Talk:Barrington Hall/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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:[1]-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(talk) 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(talk) 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In terms of serving the article and Wikipedia, 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. [2]. 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(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors with numerous contributions over several years to the Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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:[3] 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:

Before legal arbitration with the neighbors in 1984, Barrington was the launching pad (petri dish) of Bay Area Punk. The song "Frizzle Fry" by the band Primus as well as the theme of their album, Tales From the Punchbowl, were inspired by a party, called a "Wine Dinner," held at Barrington. The pop group Camper Van Beethoven played at one such "Wine Dinner" in 1988-89, under the name Vampire Can Mating Oven. Black Flag, Flipper, X, NOFX, The Dead Kennedys, among others, also played at Barrington in the 1980s. In 2002, it was eulogised in the song "Barrington Hall" by Les Claypool that includes the lyrics:
"Just when I had thought I'd seen it ah ah all,
I stumbled 'round the corner into Barrington Hall.
Does anyone here remember Barrington Hall?
They care not for wrong or right,
they electrocute the night,
the people that live in Barrington Hall . . ."[4]

Legal arbitration restricted Barrington to three parties a semester with "amplified music," and so bands could only perform at Wine Dinners after that.

In the 70s, the Lemmings were the Barrington house band. [citation needed] A large mural of one of their album covers—depicting cars driving off a cliff—adorned the lounge on the ground floor. Musicians in Barrington house band Idiot Flesh went on to perform with Charming Hostess, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum and Faun Fables.

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/wiki/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. " [5]

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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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- Wikipedia isn't a game to be won. Teke (talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, as Wikipedia 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:[10] 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 Wikipedia have no article on Jane Dark, the only mention of that name in Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia 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) "Wikipedia" already accepted that the blog is RS, and then moved on to a long, tedious, overheated debate about whether JD is JD. (Also, "Wikipedia" here means a small group of people leftover from the EL/YT dispute, and so is hardly "Wikipedia.":-) 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 Wikipedia, 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). Wikipedia 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)

""Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia 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. Hiding 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. Hiding 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. Hiding 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 Wikipedia.)-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 Wikipedia 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)

[EC] 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. Wikipedia'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 talk 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? Hiding 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)
Regardless of whether or not you believe the "irregular editors" have read the sources or previous discussions, all editors are entitled to have equal input on any given article. And I think JS summarized it well in his post above ("My stance is two fold..."), I'm not sure what you'd like beyond that. So who is the third editor who agrees with you and Astandhope? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The disctinction is important for establishing the quality of any "consensus." Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is no User:Astandhope. If you read the previous discussions, you will see the third regular editor. It is my policy to ask you to do this when you overlook something extremely obvious, because I think "if he missed that, it is likely he is missing much else"--if you read the discussions, you will be able to contribute as usefully as possible, I believe. (For example, when you blanked the section, and it was pointed out that one of the graffitos has never been disputed, you demanded to know which one. That graffito is the title of one of the longest threads on the talkpage.) It is not unreasonable to ask you to read or reread the discussions, if you demonstrate that you are not doing s/not reading them carefully enough to note the obvious. Rather, it is unreasonable of you to demand that the discussions be repeated over and over because you cannot be bothered to read them/keep track of them/note the obvious.-Cindery 20:00, 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)
(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 verifying 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)
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)
reply to JSmith: I will ask you for a second time: can you clarify what you mean when you say "the source can't be considered reliable in this context."-Cindery 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell, by "The source matches the claim" she's not talking about the topic matching, but the level of "exceptionalness". I guess the interpretation is that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" scales down to..."trivial claims require trivial sources" perhaps? I don't think anyone is asking for an exceptional source here, just a not-terrible one. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent): "Terrible one" is a perfect example of the IDONTLIKEIT attitude, which is POV and not a valid objection.-Cindery 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

While it might be POV to not like a particular source there is definitely a consensus developing that the JD blog at blogspot.com is not a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a democracy" is useful to point out when the system is being gamed, to note the quality/nature of something falsely put forth as "consensus"--the regular editors of the article have a consensus that the list should stay. Another group, which has refused a reasonable request to summarize their arguments, claims that repeatedly stating some version of IDONTLIKEIT is the opposing "consensus."-Cindery 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Then let me clarify. A source that doesn't clearly do a terrible job of meeting the criteria of RS. No POV there. And my objection is based on failure to follow policy, not what I like or don't like. Happy? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinions?

