's intent on bias in reporting, in their own words" . Katefan did not acknowledge the validity of TTM's own material as a source for their objections to the Chronicle's alleged bias despite this evidence.
• Negative potrayal of anti-rail persons - Katefan claims that the memo does not indicate an intent to portray rail critics negatively, however the memo is very explicit throughout that this is indeed its purpose. First, it states in summary that its "specific objective" is to "make rail a permanent part of the transit mix here." Second, in characterizing the two suspected funders of rail opposition (DeLay and Lanier) the memo indicates that their respective involvement is a negative, to wit: "for better or worse, (mostly worse, I would argue)." Third, the memo directly likens rail opponents to a well known historical case in another city, analogizing rail opponents and freeway proponents with the negatively portrayed interests from that case: "We in Houston have our own version of the "Chinatown" story of the early 20th century Los Angeles, when the currency of power was water... Since World War II, Houston's currency has bee concrete." Fourth, the introductory phrase of the section on anti-rail funding is entitled "Ground zero for November," indicating that it explicitly pertains to impacting the election. Since the memo has already asserted that ensuring a rail victory is its "specific objective" in that election, it is necessarily the case that "Ground zero for November" means a negative portrayal of DeLay, Lanier, and rail opponent financing. Fifth, the memo's concluding phrase directly indicates its intent to negatively portray rail opponents, to wit: "They (the voters in November) need to know who has wielded the power to pour concrete, who still wields it and to what lengths the concrete pourers will go in order to stop rail."
• Texas Statutes - The specific chapters of Texas statute under which the complaint was made, and the fact that these chapters did NOT apply to 501c organizations, are the crux of the case and the reason why the District Attorney dismissed it as frivolous. A revision of this section proposed by Katefan removed this material, and along with it any indication that the statute cited by the Chronicle did not even legally apply to TTM under Texas law. Citing the statutes and giving accompanying links (all of Texas' statutes are online at the state legislature website) gives readers a direct means of checking this info for themselves.
• The word criminal - Katefan states her objection to this word's use is as follows: "My personal opinion is that the complaint was just that -- a complaint, neither criminal nor civil." But this personal opinion is factually incorrect because Texas Statute DOES distinguish between criminal and civil complaints, and also explicitly identifies the type of complaint made by the Chronicle as "criminal" with the word "criminal" being used repeatedly (see here ). An erronious personal opinion is not a legitimate basis to change the wording of a sentence that is drawn directly from what the law itself says independent of that personal opinion.

5. My objections to Katefan's version on the light rail memo - I have several standing objections to Katefan's version of this section as reproduced above:

• By removing the word "criminal" it does not properly characterize the nature of the complaint. This is in conflict with the language of the Texas statute itself.
• The entire second paragraph asserts that Texas law requires PACs to make contribution disclosures then presents the Chronicle's allegation as if this law applied to TTM. TTM, however, was not a PAC nor any other type of organization falling under the statute and this needs to be explictly stated. Simply saying that it was a "non-profit" does not cut it either, because this also neglects to reveal that the Texas law does not apply to non-profits.
• The second and third paragraphs worded in such a way as to suggest that TTM exceeded Texas law's allowances for "educational" advertisements.
• The second and third paragraphs are generally vague as to what Texas law itself actually says and applies to. Since the nature of the criminal complaint and the grounds for its dismissal were very technical, relying directly on technical legal registrations for different types of organizations, neglecting to include them does a serious disservice and produces a misleading result.
• In short, the entire wording proposed by Katefan is overly sympathetic to the Chronicle's POV. The reality of the case is this: the Chronicle made a criminal complaint to initiate a criminal investigation before the election and the DA investigated and found that complaint was frivolous, dismissing it completely for being made without merit. Given those circumstances, the use of vague legal characterizations, squirrely wordings, and other semantic games that make it sound as if the Chronicle had a legitimate case is wholly inappropriate and constitutes a strong POV towards the Chronicle itself.
• Per the source that was originally cited for this version, it is based primarily upon the Houston Chronicle's self-coverage of a legal proceeding that they were a party to. For the aforementioned reasons in my first post, I believe it is very inappropriate to use the Chronicle as a primary source on this part of the section. Their POV should also be disclosed in any place that their self-coverage is employed. Rangerdude 02:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current Version

Also, please note that I am supportive of most of the current version's wordings. Please see here for a comparison of the changes that myself and others have already made to the previous version to accomodate various requests by Katefan and others. Rangerdude 04:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outside views

• I request that editors involved in this mediation stop making personal attacks. Thank you. -Willmcw 21:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Insofar as the topics discussed on this mediation page are concerned, as well as the content currently existing here and found in the posts above by myself and Katefan, I do not see any "personal attacks." If you are referring to your separate activity of following me around wikipedia in a manner that is deconstructive to the medium and personally harassing towards myself and other editors, which I objected to yesterday elsewhere on wikipedia over matters unrelated to this mediation (and am fully prepared to demonstrate your aforementioned behavior if the need arises), then it is of no bearing to this mediation beyond your involvement and will be addressed as appropriate pending your etiquette, or lack thereof, demonstrated from this point forward. Thanks. Rangerdude 21:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please make a subsection for the view of each different person.