Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 23 January 2007

California Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

M Dillion indicated that there's no soucre for the student death in my original edit. It's true I am a mass murderer. I go by the inconspicious name of Mr. Mass Murderer. Most newspapers in the area seemed to have started archiving editions in 1995. I'll look into more research from my memory as a student (not in Barrington)- the student who died was named "Juan" and depending on who's telling the story he either fell, jumped, or was pushed off the roof the week after the "all-night riot" incident. I will look into sources.

• His name was Juan Mendoza from Taos, New Mexico. He was 19 or 20 years old and the fall/jump/push occurred sometimes in Spring, 1990. --AStanhope 16:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

the cause of his fall was never definitively determined. the fact that it happened while hostile, armed security guards were patrolling the roof was considered very suspicious, because 1) he was not reported to be suicidal, but was happy at the time 2) his body was thought to be too far away from the building for an accidental fall, indicating instead that someone pushed him. there were no witnesses except guards, and they claimed never to have seen or heard him. their "saw nothing" claims were regarded suspiciously, however, since they spent all their time on the roof--they were stationed exclusively on the roof because barrington residents threw a washer and dryer off of it into beverly and sebastien's yard. (actually, someone threw a washing machine into her yard, and when she called to complain *then* they threw the dryer. guards were posted to make sure nothing else went off the roof, due to usca liability concerns. no one except them was permitted on the roof after that. that is even verifiable according to the original east bay express article, which is no longer available on-line but should perhaps be scanned.) to say that juan died in a fall from the roof which was never explained, while armed guards were patrolling it is NOT inaccurate or even biased, and newspaper accounts verify it. an outright accusation that they killed him is not verifiable, however. Cindery 04:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

I lived at Barrington from 1974-78, and was house president and Board rep. I'd really like to expand this article, since there is much more to the history, culture, and significance of Barrington Hall than the unfortunate events preceding its closing. I'm also going to see if the USCA will release some historical photographs into the public domain, GFDL, or CC free license. MCB 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A very good initiative! I think that Barrington Hall in its many aspects was alwas something special and the time there was formative and singular for many. Two of us have visited Andreas Floer there in the eighties and have never seen anything like it again. Erkabo 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember a long article in the Daily Cal (Berkeley campus newspaper). Wish I remembered the date!

(begin comment by Mr. Atoz) Barrington Hall was not =the= headquarters of the University of California at Berkeley anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s. I have no information about the 1970s. Several members of Barrington were very active in the Berkeley anti-apartheid movement from late 1984 to 1986. For example, Barrington members often brought large amounts of food to the student and community occupation of Sproul Plaza (then known at Biko Plaza by the anti-apartheid movement to honor the late South African student activist Steve Biko) MrAtoz 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Mr. Atoz

Cindery and DanielCD's edits

DanielCD, I'm not clear why you reverted all of User:Cindery's edits. While much was added which doesn't really belong, or was badly styled/written, some of what was added was worth keeping. I've edited some of what Cindery restored; please don't remove material without an explanation. Argyriou 03:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

regarding acid rain/idiot flesh--not my original writing, and i would agree "fire on the mountain" not important enough/"memorable" too subjective. (also not my additon) but charming hostess, faun fables-- those are internationally recognized musical artists very much related to barrington (and they all have wiki pages already). reference to them in the musical history section should absolutely stay (and deletion without comment or research quite rude).

joshua clover appears to have been deleted with NO research regarding his notability, and should stay, as he is quite notable (and should have his own wiki page already).

same for micah garen. he was on every major tv news station during his captivity in iraq, and received a macdowell fellowship to write his book, which was published by simon and shuster.

re joanna--the line "internationally recognized sculpture conservator" was taken verbatim from her obituary in the dallas morning news.

joel rane might be iffy, but editing all of raymond pettibon's films is not completely UN-notable, as pettibon has a wiki page to link to, AND he did album covers for black flag, already mentioned in the article. i get the feeling danielcd has no clue about 80s punk culture, and is not a judge of what is relevant to that subtopic. (as a side note, there is a definite need for explansion of this article to include some of barrington's history that is not from the 80s, although that was the period about which most has been written in the news, etc. right now it's an article about "barrington in the 80s," not really barrington.)

FURTHERMORE, the link of the picture of the front of the building was already in this article, but the link was broken. so i replaced it with an updated link. deleting that is not just rude, it's vandalism. Cindery 05:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Looks like I made a mistake. Sorry. --DanielCD 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

it looks like you made more than one mistake--it looks like you just thoughtlessly reverted everything without looking at it. Cindery 07:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well be nasty about it. I realize that. --DanielCD 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"nasty" is a subjective and unfounded accusation--i could even say it's nasty of you to lob that accusation at me, man. if i had said, "looks like you made more than one mistake,<expletive>," that would have been nasty. meanwhile, i think your autocratic editing was more objectionable because you're not a newbie--or even a mere user--you're a wiki administrator. so in that august capacity, you're the last person who should go around deleting things from articles without discussion or research. it's reasonable to hold you to a higher standard. "whoops" is kinda lame, given that you already knew better.Cindery 00:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ian ray/slingshot?

not sure where/if to put this. i think some mention of the slingshot would be ok--it's a well-known anarchist newspaper, it was started in barrington, and it still exists. (it evolved out of "the biko plaza news," during ant-apartheid protests. funnily enough, ex-barringtonian jeff kravitz, now a lawyer, who helped start both publications, is running for congress right now--california 5th district: sacramento. he has the green party's endorsement...and a website, where he lists involvement with slingshot/biko plaza news as accomplishments...) but anyway, maybe slingshot could be listed in "long tradition of social and political activism" etc?

i don't think ian was "famous" enough to be listed as notable--but his obituary in the slingshot gives interesting perspective/info on barrington. ("southside wingnut culture" and "unofficial Nudity Liberation Front.") maybe it could be listed in external references? like the allison roberts piece, it's a subjective account, but it was published:

http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0059022

Cindery 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

barrington hall

Let us not forget the unforgetable moment when Johnny Puke (chimsack) had his head smashed in by the hollow body guitar being used by the player for the Misfits, after he had thrown a beer bottle at the afore mentioned. Johnny Puke was an unpredicable type- last time I saw him, after his car accident in the back of Lonnie Hunolt's truck (rick from Exodus's bro) which left him brain damaged, he was feeding LSD to pidgeons on the UC Berkeley campus. To many of us Bekeley Heathen Scum, this was THE moment to remeber, and a moment of turning in Barrington's history as Meth and rebellion capitol of the world (and it was- don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you don't know, you better ask somebody) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 05:35, 7 November 2006 (talk • contribs) 84.107.144.216 (UTC)

"Headquarters" of the anti-apartheid movement?

(begin comment by Mr. Atoz) Barrington Hall was not =the= headquarters of the University of California at Berkeley anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s. I have no information about the 1970s. Several members of Barrington were very active in the Berkeley anti-apartheid movement from late 1984 to 1986. For example, Barrington members often brought large amounts of food to the student and community occupation of Sproul Plaza (then known at Biko Plaza by the anti-apartheid movement to honor the late South African student activist Steve Biko) MrAtoz 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Mr. Atoz

Good point. The article should probably read, "a center of activity of the anti-apartheid movement". --MCB 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

...some rewording seems ok. i mean, there was no official headquarters, anywhere. the "biko plaza news" was published in barrington, making it "headquarters-tastic" :-) maybe say, "center of activity, publisher of BPN..."? Cindery 04:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

you tube

is not copyvio--the link is provided free on the barrington site (which is still busted at moment, i think). anyway, the film was made by mahlen morris and his brother, and they have always provided free access to it online. adam stanhope put it on youtube for easier access, because the site is down (but the link is still available through cache--it was you-tubed only because the cache was a long, clumsy link. Cindery 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If so, please switch the links anyway. The YouTube page can't be linked, since it does not give licensing information. Dmcdevit·t 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoroughly false. We link to bazillions of Web pages that do not have copyright information at all. This has never been, and still is not, any kind of problem. Copyright terrorism is unacceptable conduct. --FOo 21:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So, this is in fact the 1% of links to YouTube that do NOT violate copyright. My brother, Clark Morris, and I made this film in 1988. Clark just redigitized to remove the audio. The credits on the wall at the end of the film were written on my bathroom wall. Is there any mechanism to assert our permission to link to this? Cause this situation is getting a bit silly. Mahlen 18 November 2006

If you're willing to license it under the GFDL, please upload it to Commons instead of Youtube. 67.117.130.181 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is ZERO requirement that he do so; he does NOT have to license it to the commons if he doesn't want to, or even if it would be a minor inconvenience. YouTube is NOT a prohibited medium. Cindery 04:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Misplaced Pages that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry. You're simply wrong. --AStanhope 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• I know what you mean, Astanhope, but maybe you should explain that point a little bit more. -- Melmoth1984 3:28, 2 December 2006
  • hehe - sorry, I was being silly. I think that User:Cindery spelled it out in perfect detail here: --AStanhope 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Does anyone here read the most popular blog online? BoingBoing has a post entitled Fake "no-linking" copyright law breaks Misplaced Pages (Link) by Cory Doctorow which states: Some Misplaced Pages editors have now taken the position that all links to YouTube clips and any other material whose copyright status can't be validated (that is, practically every single page on the Internet) should be ripped out of Misplaced Pages. Since this imaginary rule against linking to alleged copyright violators is not on the books, either in the reality of international law or in Wiki policy, it is extremely impractical (If you wish for perfect compliance, OK then, please remove the Google and Yahoo search bars from ever showing on Wiki, and ALL links that go to Google or support Google, since its search results could have copyright violating link suggestions therein! Spooky! Do you seriously want to validate every web page link on the Wiki project for copyright? What about if pushed one step further, and the pages your links link to are violating? And so on, leaving scrutinizing pages for infinity or the ends of the internet, whichever comes first!) This is going to is already giving negative PR to Misplaced Pages, which I love and believe in as a great social and educational experiment that can teach us much about human nature. I have never edited very much or been vocal in discussions, but I feel I must stand up and say how absurd this restriction is. It is nothing less than asking for a complete restructuring of Misplaced Pages because of a flimsy, largely discredited argument about liability and the hand-wringing of overly cautious editors. Until serious debate is made with professional pro-Wiki copyright lawyers on the matter and Wiki policy clearly takes a position on this specific case, it should be left as-is. Remember: "Be Bold". Let us do so, and test the waters others fear to tread. --Natezomby 16:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BoingBoing. To eliminate links to YouTube and other material with similar copyright status is more than lazy, it's irresponsible. Treating copyright like this would destroy real copyright and substitute a draconian system that favors big publishers.

Linking to copyrighted work is absolutely not a violation of copyright. No copyright holder could possibly get that to hold up in court. Fox threatening to sue is a deliberate attempt to intimidate responsible Internet providers, and by doing this they put themselves in the league of the current Administration equating criticism with aiding the enemy! Where have our principles gone off to? Are we all gonna roll over and play dead, in this, a so called free society? I should move to Russia! At least there, if you criticize the powers-that-be, they have the decency to try to murder you, rather than holding this vague, ominous threat of taking your money.Jmalin 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we don't play the "I am afraid to act" game. While I support copyright protection, we can't live in fear that the copyright status of a video or photograph has not been fully explored by another site's poster. If necessary we can use disclaimers when in doubt. FrankTownend 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we should not remove the links. Misplaced Pages's primary goal is allow the free exchange of information. We didn't back down to China's call to censor it, we post information while the media self-censors it, we are dedicated to addressing topics the mainstream media never would, and even unpopular viewpoints in the name of neutrality. Until linking to copyrighted material is made illegal, which it will never practically be because it would severely cripple the web, Misplaced Pages should post it. I will go as far to say Misplaced Pages has a mandate to post it. Companies will pick on the little guy but when someone like Misplaced Pages comes into play, these companies think twice about their sleazy tactics. Misplaced Pages needs to stick to its principles! Sifaka 21:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the comments here may be talking at cross purposes. This discussion should not be about copyright law, but about Misplaced Pages policy. If a video on youtube is likely to breach copyright, at some point youtube will remove it, making a dead link on the page. Additionally, linking to copyright violations paints Misplaced Pages in a bad light. I'm not saying all youtube links should be removed, only those which are likely to cause the problems I outlined. --h2g2bob 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Linking to ANYTHING may one day result in a dead link. Editors are constantly scouring the Misplaced Pages for these types of problems. Dead links are removed all of the time. The possibility that a dead link may one day arise is absolutely NOT a reason to not link to YouTube or elsewhere. --AStanhope 07:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Further to my comments, (INAL but) it looks like this video is probably OK from a copyright point of view, so should be fine to include. I'd like to point out that lots of the links to youtube do link to copyrighted materials, and there are literally thousands of youtube links to check. It is hardly surprising if mistakes are made, so please assume good faith about edits. Don't forget that it's very easy to correct mistakes like this (in fact, it's corrected already). --h2g2bob 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction between linking to copyrighted material (which draws attention to that material and its author) and linking to material that is in violation of copyright (which draws attention to material outside of the context of its authorship). The Fox lawsuit is related to the first (linking to copyrighted material) and the YouTube issue is the second (linking to material in violation of copyright).

The web exists on the principal that anyone should be allowed, in good faith, to direct viewers to content made available for public display. Without this fundamental idea, linking as we know it would collapse. A link to a YouTube video should not be treated differently than any other web video within Misplaced Pages policy, because all web video is governed by the same interplay of disparate copyright laws and governing organizations. YouTube is the same as all other hosting services in that it provides tools that are absolutely necessary for a set of legitimate content delivery services, and it is the burden of the person that uses those tools to observe copyright law when using them, just as a printer must not break copyright law with her press. YouTube clearly states in its Terms of Service(part 5C) that users may not utilize YouTube to display copyrighted material. Furthermore, YouTube has a method for reporting copyright infringements. As such, YouTube has a written policy of observing copyrights, should authors choose to invoke them.

Any assumption by Misplaced Pages that all YouTube content may be in infringement of copyright would observe the rights of video authors without observing the authors' privilege not to exercise them.

By the same token, any content posted on Misplaced Pages should meet the Misplaced Pages verifiability standards. If a statement about a specific piece of web video content, on YouTube or otherwise, can meet those verifiability standards, it should be acceptable. If the video itself is presented as encyclopedic content, it should also meet those verifiability standards. It's my guess that most articles fall in one of three categories when dealing with video:

1. There is a link to a video as a related resource, with no claims made about the video
2. There are claims about the video, but the video is not presented as encyclopedic content, in which case the claims should be verified
3. The video itself is presented as encyclopedic content, in which case the video content, claims about it, and the video's copyright standing should be verifiable

As a side note, Misplaced Pages policy should not be based on the expected availability of a link target because to do so would require two things:

• reciprocal communication between the linker and the linkee, which is not guaranteed by the standards(w3c) that define links
• that the original author of the content have an expectation of the lifetime of her content, which is not guaranteed by the methods that are used to generate content

Jbruder 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty. Even if 99% of YouTube material is against copyright, linking to it is not an offense (unless maybe if you know it is against copyright), and the video you may be linking to might not be against copyright. The argument you have used is the same as that used by those pro-discrimination. I think you need to look back, and consider exactly what it is that you are including in Misplaced Pages, ie a link, not the copyrighted material itself. Ian¹³/t 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(From here) However much I enjoy the first blog entry about something I've done, this isn't a fake issue. ---J.S 18:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to explain a few things about PR and publishing to you: 1) you were not notable enough to mention by name (hence not even "bad press is still press" to crow about) 2) uh, it was bad press. Note that no "controversy" was written about, in which you might have a stake as a player. Misplaced Pages was just dagged for witless jackassery; on par with Fox.

Cindery 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus, wikipedia quite clearly falls under the fair use doctrine for just about everything. Misplaced Pages's articles are more touchy about copyright than is actually necessary. Kaiguy Dec. 3

Your claim that Misplaced Pages falls under US fair use doctrine for "just about everything" is patently untrue. There are a *lot* of people who think that anything can be copied willy-nilly for educational use, but they are incorrect. If you find a way to accomplish this, please tell my local school district so they can stop spending million on text books. :) However, you are right that Misplaced Pages's policy is more restrictive than strictly required by law. Not only does being more strict simplify enforcement and improve international compatibility, it is required by the desire to create free content which is part of Misplaced Pages's mission. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria for more information. --Gmaxwell 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on folks, this is really nothing new. If the content on Youtube was released there by its copyright holders we should, generally, delink it because of our long standing practice to avoid being a link gallery and to encourage people to upload free content here. If the content was submitted to youtube without the authorization of its copyright holders, then it's a violation.. and we have had a long standing practice of removing links to copyright violations. The Wikimedia foundation has a mission of increasing the amount of freely available content in the world, and on Misplaced Pages we've found that linking material creates a general discouragement against the creation of new completely-free material. Obviously, we should link sources.. but youtube is not a good source and I don't see anyone arguing that it is a good source. --Gmaxwell 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It can... sometimes... be a good source. Not most of the time, but sometimes. (For example, a notable political commercial and the counter commercial were both uploaded to YouTube by thier respective campaigns. Since it's official, copyright and reliability concerns are satisfied.)

Alot of people have missunderstood the mission with what we are doing here. The goal isn't to remove all YT links. The goal is to remove the vast majority that fail the rules outlined in WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:C, WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:EL. Some clearly don't. I could provide a dozen examples.... but I've removed 500 that do. ---J.S 20:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking to copyright material is not the same as placing copyright material within Misplaced Pages. According to WP:COPY, It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material -- just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Misplaced Pages is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content.

The copyright policy goes on to say If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. That is not the case for the particular YouTube video being discussed. Argyriou (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of JS's comment. He mentioned that there are other rules for placing links on Misplaced Pages, not just copyright.

While Misplaced Pages policy forbids totally linking to copyright violations only; there are also guidelines which should be followed in most cases. The Manual of Style guideline for external links is Misplaced Pages:External Links. It says a lot about what should or should not be linked to. For example, it suggests video content should be avoided if there is a text replacement.

The rules for links are used to cite sources of information in the article may be slightly different. YouTube may sometimes be a reliable source for doing this, but may also cause problems if the content is ever removed from YouTube.

For free content media, please consider using Wikimedia Commons (link) rather than YouTube.

--h2g2bob 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific issue being argued about here is not free-content media. It's a copyrighted piece of work which serves as an illustration of some of the points made in this article. Linking to it is perfectly acceptable, but posting it on Wikimedia Commons is probably not legal, just as if the content were a photo in the SF Bay Guardian. It's being given away for free, but it is copyright, and thus permission for Misplaced Pages to give it away for free must be obtained from the copyright holder.