And if you want to invoke the wikipedia is not a democracy philosophy you will lose too. I think you should start soliciting outside opinions. Here is one outside opinon:
"AGF is irrelevant. We cannot absolutely verify that the named journalist is the author: it is not a reliable source. If it's on some site like blogspot, they have no way to verify authorship, and neither do we. Period. End of discussion."
Of those I have asked no one think it is a reliable source. We could take this to the community at large if you still disagree. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that may be your problem--you see it in "win-lose" terms, and I don't. (Note: you are citing an argument from after it was agreed that JD was a reliable source and the objection was then moved to an objection that there was insufficient proof that JD was JD--additional proof that JD was JD was then provided.)-Cindery 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • i don't see it as a win lose, i have nothing at stake. I see it as a question of is it reliable or not? Can you give me the location for the previously "agreed" reliable source comments? If it is the talk page for reliable source, i have seen that discussion and i disagree with the interpretation. I even doubt the one person that answered you in the affirmative knew it was hosted by blogspot. David D. (Talk) 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I was repsonding to your statement "you will lose." See above for discussion on identity of sources--that happened after it was conceded that the source was reliable. (In other words, the EL/YT crew attacked the source as unreliable, the source was established as reliable, so then they attacked the identity of the source. When the identity of the source was "proven" to their satisfaction, they returned to attacking the reliability of the source, but without making any arguments.)-Cindery 21:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, who conceded that bonussugar is reliable? A diff would be nice. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, I have read the entire discussion and don't see a third editor agreeing that the "bonussugar" blog is a reliable source. Either I have made an honest mistake and simply missed it, or you are misinterpreting someone's comments, either accidentally or intentionally. Please point out the comment from the third editor. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Argyriou agrees the list should stay. "A source that doesn't do a terrible job..." is IDONTLIKEIT/POV, not an argument. The state of the discussion re JD as I understand it, is that no one has a reasonable answer to: the source matches the claim. The blog of a professional journalist is a clear exception to blogs under RS, the author has been published by reliable third party pubs to an enormous extent on language, especially ephemeral pop language and poetic/metaphorical language, and the subject of graffiti in Barrington--both in general and specific--has also been published in reliable third party publications. The RS caveat of "caution" has not been justified with any reason for caution, but justified reasons for the reliability of JD have been offered repeatedly (and have not been responded to)-Cindery 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, blogs are almost never accepted as reliable when sourcing facts. They are only considered reliable when sourcing claims or opinions. To top it all off, the suspicious circumstances of the creation of the blog speaks against it's reliability as a source. You may not see a problem with it, but your opinion isn't the only one that matters. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[EC]I think you will find that the expectation of a professional journalists blog is that it is hosted by his/her newspaper. The problem is that it is on blogspot. David D. (Talk) 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually Argyriou didn't say that. He said "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.)" Note that he didn't say anything about "bonussugar", so that's only one person who agrees with you that it's a reliable source. And he just said that other sources exist. We're still waiting for those sources. Why don't you give up on the blog and just find sources for the other items? While I don't know if that would convince people that the list should stay, at least the RS argument could be put to bed. And the objections to "bonussugar" have been spelled out very clearly - might I ask you to reread the discussion? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I noted that Arg agrees the list should stay--he hasn't contributed to the discussion in several days. It's possible that the lousy signal to noise ratio, and the escalation from fact-tagging the section to blanking it during discussion has put him in wait-mode. Re objections: no, they have not been succintly spelled out. Can you please do so?-Cindery 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no question that they have been spelled out repeatedly. Are you honestly insisting that people repeat themselves because you don't think they were "succinct" enough for you? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they haven't--can you please do so? I have pointed out repeatedly that the state of the discussion re Rs and JD is: the source matches the claim, and there has been no response. A very simple summary of pro/con, ala EL, would be useful.-Cindery 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Wrong: and you are both bringing up points which have already been discussed and laid to rest. RS specifically makes an exception for self-published material of professional journalists. (And in this case the porfessional journalist is an expert in the kinds of language which cover graffiti.) The blogspot entry is clearly linked to and identified with Sugarhigh!-Cindery 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a journalist's blog which is written under a pseudonym, and in fact has been set up in a special purpose place away from the writer's normal blog and web site so it won't impact their regular audience. It should also be noted that this journalist is primarily a reviewer of music and film - that is, a publisher of opinion, not facts. All self-published information is not equal, and this is clearly outside the bounds of what the RS guidelines are allowing. - 209.139.208.178 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well said. A concern isn't "laid to rest" just because you keep insisting it is. Consensus here says "bonussugar" doesn't meet RS. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What the anon states are opinions, not arguments. There is consensus from the regular editors that the list should stay. The state of the discussion re JD is: the source matches the claim, and there has been no response.-Cindery 21:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ad hominem. Any argument can be dismissed as "opinions". --Milo H Minderbinder 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ad hom is a comment on contributor. Stating that someone's opinions are their opinions is a direct comment on their contributions.-Cindery 21:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"There is consensus from the regular editors that the list should stay." - Utterly irrelivent. My opinion isn't less because I've been editing this article for less time then you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Your heavy involvement in the EL/YT dispute is significant, however, as is your inconsistency about your opinion.-Cindery 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it significant? Where in WP policy does it say that participating in one discussion disqualifies an editor from participating in another? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As stated clearly above, it matters for determining the quality/nature of consensus, especially if there is opposing consensus, and one side's arguments are IDONTLIKEIT opinions.-Cindery 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"Quality of consensus"? "Opposing consensus"? Have you actually read Wikipedia:Consensus? Consensus is the opinion of the group of editors as a whole, and there may be editors who disagree with it. You don't get to disqualify editors because you don't like their opinions. And you can give the IDONTLIKEIT strawman a rest, declaring an argument based on policy IDONTLIKEIT doesn't make it so. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have repeatedly asked for clarification of objections under policy, in a succinct summary, which has not been provided. The current state of the discussion re RS and JD is: the source matches the claim. (No argument for why "caution" re JD is necessary or what that "caution" consists of has been offered. RS clearly states that self-published material from professional journalists is fine so long as they have been published in third party publications.)-Cindery 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If i wished to prove a point I could create a blog and link to Sugarhigh. Does that prove I am JC? Whether one is a regular editors or not carries no weight with respect to determining if a blog is a reliable source. In fact, objective editors with experience at wikipedia would be better. For this reason i suggest you we put this on RfC and see what outside editors think. Or post the scenrio on the village pump. David D. (Talk) 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
A request for comment was already solicited--see above for link to RS. A long discussion re proving the link between bonus sugar and Sugarhigh! is also above.-Cindery 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)\
I didn't see any proof. I know there are links to sugarhigh and the email address, but how is that proof? David D. (Talk) 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point, made above directly to you (and which is contained in previous discussion under "identity" thread on this page) that the EL/YT crew conceded that the source was reliable, and then moved on to attacking the identity of the source.-Cindery 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Who exactly is "the EL/YT crew"? And where did "they" concede the source is reliable? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, so we're going with the proof of JC blog written on the 12th Dec with a link to a blogspot that was started on Jan 15th. Give me a break, this is classic gaming the system. Adding your own original research to wikipedia is a non-starter. This is no red herring issue you are blatantly trying to play us for fools to get your (whomever added the graffiti's) TRUTH into wikipedia. I suggest you get JC to write him memoir, then you will be in business, or you could ghost write it for him. Is he implying he personally wrote all that graffiti is that why it is significant? David D. (Talk) 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) edit conflict:::::::Again. please AGF. Also, as I have stated repeatedly, I did not write the graffiti section, nor do I write Jane's blog.-Cindery 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, please stop this behaviour of distinguishing between 'regular editors' and everyone else. All editors on this site have equal say, regardless of the length of time that they have spent editing a particular article. The fact that some editors engaged in the YouTube discussion in the past is irrelevant and just shows that people with an interest in external links and youtube links discussed a particular instance on this site. Everyone on this article, you should assume is trying to improve it. What they are asking for is some sort of evidence to show that Jane Dark's opinions on this subject matter are of notability (is this her field of expertise?) and how is the list of graffiti notable/important (and why those specific ones, and who says those particular items are notable). You have not yet proven either of these so repeating your same arguments from above is not going to get anywhere.-Localzuk(talk) 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It has been repeatedly stated that Jane is a language expert. For determining quality of opposing "consensus," it is a valid point that it comes from the YT/EL crew.-Cindery 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What does she write about in the NYT?
"Jane Dark" doesn't write about anything in the New York Times. Cindery uses shorthand statements that beg the question regarding various connections and inferences she makes. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, why does her being a language expert apply to a list of graffiti? Finally, as I said - the fact that people got involved in a discussion related to the EL/YT thing is because it is an interesting issue relating to external links and copyright problems - not out of some overwhelming hatred for this article or anything. You would be best dropping that particular line of argument as it is a huge failure to assume good faith and is not looked upon kindly. It is not a valid point as it is an ad hominem attack on the characters of those who are arguing against you - which can also been seen as a violation of the npa policy.-Localzuk(talk) 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

new editors should read archives

  • Note: I do not know why this section was titled as such, as the point made in the following discussion is that new editors who join a dispute, especially when asked, can reasonably be expected to read the relevant ongoing talkpage discussion.-Cindery 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How about "should" instead of "need to"? I was just paraphrasing the discussion. I have changed it above. Feel free to change it to something else, for example. "Arbitrary new section" if you feel strongly it misrepresents the discussion. David D. (Talk) 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::As I said, it's a valid point in evaluating thenature/quality of the opposing "consensus." (And is not ad hom, and does not refer to anyone's "right" to edit anywhere. It' a valid point re the "consensus.") I think you should read the discussions re JD, and the Joshua Clover article to better understand how and why Jane is a language expert.-Cindery 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, one of the things that goes with the WIkipedia territory is that there is no ownership of articles, not even by committee. A consensus lasts only as long as everyone editing the article is part of that consensus. When new editors come in, older editors need to convince them afresh of the validity of points that have been discussed before. Saying something like "we hashed this out long ago" doesn't work. Either you need to explain it afresh, or you need to give a specific link to a discussion that so clear and convincing that the new editor will agree and come on board.
  • I think there's a reasonable limit to that--new editors can read the previous recent discussions and sources, to avoid endless repetition, which can be disruptive, and not fair to those trying to follow the discussion. "Convince" anyone of the "validity" of anything doesn't absolve any editor of the obligation to reasonably do research, follow the conversation, etc. Anyone who goes to an article they've never edited before, about a subject they don't know anything about and "boldly" begins demanding "proof" of this or that without reading sources provided or the ongoing talkpage discussions is likely to be met with a less friendly reception than has been offered here.-Cindery 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
And it doesn't do any good to show the new editor that once upon a time, certain people agreed to something. It's not enough to show the editor that certain people once agreed to A, you need to get the new editor to agree to A.
This may be—it is—tedious and frustrating, but it's just the way things are, and the only way they can be, in "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Authority doesn't cut it, either. In Wikipedia, the only authority an editor have is his ability to convince others on the merits of the argument. We have no means of saying "Wikipedia grants dpbsmith the degree of Certified Expert in University of Wisconsin 1960s Wall Graffiti." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You're veering off into the ridiculous, now, I think. :-) A conversation about JD/JC and language would be interesting if you would like to have it, but I think you should read some of JD/JC's writings first. I've made the point several times that JD/JC writes about ephemeral language, poetics, metaphor--is particularly interested in transient pop phenomenonae and language, like song lyrics. Have you read the Harvard University Press description of This is Pop linked to at the JC article?-Cindery 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
(ecx2)CindCindery, is your argument that I am so petty that I can't render an unbias opinion here? I, infact, do find that highly insulting. Is that why your ignoring our opinions here? Because your assumeing we are editing in bad faith? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
My name is not "Cind," and "your argument is so petty" is not civil.-Cindery 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Re-read my statement. Thats not what I said. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a typo--"your argument that I am so petty" is not civil.-Cindery 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It was phrased as a question, not a statement. You are allowed to answer no i do not think you are petty. David D. (Talk) 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think that the problem with accepting it at face value as a question is that he is then highly "insulted" by his own question. :-)-Cindery 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to address my statement? Are you dismissing everything I say because I was part of the YT thing? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I try not to respond to incivilty, except to point out that it is uncivil. If you have a genuine question, would you care to rephrase it as such?-Cindery 22:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Also, I think it would be productive/move the conversation forward if you could respond to my repeated requests regarding "the source matches the claim."-Cindery 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you dismissing everything I say because I was part of the YT thing? That realy needs to be cleared up before we can move on.---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not think "dismissing everything I say" is civil, either, nor are demands civil. (Especially when you ignore--for the 6th time now?-- a request to respond to "the source matches the claim.)-Cindery 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your refusal to answer is answer enough. If you condemn everything I say as vindictiveness then I am wasting my time trying to have a discussion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that's just more incivility on your part.-Cindery 23:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Jane Dark graffiti notable?