The specific issue is not whether it is acceptable to link to the video in general, but whether it is acceptable to link to the copy of the video posted on YouTube, because many videos posted to YouTube are infringing copyright, and it's not acceptable to knowingly link to infringing content.

And, as User:Astanhope has pointed out above, there is always a risk of the link going dead, no matter where it is. Argyriou (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. --AStanhope 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the link (assuming it qualifies as a reliable source - and if not it still might be a good external link). It was uploaded by the creator(s) with as much proof as we require for uploading self-made media. Unless any of the murals have a copyright notice, they are not copyrighted, since the video was shot in 1988, and copyright notices were mandatory for copyright in the U.S. until 1989. --NE2 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the above arguments, I have removed the links to the clip as it contains music that is copyrighted - from The Matrix. Also note that with a site that users can post any video on, there has to be some form of evidence that the video copyright is actually owned by the uploader - which this video does not do. Stating that there is no evidence that it is copyright is looking at it from the wrong end.

The link should not be reinserted unless suitable evidence can be provided showing that it a) has permission to use the soundtrack, and b) the uploader is indeed the copyright owner.-Localzuk 18:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, a user above quotes Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. from our copyright policy. This line states that we should not link to a site if it contains copyright infringements. I think this is quite sensible, as there has been cases brought against companies such as Kazaa, Napster etc... for 'linking' to copyright infringing material.

This isn't a link to copyright infringing material, even less so than (for example) the link to 4chan.org in 4chan is. --NE2 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't my point - my point is that it says that linking to a site (not a particular clip/page) that infringes copyright is contributory infringement).-Localzuk 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you link me to an explanation of that? We don't have an article on contributory infringement, and the stuff I'm seeing with a Google search is about file sharing services - in other words, possibly referring to YouTube itself but not to links. In any case, your point applies to the link in 4chan, the link in Google Groups, and so on, even more so than it applies here. --NE2 19:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go a google define - the first result is relevant. Also, you should read up on the results of cases brought against Kazaa and Napster - both of which were found guilty of copyright infringement, despite the fact that neither held any files on their servers - they just provided links to them.

Can you link me to an explanation of how that's relevant here, for a home movie that the uploader claims to have made? --NE2 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? There is no music, or any sound at all, in the clip. --NE2 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there must be something wrong with your computer as I am hearing one of the songs from The Matrix on this clip (have tried it on 2 computers now). Do not re-add it as it is 100% a copyright infringement!-Localzuk 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It even fades out at the end, so it isn't an advert running at the same time or something.-Localzuk 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

this link? if that's the one - yes you need to look at your computer (is the volume switched on?) - it clearly plays music from the Matrix from the very start. --Charlesknight 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what's happening - there are two clips, one with and one without. I've changed the "external links" link to the one without. --NE2 19:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

Can anyone provide me with evidence to show that the uploader of the clip owns the copyright of that video? -Localzuk 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide me with evidence to show that the uploader of Image:Supermarine Spitfire Mk XVI NR.jpg owns its copyright? --NE2 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The standard is not that the uploader owns the copyright, but that the uploader has permission of the copyright holder. There's been significant discussion above; AStanhope has claimed that the copyright owner has given permission to make the video freely available. That's more evidence than most links have of being non-copyvio. Argyriou (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We do not live in a world of presumptions, Argyriou. AStanhope has claimed, can he produce evidence? Do you understand the legal consequences for facilitating copyright violations? Do you understand that the original copyright holder does a lot of work in creation of his work? He has a good amount of rights over what he creates. And the law of the land prevents us from using his work without his permission. I am a law student, and I know about the copyright laws. Please stop bickering on this topic, already. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick, I'd be interested to know about the legal consequences of linking to something where there's no particular reason to believe that it's a copyvio, but it turns out afterwards to be one. I know there are problems with knowingly contributing to infringement, but no one is suggesting we do that. No one has expressed the slightest belief that this Barrington video is a copyvio, but only that we maybe don't have solid proof that it isn't one. Where is the knowing infringement, or else where are the legal consequences for inadvertent infringent? Where does it say it's our job to gather documentation (maybe even backed up by DNA evidence, everyone knows that written documents can be forged) for every URL on the web before we can link to it? If you're saying we face legal consequences for inadvertent infringement, I'd particularly like to know how the DMCA's safe harbor provision figures into them assuming we're willing to remove disputed materials on receiving a takedown notice. If you're not saying there's such consequences, then what's the problem here? Thanks. 67.117.130.181 12:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its the other way around. Without any information we have to assume that the subject is copyrighted. That is why we do not upload images from websites not mentioning their licensing information. We need them to be explicitly free-licensed, creative-commons licensed, link them to the website of the original copyright holder or uploaded on Wikimedia Commons by the original copyright holder (once we have that provision). Any default on the policies and the copyright laws would then be treated like we treat other kinds of plagiarism. You can see how the fair use policy has been tightened by Jimbo in a similar manner. Also have a look at this thread – Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Update — Nearly Headless Nick 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, with a site such as YouTube which has a reputation of supplying copyrighted material we cannot simply accept that this one clip, with no evidence, is not copyrighted (or the copyright is owned by the uploader).-Localzuk 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nick - you are continually attempting to blur the distinction between the standards which apply to content hosted by Wikimedia and content linked to by Wikimedia. There are different standards. It is not reasonable to assume that content which lacks a copyright notice and which was made before the Berne Convention took effect in the U.S. is actually copyright. It is not reasonable to assume that content made by a (at the time) amateur video producer which has been uploaded to YouTube is in violation of the producer's copyright. Especially when it's been asserted above that the film does not violate copyright. Argyriou (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way out of this mess would be for the owner of the film to upload the file to wikimedia commons and release it under creative commons or similar - then we can link to it internally. The issue here is that youtube is a problematic site to link to and as such we can't simply assume a file is not copyrighted because an editor on this site says so.-Localzuk 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be the best way out of the mess here, but it's not the only way. I can understand not wanting to upload one's work to Wikimedia Commons, given the licensing rules, but I'd be much happier to see a statement on the YouTube page saying "this work has been uploaded (by|with the permission of) the author, asserting whatever restrictions on distribution they wish. At that point, Misplaced Pages is effectively immunized against any claim of contributory infringement. It appears that the creators aren't in a huge hurry to deal with these issues, though. Argyriou (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The site is just not reliable. Can you not make out the difference between New York Times and YouTube? We want to make an encyclopedia, not a directory of linkfarms. Argyriou, I think its time to file an RfC over YouTube link contents; as I see that is the best way to resolve the dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• RfC filed Argyriou (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WRONG--YT policy has been decided on policy pages--consensus is against you. any RFCs or Arbcom cases will be filed over your inappropriate behavior, Dcmcdevit's inappropriate behavior, etc. Cindery 07:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube redux

This is getting really silly.

The link to the video on YouTube will stay.

There are two main aspects of this discussion. One is linking to YouTube videos in general. That appears to be a fight for another day. The other aspect is linking to this video specifically. I wish to address that.

Both User:Cindery and I know Mahlen and his brother personally. We all lived together, in fact, at Barrington Hall in Berkeley, California - the subject of this article. Mahlen and his brother are aware of the desire here to link to the video. There was a question about the Matrix soundtrack - that question has been answered by Mahlen and his brother rebuilding the video sans music. There is, therefore, no copyright issue with this work.

The Misplaced Pages depends on experts on an article's topic to decide what information is relevant and not in a given article. Both Cindery and I are, by virture of our personal histories at Barrington Hall, "experts" on the topic. The video exists. It is an essential piece of the history of Barrington Hall. A link to the video belongs in this article.

I'd like to suggest that people who are super-paranoid about violating copyright laws focus their time and energy on articles that link to YouTube where the article's editors simply don't care. Cindery and I "care" and I'm not going to allow anyone to interfere with this aspect of the article because they have wrong and unhelpful understanding of copyright law and how it works in the real world. --AStanhope 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you ask Mahlen to put on the youtube page a statement saying "I am the copyright holder for this video", or "This video is authorized to be on YouTube by the copyright holder"? Having that information *at YouTube* should make this particular bit of copyright paranoia go away. Argyriou (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

okay, from what i can discern from a quick read, the issue now is 1) mahlen and clark never applied for/wanted copyright 2) therefore they cannot prove they are the copyright holders? that puts them in the absurd condition of being forced to disprove a negative. in honor of the holidays, i will give anyone a million dollars if--after providing tangible proof that jesus is *not* the son of the flying spaghetti monster--they can then also provide tangible proof that mahlen could not be the copyright holder.

confidential to adam: are undergraduates dimmer now, or has the "war on terror"/the popularity of CSI turned everyone into a "shithouse lawyer"/wannabe facsist:-)? but seriously, for those of you who are "in law school," perhaps you should read up on the first amendment. and libel--the accusation that mahlen has made a false claim in writing to hold the rights to the video is tantamount to accusing him of lying, and he has every right to interpret that as defamatory. there is no "reasonable doubt" about this, (i.e., no one else has claimed copyright, there is no reason to believe mahlen is not mahlen or not the rights holder) and the only circumstance in law in which something must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is criminal court. what do we have here? a hypothetical civil case, in which the preponderance of the evidence--the standard of evidence for a civil case-- indicates that the video is owned by mahlen and clark, who have specifically indicated their permission for its inclusion on wikipedia. mahlen's a pretty mellow guy, though... and a grown-up. i imagine he will laugh at undergraduate-Fed attempts to libel him. (but i dunno who has seen barrington's friendster profile--remember the "mostly, i'm a lawyer. i have thousand law degrees or somthing, i forget"? this is definitely the *wrong* article to try to pick a fight about *anything* without good cause, but especially not something petty. it's probably worse than abortion or israel or george w. bush, because of the high number of lawyers crossed with, er, "onngh yannghism", which could perhaps result in sheer delight in the absurd...we did not unanimously elect <redacted> to represent us in the USCA for every semester he ran for nothing...anyhow, as part of the grown-up vote, which also happens to include--AHEM--all the regular editors of this article, i insist that the video is not only an invaluable enrichment to the article, but the single most valuable resource in the article, and should absolutely stay, for the benefit of Misplaced Pages readers--the forgotten population in most stupid arguments over nothing. Mahlen need do nothing more, and has every right to be free from libel and harassment. in my opinion, anyone who disagrees has "talents" which could best benefit Misplaced Pages elsewhere--fixing typos, posting vandal warnings directed at highschool students who have inserted the word "COCK!" randomly in articles, etc. otherwise, it may be time to ask ourselves, "what would Berkeley Bob do in this situation?" (he was the former head of both the CIA *and* the KGB, so, as i'm sure you can imagine, this could involve a lot of yelling and confusion, insults-that-go-over-your-head of a highly poetic-judicial nature, a sort of mayakovksy-on-LSD-in-1984 affair...:-) Cindery 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cock! --AStanhope 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rock out with your cock out, brotherman! Cindery 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• So far, the problem - at least that part of the problem where the deletionists have a case - is that (until recently) the file was hosted on AStanhope's YouTube account, and he's not the copyright holder, and that there is no statement saying that whoever is hosting it right now (Mahlen, I believe) says they do have the copyright. Copyright doesn't take much to assert - no big forms and no fees, anymore. So if the deletionists are reasonable people (I have my doubts about some of them), just saying, on YouTube, "I am the creator and copyright holder to this video" should be enough to put an end to this nonsense. Argyriou (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but look - I attributed the video to Mahlen and his brother in the notes associated with it in YouTube. Regardless, Mahlen's version is now the one in question. There should no longer be any need for discussion. --AStanhope 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not so much the attribution, but the assertion that you have permission. If you, for example, posted to a YouTube video taken from some local newscast, saying that the video was from Channel 5 isn't enough - the uploader on YouTube would have to say that he had permission from Channel 5 to upload it. Technically, right now, Mahlen doesn't say that the video is his, so someone who doesn't know Mahlen might assume that he uploaded it without permission. If Mahlen says, on YouTube, that he owns the rights to the video, or that he has permission from the copyright holder, or that the copyright holder has released the video into the public domain, then there's a presumption that the material is not in violation of copyright. Mahlen could also go through the process of releasing the video under the GFDL or a CC license, but that's not really necessary. Argyriou (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam is correct--on Nov 18th, I put Mahlen's author-authenticated version in. We did contact Mahlen privately, and request that he post on talkpage here/provide his own version, which he did. Nov 18th. Pls check the edit history/edit summary. this is *totally dead* issue. Cindery 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ALSO, sorry to yell, but, there is no legal requirement whatsoever that anyone submit their work to copyright. people are free, free, free to give things away free, free, free. information wants to be free, remember? Mahlen is old school info-wants-to-be-free. and, hello?--i dunno about you, but i would never have wasted a nanosecond on my 2,000+ edits if i didn't have the same ethics...this is not a deletionist v. inclusionist conflict. this is an altruistic v. petty powertrip conflict. and since Misplaced Pages is an altruistic project, petty powertrippers can blow me while i play air guitar, as far as i'm concerned. Cindery 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright law is more complicated than that - Mahlen and Clark own copyright on that video automatically, unless they take some sort of steps to place it into the public domain or give it a free license. They don't have to enforce that copyright if they don't want to, but they have it anyway. Argyriou (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

...i know. i was responding to the idea that they should have to file to prove it, when they are purposely not filing/didn't file to prove a sort of point. sorry for any misunderstanding/was not directed at you.

meanwhile, for those of you who who don't read the admin page, here's the most up-to-date current "consensus" (derisive snort) sir mimsy-whomever referred to in his edit summary ("current consensus at WP:ANI"): Cindery 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are being willfully obtuse if you believe that "(t)here is no project to remove YouTube links blindly." Editors like Sir Nicholas and others are taking the information you've posted, and removing every link to a YouTube page without checking either the talk pages of the affected articles or the videos being removed.

People like User:J.smith and User:Tom harrison are correct when they say that most YouTube links should be removed. But most is not all, and your project is encouraging people to remove all YouTube links, without any checking. Tom Harrison suggests that each YouTube link requires individual justification, but how is someone running AWB with the regexes you supply supposed to know that there's a talk page with 30k of discussion on why that particular YouTube link has been repeatedly justified?

Ok - I've just answered my own question. Will you, and the people who are part of your YouTube deletion project, honor notices like the one I've placed on Barrington Hall? I've placed it in a way that it's nearly impossible for an editor to miss. Note that I don't agree with Tom Harrison - I think the burden of checking should be on the deleter - but if people in the YouTube Deletion Project are willing to actually stop and notice that there is a history or justification behind a particular YouTube link, I'm willing to accept that it's up to the person linking to YouTube to justify and restore (once!) the link. Argyriou (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, don't expect anyone to heed you once I've given you a warning for incivility and your response is to repeat the very same incivility, and then even come here to point it out. Vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to harm the encyclopedia, not a disagreement over links. Stop it. Dmcdevit•t 04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...you are way out of line talking to Argyriou that way. First of all, his vandal warning was clearly given in good faith. Bringing the issue here is precisely what he should have done, and also done in good faith, not "pointing out incivility." Moreover, you are not The Arbiter of civility (and I have personally noticed Argyriou to be more civil than I have noticed you to be). Last but not least, it is a gross failure to AGF to decide that you will ignore a reasonable request/refuse to engage in reasonable discussion "as an authority" because of something you have decided someone did in a previous conversation (i.e., if Argyriou had been blocked and returned, that would not be sufficient reason to render any reasonable edit he made "ignorable," now or in the future, as you are well aware.) The fact that the whole YT issue is something in which you are very subjectively over-enagaged makes this much worse, in my opinion. This is the second time I have observed you to be rude and threatening to someone over YT, and I believe that you may be so ill-equipped to objectively assess any situations in which YT is involved that you should recuse yourself from acting as anadmin with regards to YT disagreements. I may file a report. Cindery 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Right on, Cindery! Any chance, you think, that we could convince the Lord of the Flies people here to move to another island and leave us alone? --AStanhope 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, upon reviewing things which occurred during my wikibreak, it seems first of all that sticking up for NE2 is necessary. Pls see his/her talkpage. that really disgusts me--the discouragement of a neutral party from giving an opinion, by an admin who conceals heavy subjective investment. It also appears that--as NE2 points out--there was no discusssion by mimsy whomever and devit in the so-called "edit war"--it doesn't look like there was an edit war at all, or that there is anything to discuss. There was just a petty boring petty opportunistic "silent coup." There is--and has been since it was included--consensus that the link should be here. It would appear that the people who deleted it this time are people who 1)have never at any time been editors of this article or contributed to it in any way 2) are in the micro-committee which deleted the video in the first place on kneejerk source bias. They have declined to offer any reasoning or discussion for their actions, so unfortunately we can only speculate about why they did this. It seems that their likely motive is probably petty malice???? --they looked like jackasses/soundly LOST all the arguments on all policy pages regarding YT source bias, which were largely started by me after they attacked the link on this page ??? Bearing some grudge, and noticing that I was on wikibreak, they returned to delete the YT link here??? If so, nobody likes a sore loser, guys!--go find those typos and "COCKS!" if you're looking for consolation prizes :-)

I suppose we should just request unprotection on the grounds that we have consensus/page should never have been protected in the first place. (And I would back up an RFC on Dmcevit for his actions here, and towards NE2 and Argyiou, to prevent further shenanigans from the YT Crew/out of a general sense of justice about how Dmcdevit has treated people. Though it seems like a bummer thing to have to do. Kids!--I can't tell you how sad it makes me that you are not out partying and trying to spring Gitmo prisoners at the same time! That you have chosen to waste your youth...deleting unproblemmatic You Tube links instead! It's sort of tragic...? Cindery 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

evidence of bad faith

...mimsy-whomever was clearly editing in bad faith in late Dec by deleting the link without discussion, as he was politely informed in early Nov that the link was not a copyvio, and that he should not even be attempting to delete it without discussion (see below). He is also an official member of the "You Tube Deletion Committee" started by Dmcdevit--i.e., has an admitted bias/ego investment in something other than editing this article. From his current talkpage, you can easily observe that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a close ally, and not constructively for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, from what I have seen--NHN has recently made the bizarrely ludicrous accusation on mumsy's talkpage--to Arygiou--that stating any alternate opinions about YT links is "disruptive." He clearly has ZERO idea what "disruptive" means, as on-topic good faith editorial opinions on talkpages are never disruptive--or perhaps he does know and is trying to bully??? NHN, on the other hand, is in fact participating in a project which is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point; has certainly had a decidedly and idiotically disruptive effect on this article, in my experienced judgement. My feeling is that they can get lost and stay lost, or we can take it to a higher level. They are not editors of this article, they have categorically refused to engage in discussion on the talkpage of this article while making edits they know are disputed, and they do NOT have consensus on policy pages--consensus is against them. What they lack in consensus they have tried to compensate for with bullying (which disgusts me).