Is it? David D. (Talk) 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This has already been discussed--by you and I--above. JD gives examples, which are helpful to the article, because the short list differentiates the graffiti of the people/time/place from the larger, more abstract concept of "graffiti," and the graffiti of other people/time/places. Did you have some other Barrington graffiti you would like to include instead? (As noted above, after rereading the SF Chronicle article on Lexis, I want to include : "Welcome to the I can be more radical than you house." That makes three sources for specific graffiti now, incidentally,--Mahlen Moris' film, JD, and the SFC.)-Cindery 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point I think... Why is that specific graffito notable? Why are each of them specifically notable and why aren't the other ones? I don't think you have answered this adequately yet.-Localzuk(talk) 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I think "notability" is a red herring and another version of IDONTLIKEIT. The graffiti examples have been included as examples. (Note that above, the section was originally titled "classic" Barrington graffiti--not by me--and that I had no objection to removing "classic," and in fact removed it myself.-Cindery 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Red herrings aside, do you insist on having all nine examples in a listified form? Hiding Talk 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
And to follow up, for which of the nine has a source (other than bonussugar, of course) been found? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know we discussed this above Cindery. I did not get an explanation for why the JD graffiti ties into the slingshot quote:

"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

Are these examples of the "long debates about revolution,religion, art, everything"? It would seem those are the notable bit of graffiti that would be relevant to quote in this article, not "just tags". May be the JD tags inspired creativity from others? I'm happy to hear about those kinds of sources. But the JD blog asserts no notability except that JD remembers them. If that is the case why is graffiti memorable to JD notable? David D. (Talk) 02:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Slingshot quote is not in the article--I pointed you to that because you wanted a source about the graffiti in general (and do not have access to the refs in the article/do not want to read the Green Book, do not have Lexis access, or some combination thereof.)-Cindery 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the slingshot quote would be a good addition to the article. I don't understand the rest of your argument, are you telling me the Green Book mentions the specific JD graffiti tags and why they are notable? If not, why is the Green Book relevant to my point above?
I think it is your task to convince us they are notable, not the other way around. More to the point, convince the reader of wikipedia. At present the notability of the specific graffiti tags in the article are not supported by explanatory text or in-line references. It would be desirable if the significance of the different graffiti tags is more clear in the article, assuming they are significant. David D. (Talk) 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)