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Cindery#Barrington_hall Cindery 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Nearly Headless Nick and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington are the same person, so to say they are close allies is an understatement. If you click on Nearly Headless Nick's signature above, it takes you to Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's home page. The names are based on a character from Harry Potter. Girondin 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Now can we get back to more self-congratulatory reminiscenses about how great Barrington Hall was, and how lame the youth of today are?

...it doesn't really change anything/make a difference if NHN is a sockpuppetesque rather than meatpuppetesque. Cindery 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppetesque? meatpuppetesque? I don't understand. They are A SINGLE ACCOUNT. It's just that the sig says "Nearly Headless Nick", while the account is at User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. There's some way to change your sig so it doesn't say your name, even though it points back to your account.

"there's some way to change your sig so it doesn't say your name" is SOCKPUPPETESQUE, derrrrr. And again, it changes not at all any substantive element of mimsy whomever's bad faith editing. Did you have a point? Cindery 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, calm down - No need to call anyone names now is there -- Tawker 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "names," but there is a DEFINITE need to point out lying, bullying, bad faith, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Lennon. See also current EL talkpage/RFC.

Cindery 08:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone ever considered that AGF is a two-way street? It is absolutely correct to insist that we do not link to rich media which violates copyright (contributory infringement, as it's known, which has been identified as a legal and ethical problem for the project regardless of what anybody here might assert), and the entire dispute could have been settled right at the outset by calmly stating the evidence that the work is (unlike very many YouTubes) not a copyright infringement. Instead I see a lot of arm-waving and hysterical assertions of "copyright terrorism" which really does not help. So: after the holidays, how about everybody takes a dose of calm and move on? Guy (Help!) 10:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• There were repeated assertions, and heated discussions (above) regarding the propriety of the link. Sometime after those discussions died down, with the link having been restored, the same user came through and deleted it again, without having bothered to check the talk page or provide any rationale for the deletion, beyond a mechanical insistence that all YouTube links are invalid. That is why I have assumed that the particular user was not acting in good faith. Argyriou (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

It's been 5 days and a holiday weekend; I've unprotected the article in the hope cooler heads will now prevail and the edit war will not resume. If it does, it can be protected again. Reading through the comments here, I'm hoping there's a consensus on the specific issue of the YouTube link. --MCB 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting citations

Much of this article is in dire need of citations.

Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Choose your battles. --AStanhope 04:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(I am assuming this is again about the YouTube issue) Look, its just not worth arguing; it will only cause more bad-blood between various editors. Instead this should go for Arbitration, where they will deal (issue by issue) with the copyright issues as well as the reliable issues. Common sense and the law will prevail. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I long ago stopped caring about the YouTube link here. I actually slightly lean towards supporting it's inclusion... Most of my copyright concerns are alleviated and it's relevant to the article. My main concern with the article now is it's current failure to satisfy WP:V (and possible violations of NOR). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pick you battles, dude. Pick your battles. :] — Nearly Headless Nick 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just formatting--there are references instead of inline citations. I will make the conversion when I have time if consensus is that it's necessary/a good idea, etc. There is a great deal more in the curent refs--especially from Krista Gaspar's "Counterculture's Last Stand" --that should probably be incorporated into the article. Also, many more Bancroft library refs. Article is definitely "in progress," like most Wiki articles.-Cindery 21:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations are pretty much the standard here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to provide (Book, Page) type citations, I'll be more then happy to convert them into more complete {{cite book}} citations. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more elegant and useful to leave the Green Book as a general ref, instead of citing it 30 times in the article.-Cindery 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lemmings

I don't know "where the bodies are buried" on the Lemmings--way before my time. They were all friends with Jones, Cohen, Clay etc., and they did come back to visit--that's how it's common knowledge that the mural of cars-off-cliff was one of Lemmings' album covers. This refers to the band, under "Code of the West": http://us1.fakescience.com/scientificjournal.php, and is good jumping off place for further research. They were a significant Berkeley band of the late 70s/early 80s. If the album cover is not online somewhere, someone who has it on vinyl should take a picture of it.-Cindery 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• point of clarification: the mural is in the You Tube film, but the film doesn't specify that it's an exact-replica painting of the Lemmings album cover. A photo of the album cover would confirm that they are the same, or a note could be added to the film.-Cindery 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Zeros

They were popular in 1980, apparently. Should perhaps be mentioned in article, as they have a Wiki article. You can buy the "handbill" for only $43.00! That's a pretty good 27-year appreciation in value for something that looks like it cost one tenth of a cent? :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Negativland, The Jesus and Mary Chain

They played Barrington, but there are no refs. If you miraculousy somehow preserved *your* "handbill," (and are not selling it on ebay for $43...) scan it and email it to me or Mahlen.-Cindery 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the college paper would have a reference to it? If you (or anyone who happens to wonder by) has access to the archives they could look it up and get the information for a proper citation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A call for ephemera is a call to those who were there, and might have some. If there are an extant handbills etc., they would not be references. They would be scannable image sources. There are many in the Bancroft library, but not for Negativland or the Jesus and Mary Chain.-Cindery 06:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

graffiti

"Bonus sugar" is clearly marked as "the winter palace" of Jane Dark, with a link to www.janedark.com. It doesn't matter when it was published, if it's a reliable source. (A documentary about Barrington, for example, could be made in 2011, and refer to events which occurred in 1960.) If you don't know who Jane Dark is, try Google.-Cindery 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sections redundant due to simultaneous posting... combining ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A blog started today being used as a reference? Err... surely it fails as a reliable source... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bonus sugar" sure claims to be connected to Jane Dark but I have not been able to find any kind of confirmation of that at janedark.com. Furthermore, it seems to me that you either A. posted the information yourself or B. solicited the posting of the information. Either way, it's inappropriate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep trying--the more you learn about the subject, the more you will be able to contribute to the article. Start with the notable Barrington residents, by reading the articles about them.-Cindery 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I filed an informal request for comment at WP:RS. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The link to the RS discussion is here:-Cindery 06:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats redundent. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) but it's not clear to readers, because you noted WP:RS, without specifiying that you were also linking to the discussion.-Cindery 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So what reason do we have to believe that the "bonussugar" blog is genuine? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, "bonus sugar" is clearly marked by the author as "the winter palace" of Jane Dark@ www.janedark.com.-Cindery 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And I could create a blog and clearly mark it as yet another site of Jane Dark and mention www.janedark.com. That doesn't give us any verification. Now if janedark.com linked the other way to the bonus sugar blog, that would mean something. (and to respond to your edit summary, nobody is commenting on the number of blogs anyone has, just that we can confirm who the real author is) --Milo H Minderbinder 21:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not have the resources to determine that anyone is or isn't the author of their own blog. We can only weight the evidence, and make reasonable assumptions. Since the blog is identified by Jane, and there are no compaints from Jane, the reasonable assumption is that it is Jane's blog.-Cindery 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that WP shouldn't try and determine things like that. Which is why sources like that shouldn't be used if they are doubtful. Go read WP:RS, particularly the part about self publishing. The blog is not identified by Jane, it claims to be by Jane but provides nothing that couldn't be provided easily by an imposter. And we don't even know that Jane is aware of the other blog, after all it just was created what, yesterday? "No complaints" is hardly evidence, and the reasonable assumption is that we simply don't know and therefore we shouldn't use it. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can see the difficulty of a website vouching for it's own credibility... Cindery, can you get Jane to create a link from janedark.com to bonus sugar please? That would go along way to resolving the issue of reliability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, Misplaced Pages does not have the resources to verify any external websites; we can only make reasonable assumptions. What is the definition of a "link" from "Sugarhigh!" to "bonus sugar" ? Wouldn't Sugarhigh! then be "a website vouching for its own credibility"? I have yet to see any credible reason to believe that "bonus sugar" is not "the winter palace" of "Sugarhigh!."-Cindery 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For argument's sake, let's say I hypothetically created another website that claimed to be written by Jane Dark and mentioned janedark.com. I assume you wouldn't see any credible reason to believe that it wasn't real and thus would insist on linking it? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing the points that 1)Misplaced Pages cannot verify that anyone is the author of their blog 2) For the purpose of making assumptions, there is reason to believe that Jane's blog is Jane's blog, but no reason presented not to do so.-Cindery 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely am addressing those points, I'm not sure if you're unable to understand them or are intentionally ignoring them. 1) I agree this is absolutely true - and this is exactly why WP recommends not using blogs as sources, except in exceptional circumstances (such as when a blog is hosted on or linked from an official website, which does verify the authorship of the blog). And 2) There is NO reason to believe it is really his/her blog since anyone could create a blog and put the name of someone notable on it. With potential RS, the burden of proof is on the source (as RS says, have you read it?) - if we have no way of knowing if it's legit, it's not a reliable source. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would establish the connection. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Reasonable assumption for connection is already established by the title and author of the blog, and the clear notice that it is "the winter palace" of www.janedark.com. Misplaced Pages does not have the means to "establish" authorship of blogs, it can only make reasonable assumptions. What did you say your grounds for "reasonable doubt" was, again?-Cindery 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone could make a blog and put his name on it along with the "winter palace" claim. In the case of verifiability, WP does not make assumptions - if assumptions need to be made, it's not an acceptable source. Have you actually read WP:RS? It seems you're under the impression that anythiing can be used as a source, as long as it has the name of someone you consider an expert slapped on it. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that a regular contributor to the New York Times who writes an established blog--noted by the Academy of American Poets-- cannot maintain an offshoot of the blog? -Cindery 21:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The blog cannot be verified as being owned by the person - this has to be done externally by another reliable source (such as another site which is already verified as by that person or a news publication). To just go at face value and say 'yes this is the site of X because it says it is' is naive and against our verifiability policy. Note that blogs in general are discouraged from being used as sources - unless they have a very good reason to be linked, and in the case of being a self published blog,100% guarenteed that they are the work of that person. Otherwise we can open the project up to libel claims (as someone running a fake blog could state something to libel that person and then we may repeat it as fact).-Localzuk 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to "100% guarantee" that anyone's blog is anyone's blog; blogs of established writers are an exception to blogs; the blog in question, "Sugarhigh!" is an established blog by an established writer. There's no reason to believe that "bonus sugar" isn't a subpage of "Sugarhigh!" (If you want my opinion, I think "Sugarhigh!" was archived at the end of 2006, and is on hiatus. Hence, the "winter palace." I think that the search term "1989," on the left at "Sugarhigh!" might be hyperlinked when the 2007 entries officially begin...)-Cindery 22:10, 16 January 2007 (

UTC)

If you don't know 100%, then it's not an acceptable source. If that means that blogs should never be used as sources, then so be it. Again, you put the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. There is no reason to believe that "bonus sugar" is a subpage of sugarhigh. If the only thing required to use a webpage as a source was for it to self assert, WP could be overrun with hoaxes, rumors, and other bogus info. You never addressed my earlier question, if I created a bogus webpage that claimed to be written by Jane Dark, using your logic, wouldn't you have to assume it was real? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is - an interview with the person would be 100% proof... but anyway, near enough 100% proof is what I meant. All of your other reasons are simply your opinion and without a source to back it all up the blog is still not a reliable source.-Localzuk 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should both read the Foundation comments at WP:EL, regarding any claims Misplaced Pages can make to establish anything about external sites. "Exernal sites" includes all references, as Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a reference. Each link is evaluated case by case. Nothing can be proved or disproved %1, let alone %100--only assumptions can be made, based on available evidence. What again, did you say is the grounds to doubt that "bonus sugar" is published by Jane Dark?-Cindery 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What again are the grounds to accept that it is indeed the site of that person? Other than original research? You are using our policies in a completely incorrect manner and your behaviour is edging on trolling now. You seem to simply be misunderstanding our requests - the burden of proof is on YOU not US to prove NOT disprove something. Unless we can in some way verify a site as being legitimate we cannot accept it. If you do not provide any reasons to do so that are acceptable, I am going to stop arguing on this. If you try and re-insert the links I will remove them and place an WP:RFC for this article. I am truly shocked that you seem to think that an unverified blog can be an acceptable source!-Localzuk 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(indent) There's no need to yell, just read WP:RS. As noted below, there is no way to disprove a negative. What again, did you say is your grounds for disbelieving that Jane Dark is Jane Dark or Robert Anasi is Robert Anasi? Can you provide examples of other self-published sources by professional journalists you have contested on the grounds that the authorship is "suspect"? Can you explain why unspecified proof of authorship is not required by RS, but that you are requiring it, and only at an article you do not edit, but at which your sole involvement has been a dispute about You Tube on the talkpage? (On a tangential note, since you have never made an edit to this article, and have only contributed to the talkpage regarding the You Tube issue, you may not have noticed that I didn't write the graffiti section...)-Cindery 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Authorship is covered by RS. As one example: "Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content." At this point, we don't know if the authors really wrote those blogs, so we know zero about the originator of the source material. Also: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions." (emphasis mine) --Milo H Minderbinder 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1989/1990

The Green Book--the main ref for the article--notes that the decison to close Barrington happened in 1989, but that Barrington was not actually closed until March, 1990. (Meaning: people were living there in until March 1990.) I think that should be clear in the article, but perhaps both dates can be used, specifying that one was year of decision to close, the other the year or actual closure? -Cindery 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have page numbers for that? I can add {{cite book}} tags for it no problem if you have page numbers... and it should keep people from modifying it further. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Only seven more shopping days till armageddon

This is visible in the film, and cited at the first mention of the graffito in the article. (I do agree that "classic" is uncited and not necessary.)-Cindery 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that ones ok. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They're all ok, and anyone who recalls other significant/particularly memorable graffiti can email it to me to pass on to Jane Dark, or email it to Jane Dark directly. It will be added to bonus sugar, if it was in fact a significant/particularly memorable graffito. Jane is an expert in the subject, an established writer, and a reliable source, so Jane will be the judge of that.-Cindery 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I guess you have no qualms about filling articles with original research as well? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are some un-ethical publicists who just try get whatever they want into the press, without regard for accuracy, and succeed a great deal of the time. In my personal experience of journalists, Jayson Blair is the tip of the iceberg. :-) But I, personally have a code of ethics. I believe that Jane does, too.-Cindery 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If others are doing it, that still doesn't make it OK for you to do it. You are not exempt from COI or NOR. Do you really not see the problem with asking an "expert" to publish information just so you can keep it in a WP article?--Milo H Minderbinder 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're completely missing two points:

• 1) COI does not apply. Jane Dark is an "expert": note that among J.Smith's original objections to Jane Dark was that Jane was not an expert on "70s/80s Berkeley graffiti." Any source who verified the graffiti would have to have personally seen it, photographs of it, or interviewed someone who had seen it. If they personally saw it, they are an "expert." COI, moreover, refers to commercial interest in a subject. As the subject was a nonprofit housing cooperative which is now defunct, there is no possible commercial interest.
• 2) "original research" can be unverifiable because it is false, or it can be unverifiable merely because it is not yet unsourced. -Cindery 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Either way, Original research is a big no-no. I wasn't going to suggest a WP:COI violation because I don't think the motivation for the link was to promote the blog.

If we can somehow establish that this blog is legit then I'd be willing to accept it for the sake of verifying the trivial claim that the graffie existed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1) If you are giving info to a website for publication, and then using that published info as a source, you're basically citing yourself, which is a clear COI. Assuming the new blog is legit, is it a coincidence that it was published now, or did you contact him and ask him to publish it? COI has nothing to do with whether a person is an expert or not, it's simply about whether the info/link is being added to WP by the same person who created the source. 2) I agree with both of these. But OR is still unacceptable in either case. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The line between "original research" and "research" is publication. "Orginal research" does not equal "unverifiable." Primary sources are transformed every second into secondary sources at an astonishing rate by an astonishing number of people: it's called the publishing industry. That is why we have any secondary sources at all, and everything is not "original research." :-)-Cindery 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

reply to Milo re COI: read COI. Baarinton is not a corporation, doesn't have any blood relatives, etc. I think the argument you want to make is WP:AUTO. You would have to argue that someone with knowledge of a subject who publishes information about it is violating WP:AUTO, when cited by someone else.-Cindery 23:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are sources which meet WP:RS for the graffiti which Cindery reports, though it might take a little work to find them, as they're mostly on paper, not online. I'll spend a little time digging into my records this weekend; and failing that, I'll contact George Proper, who probably does have something citable. (Incidentally, I've seen most of the graffiti which Cindery reports, back when I lived in the USCA.) Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that George O.Proper is a reliable source on the grounds that "if you remember the 60s, you weren't there." :-)-Cindery 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even care about the COI issue here. If the source is legit, I don't much care if Cindery is Jane Dark or a good friend.

Argyriou, I look forward to having those {{fact}} tags rendered unnecessary. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact tags are already unnecessary; Jane Dark is a reliable source. Speculating about my identity is a big no-no, but no, I am not Jane Dark. (Unless we're married, which would make us one person under law...) But I invite you also not to speculate on the nature of our relationship, beyond what I choose to disclose, as it is expressly prohibted.-Cindery 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I said I didn't care. Should I clarify my lack of caring further? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• note: you shouldn't be commenting on contributors at all, let alone speculating about whom they might be, as all editors have a right to anonymity. If you don't care about that, perhaps you should report yourself to ANI?-Cindery 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really need to resort to strawmen again? I was saying I don't care about your relationship with Jane Dark. I wasn't the one who brought up WP:COI and I was recommending we drop the WP:COI line of inquiry. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Try to calm down. You clearly said "I don't much care if Cindery is Jane Dark or a good friend," which is commenting on a contributor, and in a way which doesn't respect all editor's right to anonymity.-Cindery 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

While JD may be a reliable source, that blog isn't until we know it's written by him/her. The tags stay until the authorship of the blog is confirmed or another source is found. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're convincing anyone at RS about your new amendment to RS regarding authorship and identity. While that's being discussed, there is no reason to presume that JD's blog is not JD's blog.-Cindery 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We can assume it's not until the connection is provided otherwise. The burden of evidence is not on us Cindery. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(conflict)You have things backwards here - the onus of proof is on you to show that it is indeed JD's blog. Otherwise I can create a blog and say 'that is Tony Blair's personal blog' and you wouldn't be able to say 'no it isn't there isn't any proof'. This is part of our policies. Please stop this pointless argument - you are in the wrong.-Localzuk 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) That is clearly not the consensus at RS. Cindery 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What isn't? That we require sources to be reliable? Why can't you understand our policies (Note: WP:V is a policy and is much more strict that WP:RS)? Why can't you understand that if a site has no way of checking its authenticity then it is simply not reliable and the information is not verifiable. We don't accept blogs on this site as a general rule so arguing for the inclusion of this one without any evidence to support it being by the person you claim it to be by is just counter-intuitive!

You will find also that the argument on WP:RS is actually against you Cindery - the majority of the people there either agree with the proposed addition or think it is unnecessary instruction creep as it it is quite well defined already via that page and our verifiability policy. I am against the idea of such verbose policies - as common sense should prevail really but seems not to quite often! (Remember, this site is an encyclopedia edited by an anonymous set of editors who could be adding information by anyone about anything and without a decent source to back it up the information is next to useless).-Localzuk 00:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

JD is not not just a "decent" source, he's an amazing source. Meanwhile, it seems talk of this has begun to spread, and now Robert Anasi has commented! I wonder who will be next? : -Cindery 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to think of a better example of why blogs are generally considered unreliable sources. First, an uncited edit is made and citations are requested; subsequently a couple of blog postings pop up which list nearly or exactly the information in question? The ex post facto appearance of the "sources", regardless of whether the posts were solicited by Cindery, underscores the fact that these are inherently unreliable sources for Misplaced Pages, and that citing them violates both the letter and spirit of WP:V. If photos are forthcoming, as the livejournal page says, why not just wait till they're online? Or wait for Argyriou to dig up the more reliable sources he's mentioned? Then I doubt anyone will have a major problem with it. Doesn't that seem like the most reasonable, conflict-defusing way to handle the situation? MastCell 06:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Also, Cindery have you read any of the comments on the WT:RS discussions? The majority are against you, as they are here too.-Localzuk 07:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What situation? Now there is an established writer who verifies not only the graffiti, but the connection between bonus sugar and Sugarhigh! The blogs of book authors who also publish in The New York Times are reliable, according to RS. (Others may want to also supply so-called "photos of the graffiti," but I think that should not be allowed, per WP:V: how could anyone prove that someone isn't writing "You're persona non grata in my hippy van, bitch" on the wall of an alley right now, taking a picture of it, and uploading it all over the internet? Is there any way we could establish that any photo of such graffiti was authentic? :-) I haven't looked at RS--was it changed to exclude New York Times writers? Let me know if it happens, so I can cancel my Times subscription the minute it becomes unreliable, according to a few people on Misplaced Pages. -Cindery 08:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Hmm. At the relevant discussion , I don't see anybody "against" anyone else. I see people making arguments, having a discussion. It looks like there's a slow progression towards establishing criteria for evidence of authorship, but it's still not clear that the current guideline needs to be adjusted, as it may already be sufficient. I doubt that "there is no doubt" will make it into the guideline, as there is always doubt. I think it's a good discussion to have in general for Misplaced Pages, but I don't see how it's relevant to this article?-Cindery 08:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The new blog link isnt a reliable source as far as the infomation advalible indicates and still no link from janedark.com to sugarhigh. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what "advalible" means, and can't find it in a dictionary. (Is is a typo?--I want to make sure I understand you.) And can you explain why you think Robert Anasi isn't a reliable source, according to WP:RS? Also, please define "link," and explain how you think it pertains to RS. Thanks, -Cindery 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't simply use one unreliable and unverified source as the evidence that another similar source is reliable... All we want is: evidence to show that these blogs belong to the people that they say they belong to! It is not difficult. You talk of journalists but they would also in most cases agree on this point - without some sort of way of authenticating a blog they would not say that the blog belongs to someone (they may say 'which claims to be the blog of x' but here we cannot do that, we simply don't include the blog).-Localzuk 09:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why professional journalists are not reliable sources, citing policies and guidelines? (It seems that they are considered reliable sources, according to WP:RS.) No one has suggested that Robert Anasi is not Robert Anasi. Can you explain why you think he is not? (In general, I have to say I think this could end up being very interesting. Hmm. The blogosphere is so viral, amongst professional journalists. I wonder if it could "catch on," so to speak. If enough of them interviewed Barringtonians, the whole thing could turn into a cultural phenomenon that becomes of interest in itself...)-Cindery 09:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to continue this argument in a single section only. My point is very simple - we do not have to disprove anything on this site, we have to prove it. I have no problem with information by a journalist on a self published site being cited - so long as we have some way to back up that it is their site. Unless a source is in some way verifiable as being legitimate it is not reliable - regardless of who wrote it (even if it is true). Please answer my question in the section later on the page.-Localzuk 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

blanking

Hmm. I don't understand why a section was blanked without discussion? As the same person affixed fact tags to each item in the section, agreed with someone else to wait for sources, agreed that one of the items was not disputed at all, and there is both a new reference and an ongoing discussion about it, it doesn't seem helpful or constructive to me.-Cindery 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Anasi

Here is the source which has been deleted, with the edit summary "provide some real sources please" I will leave it here for now, to encourage discussion. J.Smith, can you explain what is "unreal" about this source? I do not see "real" and "unreal" sources covered anywhere in policy. Can you explain what you mean?-Cindery 08:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no indication that the blog, a free livejournal account, passes WP:RS. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 09:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The indication is in WP:RS: "When a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." I don't understand what your objection is. Farrar, Straus and Giroux is not a credible third-party publication? The New York Observer? The New York Times? Or is is it WP:RS itself you object to?-Cindery 09:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Abstractdynamics hosts Sugarhigh! for free. Blogger is free. I do not see the relevant policy or guideline which stipulates that the self-publishing medium of professional journalists must cost money. (That would be interesting, though, an index of "journalistic credibility by blog cost." Gawker would cover it, for sure. :-)-Cindery 09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, can you provide any evidence that this blog is actually th blog of the person? Otherwise we cannot take it at face value. The default position on this site is to not accept blogs and in the face of people saying they don't want the blog used, this is the position we fall back to unless a very good reason can be provided to say otherwise. -Localzuk 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Who is "we"? Can you cite any relevant policies or guidelines with reference to self-published sources by professional journalists? -Cindery 09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We = Misplaced Pages website (all editors are representitives) really. What do I need to cite? That we don't normally accept blogs? Well that comes under WP:V I believe - as an unreliable source. Exceptions are made for a few things, such as the publications by 'experts' etc... but in light of there not being any evidence that the source is in fact legit then generally, from experience (having done ~5500 edits on the site now) we just disallow the inclusion of blogs. This is common sense. Again, all we are asking for is some evidence that the blogs belong to the people they say they do. Simple. Nothing amazing, nothing complex. Just some evidence. As it stands you are not providing any reason to believe that they are the blogs of those people beyond conjecture and 'they say they are' - which is quite simply not good enough. This seems to have got beyond the point of reasonable arguments and is approaching nonsensical repetition of previous arguments that have no grounds or value. Please provide me with your reasons why these blogs should be considered as reliable sources - and don't use original research to justify them.-Localzuk 11:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The situation has gotten pretty ridiculous, and Cindery's arguments have become increasingly out of touch with WP policy. At this point, I'm not sure if she simply doesn't understand the policies or is intentionally trying to ignore or wikilawyer them to try and get what she wants. I agree with the idea of no longer wasting time arguing and just reverting the addition of unsourced material (or "sourced" by something unreliable like the two blogs). If the grafitti is truly notable and verifiable, it will appear in a reliable source, not just some guy listing things his friends told him over the phone. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
• From WP:RS: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." It seems pretty straightforward. Why not await the more reliable sources Argyriou has said he's digging up? There's no deadline. MastCell 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're all ignoring WP:RS, which has been cited repeatedly: "When a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Also, given that Milo proposed a change to RS yesterday to state "unless the authorship is in doubt," I would like to see evidence that the authorship of the majority of blogs by professional journalists are immediately suspect at every article, and the agreed upon criteria for establishing authorship (which currently does not exist.) In the absence of criteria, any blog of a professional journalist is of "dubious authorship," and there is no agreed way to establish that it is not. (This is not unlike the the EL copyvio discussion, in which Milo noted, hmm, if there's no way to establish that an EL is not a copyvio, people can delete links they don't like on that grounds, and there is no way to prove that the links aren't copyvios. Not logically possible to disprove a negative, etc.) Discussion about changing RS to exclude self-published sources by professional journalists, or to demand an unspecified proof of authorship should take place at RS, not here, as RS currently and explicitly allows self-published sources of professional journalists, and does not demand unspecified proof of authorship.-Cindery 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ignoring". That's rich. Even if Anasi were a reliable source, we don't know that the blog is actually his. And assuming it is, he may be a journalist but is he an expert on Barrington Hall? (I guess you're ignoring "writing within his or her field of expertise", or do you feel that once someone is published by a big paper, everything they write from then on is automagically guaranteed to be true?) It's not even mentioned in his WP article. Aside from his blog, what has he written about the subject? And what fact checking has taken place (as mentioned in RS) on this particular blog entry? Since he says he got the info from "phone conversations with friends" I suspect none. "In the absence of criteria, any blog of a professional journalist is of "dubious authorship," and there is no agreed way to establish that it is not." This is exactly why blogs are not acceptable in the vast majority of cases. Also, I should point out that based on current WP policy the burden of proof isn't applied the same way for verifiability of sources and info, and copyright. From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." --Milo H Minderbinder 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• 1. yes, ignoring. RS clearly states When a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.
• 2. Re "I guess you're ignoring "writing within his or her field of expertise"--RS states "writing within his or her field of expertise" OR is a well-known professional journalist. I believe this is a distinction which allows an experts in sciences who do not write for Rolling Stone to self-publish.
• 3. Yes, professional journalists and writers are afforded a degree of credibility about what they self-publish that other self-publishers are not--that is why they can be reliable sources/are the exception.
• 4. If Anasi didn't live in Barrington, he would have to interview people. Are you saying that interviews are not a valid source of information? (If so, there goes every secondary source in Misplaced Pages, as they all contain interviews. That is the only way to obtain quotes.)
• 5. Please address the issue of disproving a negative/unspecified criteria of "proof" of authorship.
• 6. In Anasi's case, his blog looks rather old (not that it matters). But, what are the grounds for doubt that it is his blog?

_Cindery 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery you have to take an entire guideline into account and not just focus on a single line of it. Else we can pick and choose what bits we want all the time - it doesn't work that way!

Sorry but you are hugely missing the point and your obsession on including these links is amazing. I will repeat my earlier question - What evidence have you got to show that either of these websites belong to the people you and they say they do?? Right, now, disprove that this blog is not yours... You cannot. Why? Because it is not possible to disprove something like that unless you have another blog that is already known to be yours. (Note, I shall delete the blog in a few hours). In the case of a journalist this situation is the same - somehow we have to be able to track the authenticity (so a link on the journalist's employers website or a plug in their column or something).

Finally, don't comment on my editing behaviours as they are irrelevant. I edit pages how and when I want to - that has nothing to do with you.-Localzuk 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To refocus on the issue at hand: blogs are deprecated as sources because they lack any editorial oversight. Case in point: Anasi's NYT article on Mike Tyson, in which he incorrectly wrote that, with one exception, all heavyweight champs in the last 60 years have been African-American. The error was picked up and the Times printed a correction. Even experts writing in their field of expertise make mistakes. If such an error occurs on a blog, there's no mechanism to reliably correct it. This is presumably why WP:RS states that ""Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." But repeating the same arguments seems unlikely to change anyone's mind. If there's really a rush to settle this before Argyriou produces more reliable sources, an RfC is probably the next step; otherwise the back-and-forth is likely to continue. MastCell 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, agreed with the two comments above by MastCell and Localzuk) Note the use of the word "may" in that quote (and that RS even emphasizes may). And read the rest of RS which talks about attributability, editorial oversight, declaration of sources, corroboration, recognition by other reliable sources, etc. And specifically "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is...about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject" and "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." You seem to be under the impression that if someone is published by the New York Times, anything they write anywhere automatically deserves to be a reliable source. As for disproving a negative, if that's not possible, I guess you can't use it as a source. What part of that don't you understand? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still ignoring that "may" is qualified specifically by "so long as they have been published by credible third party publications," and I have yet to see an answer. (I do think it's an interesting thing to explore further at RS if you have an objection, though.) But let's look at "reasonable doubt" that Robert Anasi writes his blog. I just looked over the first couple of pages, and he has posted a link to a published piece about H.P. Lovecraft.  ? If you click "email me" at bonus sugar or Sugarhigh, the email address is the same. Hmm. I'm just not seeing any reasonable doubt that these people write their blogs. ? (I think a lot more interviews could be conducted, though. If I were a publicist, and I wanted to make something that happened in 1985 newsworthy in 2007, the easiest way--if I were lucky enough that there was some controversy about blog authorship with reference to the subject--would be to sit back, do nothing, and let people blog about it until it hit print.:-) -Cindery 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and if/when it "hits print", you'll likely have a reliable source, as opposed to a blog. That's the distinction here. MastCell 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fun, but it is not necessary--there are already two reliable sources, whose "identity" have been questioned. Let's hear back re why Robert Anasi is not Robert Anasi, and about JD. There was agreement all round that JD is a reliable source, accepted by everyone here, if only there were some "link" between Sugarhigh! and bonus sugar. As they are both registered to the domain www.janedark.com, and email at Sugarhigh! and bonus sugar both go the same registered address: janedark@janedark.com, it seems there is an undeniable link?-Cindery 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that http://bonussugar.blogspot.com/ is registered to janedark.com? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's something Jane pointed out to me today: under profile, there's "email me," and the address is the registered address janedark@janedark.com, which is the same email contact address for Sugarhigh! (Both people, incidentally, are confused that anyone would question their identity. When I said, well, it's being disputed and asked, how can you *prove* it, Jane said: email. Robert said, that's amazing. It actually could be someone else, but pointed out 1) the recent Lovecraft piece 2) how high in Google results for "Robert Anasi" his blog appears--if it were a fraud, he would have noticed 3) he has seen his Wiki article, with the link to his blog (I didn't link it, he didn't link it. Was anon IP from Europe).-Cindery 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti

I'm removing these, per the verifiability policy, as no published sources for them have not been cited. They can be reinserted when accompanied by source citations to published sources meeting the reliable source guidelines. I've done some quick online searches for sources myself and failed to find them. Per the policy, the main burden of finding sources rests with those who wish to have the material in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your research skills don't seem to extend to the talkpage of the article, where reliable sources have been provided, and are being discussed in good faith.-Cindery 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. Has anyone agreed with your assertion that they are "reliable"? And please quit failing to AGF with snide remarks about "research skills". --Milo H Minderbinder 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was unanimously agreed that JD is a reliable source. (I'm still not sure what the argument is regarding Robert, as none has been made. Can you address The New York Observer, The New York Times, and Farrar Straus Giroux?) Also, can you address the issue of janedark@janedark.com--I have asked repeatedly now. I do not think it is "snide" to point out that "research" of a subject should include the talkpage of the discussion during a dispute, where a source has been provided and is being discussed. I'm not sure it's good faith on your part to use such language, nor is it helpful or constructive.-Cindery 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to this "unanimous" agreement? I mostly see people disagreeing with you on this. I take no issue with The NY Times or the other ones, I just don't see how being published there automatically makes one an authority on any given subject. What makes either author an expert on this particular topic? Has either written material about it? Has either researched it? Does either document their sources for those quotes? If one or both lived there (which isn't documented), is living at a place enough to make one an expert on that place? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review the previous discussions (in which I believe you yourself thought JD was a reliable source, and the issue was whether JD was JD). Also review the difference under RS for professional journalists and "experts"--experts can only write about their area of experise. There is a long justification at RS for why JD would find graffiti interesting, how it relates to other writings (music, poetry, ephemeral language, etc). I think it's possible you may be overly argumentative about this, to a degree that is not serving the article, or Misplaced Pages. Can you provide any examples of similar high level of concern, proof and justifcation demanded for a source like this?-Cindery 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrington graffiti

• "You're persona non grata in my hippy van, bitch."
• "Better living through chemistry."
• "You can't fistfuck with nuclear arms."
• "Only seven more shopping days 'til Armageddon."
• "Everybody is alienated but me."
• "Is the nightmare real or did someone paint the window black?
• "Squat or rot."
• "Fuck the Dead"
• "Time is a crutch, eat mandarin oranges."

Comments

It's not appropriate to remove material which is under discussion, without addressing the discussion. Also, there is a reliable source (and the fact tags were allowed to remain in good faith while the dicussion about the source is ongoing). I will be restoring the deleted material, with the source. Discussion can continue from there. Please do not edit war to make your changes, join the discussion instead.-Cindery 23:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend not replacing them. The lack of reliable sources aside, WP:NOT tells us that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think we really should be in the business of cataloging graffiti. Also, the murals and graffiti are already adequately covered as a topic of interest in another section. The section is simply unencyclopedic. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this. Also, if you re-insert them then you are re-inserting unsourced material - which is against policy. Someone has removed the material according to our citation and verifiability policies and are in the right. The discussion can continue and material be re-added, with reliable sources, if and when they appear.-Localzuk 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a new line of discussion, and I think it would help if you read the sources in the article: graffiti was a *particularly* notable phenomenon in Barrington, and many sources address that. Per long ago discussion above, I stated that there was an overemphasis on Barrington in the 80s (although that is when it got most of the press) and that other decades needed expansion. There is clearly no argument that graffiti was notable. I think it would be redundant to state that the collected graffiti was "from the 80s," as the article notes that graffiti was an 80s phenomenon. I don't think the graffiti is given undue weight, but that there is need (and has been for a long time) for research/expansion of Barrington's history from other decades, especially the 30s, the 60s and the 70s--there are sources for those decades; they were especially interesting.-Cindery 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The graffiti does seem like an important part of the history of Barrington Hall. However, cataloging the graffiti is outside of the scope of wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "catalog" of the graffiti--that would take 400 pages. It's examples of the most-remembered/significant, which give an idea of what the place was like. As such, it's valuable to the article because it gives view into the culture/the time/the place. As lists go, it's extremely brief (esp. in comparison to "famous people with uterine cancer," etc.)-Cindery 23:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that people are having to create new blog entries to try and document them, they seem the very opposite of "most-remembered" or "significant". If they were truly significant, they would be documented somewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)Maybe Wikiquote would be a better location for such a list of quotes. We can link from here to there. I'm not totally familiar with the standards on wikiquote so I can't say if they will accept self-published secondary sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is the obvious place for a brief list which enhances the article.-Cindery 00:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict; reply to Milo)I don't think that's helpful or constructive--please assume good faith. Your precept seems to be that the graffiti did not exist; the graffiti noted here is not the most remembered/significant. Again, I did not write or create the graffiti section. Arygiou states that he saw it, and that there are probably records. I think that some is documented in Mahlen's site "Colorful website from the 80s," and I have already stated that I am not sure it isn't documented in press which is not available online. People who lived in Barrington in the 80s are living now (for the most part) and hence can be interviewed. If professional journalists interview them, or note the graffiti, they have indirectly done Misplaced Pages a favor (by providing an online source which can be checked online).-Cindery 00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mind responding to my sugustion? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What suggestion? If you mean Wikiquote, reply is above. Is there some reason you are failing to reply to repeated requests to discuss janedark@janedark.com?-Cindery 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A document can't be used as evidence of it's own credibility. I'm still waiting for some kind of indication on janedark.com verifying the connection. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

JD sez: connection verified by registered email address. Can you cite policy or guideline to state that a registered email address is insufficient to establish identity? (Milo has already answered the question "Are you saying a regular contributor to the NYT cannot maintain an offshoot of a blog?" The answer was: "No.")-Cindery 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What's all this talk about "identity?" I don't get it. This has nothing to do with identity, it has to do with published sources.

There are many things which are true which are unsuitable for inclusion in WIkipedia. You could have the original of a notarized affidavit from Chief Justice Roberts saying he had seen these graffiti, with another affidavit from a handwriting expert certifying his signature as genuine, but that would be irrelevant.

On the other hand, if they've been published in the Daily Californian or, for that matter, the Berkeley Barb, that would be fine. If you can cite an issue of a local newspaper that a) mentions these graffiti and b) says that they're important or classic or part of the local culture or something like that, I'd support their inclusion.

If they're important, than surely someone, somewhere, has said for publication something like "in the words of the famous Barrington Hall graffiti, 'Only seven more shopping days 'til Armageddon.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

P. S. A Google search on the exact phrases "shopping days till Armageddon" and "shopping days til Armageddon" turn up a few hits mentioning occurrence e.g. in a TV series, but none except this Misplaced Pages article itself mention Barrington Hall. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Identity of sources

I'm still waiting for responses regarding the registered email address, janedark@janedark.com (and any reasonable doubt that Robert anasi is Robert Anasi.)-Cindery 00:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A blog post specifically created to be used as a source in a conflict on wikipedia is not a reliable source. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I think it would be interesting to try to change RS to state that publicists cannot pitch stories to journalists, or that journalists cannot publish on any subject they like, at any time, for any reason. This all seems so overheated. Do you think it is possible that you don't care about the graffiti at all, but that you were very frustrated after the Foundation called the You Tube deletion project "lazy and paranoid"? The timing seems to coincide. I'm sorry they called your project "lazy and paranoid," and hope you feel better about it soon, if that is what is bothering you.-Cindery 00:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm liking this novel interpretation of WP:RS and WP:V. Since I've been published by "credible, third-party publications" and can look myself up on PubMed, I can now apparently start a blog, describe phone calls I've gotten and things I'd like to see in Misplaced Pages, and use the results as a reliable source. MastCell 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Still waiting for reasonable doubt that Jane Dark is Jane Dark or that Robert Anasi is Robert Anasi. (Professional journalists, who put their professional reputations on the line when they self-publish, unlike the 60 million bloggers who are not professional journalists.)-Cindery 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall direct you to review my previous statements. My doubt is reasonable and has been echoed by half a dozen editors. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you state exactly how a registered email address is insufficient to prove identity? (Also, let's be fair about the "half dozen"--I see familiar names here from the EL/YT discussions who have never edited Barrington Hall. Also, someone I completely avoid, who admitted on ANI to creating a sockpuppet that was used only to comment on this talkpage. Hmm. It doesn't seem that this "half-dozen" has demonstrated any real interest in this article, or the subject of graffiti, etc. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy...and you would have a particularly weak "consensus" argument here, I think.) Please demonstrate by argument that a registered email address is not sufficent to establish identity.-Cindery 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That argument only holds true if you assume bad faith on the part of the people who have commented. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes sources involve oral history or personal interviews. This is a simple fact of researching. While it isn't ideal in the context of an encyclopedia it is most definitely necessary under many circumstances. This isn't an article about scientific discoveries that were published in peer-reviewed periodicals. Cindery and I were there and we are recognized authorities regarding the history of Barrington Hall. We don't edit and maintain this article for personal grandisement - we do it as a result of our unique store of information regarding it. We work with several other former Barrington Residents and together we make for formidable sources on Barrington history and lore. Please do not revert our work. --AStanhope 01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Astonhope, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." - WP:V. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not here, JSmith. --AStanhope 02:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a policy-free zone. Cindery, if you're unhappy with the assortment of editors you have here, feel free to request outside input. In the meantime, it may be most productive to comment on content, not the contributors. Glass houses and all. My interest is not so much in a now-defunct dorm co-op in Berkeley, nor do I doubt that you're correct about the graffiti that were there. However, I do have a strong interest in WP:V and WP:RS, which seems to be what this discussion is actually about. MastCell 04:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you're working on the wrong article, MastCell. We've got this one under control. I think you are needed elsewhere. --AStanhope 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stop with that line of thought and realise that any editor can edit any page so long as it follows the rules.

Anyway, to comment on the email address link. Cindery, have you ever received one of those annoying Paypal scams via email? They look legit but are copies. They nearly always contain the official logo, contact details and links to the site. This is why having an email address on a blog, which added information to it after it was added here, does not make it a reliable source. If you do know Jane Dark, why not get them to simply link to the new blog from their old one? It isn't difficult for them to do and would help clear this mess up a bit.

Also, you say that the list is of 'most memorable' bits of graffiti but I would ask you to remember WP:NPOV and realise that saying that is using a weasel word. Who says they are the most memorable? Why do they have the authority to say this?

I would suggest that the list is not suitable for this site, but would be well suited to wikiquote with a interwiki link in this article.

AStanhope - the verifiability policy is not negotiable. The site is about verifiability and not truth (which is a bit of a simplification btw). I would suggest that you take a read of that policy and also this one.

Finally, I will say it again - do not comment on where people edit. People are free to edit any page on this site so long as it is within the rules. We don't have to justify why we take part in discussions.-Localzuk 08:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A Question for Cindery and AStanhope

Did you solicit the posts on those two blogs, or is it just coincidence they appeared when they did? Are you the source of that info, or did the two authors get it elsewhere? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that it's completely irrelevant--if it were the case, there's nothing wrong with that.(And re timing, it's always wise to remember: "Time is a crutch, eat mandarin oranges.") This looks to me like an irrefutable link between bonus sugar and Sugarhigh! (ironically, one that winks at today from yesterday, or something...): http://janedark.com/2005/12/translators_note_on_popular_la.html Cindery 02:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(Comment removed by Cindery can be viewed here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't see it. I see a link to the site as a reference in the page but I don't see anything saying that it is actually the same person doing both sites...-Localzuk 07:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that someone besides Jane Dark edits Sugarhigh?-Cindery 07:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that linking to a site within your site isn't claiming that the other site is yours... So, Janedark.com creates an article and references one on the other site but doesn't say 'my other site'.-Localzuk 08:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you're supposing that janedark@janedark.com, which is a registered domain, has two blogs--one named as an offshoot of the other-- registered to janedark@janedark.com, and has linked them together, but somehow there's even a remote possibility that someone else writes one of them?-Cindery 09:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you on about? Sorry to be blunt but you are going round in circles. We have 2 sites - one of which is janedark.com and the other is a free blog. I have no problem with the janedark.com one which is hers. The problem I have is that stating that the other one is hers is original research without a statement from her saying so. We have a link from one site to another and an email address but that is all - no claim that one is in fact hers. If you do indeed know her, why not just get this claim added to the janedark.com site? It would save all this mess. Then we can move onto discussing other things.-Localzuk 10:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But those "other things" we move onto may be rejecting the source for other reasons... --Milo H Minderbinder 14:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Sorry, you just have no case.-Cindery 10:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Coming from someone who has been argued against by several other people and has so far not given any valid reasons to support the use of this extra blog. Wow. Truly amazed.-Localzuk 12:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The point was already conceded by the "other people" that Jane Dark is a reliable source. I think too much good faith was extended by the regular editors of this article while the dicussions continued with people who have never edited it about whether Jane Dark is Jane Dark--tags allowed to stay, blanking tolerated, registered domain humored as insufficient proof of identity (and Milo has now repeatedly deleted the entire list, which includes a graffito which has never been disputed, which does not reflect that he is paying attention to the dicussion). I think at this point an ANI report for edit warring and disruption may be necessary.-Cindery 20:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So which is the one that hasn't been disputed? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you to read/reread the discussions before you continue to engage in them. If you are unclear on that simple fact, you may be unclear on/have forgotten/not noticed much more.-Cindery 20:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the identity of the blog was only one of a number of objections. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The distinction being drawn between "regular editors" and "those who have never edited this article before", as well as the suggestions to "go elsewhere", suggest that it may be worth re-reading WP:OWN. MastCell 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And in your case, since you have admitted to using a sockpuppet only to comment on this talkpage, and I have left numerous articles in order to avoid you, I think it may be worth rereading WP:STALK.-Cindery 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read it, since it's not the first time you've made such a groundless accusation. It says that harassment is "Following an editor to another article to continue disruption", and that "...The important part is the disruption." Do you think I've been disruptive here (or anywhere, for that matter)? The "sock puppet" issue I reported to AN/I myself (see here). If you have a problem with me, you're experienced enough with dispute resolution to know how to proceed; repeating groundless ad hominem accusations every time you disagree with me, or every time your own conduct is scrutinized, is unconstructive. But this is the article talk page... perhaps we could focus on the article. MastCell 22:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your participation here is disruptive; no one at Barrington Hall cares about your self-justifications for stalking me. Please restrict yourself to addressing the issue at the relevant location, the ANI report I have filed sgainst you for wikistalking:-Cindery 00:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, could you please leave your stalking accusations to ANI and stay on topic? Looking at MastCell's comments on this page, they seem perfectly appropriate and relevant to the article at hand. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the point above and provided the link to direct him to leave further long-off topic comments there, not here.-Cindery 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

'your participation here is disruptive; no one at Barrington Hall cares about your self-justifications for stalking me.' I disagree. I think his edits here are useful in creating a better wikipedia. Stop trying to take ownership of this article.-Localzuk 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You have obviously not seen the evidence at ANI that he has wikistalked me, which makes his participation here disruptive in and of itself. The next issue to address will be the issue of editors who may be disgruntled that the You Tube link was allowed to stay. Your only contributions to this article, Localzuk, were arguments against the You Tube link, until you joined a dispute about the graffiti. Many of your comments in particular have been less than civil. And the dispute overall is far out of proportion to the seriousness of the matter. I doubt that impartial observers would fail to note that the EL crew has moved on to the graffiti issue, and that it is disrupting rather than serving the article/Wikipedia.-Cindery 03:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the evidence at AN/I and I do not feel it is a case of wikistalking. I assume good faith and believe MastCell that the posting with the other account was an accident and his editing has not been disruptive.

Second, I do not care one bit about the Youtube link - it is a pointless blip in the history of wikipedia. Unless you stop your accusations of ulterior motives, I do not see how this discussion can move on. Also, I would say that a discussion on a talk page is not disruptive - the article is fairly stable but it is allowing issues to be worked out about maintaining the quality of the page.

Finally, please can you show me where I have been less than civil? True, I have been blunt a couple of times but this has been in response to your continual misinterpretation of our policies and your failure to assume good faith.-Localzuk 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In terms of serving the article and Misplaced Pages, it would probably be helpful to focus on the issues, comment on content rather than the contributor, and stop the ad hominems against everyone who doesn't share your opinion. There are a couple of ways that things could be resolved amicably: consider it a case of WP:IAR, wait for the more reliable sources that Argyriou has said he's digging up, or engage and try to reach a consensus. Of course, you could continue to claim that an after-the-fact blog posting, which happens to contain exactly the information you want inserted into the article, satisfies WP:V and WP:RS, and you could continue to attack the motives of everyone who feels differently, but that doesn't seem like a productive course. MastCell 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In terms of serving the article, you should cease WP:STALKing me, as you created a sockpuppet--Girondin-- used only to harass me on this page, and I have left many articles to avoid you, and there is now an ANI report. Do not stalk other editors..-Cindery 10:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear...

At this point, who considers the bonussugar blog a reliable source? Personally I don't. The first concern is that we don't have verification that it truly belongs to Jane Dark. And beyond that, even if it does, I consider it unreliable because it has no editorial oversight or fact checking, there's no evidence that the author (whoever it is) has researched Barrington Hall or is an expert in that subject, because blogs are generally questionable sources, and because the info can't be confirmed by any other source (which also raises notability questions). I'd appreciate if others would weigh in on this, particularly now that Cindery is insisting that everyone but me agrees it's a reliable source and is threatening to report me to ANI if I revert her addition again. I just want to make sure editors' positions are clear and that Cindery isn't misrepresenting anyone. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, use of blogs (especially new ones) has always been highly controversial on wikipeida. And any page that creates evidence because of a dispute on a wikipedia page to be used as a source on wikipedia is highly suspect and shouldn't be used for a number of reasons. That's two strikes in my book. However, at this point I think it's clear that the bonus-sugar is legitimatly owned by Jane Dark. Jane, or someone else with access, edited an old post to include a link to bonus sugar. That's confirmation enough for me that the connection from JaneDark.com -> BonusSugar is legitimate. I still think that a list of graffiti quotes is too indiscriminate to be appropriate for wikipedia.

On the other hand, the claims being made aren't extraordinary/controversial and despite some of the weakest sourcing attempts I've ever seen I'm willing to drop the subject.

So... basically, yes, I'm still against inclusion, but I don't think it's important enough of an issue at this time to spend any more effort on it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: The Bancroft library at UC Berkeley is the rare book library. It is not a circulation library. The "Barrington Miscellany" files cannot be checked out. You must go in person to the library, and not everyone is admitted to the library. If I merely wanted to "invent" a citation for something, I could say it is in those files. However, I have repeatedly demonstrated a high degree of concern for the accuracy of this article, and I have provided the majority of the references/done the most research. (I imagine that Jane Dark's log of the graffiti will find its way to the Bancroft, and that the Green Book will probably be updated shortly to include an appendix which notes graffitos. If that happens, I think the Green Book would be a good online complement reference to Jane Dark. Although there is no requirement that sources be available online, I think it is helpful to have them, because they are easier for other editors to check for themselves.

Re "indiscriminate," as the article notes, some of the thousands of graffitos were "muralized."-Cindery 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider the blog a reliable source. Regardless of whether the posting was solicited by Cindery, or who owns the blog, it appeared after the relevant information was tagged with "cite needed" here, and appeared to be a direct response to discussion here. I don't think that's bad faith; it's a reasonable interpretation of events. That said, we're talking about graffiti on a co-op wall. Cindery, AStanhope, and Argyriou lived there and all feel it's important. I guess you could just invoke WP:IAR, say it makes the article significantly better, and include it. Whatever. What I (and, I think, others) object to is the Wikilawyering on WP:V and WP:RS and the claim that this blog posting, which appears to have been made in response to events here, somehow fulfills these policy/guidelines. Finally, there's certainly an edit war going on. The folks at WP:AN/I are unlikely to think one editor holds the moral high ground here, and reporting it will get the page protected and likely a rebuke for all involved. Probably better to work it out here. MastCell 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well... too late. MastCell 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, since you have created a sockpuppet to comment on this page, and I have left numerous articles to avoid you, and you have never made an edit to this article, you may want to reread WP:STALK.-Cindery 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the above thread. What do you think about ways to constructively resolve issues on this article (i.e. invoke WP:IAR, request (another) outside opinion, await the more reliable sources that Argyriou is digging up, etc)? MastCell 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:STALK, you should not be here. . Cease your disruption at this article. Do not stalk other editors.-Cindery 04:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It almost feels like you're trying to bully me (and Localzuk, and J.smith, and Milo) with ad hominem attacks and accusations of ulterior motives. There is actually constructive discussion going on below about the issues which got this page protected. Why not contribute to it? MastCell 04:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You're a special case all by yourself of WP:STALK. Why are you harassing and stalking someone who completely avoids you? It's not helping the article. As Astanhope said "you are editing the wrong article." -Cindery 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys! This sounds like it is starting to get personal with you. Why don't you do everyone (including yourselves) a favor and leave Cindery alone? This aggressive behavior doesn't belong here. --AStanhope 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NO NEED TO SHOUT :) Anyway, Cindery is pushing for the inclusion of information by an unreliable source - so leaving her alone would mean that she could use it, which we are not going to do until she can provide reasons why this source is a reliable source.

Next, the behaviour of Astanhope and Cindery on this talk page, repeatedly referring to ulterior motives and telling people to edit different pages is against policy and is very poor behaviour. If it does not stop, I shall be putting together an RFC on the behaviour of these editors.

I suggest everyone get back to the task in hand and allow ourselves to get past this issue. Cindery, please can you tell us once and for all why you think the blog of someone which is poorly linked to another blog, and is by a person who, as others have said, is unavailable to find in public libraries should be seen as a reliable source. Can you also show us how those items of graffiti are more notable than others? This isn't a vendetta against you or anyone else, it is simply trying to prevent this article from becoming a mess.-Localzuk 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Verification that the source is the source have already been provided, the quality of the source has already been established, and the significance of the graffiti has already been established. There is no need to have the same discussions over and over. Again, I note that your only contributions to this article have been to the talkpage, during the You Tube dispute, and then in a dispute over this source which was started by a member of the You Tube deletion team (who has had the good sense to drop it.) I am sure that if you put together an RfC, and your behavior is scrutinized, no one will believe that you are continuing this dispute except in good faith.-Cindery 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the other editors here don't agree that the source has been verified, that it is of sufficient quality, and that the graffiti is significant. You have asserted these things, but WP is edited by consensus - just because you believe something and keep insisting it doesn't mean that the other editors will agree. And articles are edited based on what achieves consensus agreement. It would be unfortunate if this came to an RfC, but I'm sure it certainly would get plenty of support if that was necessary. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source

http://bonussugar.blogspot.com/ is not a reliable source. I do not see that "just jane" is "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist." Poets, regardless of notoritety or relevence, are neither. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jane Dark is the pen-name of a journalist for the NY-times and the Village Voice. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? It is still not a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, just letting you know that he might actually be considered a "a well-known professional journalist" depending on your definition of what makes someone "well-known". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many things we know to be true that are not valid for an encyclopedia. Verifiability trumps truth. If the Pope had a blog would we use that as a source to trump papal bulls? David D. (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should both bring yourselves up to date on the discussion--you're starting it over from scratch, and replying to you would be a rehash.-Cindery 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. It should go no further than hipocrites first post here. What else is there to discuss? This whole article reads like a vanity piece. You can't write an article based on your own memories of the historical events. They may well be true but they are not verifiable. Even if they are verifiable they are probably not notable. Is LSD punch notable? This was Berkeley, didn't everyone have LSD punch? This is an encyclopedia. It should not be written in the style of a blog. Worse it should not be citing blogs as a source. David D. (Talk) 23:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery and I spent part of our lives living at and managing Barrington Hall. We are authorities on Barrington Hall. We want the Barrington Hall article to be as truthful, accurate and complete as possible. The graffiti is a very important aspect of Barrington's history and lore. There is no better source for the graffiti than people who actually lived there and experienced life there. There is no debate as to whether or not Barrington Hall merits its own article - all of us agree that it does. Traditional published sources regarding the history of Barrington Hall are almost non-existent. The Misplaced Pages article on Barrington Hall has the potential of being the single most informative resource on the internet about this building. Our personal knowledge of the place is absolutely crucial to telling the Barrington Hall story in the best way possible. * * * You are treating Cindery and I like children or amateurs. Both of us are hard-working Misplaced Pages editors with numerous contributions over several years to the Misplaced Pages. Your objections to our work here on the Barrington article appear to be petty and vindictive. Why can't you simply leave the article to us to maintain? There are hundreds of thousands of Misplaced Pages articles, many of which are crying out for attention. Why not focus your energy on one of them? --AStanhope 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Argument from authority does not count for anything. Verfiable does. I have not doubted the article has merit, but it is written in a style that is a memoir more than an encyclopedic article. Why is the graffiti important? At present there is just a bunch of graffiti, I can see that stuff in any bathroom in the US, why is it notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia?

Not sure why you think people are vindictive? Most people seem to be trying to improve the quality of this article. By the way why is the LSD punch notable enough to be included in the history of Barrington hall?

Have you considered that you can write a good article with just the verifiable material? Your point here "The Misplaced Pages article on Barrington Hall has the potential of being the single most informative resource " seems to miss the point of wikipedia. Its goal is to catalog the informative sources not be THE primary source on a topic. I am not trying to treat you like a like child or an amateur but judging from this talk page your time would be better spent writing a book and getting a recognised publisher interested in the project. That format would be more suitable to the style you seem to prefer. Or you could listen to the advice that people here are giving you and save your time here by avoiding all these edit wars. If you do not take the advice i think you'll find this becomes a perpetual battle for you. David D. (Talk) 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would ask that you read the previous recent discussions regarding the graffiti, as it is clearly explained why it is significant. I don't mind having the discussion once, but once it's up--and recent--it is incumbent upon new contributors new to read it, so that they can contribute usefully to the conversation..-Cindery 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just done a global search of this Talk page for the word "significant" and I don't see anything that explains why they are significant, except for the personal testimony of Wikipedians.

And as I mentioned above, a Google search on the exact phrases "shopping days till Armageddon" and "shopping days til Armageddon" turn up a handful of hits mentioning occurrence e.g. in a TV series, but none except this Misplaced Pages article itself that mention Barrington Hall. I'm not at all convinced that these are anything other than perfectly ordinary campus graffiti.

But the big problem is that you have no published source for them. I've already said that I would consider the Daily Californian or a local newspaper a perfectly good source. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you brought that up, Dpbsmith. It might seem amazing, but not all sources are online! (I advise reading User: Wjohnson's talkpage--he spells out the difference between "original research" and "research" very well. I.e, research is research, nor orginal research, and it can't all be done online. The "I can't find it on Google!" attitude has been noted as a general fault of Misplaced Pages. Meanwhile, we have a published source, from a regular NYT contributor, poet, and author, who maintains a blog noted by the Academy of American poets. That's a better source than the Daily Cal (which is not available online for the 80s.)-Cindery 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed the significance discussion. I have read through this page and I didn't see any case being made for the graffiti's significance. Since you are not willing to repeat it, at least point us to this discussion?

With respect to your source, it is not, the blog cannot be used as a source. If the author had been interviewed about the graffiti for an artilcle that was then published in a reliable source then it would be acceptable. Whether she is credible does not come into the equation. We don't work with truth, we work with verifiable, notable information. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning google because many would accept a source that is available in a library. I know it sounds dull, but that is the role an encyclopedia plays. Do you see the difference? David D. (Talk) 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) No, I think if you are going to join a dispute, you should read through the most recent previous discussions, so you can contribute meaningfully to the discussion, and so the same things aren't repeated over and over--start at the top, with "graffiti." Read the link to the RS discussion. You are incorrect per RS that a blog can't be used as a source--it can.-Cindery 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, again. Only mentions it as memorable (to who?, you? then its vanity and not notable). You imply it has some cultural impact, but how, where, on who. No mention of this. To date there is nothing about why this graffiti is more notable than any other graffiti. David D. (Talk) 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

???? You keep saying you have a good published source, but you don't provide it. Please tell me where it has appeared in The New York Times, which is not only an excellent source, but one to which I do have online access, back to 1857 or thereabouts, courtesy of my public library. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A search on exact phrase "Barrington Hall" in The New York Times from 1851 to 2003 yields these results:

1. BOSTON A. A. TRIUMPHS.; Defeats Boston College at Hockey by Score of 3 to 1. Special to The New York Times.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jan 16, 1924. p. 15 (1 page)

2. COOPERATIVES BAND ON 159 CAMPUSES; They Report 73,232 Members, With Annual Business of Nearly $3,000,0000 BEDS, BOARD AND BOOKS From These Obvious Activities Some Unexpected Fields Have Been Developed Fought the Depression Harvard "Coop" Is Largest By LOIS BAKER. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 7, 1937. p. 46 (1 page)

3. American Friends of Britain Arrange a Dance for Nov. 26; Informal Program Will Be Given by Entertainers of Stage and Screen--Christy Poster Donated Warrenton to Have Ball Tea to Aid Canadian Forces New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 17, 1940. p. 53 (1 page)

4. Advertising News and Notes New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 3, 1941. p. 24 (1 page)

5. Hygrade Expands Operations New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Aug 31, 1944. p. 26 (1 page)

6. Hygrade Buys Macaroni Plant New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: May 29, 1945. p. 26 (1 page)

7. BUSINESS NOTES New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 27, 1947. p. 31 (1 page)

8. Advertising News and Notes New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Aug 22, 1949. p. 26 (1 page)

9. News of Food; Artistic Gift Packages of Sweets Have an International Composition Mother Was Dress Designer Goat's Milk Cheeses Shopping Pad Notes: New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Aug 23, 1951. p. 19 (1 page)

10. Archeological Dig Hints at Morven's Original Landscaping By LLOYD A. CARVER Jr.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Sep 13, 1987. p. 819 (1 page)

11. Student Co-op Votes to Close Dorm With a Past; Berkeley New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 12, 1989. p. 52 (2 pages)

12. 'Squat or Rot': Students Fight Eviction Effort New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 4, 1990. p. 43 (1 page)

13. Students Protest Vote To Raise Their Costs; REPORTS FROM... Albany o Berkeley Syracuse o Texas Vermont o Wisconsin New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 4, 1990. p. 43 (1 page)

I'm not going to check them all, but if you give me some guidance as to which it probably is I'll take a look. The most likely ones would seem to be 11, 12, and 13, which I have checked. 11 and 12 are about Barrington Hall at Berkeley. 13 is partly about it, and has two photographs, one of students sitting around a chessboard, and one of some barricades with signs that say "Cops go away!" Neither of them mention or show any graffiti. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you do not seem to have read/checked the references in the article,' such as the Green Book, which clearly establish that the graffiti was significant.-Cindery 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First, what about The New York Times? Has it been mentioned there, or not? If so, where?

Second, the Green Book was not given as a reference for the graffiti. No reference at all was given for the graffiti.

Third, what is "the green book?" It looks like a personal website, for an organization called Ejinue, whose "about" page says "EJINJUE was a license plate...now it's a space hosting things." Whatever it is, it is not notable enough for us to have an article about it. What is Ejinjue and why should I consider it to be a proper published source?

Finally: it's your job to provide a reference to the place in "the green book" that says the graffiti were significant. I'm not going to search through an entire book or website trying to find it. Neither this page nor the table of contents says anything about graffiti. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you expect me to support this, even if it is tedious for you, you need to answer my questions in some better way than saying "it's already been answered." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I ignored the NYT because it is a red herring--nothing has to be in the NYT. (The source provided is a regular contributor to the NYT, however.) The Green Book is clearly identified as a publication of the USCA. I would advise reading all the cited refs to get a sense that graffiti was significant in Barrington. (Also note that J.Smith does not dispute that graffiti was significant; this discussion has already taken place here, etc.)-Cindery 21:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC

You brought up the New York TImes, not I. I understand you to say that the source is a regular contributor to the New York Times, but contributed nothing to The New York Times about Barrington Hall or its graffiti. Do I understand that correctly? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Green Book is clearly identified as a publication of the USCA.

Where? Not at the URL cited, which says, as I noted, that "EJINJUE was a license plate...now it's a space hosting things." That doesn't translate to "USCA" to me. The USCA has its own website, http://www.usca.org. Is there material about the Barrington Hall graffiti there?

Where, specifically, does either site—preferably the USCA site—give the text of these graffitti?

Where, specifically, does either site—preferably the USCA site—explain that these graffitti were important? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would advise reading all the cited refs to get a sense that graffiti was significant in Barrington. (Also note that J.Smith does not dispute that graffiti was significant; this discussion has already taken place here, etc.)-Cindery 21:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's your job to point out which citations support your points. I'm willing to go partway on this. In fact I've spent quite a lot a time looking at where you've pointed. And whenever I fail to see what you tell me is there, you then tell me that I should have been looking someplace else. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you direct us to a source obtainable in a library, I will obtain it and verify your assertions. Please provide citations for the requested information. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The citation is Jane Dark, and it has already been provided. Please read all relevant discussions re Jane Dark, and the source. I would also appreciate it if you removed or rewrote the notice from your talkpage inviting editors to come to this page if they agree that you are "right most of the time," as I think it is misleading and designed to cause conflict.

• Note: here is the notice Hipocrite has placed on his talkpage: "Anyone who reads my talk page because they find me often in the right should definetly review the Barrington Hall article, which requires numerous uninvolved eyes to fix. Found via content dispute whinged about on WP:ANI." Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • no. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(It doesn't describe the issues here, I don't think you read enough to know what the issues are here, etc. Inviting people who "agree with you in general" looks like personal solicitation, not an invitation to discuss an issue that doesn't have enough participants/a discussion in which there is a POV imbalance, etc. As you were involved in the EL/YT dispute with me, it seems particularly inappropriate.) -Cindery 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Jane Dark" Is not a source I can find at the library. Please provide a citation that I can find at the library. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that you are able to find the source in a library.Sorry.-Cindery 20:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Jane Dark cannot be used as a source unless she is interviewed for an artilcle that is published in a reliable source. This has nothing to do with whether she is credible. Do you see the difference? By the way if you appear on WP:ANI don't be surprised when fresh pairs of eyes appear from nowhere. It's not a conspiray it just means you are making enough noise for other editors to notice. David D. (Talk) 13:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's completely incorrect--it doesn't seem that you have read the previous discussions, know who Jane Dark is, etc. There is no requirement in RS that established journalists who self-publish must do so via interviews. :-) I don't know what your "by the way" comment is supposed to mean. I have asked Hipocrite to remove or rewrite his talkpage notice, as I don't think it;s constructive, and the language is uncivil.-Cindery 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter who Jane Dark is. Her words cannot be used here if they are not reported. Her blog does not count as being published. You have been told this by multiple editors.

The "by the way" comment was that you appear to assume the new faces are due to some recruitment campaign, but this is all over the wikipedia announcement boards. If you take your arguments abroad of course others will be come involved. I don't see any request here for it to be removed, I can't mind read. (I retract this i just found your request above) Same with the significance of the graffiti. Why is its significance absent from the article? At present it is just a random section with no context. David D. (Talk) 20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: asking Hipocrite to remove or rewrite his uncivil "request" for people who "agree that he is right most of the time" is simply that, and makes no assumptions about anyone in particular. I am beginning to think it's possible you have a guilty conscience about it or something though, since you are the only new contributor to this discussion since he posted his request, and you keep bringing it up. -Cindery 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Green Book website has a pdf version, which can be easily text searched. There are a few mentions of graffiti, but nothing jumps out at me as asserting that the graffiti is notable enough to merit a listing of examples in an encyclopedia article. I'm also not sure what or how reliable the "book" is. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding regarding general and specific. The Green Book, and most of the refs for the article, note that graffiti was a notable Barrington phenomenon. Jane Dark noted specific graffiti. (It is noted elsewhere in the discussion that some graffit was "muralized," making it particularly significant, and that records of house council meetings record the muralizations, and are located in the Bancroft library, which is not accessible online. In the case of "Fuck the Dead," it was painted in letters three feet high on Dwight Wy. for more than a decade--that graffito is exemplary/notable because no one who drive down Dwight Wy, a main drag, between 1978 and 1989 could have failed to notice it. "time is a crutch, eat mandarin oranges" (not dissimilar from Bukowski's "Grate art is horseshit; buy tacos":-) was painted on the front of the building for more than a decade. The graffiti noted by Jane Dark is a collection of 1) exemplary graffiti, which gives a feel for the time/place 2) graffiti which was muralized or especially notable because it was so big, so obvious, there for so long, a part of the history of Berkeley as well as Barrington, because it was outside the building or in the street.-Cindery 22:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Guilty conscience? Will I be stalking you next? David D. (Talk) 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I did check, since you seemed to take my request that Hipocrite modify his "request for input" so that it was more constructive and civil personally, and in your case I think this conversation is relevant: as it is immediately before his "request for input." I think it's fine if you are here, but also think you should be here because you are assuming good faith, and want to contribute constructively to the article, not because you want to do Hipocrite's "dirty work," or think he is "always right," etc. Your initial comments to the article were full of negative, unhelpful subjective bias "this is written like a memoir" etc. Note that Hipocrite was involved in the EL dispute.-Cindery 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me if my edits to the article are constructive or not? I have only made one edit so it should be quite easy for you to determine. i stand by my initial comments and i even suggested a way to write that section in a way that is less memoirish and more encyclopedic. Do you also think that was not constructive? You are heading down a dead end with this argument. David D. (Talk) 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, here is your first post--from this very thread: "I have read the discussion. It should go no further than hipocrites first post here. What else is there to discuss? This whole article reads like a vanity piece. You can't write an article based on your own memories of the historical events. They may well be true but they are not verifiable. Even if they are verifiable they are probably not notable. Is LSD punch notable? This was Berkeley, didn't everyone have LSD punch? This is an encyclopedia. It should not be written in the style of a blog. Worse it should not be citing blogs as a source. David D. (Talk) 23:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)" --I think it was very nice of us not to react that to the personal accusations/negative subjective comments, etc. It was fairly easy to AGF that you just didn't know anything about the subject/didn't read any of the refs in the article, esp. because you fixated on the LSD punch--which is well-documented. (Even the NYT notes it, in a ref not used.) I think you should take a deep breath, step back, and return when you can calmly read the discussions and contribute to them constructively in a way that moves the conversation forward. You are rehashing points already put to rest, posting rapidly, etc.--you seem personally upset. I also think it would be good for you to take some time to consider the biases you may have brought here after reading Hipocrite's "request for input."-Cindery 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this, I'll back off and you engage Dpbsmith who is making exactly the same points. And with respect to the punch, it is fine if it is verfiable but you need to add the cite and preferably use a quote from the article. It does currently read like a memoir as referred to in the article. David D. (Talk) 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Your intitial comments/the attitude you brought here are 1)subjective 2)negative. You needn't have any personal experience of the subject but merely to have read the references to provided to be aware that the article is not a "memoir." It's actually a very carefully edited summary, with an eye on both what was most notable, and the POV issues (which are depicting Barrington accurately but not too negatively, and trying to inlcude decades besides the 80s, although that is when it got the most press). It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that it's possible both knowledge of the subject and mastery of available references were utilized, which is the most beneficial combination for a Wiki article. For example, you seem to think that whomever wrote the LSD punch bit did so out of "vanity." But, I wrote the LSD punch bit. I hate LSD, I blew off that specific party, and I'm not much of a Primus fan. In spite of my distaste for LSD, I included info about it because it was particularly significant in the history of Barrington. (That party was "the last straw" leading to the vote to close it, and a major musician titled an album after it. The link to Primus was there, and "seven hospitalized" ref was listed in the ref section at the time you made your comments--it doesn't seem that you even glanced at the ref section, etc.) Last but not least, dpbsmith is not "making the same points" as you are, he is addressing Jane Dark.-Cindery 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Music

The current section seems to be a lot of hearsay. LSD punch and hundreds of bands may well be the truth, but is it verifiable? I have toned down the section trying not to maintain its spirit:

i aim to replace the older version with this new version. Please improve this version and provide citations for LSD punch if you wish to put that factoid back in. David D. (Talk) 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

the references are in the references section: seven hospitalized after acid punch party, etc. also, the Green Book, which is the primary ref for the article. There is a "style" issue re the refs, because the Green Book would have to be cited 40 times (more elegant and useful to leave it as a general ref, I think.) I'm still not sure if I think inline cites would be better--many articles just list refs. Most of these refs are not available online, anyhow.-Cindery 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

They should still be referenced as notes (see Rosalind Franklin). They don't have to be available online but if the Green Book is not readily available it is probably a problem. Regardless, why is it notable? Was this the first acid party in Berkeley? David D. (Talk) 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd really love to see some citations on this article. Without citations it makes verifying anything exceptional difficult and allows random OR to go by unnoticed for long periods of time. <ref> tags are really easy to use, create tiny footnote marks and are the de-facto standard required of the very best articles on wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I just saw the online version of the green book. Why can't this article track down their primary sources for information? They appear to have quite a few. David D. (Talk) 23:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The acid punch party made the newspapers, was a big scandal because it happened while Barrington was "on probation," and is especially notable because Les Claypool named an album called "Frizzle Fry" after it. Some of the refs in Green Book are cited in the Wiki biblio. Primary refs can't be used, except as noted in library collections.-Cindery 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

USCA

And for anyone who has an interest in neglected co-op articles, here is a link to the USCA article. At the bottom, you will find links to the articles about all of the co-ops. Not one of them is as well-developed or attended as Barrington Hall. They could all use the attention of those truly concerned with the quality of the co-op articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/University_Students%27_Cooperative_Association -Cindery 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the Green Book a reliable source?

I noticed above that Cindery wrote:

"I imagine that Jane Dark's log of the graffiti will find its way to the Bancroft, and that the Green Book will probably be updated shortly to include an appendix which notes graffitos. If that happens, I think the Green Book would be a good online complement reference to Jane Dark. "

This makes me wonder whether the Green Book is a reliable source if it can just be updated in such a fashion. Who published this? Or is it self published? Is it really just a personal website? Just some thoughts. David D. (Talk) 23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not a book is updated has zero to do with its reliability--else the whole textbook industry would collapse, as well as the publishing industry itself, as new editions, corrections, and appendixes come out every second. The Green Book includes two parts, if you look at it--one is general co-op history, the second is "Counterculture's Last Stand." The Guy Lillian part is an official USCA pub, and the second is a thesis which was supervised by Reginald Zelnick, a qualified authority. The online form of the book is maintained by co-opers who did not live in Barrington, and are affiliated with both the USCA and NASCO. The Green Book cites a wealth of interviews, and newpaper citations. It is clealrly both a reliable and essential reference for this article.-Cindery 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's essential for your edits and the content you want to contribute does not add to its reliability or necessity of inclusion, it is your opinion based on what you want to write. Teke 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not a book is updated has zero to do with its reliability Of course. But that's a straw-man argument since what he wrotes was whether the Green Book is a reliable source if it can just be updated in such a fashion. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really follow you--are you saying "such a fashion" is they key phrase? Please define "such a fashion" then, and how exactly said "fashion" pertains to reliability.-Cindery 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Green Book" does not meet the guidelines on reliable sources at all. The website even says, "This book is a small collection of U.S.C.A. history. It is not intended to be complete, authoritative and/or accurate." The first half was funded by the USCA in 1971, the second half is a master's thesis. Neither of which meet scholarship, or serves as a reliable online source. It's a blog, nothing more and nothing less, and the blog probably represents a copyvio, as the text of the thesis would be owned by the university and the funded grant would be owned by the USCA. Teke 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The USCA and the author of the thesis license the work for online publication, and both exist on paper, and in the Bancroft library--the Green Book is cited here because it is accessible in this format. I think it's also worth pointing out that a large number of people who lived in Barrington in the 80s object to the Green Book, and think it has an "anti-Barrington" bias. (I.e., the POV one would expect me to have, or Adam to have would be against citing the Green Book as a major ref. Note the rebuttal to the Green Book in external links. The "not intended to be authoritative..." caveat was added after complaints from people who lived in Barrington in the 80s:-)-Cindery 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to see the smiley face on the end of the post. A thesis is owned by the university, and cannot be licensed by its author- but that's neither here nor there and it's an example of the useless wikilawyering that has gone on from almost single contributor to this page, and has spilled over to other spaces of the 'pedia. I admit, I touched on it myself there. The point is that everyone here wants to own the article rather than collaborate; paranoia and partisanship run abound. Consider the fact that we have over 1.5 million articles and that this kind of content dispute effects every single other one of those articles by touching on the integrity of the project. This isn't aimed at you specifically Cindery, it's aimed at everyone involved. Work together instead of trying to have individual contributions triumph over the finished product. I've nothing else to contribute here, I hope every user takes a nice deep breath and drops the policy wonking- Misplaced Pages isn't a game to be won. Teke 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, if the Green Book web site can just be updated to add content that you think is important, why is it any different to a personal web site? Just because you do not personally edit it does not make it reliable. We have already seen how conveniently the graffiti went up on the blog. And now it sounds it will equally conveniently be added as an addendum to the Green Book. We don't work that whay here. Given all resources available before you started editing here there appears to be no reliable sources to assess the significance of the graffiti. David D. (Talk) 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Any book can be updated at any time--they're updated every second. It's completely irrelevant/a red herring. (Re blogs of professional journalists: it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that I am not the only person who reads this page/has an interest in Barrington. Note that I did not create or add any part of the graffiti section. Also, you--and a few others-- seem to find the possible scenario that someone decided, "hmm, this graffiti existed and isn't recorded in an accessible, updatable online location, but it should be" some sort of outrage. Anyone has the right to "record the graffiti"--or write whatever else they want about anything--at any time. In this case, freedom of the press/freedom of speech resulted in an indirect benefit to Misplaced Pages. The "outrage" is absurd, and has no place here: there is no Wiki policy which states that professional journalists may not write about whatever they want whenever they want, nor will there ever be. Continued and belabored attack of the source has made it seem to me that a small group of people who have never made any constructive edits to this article merely want to delete a section out of something other than a "concern for policy," and are furious that a source was provided--which does not serve Misplaced Pages, as Misplaced Pages needs sources.)-Cindery 18:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not outraged. It is just a matter of fact from observation. The graffiti does not appear to be notable, there does not appear to be a notable source for it. The only people who are fighting for its inclusion are people who lived there (read WP:VANITY). The threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is quite low. Nevertheless this graffiti does not currently come close.

Of course books come out with new editions all the time, however, this green book is not like those publihed by recognised publishers. In fact, you implied above that the online version will be updated to convey the importance of the graffiti, sounds like vanity to me. How can we know that this site is not just a personal website where the user is rewriting history to express an opinion not recognised elsewhere? The only one outraged seems to be you, Cindery, since there is a stream of people visiting this page to express concern that you are adding material to wikipedia that fails the wikipedia threshold for inclusion.

There is a wiki policy that states that journalists may not write about whatever they want on wikipedia (no original research), there is also a consensus that blogs are not reliable so you appear to be mistaken, and this has nothing to do with free speech. Find a reliable source that indicates this graffiti is notable. Clearly it is notable to you, but that is not a reason to add it to wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 18:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not seem to have read the discussions of Jane Dark (or any of the discussions about the graffiti, and why anyone would think it is significant. Note again, I did not write the graffiti section.) Until you read the discussions, I am going to ignore you, in order to avoid filling the already too-long threads about this with needless repetition.-Cindery 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read it multiple times. My interpretation of those discussions is completely different to your own. I never said you wrote the section, but you are its fiercest defender. Fine, you can ignore me, but there are many other editors here that disagree with you too. You are disrupting wikipedia and ignoring those with whom you disagree is not a good strategy for peace. David D. (Talk) 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please summarize your interpretation of the discussions, and explain how your interpretation addresses those who disagree with you in a new way, i.e, how you are usefully moving the conversation forward. ( Note re "disuption": I see you did not respond to this: I did check, since you seemed to take my request that Hipocrite modify his "request for input" so that it was more constructive and civil personally, and in your case I think this conversation is relevant: as it is immediately before his "request for input." I think it's fine if you are here, but also think you should be here because you are assuming good faith, and want to contribute constructively to the article, not because you want to do Hipocrite's "dirty work," or think he is "always right," etc. Your initial comments to the article were full of negative, unhelpful subjective bias "this is written like a memoir" etc. Note that Hipocrite was involved in the EL dispute.-Cindery 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC))-Cindery 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page for reply. This has nothing to do with the Barrington Hall article. David D. (Talk) 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

talkpage response deleted: summarize on this page your interpretations of the discussions, and explain how your interpretation addresses those who disagree with you in a new way, i.e., how you are usefully moving the conversation forward. (Please also be careful to make sure that you are not bringing any biases from Hipocrite's "request for input.")-Cindery 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Barrington_Hall#Why_is_Jane_Dark_considered_a_reliable_source.3F David D. (Talk) 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SF Chronicle

I will add all of these refs later:

• "The Co-op That Chaos Killed:

Cal's Barrington Hall -- home of nude 'wine dinners' -- closes" Byline: Sam Whiting, Chronicle Staff Writer,The San Francisco Chronicle March 5, 1990, Monday, Final Edition Section: News; B8

(This article includes specific mention of two graffitos: "The graffiti overhead says, 'Welcome to the I can be more radical than you house,' and, 'An Oasis of Madness in a World Gone Sane'") And the opening sentence of the piece is: "Berkeley's last student bastion for radical behavior, is expected to close today -- burying a civilization Margaret Mead might have chosen for her final expedition into cultural anthropology," which should perhaps be incorporated...

• "Berkeley Mayor Wants Talks: Friday's student riot at Barrington Hall" The San Francisco Chronicle

April 10, 1990, Tuesday, Final Edition Section: News; Pg. E11; Bay Area Report

• Berkeley Cops Roust Dozens at Big Party, The San Francisco Chronicle

November 22, 1989, Wednesday, Final Edition, Section: Daily Datebook; E12; Steve Rubenstein

• "Police Evict Barrington Holdouts." The San Francisco Chronicle

September 13, 1990, Thursday, Final Edition Section: News; Pg. B6 -Cindery 06:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Co-op that chaos killed"

Some or all of this quote should be incorporated as well, from a section of the article named "UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES":

"Barrington has nurtured a spirit unavailable elsewhere on campus, from nude dinner parties to ritual television destruction to a museum of original wall art. But it had a bleak underside. It was known for noise and destruction and for offering a crash pad to the nonstudent left and teenage runaways.

Barrington has a larger-than-life reputation, says Lincoln Madison, president of the co-op association, Berkeley's second-largest landowner. All across the continent, people know it as a drug den and anarchist household.

The hall was founded in 1933. The complaints started piling up in the early 1960s; more than 100 complaints have been filed. One example from 1983: Resident complains not fit for habitability. Live boa constrictor, fire, dried blood on her door, food and burning matches thrown at dinner, person wandering through halls brandishing a whip and striking the walls with it.

But there were certain rules. Graffiti was limited to stairwells, and mural-tampering was punishable by a $ 75 fine and possible eviction." -Cindery 06:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Jane Dark considered a reliable source?

Cindery has made a number of remarks from which I infer that she thinks the main point at issue is whether a certain blog is or is not by Jane Dark. He seems to suggest that there is consensus on this talk page that Jane Dark is considered a reliable source.

I'd like a clear explanation of why Jane Dark would necessarily be considered a reliable source.

Not only does Misplaced Pages have no article on Jane Dark, the only mention of that name in Misplaced Pages appears to be the name of a fictional character in a novel. There's no entry for Sugarhigh and there are four search hits, none relevant. Misplaced Pages's threshold for inclusion of blogs is not terribly high, and if this is a blog so noteworthy that we consider it to be a reliable source I'm surprised we don't have an article on it.

Cindery says Jane Dark is a contributor to The New York Times. That would not, of course, necessarily make her a reliable source. But in fact there are only nine occurrences of "Jane Dark" in a search of the complete New York Times database, and none of them are relevant. Seven of them are dated 1942 or earlier. (None are contributions by anyone named Jane Dark. Most do not even contain the name Jane Dark, but appear to be OCR and search engine glitches, e.g. "Jane Clark.")

Since Cindery says there is consensus, I'd like to have that explanation from someone other than Cindery. This consensus may be implicit already on this talk page, but it does not leap out at me. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I am a she.

Noted and changed above. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For discussion of Jane Dark, I suggest you read the RS discussion started by J. Smith--there is a link higher up on this page. There is no need to have the same discussions over and over.-Cindery 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• • As i noted above, "This has nothing to do with whether she is credible." you have no source, that is acceptable to wikipedia, that indicates the graffiti is notable enough for inclusion. David D. (Talk) 18:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Wrong: read the Jane Dark discussion at RS.-Cindery 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • i disagree as do many others here. Get a new argument. Better yet, get a reliable source that shows us why this graffiti is notable. David D. (Talk) 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Wrong: RS clearly states that professional journalist's blogs are an exception. Jane Dark is a professional journalist. There was then a rather tedious and extremely overheated discussion about whether Jane Dark is Jane Dark. That was settled.-Cindery 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the timeline for the inclusion of the information in the blog it fails RS. In fact, it means that blog can never be trusted again. David D. (Talk) 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong: see above in Green Book. Even continuing that argument is disruptive, as it has been pointed out repeatedly that it is a red herring. There is no Wiki policy which restricts freedom of the press/freedom of speech, nor will there ever be.-Cindery 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? are you suggesting the press can write anything they want in wikipedia? No they can't. Misplaced Pages can take or leave what it chooses. That is not a free speech issue. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You said, "given the timeline for the inclusion of the information it fails RS." The timeline is completely irrelevant--the press can write whatever they want at any time.-Cindery 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But wikipedia does not have to accept the blog as a reliable source. Jane Dark can write what she wants but the timeline leads to serious doubts of collusion, therefore, it is relevant. Also the blog does not tell us why the graffiti is notable. So even if Jane Dark's blog is a reliable source the notability of the graffiti has not been demonstrated. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1) "Misplaced Pages" already accepted that the blog is RS, and then moved on to a long, tedious, overheated debate about whether JD is JD. (Also, "Misplaced Pages" here means a small group of people leftover from the EL/YT dispute, and so is hardly "Misplaced Pages.":-) 2. the timeline, for the umpteenth time, is completely irrelevant and a red herring 3. the "notability" of the graffiti--in general and in specific--has been discussed ad nauseum. And as a reliable source, if Jane notes it, it's notable.-Cindery 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One editor on the RS talk page said it might be OK. Did that person know all the facts of this case; new blog, timeline? These are not red herrings, your wikilawering is getting tiresome since none of those guidelines need to be followed if there is reasonable doubt. Where has notability be agreed to? I'm sorry but one source does not make it notable. One dubious source even less so. David D. (Talk) 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this again:

• Since Cindery says there is consensus, I'd like to have that explanation from someone other than Cindery. From one or more of the other editors of this article who are part of that consensus. No counter-arguments, at least not yet. I just want someone who agrees with Cindery that anything by Jane Dark qualifies as being from a reliable source to explain why. (At Misplaced Pages, the term "reliable source" usually refers to a publication, not to the name of a contributor: an article in the Washington Post is from a reliable source, a forum posting by a user named Bob Woodward is not). Dpbsmith (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You need to read RS, and the discussion at RS--this is not a policy page, and explaining that self-published material by professional journalists is RS (and that this source in particular has already been well-established to be a respected professional journalist) doesn't need to happen every time someone new comes along and doesn't want to read the previous discussions. It's disruptive, making the make incredibly long, and is not fair or helpful to other editors who want to follow the conversation.-Cindery 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this again:

• Since Cindery says there is consensus, I'd like to have that explanation from someone other than Cindery, because for whatever reason I have difficulty following her arguments. I would like a response from one or more of the other editors of this article who are part of that consensus. If these editors agree with Cindery that it would be counterproductive to present the explanation here, then on my Talk page. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) P. S. I just looked at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Request_for_comment_.28Blog_as_source_for_Barrington_Hall_graffiti.29. Does it conclude with any obvious resolution or consensus? I didn't see one. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, this is not a policy page--whether or not professional journalists' blogs are RS is covered at RS. The discussion of this particular journalist was a request for comment at RS. Your above statements about Jane Dark indicate to me that you have not read that discussion (where JSmith provided links to a chunk of Jane Dark's articles written as Jane Dark). Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but consensus that Jane Dark is an RS is included in the above discussions "graffiti" and "only more seven more shopping days till Armageddon." It doesn't move the conversation forward to rehash it without reading previous discussions (esp. something as significant as a request for comment at RS.) Although I think it would be fine for someone to relate the RS discussion to you on your talkpage, I also think it would be simpler for you to read the RS discussion.-Cindery 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I did. I didn't see any obvious resolution or consensus. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: for "consensus," the argument then moved to a long, tedious, overheated debate about whether Jane Dark was Jane Dark, after it was agreed that JD was RS. That was established.-Cindery 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

""Misplaced Pages" already accepted that the blog is RS" Could you show us where exactly "wikipedia" accepted this? Obviously Cindery and Astanhope believe this, but from what I've seen every other editor (and there are quite a few) seem to disagree. Please point out where this acceptance is and let us know who specifically agrees with it besides those two. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs, by tradition, are only consiterd reliable for quoting opinion. Expecialy in cases where wikipedia is the source being used for the blog. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Even then it should be noted that WP:RS states that:

"'When a well-known ....... professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information ...... is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."

The mention of the graffiti on the new Jane Dark blog, does not seem to pass many of these criteria, if any. Including such a source would definitely go against the spirit of the RS guidelines. David D. (Talk) 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, blogs may be used for facts about the person writing the blog, per RS. But that still doesn't help in this particular case. And it's nice to see the "exercise caution" part of RS quoted, so many times the first line is quoted out of context, as if the rest of RS doesn't apply. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're all leaving out a very crucial element of RS: the source should match the claim. As the source is attesting to the existence of some graffitos, and not whether a new cancer drug is effective, I'd say it's a good match. It's not exactly an "exceptional claim" requiring peer review in scientific journals.:-) (This is officially the most overzealously over-investigated overcontested source ever, for such a match of source and claim, that I know of.)-Cindery 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"the most overzealously over-investigated overcontested source ever", there is a very good reason for it too. It appears that you are trying to game the system. That goes down as well as a ton of bricks. Plus the main argument is not whether it existed but whether it is notable. Do you know any buildings in a university environment without graffiti? Why is this graffiti so notable? Also a "credible, third-party publication" would be required in addition to this personal blog, as noted in the WP:RS. David D. (Talk) 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your "game the system" lack of AGF is the problem, and it is not serving Misplaced Pages or the article. Again, I did not write the graffiti section, nor do I write Jane's blog. (A great deal has already been written here explaining the significance of graffiti in Barrington, and it has been pointed out that every ref in the article notes it as well. I recommend reading the sources, and the talkpage discussion. In fact, above, in "Ian Ray-Slingshot," there is a source not used which gives some interesting info about the graffiti--the graffiti dialogues "went on for years," which is true.)-Cindery 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(undo indent) Finally you point me to a source that establishes the notability :), why didn't you mention that link before? There is no discussion on this page of that link discussing the historical context of the graffiti. Plus, it was not used as a cite in the article. For those following the discussion here is what the slingshot obit writes:

"Every surface in Barrington was covered with psychedelic murals and layer upon layer of graffiti. The graffiti wasn't just tags--it contained long debates about revolution, religion, art, everything. Ian's handwriting was often visible in the long graffiti debates, which would go on for years." from Slingshot

Is there anything else that expands on the content? As far as my lacking good faith, I am not saying you wrote the blog, but there is no reason to believe that you did not solicit it. David D. (Talk) 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

... If you're truly interested in whether graffiti was particularly significant in Barrington, read the sources provided in the article. Sources have already been provided and discussed ad nauseum on the talkpage re the issue of graffiti. Read the Green Book--it has already been noted as a main ref. If you have Lexis, you can read all the SF Chronicle articles I noted above. Re "solicit" that has been addressed over and over again--I believe the last euphemism was "timeline." The "timeline" has nothing to do with Wiki policy, is a red herring and failure to AGF.-Cindery 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not have to AGF all the time, this is a misapplication of the guideline. Re the graffiti in the article. The graffiti section made no effort to establish the notability of the graffiti (the quote above in the article would have been useful for one) and instead specific examples have been pasted. I think we need to quote the article and cite it with in-line quote. Half the problem here is that the reader cannot distinguish between sourced material and unsourced material. Second, the specific examples of the graffiti here are the same as those that appeared in the Jane Dark blog. Now i have to wonder why these specific examples are notable in the context of "long graffiti debates, which would go on for years"; they seem to be more like one off slogans. David D. (Talk) 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is getting a bit off topic. Nobody is proposing the removal of references to graffiti in the article, just the one list of examples. The question is, are those examples all notable (and verifiable) enough to merit including in an encyclopedia article? Or is mentioning the graffiti in the text with a couple examples sufficient? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, i was challenging the notability of the graffiti in general. David D. (Talk) 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: thanks for acknowledging that. The discussions re the graffiti--which are now about 40x too long IMHO--have been continually confused re the general and specific, as each recent newcomer drops by, glances at the article without reading any of the references or the talkpage, and demands some sort of proof that the graffiti matters at all. As they are answered in turn, those who have been in the mix for a slightly longer time then address the specific graffiti in the same conversation, which gets confusing. And so the same conversation happens over and over. :-) Can I ask you please to read the previous discussions about the specific graffiti? Thanks,-Cindery 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As outlined above, I would now like to know the context that makes these specific examples distinct in a historical context. David D. (Talk) 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's 1. addressed already in the conversation 2. repeated below again now 3. obvious: the graffiti is from a specific historical context. Is there some other Barrington graffiti you believe is more exemplary/one you would like to substitute for another?-Cindery 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In short, if there are no examples reported and discussed by other sources it is not our role here to decide which were important. I'm still unsure why these particular examples were selected by the original author? See my reply below too. David D. (Talk) 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, if a reliable source reports graffiti, it's fine to report it. You'd need another reliable source to dispute it--your opinion can't be used as a source. If you have another source, and would like to substitute a graffito for another, please make that argument. When the page is unprotected, I plan to take out something just to keep the list brief, and add "Welcome to the I can be more radical than you house," for example.-Cindery 02:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reporting graffiti is not the same as quoting graffiti. Add what is quoted, no more. David D. (Talk) 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no difference--he reported it; it's cited here.-Cindery 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Who reported it? Jane Dark or the YouTube link? It has already been established that Jane Dark is not a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Wrong: in fact there is curently no response to: it's a perfect match of source and claim, which is the latest state of the discussion viz JD. (Note also previous consensus, and the move to "identity" of the JD as JD)-Cindery 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I noted it all. It's still not a reliable source. Who accepts it as a reliable source? This is not about whether JD is a credible journalist. As you like to say, that is a red herring. Why can't you accept i have read the discussion and disagree with you conclusion? As do others.David D. (Talk) 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you're not using reason. Respond, using reason, to the state of the discussion: the source matches the claim.-Cindery 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already tried to use reason, maybe you missed it above. Here is is again, WP:RS states that:

"When a well-known ....... professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information ...... is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."

Why do you believe this new blog is acceptable given this recommendation? You can't just cherry pick the bits you like, you have to look at the spirit of what this recommendation is trying to say. David D. (Talk) 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's already been addressed, in great detail. Why do you believe it's not? (And note that the SF Chronicle reports specific graffitos, a precedent for noting specific graffitos). What you haven't addressed is: per RS, the source should match the claim. It;s not an exceptional claim, which should inspire any huge doubts; need for peer reviewed "proof"--it's graffiti, not brain surgery. Can you explain on what grounds you feel there is a need for "caution," what that caution consists of, or any reason to doubt JD, the claim, etc? (Or is it a simple case of IDONTLIKEIT? Certainly your note re the LSD punch--"I have re-written this trying not to maintain its spirit" indicates POV.)-Cindery 06:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This might explain some of the disconnect. That is a typo, and i have struck it out above. I think I originally wrote something along the lines of "try not to destroy the spirt" and I thought I had changed it to "try and maintain the spirt". I am embarrassed that i did not catch that when I proofed it before posting. The chronicle reference to specific graffiti looks promising. When this page gets unlocked we should tyr and get the in-line notes added so that specific references are easy to relate the text. It will help the article a lot. David D. (Talk) 16:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, your repeated insistence that people haven't read the thread, and comments like "you're not using reason" are starting to border on ad hominem. AGF and be civil.

At this point I agree that 1) "bonussugar" should not be used as a source, as it doesn't pass the test for reliability 2) Graffiti should be mentioned in the article with a couple examples given (ones that can be specifically cited to a RS, meaning not "bonussugar") 3) The list of graffiti doesn't add anything to the article, it seems trivial, and all of the items on the list can't be sourced. If you have a preference of which should be included in the article, put one or two in the paragraph and cite each. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things

The References section is in dire need of cleanup, as are the references in the article themselves. The way it is currently formatted it is a bit difficult to really see what references are sourcing which statements. Beyond that, anyone want to comment on how having an individual section on Graffiti jibes with WP:TRIV? While the concept of graffiti seems to be important in the article, how are these particular individual entries not just trivia? What is the importance of these specific writings?--Isotope23 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be trivia. Poorly sourced trivia in fact. I suggested removing it on the basis of WP:NOT a few days ago but received entrenched resistance. I don't mind one or two examples in prose but not a dozen in list format. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, unless they are notable, inspired a poem or such. David D. (Talk) 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There are 9, and they have been noted by an expert in ephemeral language. I recommend reading the RS discussion started by J. Smith, in which it is clearly explained why Jane Dark would have an interest in graffiti. Also, the Sarkozy piece in which the Barrington graffiti is linked. Also note the point already made re lists--9 graffiti is rather brief list in comparison to the "list of famous people with uterine cancer."-Cindery 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I continue to keep looking where you're pointing and failing to see what you say is there. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention all the pokemon articles, but you want this article to be better than those, I presume. So, do you know of any context for these nine examples? Anything that makes them more notable than other graffiti? Someone picked these out for a reason, I presume, however, it is not obvious at all what that reason might be. David D. (Talk) 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point in splitting hairs over 9 vs 12? The problem with your example "list of famous people with uterine cancer" is that "list of famous people with uterine cancer" is that an article called uterine cancer exists. An article called "Graffiti in Barrington Hall" dosn't exist.(well, dosn't exist yet) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• The graffiti examples need to go. There's a POV being pushed in including them, and that POV is that these examples are somehow important. The graffiti itself may be of note, instances of graffiti are not. It's also original research and indiscriminate, and we don't do indiscriminate. Steve block Talk 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: POV, that's new--can you elaborate? (Is there a policy this small list of graffiti has not been accused of violating? :-) I think IDON'TLIKEIT would be POV, however.-Cindery 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I already explained how they are point of view. It would certainly be a point of view to say I don't like them, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is that these breach so many policies that they shouldn't be included. They need to go. I think there's a reasonable consensus here to that effect. Steve block Talk 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, you did not, and POV has never been mentioned--please elaborate.-Cindery 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::That doesn't make any sense to me--no one is arguing for a spin-off of Barrington Hall graffiti into its own article. Barrington Hall has an article, where a list would be appropriate. A brief list is fine. (Personally, I am on record saying I don't approve of incredibly long lists like famous people with uterine cancer. But if you want to delete/shorten a list somewhere under TRIV or NOT, I would go after the really long lists.)-Cindery 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's just settle the issue of this list before we move anywhere else, thanks. Steve block Talk 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, you keep saying "A brief list is fine." Actually, it's not. Please stop trying to just dismiss our objections like that. The article isn't about what the people at barrington_hall thought was important, it is about what is notable about Barrington Hall to an outsider... and the only way to judge that is to give due-weight based on reliable secondary sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You objected under TRIV and NOT--clearly in comparison to "list of famous people with uterine cancer," viz TRIV and NOT,it is fine. If you define "outside" as someone who has not read the references provided in the article, I suppose you could come to the conclusion that "insiders" and "ousiders" are at issue here. Remember, research is not original research. The standard for inclusion is not "must be obvious at cursory glance to someone who knows nothing about the subject and doesn't read sources provided." (Although I have seen that argument used on occaison, and along with "if I can't find it on Google, it's original research" it has been noted as a general fault of Misplaced Pages.)-Cindery 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I said anything about NOR. I'm talking about Undue-weight (undue weight is the violation of WP:POV he was talking about). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If so, undue weight has already been covered here (and there weren't objections): graffiti was particularly significant at Barrington; the number of graffitos would be in the millions, 9 of them isn't undue weight--it's quite slight in comparison. It's useful/informative to give a brief list of examples. (The graffiti of UC Berkeley students in the 80s is different from the graffiti of NYC high school students in the Bronx in 2007, different from the graffiti of students in Paris in May '68, etc--all different kinds of graffiti. The graffiti of group of people in a specific time/place gives useful info about the people, the time, the place, just as any other form of writing would. If graffiti is a notable phenomenon/means of communication for a group of people in a specific time/place--NYC highschools, Paris in '68, the most famous student co-op in history, it's useful to give some examples.)-Cindery 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, if two conditions were met. First, if the Barrington Hall graffiti were properly sourced—but they're not. One could imagine a wiki that would collect people's personal observations of things, oral history, material that have never been published before, original research, etc. but Misplaced Pages isn't that wiki. Second, if a good source attesting to the importance of the graffiti were cited—but you haven't done that either. You cite not-terribly-great sources that say other things about the graffiti, things from which you draw the conclusion that the graffiti were of great importance. What we need, and don't have, is something like a passage in a novel, or an item in a newspaper, where somebody says something like of "the famous Barrington Hall graffiti," as "like it says in Barrington Hall, 'Time is a crutch, eat mandarin oranges.'" During the late 1960s students used to write graffiti on a plywood wall at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, too; one I especially liked was "Virginity is like a bubble in the froth of life: one prick and it's gone." But there wasn't anything encyclopedic about them, and they didn't say anything particularly unique or profound about the University of WIsconsin. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: No distinct subculture that Margaret Mead might have wanted to study, as noted by a major newspaper, existed on a plywood wall at UWM. (That *I* know of, anyway. :-)-Cindery 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)*First, there's an ongoing discussion about whether it is more elegant/useful to cite the Green Book 20x in the article, or to leave it as general ref. Let's leave the question of inline cites aside for now, for the purpose of discussion. Regarding the significance of graffiti in general--if you are truly interested enough to contribute as much to the talkpage on the issue as you have--please read the references listed in the article to satisfy yourself that it was significant. To address the specific graffiti viz RS and a source, Jane Dark is fine: the source should match the claim, and it's an excellent match. An expert on poetics and language with a demonstrated interest in graffiti is perfect for noting graffiti. We're not verifiying the results of a scientific experiment.-Cindery 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't graffiti address the evolution? I agree there might well be a very interesting article that discusses the graffti at Barrington Hall, unfortunately wikipedia is not the place for that article. Misplaced Pages's role is to report what has already been written. David D. (Talk) 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) You haven't addressed at all the reasons listed regarding why it is useful/informative/helpful to provide a brief list of the graffiti. "Graffiti" is a very large category. When we say "graffiti" in the Barrington article, it is more than useful to give examples to differentiate it from graffiti of other times/places. It was a distinct subculture, one that the SF Chronicle observed was one "Margaret Mead might have chosen" to study.-Cindery 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So, did the San Francisco Chronicle ever mention the graffiti? My guess is that there is probably a searchable online database for that newspaper available to library cardholders in the San Francisco area. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have accidentally missed that a section above, "SF Chronicle" notes that it does, and that you can find this article on lexis. (Also, Schi mentions it again below).-Cindery 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But the examples of real interest seem to be the political discourse (similar to that described in Slingshot). The examples in the article do not seem to be in that category. Is there no source for the back and forth graffiti, preferably with a context. No one ha written about this? David D. (Talk) 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic side note:If you want my honest opinion, the only reason that there is not already a major book or documentary about Barrington is laziness and marijiuana. And leftover intergenerational agon. There is always talk, but it hasn't happened yet. The fact that the building is "gone" makes a doc harder. The boomers who lived there in the 60s "blame" the punks who lived there in the 80s for ruining it all. (See in external links, Allison Roberts' "Living with Pink Cloud.") The people who lived there in the 80s feel like hey, we just got stuck holding the bag--your bag, as a matter of fact. (See Joel Rane in external links, "The Fall of Barrington Hall.") So there is a lack of cooperation. Maybe someone from the 70s will bridge the gap. But graffiti was an 80s phenomenon, so old boomer hippies couldn't write about it anyway. (It started around 1978-1980. If you watch the "Onngh Yanngh" movie in external links, at the end, Onngh Yanngh "moved into Barrington Hall and took up the art of graffiti writing." But, on-topic, you still haven't addressed the point: examples of the graffiti differentiate the graffiti from the larger more abstract concept of "graffiti." -Cindery 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just looked up in LexisNexis the "The co-op that chaos killed" SF Chronicle article Cindery mentioned above - there's a lot of good information in that article that's been mentioned here on the talk page/can be used as a ref for claims in the article, including a mention of a September 1987 acid punch party that sent a half-dozen people to the hospital. Re: graffiti, the photograph captions on LexisNexis read as follows: "GRAPHIC: PHOTO (2),(1) Not all Barrington Hall's murals are politically inspired Here, a French impressionist lady gazes at the goings-on, (2) Student John Benson, a resident of Barrington Hall, clear ed out his two-room suite last week and awaits eviction The graffiti overhead says, 'Welcome to the I can be more radical than you house,' and, 'An Oasis of Madness in a World Gone Sane' , PHOTOS BY SCOTT SOMMERDORF, THE CHRONICLE" The 1989 New York Times article about the co-op's closing also describes some of the murals, but not graffiti. schi 07:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Cindery, are you still insistent that the list has to remain, or will you concede the argument is against you? Steve block Talk 10:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked who besides Cindery and Astanhope thinks the list should remain, and have received no response. I think consensus is clear, any idea when the article may be unlocked? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is not consensus, and the three regular editors of the article agree that the graffiti list should stay. Perhaps it would help if you summarized what you believe are the pro/con arguments (or at least the con argument(s). There hasn't even been consensus from the "objectors," but moves to objection under different grounds: "well if it's a reliable source, then the author is not the author," "if the author is the author, then the list is trivial" etc, which evinces an overall IDONTLIKEIT objection, which is not a valid objection.-Cindery 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is the third? And do you honestly think there aren't more than three people who disagree with you? I'm not sure why you argue that the "objectors" may not all be objecting for the same reason - it doesn't matter, there are multiple reasons not to include the list and particularly the link to the blog, any one of which is valid. I should also point out that the term "regular" in regard to articles is meaningless beyond your tendency toward ownership. All editors have an equal say in all articles. At least you finally admit that only two editors besides yourself are part of your "consensus". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any distinction between "regular" editors and "drive-by" editors in consensus building.

If we come to some kind of agreement regarding the graffiti I can unlock it myself. Alternatively we can make a request at WP:RFPP if you would rather someone else do it.

My stance is two-fold. First of all, the blog, bonus sugar, isn't a reliable source in the context it's being used in. We do have some graffiti backed up with news articles, and thats good. Secondly, since this is an article I'd prefer to treat the subject of the graffiti in prose and not in list form. (A List of Barrington Hall graffiti would be a different story) Long-held (and sometimes ignored) guidelines have recommended against "trivia" sections and a "example" list is just that.

My concerns under WP:TRIV/WP:NOT are much less important to me then my WP:V concerns... so if we can prune the list down to those items that are supported by reliable sources I'd be willing to compromise on my secondary concerns. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict reply to Milo)::::There are three regular editors of this article, and they all agree the graffiti list should stay. Read above. The important thing is: I don't think it's helpful to evade the request for a summary of objection(s)--please succinctly summarize the con arguments you believe exist, for clarity about determining consensus, what if any objections exist, and what the counterarguments are.-Cindery 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And there are other editors who don't agree. Why do you keep talking about "regular editors"? Have you read WP:OWN? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because in this case the distinction matters--a group of editors who were involved in the You Tube/EL dispute have been primarily involved here--and in general a great deal of confusion/repeating the same arguments over and over has occurred because those who were not regular editors refused to read the sources in the article or previous discussions, which makes determing what the objections are difficult, hence a request for summary.-Cindery 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As a followup to JS, which graffiti items are verifiable via sources other than the blog? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to JSmith: can you clarify your statement "isn't a reliable source in the context it's being used in"--as the counterargument. "the source matches the claim" has been introduced several times now, with no response.-Cindery 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"The source matches the claim" isn't mentioned in RS at all. I'm not sure why you think WP policy says that. And if it did, I don't think the bonussugar blog is reliable enough to support any claim. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a blog be used as an acceptable source for "fact" - only for opinion. The sources does match the claim being made, but that's beside the point. My argument is that the source can't be considered reliable in the context your trying to use it in. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict reply to Milo):It has been repeatedly pointed out that RS makes a distinction between exceptional claims and not--diff in sources required between cerifying graffiti and efficacy of new cancer drug--and it has been asked why there is any concern for "caution" as JD is a language expert who has written about graffiti--i.e., the source matches the claim.-Cindery 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • reply to JSmith: I will ask you for a second time: can you clarify what you mean when you say "the source acn't be considered reliable in this context."-Cindery 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed California articles
• Unknown-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles