Talk:Houston Chronicle/Light Rail Debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Light rail versions 1.1 Refactored discussion 1.1.1 1: Editorial board's endorsement 1.1.2 2: The word "criminal" 1.1.3 Texas statute 1.1.4 3: The word "refusal" 1.1.5 Hofheinz/Common Cause 1.1.6 4: use of 501(c)(6) 1.1.7 5: Use of sources 1.1.8 6: citation style 2 OK.. 2.1 RD's position 3 Unsourced deduction/ Factual description 4 Light Rail Section Revisions 4.1 List suggestions here 5 Mediation 6 Article Move / Merge Proposal

Light rail versions

Rangerdude and myself have some smaller disagreements about the light rail section (beyond its length), but the main disagreement is over the last one or two paragraphs. For the purposes of making it easier for other editors to help us come to a consensus, I will reproduce the two versions here. In the interest of avoiding edit warring, I have stopped reverting Rangerdude's additions on this section, so what stands now is his preference. I'll reproduce it here:

Further, in keeping with the indications of the memorandum, the Chronicle editorial page became a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption. As the bond referendum approached rail critics argued that their fears of bias were confirmed by the paper, which they contend became a partisan participant in the campaign. During the campaign the Houston Chronicle's lawyers filed a criminal complaint under chapter 273 of the Texas Elections Code with Harris County, Texas District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal accusing Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main organization opposing the bond, of fundraising improprieties. The complaint alleged that TTM had violated Texas statutes requiring PAC fundraising disclosures, which is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $500 fine. However, TTM was registered as a 501(c)6 organization rather than a PAC.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011869/posts][1] Rosenthal later dismissed the Chronicle's complaint, finding it without merit on the grounds that the allegedly violated statute did not apply to the case.

This is my preferred version:

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

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

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

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

· Katefan0^(scribble) 15:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Refactored discussion

The way you guys are discussing this is too confusing for outsiders to follow when you each raise five points and then respond to them en masse. I am going to refactor it. I hope you will continue in this format, which will make it easier for others to jump in.

• Grouse, thanks for your work -- I completely agree. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

1: Editorial board's endorsement

Rangerdude: You remove the fact that the editorial board not only advocated but repeatedly ENDORSED a yes vote in favor of the referendum. It could also be noted that they editorialized against TTM over their own criminal complaint and editorialized against Rosenthal when he dismissed it. Why water this fact down?"

Katefan0: "Further, in keeping with the indications of the memorandum, the Chronicle editorial page became" is wordy and inaccurate. This makes it appear as if the Editorial Board suddenly became an advocate of light rail, which is wrong; they had been for many years already. My version reflects that by stating "continued to be."

Rangerdude: I do not see how a one-line descriptive sentence is wordy, nor inaccurate. Nowhere does the sentence claim that the editorial board suddenly started to advocate rail. What is indicated is that they implemented at least part of the memorandum's proposals.

Grouse: Rangerdude, do you think that the Editorial Board's stance changed after this memo? That is what the version quoted says to me. I suggest the following language: "At the time, the Chronicle's critics noted that the paper's Editorial Board continued being a vocal advocate of the expansion of Houston's light rail, endorsing it several times, and charged that the paper became a partisan participant in the debate over light rail expansion."

Please show exactly where it says that they changed their stance or anything. It simply says that they stayed "in keeping" with the memorandum, which is accurate. Rangerdude 16:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It's the use of the word "became" that gives this impression. For the sake of utter clarity, the way the word is used in this sentence is defined by Merriam-Webster as: "1 a : to come into existence b : to come to be" which implies that beforehand, the editorial board didn't have such a position. It is not the best way to word the sentence. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:20, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

How about changing became to something else then? How's the following: "Further, in keeping with the indications of the memorandum, the Chronicle editorial page served as a vocal public advocate of the METROrail..."

I'm not sure. I see what you're getting at, but this is a little too authoritative a voice for editors to use I think, because it implies that we know the intent behind their actions. Can we know for sure that the editorial board's actions were specifically keyed to the memo? Who's to say that were there no memo, their actions would have been any different? I think Grouse's phraseology is fine but I'm open to other suggestions too... · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

We can know whether they were specifically keyed based on whether and to what degree the specific proposals in the memo were implemented. All of the proposals in it were not implemented, but some clearly were including the complimentary newsstory/editorial/op-ed and some of the specifics, such as attacking DeLay and attacking the financial backers of anti-rail advocates. Rangerdude 18:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

And how can you decide whether and to what degree the specific proposals in the memo were implemented? Unless you were a decisionmaker at the paper, you can't know this. It's an unanswerable question, and therefore we have no right as Wikipedia editors in asserting it authoritatively. The Editorial Board has for many years editorialized against DeLay and light rail opponents and I don't see how any one of us could possibly show -- either way -- whether the paper did or did not increase or decrease or rework its stances of any certain sort. This would be original research, anyway. If you've got a source, cite it. Otherwise, it should not be phrased in this manner. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:07, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the case. If a proposal was generic, then it is difficult to show that they implemented it specifically. If OTOH a proposal was explicitly espoused by the memo (e.g. the memo explicitly said the memo would investigate and negatively portray the finances of the groups funding the opposition to light rail, try to connect them to DeLay etc - which is what they did with the whole TTM investigation) then we should be able to say that they acted in keeping with it. As to their general rail position, it would be fair to say that critics of the paper have presented evidence that the Chronicle's paper is biased towards rail. Chronicallybiased.com did this several times (an example is here - [2]) and presented statistics showing the number of sources used, pro-rail versus anti-rail articles etc. that indicate bias. I also have no problem with disclosing that this information comes from an anti-chronicle source connected with KSEV radio. Rangerdude 17:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2: The word "criminal"

Rangerdude: You are consciously removing the word "criminal" in reference to the complaint even though the governing Texas law plainly and irrefutably classifies it as a criminal complaint, repeatedly and consistently using the word "criminal." Why do you insist on watering this fact down?

Katefan0: Nowhere have I removed information stating that a violation of the statute TTM was investigated under was a criminal statute. I object to using "criminal" as a descriptive adjective for "complaint" because the complaint was neither criminal nor civil in nature. It simply was a complaint, a request for an investigation. Using criminal as an adjective to describe the complaint gives a reader the impression that the Chronicle had a choice in the matter, as with lawsuits where you can either bring suit in a civil or a criminal court. It was a complaint filed about the violation of a statute that happened to carry a criminal penalty (a misdemeanor, by the way, which should also be included in the article -- mine referenced the minimal fine it carried).

Rangerdude: You are simply wrong about the word criminal's use. Per the Texas statute, the complaint *is* criminal in nature. Your personal dislike for the word is no basis to ignore what the statute says. The word "criminal" is used repeatedly to describe the exact type of complaint the Chronicle filed throughout Chapter 273 of the Election Code. And yes, the Chronicle did indeed have a choice in the matter. They chose to file the complaint and they chose to do it through the criminal system! Possible alternative options available to them included a complaint through the ethics commission or through a civil lawsuit, as one of the pro-rail lawyers did (although the prospects of either were equally dim as Texas law simply did not apply the way the Chronicle wanted it to apply). But they chose to go the DA route and used a statutory provision that is self-titled as a _criminal_ procedure to file the complaint. As you will also note, the current version includes "a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $500 fine" thus your request to add this is moot.

Grouse: On the face of it, a complaint filed with the DA would be a criminal complaint. And one for a misdemeanor offense would definitely be one.

• Grouse, I'll defer to your opinion on this -- though I still think using criminal as a descriptor for complaint implies some choice in the "type" of complaint filed on that statute. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Johntex: I would prefer to leave out the word "criminal" from the description. It seems like it is accurate but also redundant. As an analogy, a speeding ticket is a criminal offense (as opposed to civil) but we don't normally say "criminal speeding ticket". Johntex 16:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it's redundant if you're excluding the word "criminal" entirely from the paragraph. If it read "During the campaign the Houston Chronicle's lawyers filed a criminal complaint under chapter 273 of the Texas Elections Code, pertaining to criminal complaints, with Harris County, Texas criminal District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal accusing Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main organization opposing the bond, of criminal fundraising improprieties. The criminal complaint alleged that TTM had violated Texas criminal statutes requiring PAC fundraising disclosures, which is a criminal misdemeanor offense punishable by a $500 fine." ...then it would be redundant. But the current version does not. It uses the word "criminal" a grand total of once, which is actually fewer times than the Chronicle itself used the word "criminal" to describe their own complaint. Rangerdude 17:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Johntex: Adjectives can be redundant to the noun they modify even if they are used only once. Please consider these examples: "organic protein chemistry", "degreed professor", "criminal speeding ticket". Protein chemistry is organic by definition. All professors have degrees. All speeding tickets are criminal offenses. Johntex 17:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Your examples are simple 2 and 3 word phrases. This is a complex multi-sentence paragraph. Furthermore, some of your examples are not even accurate. Many professors lack PhD's or even degrees in a given field that they teach, but teach there anyway due to a significant accomplishment or experience that they possess (e.g. a former congressman teaching political science despite not having a degree in it, a bestselling author teaching a literature class despite not having a degree in it). Nor are all speeding tickets criminal offenses. Some states assess lesser speeding fines as civil penalties - a practice that is increasingly commong with electronic speed camera tickets. As to this case, "criminal complaint" serves to distinguish from a "civil complaint" (which could've also been filed had the Chronicle wanted) since not all complaints are criminal. It also fulfills the function of specificity as to exactly what the Chronicle was doing. Also keep in mind that the language I favor here is nothing less than what the Chronicle itself repeatedly used to describe its own actions. Rangerdude 17:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for considering my examples.
          1. It seems for now you are granting my first example to be accurate (I will hold open the possibility you may want to argue it later). That would mean you agree that a circumstance could exist where the first use of an adjective is already redundant.
          2. Concerning point 2 - You are certainly correct that professors sometimes hold honorary degrees, or teach in fields outside of their degree. Still, I doubt there has ever been a professor who did not have a degree in some field. That would mean they are "degreed". If any professor exists without any degree at all, this circumstance would be vanishingly rare. Let's suppose for a moment it has happened at least once in the case of human experience. It would still be the case that the adjective is unecessary when referring to the usual case, I.e., a professor who does hold a degree. One would instead focus on using the opposite adjective "non-degreed" to refer to that rare case. Using the adjective "degreed" would not be "logically wrong", but it would be redundant. Good writing attempts to avoid redundancies, so it could be considered "wrong" from a standpoint of good writing/editing.
          3. Concerning point 3 - I am not aware of any state that considers their speeding tickets to be civil rather than criminal. However, I won't waste your time to debate it. I will assume you are correct and you may modify my example to "criminal DUI charge" or "criminal murder charge". Do you know of any state where either of these are ever anything other than criminal?
        • My point still stands; there are cases where the first use of an adjective is already redundant. Johntex 20:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't deny that circumstances could exist where a phrasing was redundant, Johntex. I simply dispute (1) your assertion that this is one of them and (2) your analogy between this multi-sentence paragraph and 2 or 3 word stand alone phrases. WRT professors without degrees, the two most likely places of finding them are the cases I mentioned - an ex politician without academic credentials per se who holds a post on experience in government and an accomplished author who holds a post on his/her bookwriting. I also know from my own experience that there are full professors out there who are not "degreed" in their fields - I took several journalism electives from one of em who had only a BA in some off topic area like literature but was a fully tenured endowed chair in journalism because he had like 30+ years as a local anchorman, network correspondent, and national news correspondent. For speeding tickets that are civil charges, look at some of the states that are implementing red light and speeding cameras that auto-ticket the drivers. That aside though, throwing out more 2 and 3 word phrases as examples of being redundant still doesn't make a valid analogy for a multi-sentence paragraph that uses no other language to describe the case as "criminal" than what the Chronicle itself used. Rangerdude 20:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Are all complaints filed under that stature "criminal" in nature? Johntex 21:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I posted the statute previously, though another editor removed it. Here it is again, and yes - the processes under it and even the statute's title itself explicitly use the word "criminal" - which should be included on that account to specifically identify the type of statute being used to the reader. Rangerdude 00:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Texas statute

CHAPTER 273. SUBCHAPTER A. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

§ 273.001. INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT. (a) If two or more registered voters of the territory covered by an election present affidavits alleging criminal conduct in connection with the election to the county or district attorney having jurisdiction in that territory, the county or district attorney shall investigate the allegations. If the election covers territory in more than one county, the voters may present the affidavits to the attorney general, and the attorney general shall investigate the allegations.

(b) A district or county attorney having jurisdiction or the attorney general may conduct an investigation on the officer's own initiative to determine if criminal conduct occurred in connection with an election.

(c) On receipt of an affidavit under Section 15.028, the county or district attorney having jurisdiction and, if applicable, the attorney general shall investigate the matter.

(d) On referral of a complaint from the secretary of state under Section 31.006, the attorney general may investigate the allegations.

(e) Not later than the 30th day after the date on which a county or district attorney begins an investigation under this section, the county or district attorney shall deliver notice of the investigation to the secretary of state. The notice must include a statement that a criminal investigation is being conducted and the date on which the election that is the subject of the investigation was held. The secretary of state may disclose information relating to a criminal investigation received under this subsection only if the county or district attorney has disclosed the information or would be required by law to disclose the information.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, § 78, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 916, § 26, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1290, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

3: The word "refusal"

Rangerdude: Your preferred language indicates that TTM "refused" to reveal its contributors, which implies that they consciously chose not to despite an obligation to reveal them. Yet Texas law does NOT oblige 501c6's to reveal their contributors and that is the basis the Chronicle's complaint was dismissed itself. Using "refused" is a POV towards the Chronicle's position and against TTM, as well as deceptive as to what the actual Texas statute says.

Katefan0: Refused implies nothing except refusal. If you choose to infer deception from that decision, well, that's your right. They did refuse to release their contributors, citing their nonprofit status, then got a complaint filed about it. There's nothing POV in that statement.

Rangerdude: "Refused implies nothing except refusal" - what kind of orwellian garbage is that supposed to mean? Defining a word with itself? The point is that "refused" directly implies a conscious failure to comply with an obligation. Since Texas law makes no such obligation for groups like TTM, using the word "refused" is both inaccurate and favorable to the Chronicle's POV.

Grouse: Saying that the Chronicle submitted a complaint about TTM's refusal no more implies an obligation to do so than calling it a criminal complaint implies that TTM is criminal. It does not appear that Katefan0 is saying that the refusal was unlawful, but that the Chronicle filed a criminal complaint saying it was. If this complaint is notable, then the reason behind it surely is.

• That's right -- I'm not personally taking a position one way or another about whether the refusal was unlawful. Not for me to judge. But if the article's going to cite groups or bloggers criticizing the Chronicle for this action, it is entirely appropriate (I'd say necessary) to explain why the paper felt the action was justified. Then readers can make up their own minds... which is why I detailed the specifics of the matter, which Rangerdude did not. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether you are taking a position or not, it is my contention that the word "refusal" is/can be perceived that way. Since the word's neutrality is suspect on the grounds that it can be reasonably interpreted to imply that they chose not to meet an obligation, we should find another way to phrase it. Right now when I see "refusal" used it makes it sound as if TTM was required to submit a contributor disclosure to the state by X date like PACs do, but chose not to. But Texas law makes no such requirement of them. And far from "detailing the specifics of the matter," you removed multiple references to specific statutes and obscured the case in vague language. If you truly want the readers to decide on their own you should seek an alternative phrasing than "refusal" that doesn't have a POV connotation. Stating that the Chronicle asserted that they should be required to disclose their finances or something along those lines would be a means of doing this because it was the Chronicle's complaint that sought to make them disclose, not any obligation inherent in Texas law. Rangerdude 16:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Johntex: Refusal seems acurate, but we should look for a compromise that would still be accurate while addressing Rangerdude's concern. What about "declined"? Johntex 16:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • "Declined" still seems to imply an obligation in less it is stated that what they declined was not any statutory requirement but the Chronicle's belief that they should be require to disclose the donors. The problem is with the whole way this sentence has been phrased because it treats TTM as if they intentionally chose not to do something they should've done. But the law simply does not oblige them to do that. In fact there isn't even a mechanism or a disclosure form under Texas state law that permits them to disclose their finances if they wanted to. Rangerdude 17:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I disagree "declined" implies an obligation. Please listen to these examples: "She declined my invitation to the prom." "John Kerry declined to sign "Form 180" releasing his military records to historians and the media." [3] Both of those examples clearly imply choice. Johntex 17:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Whether you think it implies an obligation or not, it can be reasonably interpreted to imply one. Furthermore, that it implies a choice is precisely the problem. TTM did not make a "choice" to "withhold" its contributors as if it was facing some sort of statutory disclosure mechanism - it was never required to disclose them in the first place, and no statutory disclosure mechanism exists to do so even if they wanted to. Rangerdude 17:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't understand this statement: "no statutory disclosure mechansim exists to do so even if they wanted to." Couldn't they just issue a press relase? Johntex 17:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
              • What's not to understand? State law in Texas doesn't have a disclosure process for that type of nonprofit contributions nor does it require them. Saying "couldn;t they just issue a press release" is similarly absurd because that's a strictly voluntary action that they are not obliged to give to anybody. By the same token though, I suppose we should add a sentence to this article reading "The Houston Chronicle refuses to disclose its complete financial operations and salaries" seeing as this information has proven hard to come by, and seeing as they certainly haven't issued a press release on it. Would you object to that? Rangerdude 17:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Unless they are prohibited by law from doing so, then they have a choice. You can be as argumenative as you like and it will not change the fact that state law does not have to specifically authorize something for it to be legal. As to your question about whether I would object to stating that the "Chronicle refuseds to discolse comlete financial operations and salaries", I could imagine a circumstance where it would be reasonable to say this. For example, if an established media outlet ran an investigative story into the Chronicle, if they specifically asked for this information, and the Chronicle declined to provide it, then yes, it would be reasonable to include it. It would not be reasonable to include such a statement. If it comes from some non-noteworthy blog or private individual because they are not sources worth quoting in an encyclopedia. It would not be reasonable to include such a statement simply because Wikipedians have not found them yet because we don't know they have not been released. Johntex 18:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, and unless the Chronicle is prohibited by law from disclosing its finances, then it must be their choice to refuse to disclose them. As for the status of the Chronicle's operating practices, one very important aspect of them - their circulation figures - has indeed been questioned by another publication (the Houston Press) and is indeed the subject of a lawsuit against the paper that the Chronicle has sought to have dismissed and thus "refused" to comply with. Of course the greater issue at stake here is not which of the two (or both) should be characterized as having refused something but exactly what that word is referring to. When you say "TTM refused" it immediately prompts two pertinent questions: (1) "Refused what?" and (2) "Refused who?." Katefan's version does not sufficiently or accurately answer either. On "refused what?" the answer is not "refused to file a disclosure report." It is not "refused to comply with state law." It is not even a generic "refused to disclose their finances." The real answer is that TTM "refused to provide a voluntary disclosure of its finances to the Houston Chronicle upon the request of the Houston Chronicle," and as a caveat to that it is also proper to note their stated reason for not giving the Chronicle this information: TTM believed (surprise surprise!) that based upon the light rail memorandum which explicitly delineates a plan to run multiple attack pieces on people who contribute to anti-rail efforts, the Chronicle could not be trusted to provide fair or accurate coverage of anything TTM gave them! Of course that also answers question number 2 - "Refused who?" Not the Texas Ethics Commission. Not the Texas Secretary of State. Not the Harris County District Attorney. Not anything in the state government...but rather (surprise again!) the Houston Chronicle itself. Rangerdude 18:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether you agree that they were subject to the disclosure law or not, the fact remains that they had the choice to release that information when the paper came calling, and did not. The law may shield them from being compelled to disclose that information, but it doesn't forbid them from it. Many companies release internal information when the press asks for it, even though the law does not specifically compel them to. Therefore, they refused to release them. Or declined, or "chose not to," or "did not because they didn't feel they needed to," or whatever semantical phraseology you prefer. The facts are the facts and it is not POV to state them. If you have a source criticizing the Chronicle for not disclosing its financial information, cite it. Otherwise it's not appropriate for inclusion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • If that is what you intend to include in the paper why not say it specifically? Don't hide it in vague language that makes it sound as if they "refused" to file a disclosure with the state which they were never obliged to do in the first place. State that the Chronicle was the one seeking the disclosure. But if you do that I will also insist that it include something about WHY TTM chose not to give its reports to the Chronicle, which goes back to none other than the memo. It would need to read something like this: "The Houston Chronicle requested that TTM provide them with a copy of their financial reports. TTM declined to do so, stating that the light rail memorandum's proposal for negative stories on rail opponents was proof that the Chronicle would not portray the disclosure they provided in a fair or balanced manner." Rangerdude 18:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • There's no vague language. As I've said, it's all perfectly NPOV to state facts. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:57, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • If you arent specifically disclosing WHO and WHAT they are refusing, the language is too vague. Your version read that the group was "investigated for potential violations of Texas election law for refusing to reveal its contributors' identities." This does not fully disclose *what* they refused (it was not some obligation to reveal contributor identities but rather specifically a request by the Houston Chronicle that TTM give them their contributor identities - a request that TTM refused for a very specific reason that needs to be mentioned as well). And it does not disclose *who* they refused at all (they refused the Houston Chronicle). Absent these components, the wording remains vague and implies that TTM "refused" the state legal authority, which they plainly did not do. Rangerdude 21:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • This can be solved by adding a simple line stating something like "TTM refused because they asserted that they did not fall under state election laws that require financial disclosures." It doesn't invalidate the rest of my version. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:16, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • Two problems. 1. That's not the reason they refused the Chronicle - they refused the Chronicle because they believed it would give them unfair treatment in its coverage. 2. They did not simply "assert" that they did not fall under state election laws - that they did not is a fact that was validated by the DA's investigation and the complete absence of a 501c6 disclosure requirement from Texas statutes. Rangerdude 21:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't recall seeing that justification anywhere in the sourcing I've seen. Can you source that objection to them? If so I would not object to including the phrase in there somewhere. The DA's decision is already incorporated in the text of my version. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
              • I just went back through the clippings and I saw no objections that releasing their donor list would prejudice the Chronicle's coverage of the group. Here are the following stated reasons I have seen TTM utter in print: 1, Chris Begala said they are not subject to the disclosure rule because they are a nonprofit educational group and that they are compliant with the law. He also says in this article that releasing the donor list would violate their donors' right to free speech. 2, the group's lawyer Andy Taylor said the corporation is exempt from state election laws that require candidates and political committees to disclose the names of their contributors. Also he said that their refusal to produce such a list is protecting their donors' right to free speech. I would not be opposed to adding the free speech argument to the refusals sentence, but their main objection is clearly that they are not required to under statute. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

You're looking through Chronicle clippings and you honestly expected to find them filling their own pages with quotes from TTM saying that the Chronicle is a biased source? Please. Why not try TTM's own material? They posted articles attacking the Chronicle's bias all over their website and also posted a copy of the memo itself, titled "Chronicle's intent on bias in reporting, in their own words." But wait - there's more. Even if we look at your Chronicle clippings, it becomes apparent that TTM did indeed tell the paper exactly what I said...

Begala said the organization is not voluntarily identifying its contributors because the donors want to preserve their right of free expression as a group rather than as individuals who could be vulnerable to criticism from powerful institutions. He listed Metro, the city and the Chronicle as examples of such institutions. - Houston Chronicle, October 23, 2003

So there ya have it from the horse's mouth. TTM told the Chron "no" because they thought the Chron itself would use the list to attack them. Rangerdude 22:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It's perfectly fair to rely on what TTM's spokesmen told the Chronicle. Regarding the rest, Begala says their donors could be vulnerable to criticism. Not the organization. That is substantially different than what you said when you originally characterized their opposition. It's fine to include that as well as the free speech claims IF it's properly represented. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:13, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

You're straining at gnats to avoid the obvious, Katefan. First off, we don't know exactly what Begala told the Chronicle because they didn't see fit to print him...only paraphrase it in the words of their choice (gee, I wonder why? Can't have anything saying you're reporting is a bunch of biased partisan pro-rail propaganda without toning it down). That said, we do know that he expressed to the Chronicle that THEIR REPORTING was one of the main reasons for not releasing the list. Second, you are misrepresenting my characterization of the opposition in the current article, which specifically recognizes the fear that the Chronicle would "negatively portraying the "funding" (read: individual donors) behind METRORail opponents (read: TTM)." Third, regardless of what appears in the Chronicle's self-coverage, we know that TTM itself posted multiple criticisms of the Chronicle's bias on its own site and posted a copy of the memorandum, labelling it as proof of the "Chronicle's intent on bias in reporting, in their own words." Given the evidence it is safe to say that TTM feared that the Chronicle would engage in bias against BOTH its position as an organization and its financial contributers individually. Rangerdude 22:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Safe to say = safe to assume, which diverges from the policies outlined in NPOV. We can assume nothing ourselves without being in danger of violating NPOV. It is perfectly within reason to characterize Begala's comments in the Chronicle's articles in an NPOV way, however, and they clearly indicate donors, not the group itself. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:04, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Safe to say = solid conclusion. Since TTM itself criticizes the chronicle's bias against its rail position on the whole and since TTM's spokesman criticized the chronicle's bias against its donors, it's a solid conclusion that their objection with the chronicle covers both angles. It's funny that you only seem to acknowledge the Begala paraphrase in the Chronicle as a source on this, yet you haven't even noticed that TTM extensively attacked the Chron's bias on its own site. Must be that infamous lamestream media "echo chamber" they all talk about. Rangerdude 23:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, it is your own conclusion and that makes it inappropriate for inclusion. If there is so much material on TTM's website, cite it. But you are not a representative of TTM and therefore are in no position to make conclusions about their positions. By the way, you're holding yourself to much less stringent standards than a Chronicle reporter when you argue for incorporating your own interpretations into the text of an article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Self evident conclusions are valid and necessary to an encyclopedia. If we could not state the obvious about a fact it would be impossible to summarize anything, because summarizing necessarily entails forming a statement that accurately indicates what it is. In case your eyesight is troubling you, I've already given you the quotes from TTM's website on two different posts plus the article. Here it is again: "Chronicle's intent on bias in reporting, in their own words" followed by a verbatim copy of the memorandum. Each time you've chosen not to acknolwedge this, hence the echo chamber effect. Rangerdude 00:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• It is not a self-evident conclusion (were it, wouldn't I see it without trouble?). It is a conclusion you've drawn yourself (and admittedly so). You've yet to provide any convincing argument that this is a self-evident conclusion (the snippet you quote is not adequate). · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:29, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Given your track record of missing things that aren't laudatory praises for the Chronicle, katefan, forgive me if I seriously question whether you would see much of anything you didn't want to see without trouble. It took me posting it three times before you even acknowledged the TTM quote, and contrary to your claims it is more than adequate to show that they accused the chronicle of bias against rail critics. Rangerdude 05:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hofheinz/Common Cause

• • • • I substantially agree with Katefan0's statement above. I am hard pressed to improve upon it other than to add emphasis to what I feel is an important point: "Regardless of whether you agree that they were subject to the disclosure law or not, the fact remains that they had the choice to release that information when the paper came calling, and did not. The law may shield them from being compelled to disclose that information, but it doesn't forbid them from it. Many companies release internal information when the press asks for it, even though the law does not specifically compel them to. Therefore, they refused to release them. Or declined, or "chose not to," or "did not because they didn't feel they needed to," or whatever semantical phraseology you prefer. The facts are the facts and it is not POV to state them." (Katefan0 quote w/ emphasis added by Johntex)
      • However, I can only agree with her last sentence if I modify it slightly: "If you have a 'reputable' source criticizing the Chronicle for not disclosing its financial information, cite it. Otherwise it's not appropriate for inclusion. Not any source is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'm sure we will have productive discussion about exactly where to draw the line on what constitutes a reputable source." (Katefan0 quote modified by johntex to express his opinion.) She probably felt the word "reputable" to be understood in her quote, but I think it is worth mentioning explicitly, lest my statement be taken out of context later. Johntex 20:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, I am sort of presuming that sources included would be ones worthy of inclusion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:16, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding who requested the info, according to this Chronicle article, the group that made the request included former Houston Mayor Fred Hofheinz and Common Cause in addition to the Chronicle. [4]. It would be incorrect to say that they refused the Chronicle's request, the request came from a number of sources. -Willmcw 21:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

The article you cite is interesting about TTM, but it is an entirely different legal case than the TTM-Chronicle criminal investigation to Rosenthal. That article refers to a civil lawsuit filed against TTM by independent citizens and other groups. Also notice the date the suit was filed - October 29, 2003 - a week before the bond election itself. By that time the Chronicle's criminal complaint was already underway and had been for a couple weeks. Rangerdude 21:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Will, you're right. They're separate actions, though. Basically, a pro-rail group (and Hofheinz) filed a lawsuit over the issue, Common Cause filed a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission, and the paper filed a complaint with the Harris County DA's office. They all were seeking the release of the donor information separately, as I understand it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term "refusal" is a manufactured smear if ever there was one. The Chronicle, Mayor Hofheinz, and Common Cause all have adaquate counsel that can and should have informed them that TTM was under no obligation; further, any so-called news or media source that employed the word likewise should have adaquate counsel. And if the counsel they are recieving gave them bad advice, that only reflects on the quality of judgement of those employing incompetent counsel who give them the green light to engage in such provocatory smear campaigns knowingly using baseless claims, and baseless arguements. Nobs 21:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Refuse: To indicate unwillingness to do, accept, give, or allow.[5] Nothing in there about obligation. -Willmcw 22:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

So when did you stop beating your wife? Nobs 22:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me? What does my spousal abuse have to do with this article? ;) -Willmcw 23:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Don't know about your spousal abuse, but your anal retentive afflictions are on full public display in your comments of late.Rangerdude 23:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the put-downs, the dictionary still does not indicate that "refusal" is predicated on obligation. Sorry if the facts are difficult. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:39, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Take it as constructive criticism. "Lighten up," quit being obtuse, and don't read things excessively literal when it is plainly evident that the statement you were responding to was written and intended as a figure of speech or point of analogy. Nor is the dictionary the issue here. Connotation is. As Katefan first used it, "refusal" could be easily interpreted to connot TTM's failure to meet an obligation. That is POV and factually inaccurate. She also left out the crucial questions of "refused who?" and "refused what?" making her version vague and misleading. Rangerdude 23:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling me an anal retentive wife beater could also be interpreted as a personal attack. However, we'd all do well to use the obvious meanings of words rather than to stretch for possible connotations. By all means, let's include what they refused to give to whom. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever called you a wifebeater, though another poster did ask that hypothetical question of you to draw an analogy to the loaded language being used against TTM. As to being anal retentive, the wikipedia article on that subject defines "a person characterized as anal retentive" as one who is ""nit-picking" little details of form, style and etiquette" or "overly uptight or distressed over ordinarily minor problems" - synonymous with "hairsplitting." In light of your recent selectively stringent, often bizarre, and typically erronious source citation demands against edits that you don't like, I believe the term is used accurately. And in case you are still unclear, I am referring to, among other things, your episodes over the Republican candidate's committee, the Texas Ethics Commission, labelling articles reposted on Free Republic as Free Republic sources, and unusual inabilities to locate references to the Chronicle in a newspaper archive that contains several hundred such examples. Rangerdude 00:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

4: use of 501(c)(6)

Rangerdude: My version gives the specific chapters of the statute books and the specific designations of groups like TTM for reference. Yours removes these in favor of vague language based on secondary sources. Why water these references down?

Katefan0: Your version cites specific chapters of statute books, which is fine if you're a lawyer and have volumes of the Texas statutes handy. My version explains the statutes in a way that is much more informative and reader-friendly.

Rangerdude: One doesn't need to be a lawyer to understand chapters of the statute books. Nor do you need to own copies of all the statute books to look it up - the legislature has them online via its bill search. Citing specifics from primary sources is preferable to regurgitating vague descriptions from secondary sources especially when those secondary sources are (1) inaccurate, (2) incomplete, and (3) suspect for POV due to being active participants in the very same event they are describing, as is the case for the Chronicle article that you use as the primary source for your description.

Grouse: Most people will have no idea what a 501(c)(6) is or where to look it up. If there is a section of Texas statute that differentiates the treatment given to a 501(c)(6) versus a 501(c)(3) or a 527, then you should cite it, Rangerdude. Otherwise it's really immaterial.

Wikipedia actually has an article on 501c's and another article on non-profits. If you think people don't know what that is, a simple link to one of those articles would quickly resolve it. Also, it is material because it's status is why the DA threw out the Chronicle's case. It's precisely the fact that TTM was NOT a PAC but rather a 501c6 that the statute's disclosure requirements - which is specific to PACs - did not apply to them. Insofar as we need to state why the Chronicle's case failed, identifying it as a 501c6 is correct and necessary. If you think it would help by adding a link to another article or even an offsite reference stating what a 501c6 is, I am not opposed. Rangerdude 16:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• This is an unnecessary level of detail. It's enough to say it was an "educational nonprofit group." If you want to add a link to an explanation of what a 501c6 is I think that's fine (or an internal wiki link when calling it a "nonprofit educational organization," but anything else is not necessary and just makes the article harder to read. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:07, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

5: Use of sources

Rangerdude: Your version, per its own cited sources, appears to be based primarily on the Chronicle's self-coverage of a dispute it was party to. While their article could be referenced as an indicator of their position, it should not be the main source for this section since it is a conflicted interest in the story itself. To do otherwise is to give favor to their POV.

Katefan0: My version is based on a Chronicle article, the Houston Press and a Knight-Ridder article which contain no conflicting information.

Grouse: It's ridiculous to say that in judging an entity, one should only rely on the opinions and reporting of those opposed to that entity.

• That is a straw man argument as I never said that the Chronicle's self reporting should be excluded. I did however say that the Chronicle's self reporting should not be used as the MAIN source for composing this section, which is what Katefan did. I'll also note that where it is used as a source it should be linked openly (not in hidden text) and it should be disclosed that it is from the Chronicle itself. Rangerdude 16:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Johntex: Katefan0's version seems accurately and fairly sourced to me. Johntex 16:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Unless you care to address specifics, simply stating "it seems good to me" is of little value to this discussion or reaching an alternative. It should also be noted that my version, as it current stands on the article, has included many of the facts she desires to include while still opposing her wordings, which are the subject of this dispute and which I contend are overly POV toward the Chronicle's position for the aforementioned reasons. Rangerdude 17:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I will be more specific. I see no reason for an alternative to Katefan0's version. Nothing there seem POV to me, and don't see any specifics that need adressing. I am in favor of her version as written. Johntex 17:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • That's still not specific - just a longer version of saying "it looks fine to me." Rangerdude 17:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
          • This goading is unseemly and uncivil. Johntex is entitled to his opinions, as are we all. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:41, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
            • If he's not contributing anything towards coming up with a proposal that is agreeable to all parties, then his comments are not useful to establishing Wikipedia:consensus. Simply posting repeated variations of "it seems good to me" and expecting anyone who disagrees should simply fall in line is not constructive, and simply pointing that out in no way constitutes incivility. Rangerdude 18:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
              • Registering agreement is an important part of confirming consensus. It isn't necessary to argue when there is agreement. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:51, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
                • Empty statements of concurrence are of little use when consensus is still lacking though. Right now it's lacking and the aforementioned comment did little to establish it. Rangerdude 21:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Agreeing to a position held by another editor is not part of consensus?? RD, just because you don't agree with other peoples' opinions doesn't mean that they aren't working toward consensus. You are free, of course, to continue disagreeing, just as other people are free to continue agreeing. A consensus can be reached without the agreement of all parties. From Wikipedia:Consensus: good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own are also reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

6: citation style

Rangerdude: I've already included a modified version of your last paragraph in the article, "Later that year, the group revealed that that their TV and radio ads were funded by $30,000 in contributions made the day before the election by two PACs controlled by DeLay. Rosenthal's involvement in the probe itself came under fire by the Houston Press, which in editorials questioned whether Rosenthal was too close to TTM on account of accepting approximately $30,000 in donations to his campaigns from TTM supporters." I don't object to keeping this in its present or a slightly modified form. The only request I've made (and still make) of this is that you link to the Houston Press article as a footnote in keeping with the citation style that is consistently used elsewhere in this article rather than inserting it as a hidden text reference seeing as the Houston Press keeps all their archives online.

Grouse: Huh? The version up on this talk page now has a Wiki-link to the Houston Press article, which is entirely appropriate and what Wikipedia is all about.

• I don't have a problem including a source link... this was probably just a misunderstanding. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

• • Fine by me. The article just needs to be constistent. The style that's been used throughout is footnote-type links in single brackets at the end of the sentence. Most of your sources when you added them, however, were hidden text. If it's updated now then it's fine. Rangerdude 16:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Johntex: I support the footnote-type links in single brackets at the end of the sentence, at least for now. It makes it easiest to go off and read the sources. At some point in the future, when the article is not being so actively edited, we may want to consider other, more visually appealing styles. Johntex 17:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I have said before that I inserted commented sources in the positions where they were most relevant because the article is in dispute, and that I'd be glad to place them as proper sources when things have calmed down. Maybe you missed it, but I don't think there's any disagreement here... we can talk about issues of parallel style with references when the substance is resolved I think. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:26, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was any disagreement. I was trying to say I am happy with the way things are being cited. I guess I just got so excited there is so much agreement on this point! You are quite right that you said the same thing prior to my comment. Johntex 19:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

HA!! No need to apologize. I was mostly directing my comments at RD just as a matter of clarifying my intent. Happy Saturday! · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:09, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK..

Well, we've pretty well thrashed ourselves to death it seems. So far a few of us have agreed on some changes to make. Ready to make those changes or would everybody prefer to wait for Grouse to weigh in? · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

RD's position

Here are my positions on the status of each of the points as separated out by Grouse. The numbers should correspond. I'll sign each item so if anyone has a response they can put it directly under the passage with proper indentation.

1. Since the word "became" seems to be the biggest issue here, I have no problems with a clarification. I changed it to "remained" indicating that the Chronicle did not change its position. If that's agreeable, let's keep it. If not, please suggest an alternative wording. Rangerdude 17:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There is also the issue of whether it is possible to know whether the Chronicle's actions tracked the memorandum, as the article currently asserts, which we have already discussed to no resolution. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • First, is chaning it to "remained" okay with you? Second, your other issue does not seem to be as strongly asserted as you claim. The article says that the Chronicle's actions were "in keeping with" simply indicating consistency, rather than asserting that one caused the other. I believe it is well established that a stronger relationship existed than simple consistency, but if you object to noting that stating that the actions were "in keeping with" or "consistent with" the memorandum is the most neutral way of handling it. Rangerdude 19:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. The Texas statute is very specific and clear that the word "criminal" applies and uses that word explicitly. The Chronicle itself also used the word "criminal" in its self-coverage. Seeing as here it is only used once and at the beginning of the paragraph, I simply do not see any valid case for removing it & therefore remain firmly of the position that it should be left alone. Rangerdude 17:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I am willing to concede to Grouse's opinion on that, but since Johntex also has disagreed I think this maybe warrants more discussion. John? · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then let's agree to leave it as "criminal" barring somebody making a strong case why criminal should not be used. Simply not liking the word, or assuming that "criminal" is already implied doesn't strike me as a strong enough reason to contradict the language that the statute repeatedly uses itself though. Rangerdude 19:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. I remain of the position that "refusal" has too heavy of a connotation here and suggests a POV that favors the Chronicle. Johntex suggested "declined" as an alternative, which I am agreeable to if the context is also appropriate (meaning the who and what are specifically identified). I drafted the current wording to reflect this a few days ago, "During the campaign the Houston Chronicle made a request to Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main critic of METRORail, to provide the paper with a copy of their financial contributor reports. TTM declined to do so, indicating that they did not believe the Chronicle would objectively represent their position in light of the memorandum." I believe this phrasing of "declined" is accurate but that anything stronger than that would be POV. Rangerdude 17:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Declined is fine, and I don't mind adding additional context in general (the way it is currently phrased is inaccurate -- generalizing "objectively represent their position" is not as desirable as characterizing the exact stated reasons), but this disagremeent is over more than just declined/refused. This bleeds into #4 below also -- we're also talking about which version is a better explanation of the statute, as well as the Chronicle's arguments about filing its complaint. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • First, I think this discussion is beyond simply substituting "your version" for "my version" at this point, the reason being that we've discussed both extensively and even resolved a few of the issues between them or at least come closer to resolving them. If we were to go back to either of the two it would entail removing the areas where we have agreed, so let's steer clear of the route of simple reversions. As the way something "is currently phrased" being "inaccurate," could you please be more specific on which words you object to? Rangerdude 19:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4. Since the case revolved around Texas law's distinction of what PACs are naming other types of legal distinctions are appropriate. I think 501c6 needs to be named specifically and linked to another wikiarticle. Phrasing it as it is by calling TTM a "non-profit 501c6" or adding "educational non-profit 501c6" is the most accurate. Rangerdude 17:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You've been outnumbered on this one. Both Grouse and I agreed that this language is unnecessary. Are you not going to accept this as a consensus? If so I understand -- a consensus of two is not as decisive as one would like; the RfC did not attract as much attention as I had hoped. But I think we are increasingly leaning toward requesting mediation (on this dispute and the others remaining). · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • A simple 2 person majority on a discussion with only 3 or 4 participants is hardly consensus, so simply citing that difference is not a basis for a final conclusion - especially given that the section on naming 501c6's attracted but a single comment other than the two of us. I believe the case for including it by name so long as a link is also made is a valid one - especially since we are including the term "Political Action Committee" by name to make another legal distinction. It would be inconsistent to name one type of legal designation while omitting the other on the grounds that naming legal designations is too specific. As for mediation, I'm not convinced that it's worthwhile or even necessary at this point & would prefer that you make your positions on each of the change issues more specific to the article and the dispute. State the language you want and where you want it then we can discuss. Rangerdude
    • All right, then. I believe I'll be requesting mediation, as I doubt that you and I (or you and I and other editors, as the case may be) can see eye to eye on these issues without further help. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • I suppose I can't stop you so do what you see fit. Just note that I have given you many, many opportunities to state specifically what changes to the language you want to make and have also repeatedly solicited your response to several proposals of my own. To date all I've gotten in return is a rehashing of your same complaints premised around an absolutist insistence of restoring your original heavily POV revision of the section either verbatim or with only the most insignificant changes. I've compromised and worked toward a middle ground on many issues here, katefan. Now it's your turn. Rangerdude 22:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Your statements here about me are simply untrue. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

5. I do not have a problem with including the Chronicle's self-coverage as a source IF it is so designated to indicate that it is from their POV. It should not however be the primary or sole source for the article. An equal representation of the other side to counterbalance it is necessary. Alternatively a more neutral source should be emphasized more than Chronicle self-coverage. As I see it, the Texas statutes themselves are probably the most neutral sources there are on this. Rangerdude 17:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This is the same dispute as what I referenced in #4 -- citing the statute or linking to it is a good idea, but simply throwing out a statute number in the text by itself is not adequate; we're here to explain what that statute says and does, and that means also explaining the context of why the Chronicle felt it was violated (just as we should explain why TTM felt it was not). · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • If an explanatory link or wiki-link to the statute number are sufficient to explain them without unnecessarily troubling the number (as a simple one-word link can do), then it should be included. Remember that we are not bound by the space of paper here. As to the Chronicle's position, does not this describe it? "The Chronicle argued that the statute applied to TTM's advertising slogan, Metro's Rail Plan Costs Too Much, Does Too Little" preceded by a description of the statute itself? Rangerdude 19:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6. Citation style seems to be resolved. If there are remaining hidden texts that could be substituted for the footnote style link this should be done asap. Rangerdude 17:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Since the article is still in dispute, I don't think it's appropriate yet to start switching around the sourcing. Eventually, yes. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a simple matter of consistency and stylistic concerns, Katefan. The article prior to your arrival consistently used the footnote reference method and Wikipedia's style guide indicates that subsequent additions should maintain that consistency. Yours did not and I've asked you to fix them several times. If you are too obtuse or stubborn to even rectify a simple non-controversial stylistic critique of your editing then I fail to see how you will ever bring yourself into agreement on much of anything else other than getting your changes reinstated 100%, which simply is not going to happen for reasons that have been made clear. Rangerdude 19:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced deduction/ Factual description

• Consistent with the memorandum's position and its historical advocacy of transit, the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption.

What's our source for the assertion that the Chronoicle's editorial position in late 2003 was consistent with the memo? Or are we just deciding that on our own? -Willmcw 21:59, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• • If you'd like a source, check any of the TTM or Houston Review links and the Houston Press link on the memo story's relation to the Chronicle's position. All three abound throughout the story. The statement is sufficiently obvious, however, to stand on its own right as both the chronicle editorials and the memo espouse the same position on rail of promoting it. To state that they share this in common is not deductive but rather descriptive. Or do you deny that the memo promoted rail? Rangerdude 22:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's been my problem with this portion of the section all along. Rangerdude has decided that it is so, and so he continues to argue for it. From our debate of earlier: And how can you decide whether and to what degree the specific proposals in the memo were implemented? Unless you were a decisionmaker at the paper, you can't know this. It's an unanswerable question, and therefore we have no right as Wikipedia editors in asserting it authoritatively. The Editorial Board has for many years editorialized against DeLay and light rail opponents and I don't see how any one of us could possibly show -- either way -- whether the paper did or did not increase or decrease or rework its stances of any certain sort. This would be original research, anyway. If you've got a source, cite it. Otherwise, it should not be phrased in this manner (my comments in ital) · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • No katefan. Your problem with this portion of the article is that it isn't sufficiently pro-Chronicle enough or watered down enough for your tastes. How else could one explain why you consistently try to remove, negate, water down, or bury every specific factual comment or wording in it with vagueness and semantics? You even object to identifying the Chronicle's criminal complaint as what the Texas statute books call it! To identifying organizations like TTM by their statutory designation! If even the language of the law itself is insufficiently "neutral" in your mind for portraying this event, then there's a serious problem at hand and that problem is an inability to recognize your own biases. Oh, and BTW, instead of regurgitating your own self-quotations why don't you try actually looking at and responding to the points I raised in reply to the section you quoted above? Rangerdude 22:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, Rangerdude, will you please stop changing the article? Until we've come to an agreement, it's not useful to keep tinkering with disputed sections. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. Wikipedia articles are a constant work in progress and do not magically "freeze up" whenever Katefan throws up a POV tag. If you don't like the changes or have a better wording then by all means tell me as I have invited you to do multiple times! In fact a great many of the changes I've made during the course of this dispute are attempts to reconcile the dispute itself and take into account your position and others. In most cases I've suggested them first here as a solution and solicited your input. But seldom do I ever get a response to questions like that, and by the off chance that I do it's almost always something vague and meaningless. Since most of these changes serve at the minimum to bring the positions closer together it is constructive. You OTOH seem to be holding out some sort of absolutist position that restores your initial and heavy POV rewriting of the section, which simply isn't gonna happen. I am in no way obliged to sit around and wait for your personal stamp of approval on each and every little change to this article or any other, so either join in, participate, respond to my suggestions, and try to work out an agreeable solution, or quit whining. Rangerdude 22:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From WP:Dispute resolution: For disputes over the content of an article, if you have not agreed to a truce before this point, you should do so now. This allows others to fairly consider the issue without the confusion of ongoing edits, which are likely to aggravate the dispute. If an edit war persists and a truce is not feasible, request that the page be protected to allow the process to move forward. You're free to ignore policies of course. But this one is written plainly. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Strange. I don't recall anybody protecting this page, nor do I recall anything that's violated 3RR occuring within the edits. For that matter, I don't even recall you or anybody else proposing an editing "truce." I'm also still waiting for all these "other" people who are supposedly confused by the edits, just like I'm still waiting for all the "other" people who were going to come here and resolve this thing. Discussions and articles are not stagnant, Katefan, and regardless of whether you think they should be none of the conditions your citation of that policy seems to imply are present happens to be the case here. As I said previously, either join in and try to come up with a better wording as part of a contributive process or quit whining. I've even created a place below for you, me, or anybody else to make suggestions. Rangerdude 23:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a specific source for our assertion about the congruence of the memo and the Chronicle's editorial policy in late 2003. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The word that is presently used is not "congruence" but "consistent." Consistency is a descriptive attribute or characteristic. In its current usage it indicates that both the memo and the editorials took the same position: they favored rail! Specified data and delineated events often need sources. Neutral, accurate, and factual descriptions of two items that are already sourced do not. Rangerdude

If they are self-evidently consistent then we should let the reader decide. If the consistence is not self-evident then it needs to be sourced. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

What you're proposing makes for very poor writing. Sometimes a synopsis or stating of a summary characteristic is necessary for clarity, especially since in this case "letting the reader decide" would entail them using Lexis Nexis to look up a 2-year old editorial from the Chronicle for comparison to the memo. Since it is readily evident and indisputable that both the memo and the editoral take the same position on rail, stating that much is a valid exercise. As to your second sentence, if you are asserting that consistency is not self evident, could you please show me how either the memo or any of the Chronicle editorials endorsing the referendum do NOT take the position in favor of rail? If you think this is a basis for removing the characteristic of consistency from the description, then show it to be so. Rangerdude 00:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Katefan: What are you saying, we can't beleive the Chronicles own words? Nobs01 19:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, somebody is going to have to look it up. We haven't seen the evidence here. And if you go look it up, provide us with a set of editorials that show that "the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption" then that would be original research. What we need is for someone in a verifiable source who said, "The Chron's editorial policy matched the memo." If you can't find that the assertion doesn't belong. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

No willmcw, it wouldn't. If we state that "the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption" that would be a factually accurate description as they did remain a vocal advocate and did repeatedly endorse it. As to specific verifiable sources who said that the two matched, they are ALREADY linked throughout the article! Here's a passage from one of them. If you prefer I would be more than happy to quote the specific statistics given in there as evidence:

"(The memorandum) outlined in detail a year long plan to use their newsprint as a campaign organ for METRO’s at-the-time unannounced rail expansion referendum...It is almost a year since the Chronicle’s campaign plan slipped onto their website one late November evening. Sensible Houstonians knew all along what it was going to entail and surely enough the Chron has not failed to disappoint. Since June alone the Chronicle’s editorial page has run at least:

• 5 staff editorials attacking rail opponents
• 6 staff editorials to endorse or promote light rail
• 4 Op/Ed pieces by Chronicle staffers to promote light rail or attack its opponents
• At least a dozen “community” essays advocating light rail

Located deep within the Chron’s secret light rail game plan is an item labeled “Ground zero for November: The campaign…to defeat rail expansion.”... As the “ground zero” date passes by throughout the month of October, the evidence for full implementation of this plank is overwhelming. In the last month alone the Chronicle has run at least:

• 6 “news” articles suggesting that contractors are behind the efforts of rail opponents
• 3 “news” articles discussing a Houston Chronicle request for criminal investigations of rail opponents
• 1 staff editorial calling for a criminal investigation of rail opponents"

So once again, if you desire this specificity I will happily rephrase it to read as follows: "Consistent with the memorandum's stated "specific objective" [6], the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption. According to a content analysis of the paper by the Houston Review, the Chronicle published 5 editorials attacking rail opponents, 6 editorials promoting or endorsing light rail, 6 news stories attacking the motives of rail opponents, 3 news stories promoting a criminal investigation of rail opponents, and 1 staff editorial endorsing a criminal investigation of rail opponents during the course of the election.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011869/posts]" Rangerdude 21:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So a blog written by a computer tech writer (http://www.robbooth.net) is an adequate source for a Wikipedia article on news coverage of a transportation project? I don't think so. If we want to use the findings of the Houston Review then let's quote them directly. Gee, it look like a lot of this article comes from them. -Willmcw 21:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you try actually reading what appears on that blog before trashing or mischaracterizing it as a source? That link is not to any generic blog entry but rather a textual copy of the Chronicle's memo itself, which was quoted! As I noted for a similar change you made, you have a bad tendency of misreading and/or mischaracterizing linked sources especially when they are cut and pasted copies of another article that's no longer online at its original site, so please use greater care when you open and read links like that. As to quoting the findings of the Houston Review directly, as you can see above that would entail lengthening this article by several paragraphs rather than a sentence or two. Since the findings are all numerical, repeating those numbers by consolidating them into a single sentence is sufficient. Rangerdude 21:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • I'm not sure how useful the "content analysis" information is, since it doesn't give any basis for comparison. We can say the Houston Review said their content analysis showed that the Chronicle's memo affected their coverage, but I think all these numbers with no prior context isn't very useful. Also, I think the reason why we see no links to teh Houston Review itself (rather, they are links to Free Republic where the original content was reposted) is because the publication is probably now defunct. Their Website, at least, is not functioning at present. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Katefan - First, if you dispute their content analysis on any material basis please provide evidence of any errors in it. Their stats are specific so it should be easy enough to determine if the Chronicle did or did not write X number of editorials endorsing and supproting rail etc. Second, online articles are almost always removed from their original websites within a few weeks or months of publication and such is the case of that one. In that case, a cut and paste copy of it on another site must work in its place. Defunct or not, a source in print is a source in print. Rangerdude 21:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not that I dispute their analysis, I really have no idea either way as I haven't studied it and don't plan to -- I'm just not sure it's useful to include that level of detail, given that there's no context about what the numbers were prior to their analysis, for the sake of comparison, which makes it less useful to our readers. Besides, the reason for including a link to that article was to justify your assertion that the memo in fact affected the Chronicle's coverage; given that there's not enough context on how those numbers changed from prior, I think it's best to leave that level of detail out while retaining the sourced assertion; anybody curious enough can click on the link anyway. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:05, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
          • I will attempt to retrieve the Houston Review article by LexusNexus either tonite or by Monday. Nobs01 22:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • It's not a matter of the detail's usefulness, Katefan, but rather sourcing the sentence you and willmcw complained about. You can't complain about the absence of a source then whine when one when it is added. As to removing the specifics and simply retaining the link, please discuss that with willmcw - he's the one indicating that he wants them quoted directly. Also, please quit misrepresenting the sentence and my position on it as my "assertion that the memo in fact affected the Chronicle's coverage." The passage in dispute says no such causal relationship and rather only states that the two were consistent with each other. You've attacked this straw man more than once now. Rangerdude 22:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • The sourcing is fine, what I'm complaining about is that you're cluttering up the paragraph with only marginally informative material that can easily be obtained by clicking on a link. Just because you can source something doesn't mean everything from that source should be dumped into an article. As for the rest, you are clearly searching for ways to draw the parallel that the memo actually affected coverage, otherwise there would be no need for the opening phrase currently in the article to be incorporated in the article at all. If you just want to state that the Chronicle continued with their already established pattern of light rail editorializing, then the version Will and I have been reverting back to is the one that's appropriate. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
              • As I indicated previously, please take that up with User:willmcw as he requested that we quote and thus specify the information from the Houston Review article. And once again, I'd appreciate it if you would cease and desist your misrepresentation of my position by arguing the straw man that I espouse causally linking the Chronicle's editorials with the memo. In its current phrasing the sentence in question clearly indicates a consistency between the position of the two items - the memo and the editorials etc. - and nothing more. Rangerdude 01:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Light Rail Section Revisions

Here's the text of the light rail memo scandal section as it stands right now. If anyone would like to make SPECIFIC objections to a wording or discuss a SPECIFIC change please do so below.

In late 2002, Chronicle website managers accidentally posted an internal memorandum to reporters on its home site, HoustonChronicle.com. The memorandum [7] outlined a draft agenda of coordinated news articles, editorials, and op-eds to be published by the paper, seemingly to promote a hotly contested mass transit referendum to expand Houston's controversial METRORail system on the 2003 ballot, which was later approved narrowly by voters. The memo's anonymous author suggested in part:

"I propose a series of editorials, editorial cartoons and Sounding Board columns leading up to the rail referendum, with this specific objective: Continuing our long standing efforts to make rail a permanent part of the transit mix here. The timing, language and approach of the paper's editorials would, of course, be the decision of the Editorial Board. But I suggest that they could be built upon and informed by a news-feature package with an equally specific focus" [8]

The memorandum then proposed several "investigative" news stories and editorials designed to examine "the campaign led by Tom DeLay and Bob Lanier to defeat rail expansion." DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past.

The document was online for only an hour, but long enough to be viewed by some readers. Two days later the Houston Review, a conservative student publication, published the memo's full text and an accompanying commentary that criticized the paper for bias toward rail. The Houston Press[9], which is sometimes accused of a liberal slant, also accused the Chronicle of having a bias toward rail.[10] Other local weekly and monthly newspapers, including the Houston Forward Times, a local African-American weekly newspaper, seized on the controversy, as did local talk radio stations, bloggers, and the conservative Free Republic Internet forum.

The Chronicle's response was notably muted. Its only official response appeared in the "corrections" section later the same week stating: "An internal Houston Chronicle document was mistakenly posted to the editorial/opinion area of the Web site early Thursday morning. We apologize for any confusion it may have caused."

Later, the Houston Press tracked down Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen, who gave a statement in defense of the memorandum: "I make no apologies for having a thorough discussion of the issue. We have nothing to apologize for…There was an inadvertent posting of it to the Web site, and I'm sorry about that, but I make no apologies for the contents of it."

In subsequent weeks several Houston bloggers reported writing letters to the editor about the memorandum, though none were ever published <!-- KSEV Radio Broadcasts, AM 700, Houston, Texas November and December 2002-->.

Consistent with the memorandum's position and its historical advocacy of transit, the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption. As the bond referendum approached rail critics argued that their fears of bias were confirmed by the paper, which they contend became a partisan participant in the campaign. During the campaign the Houston Chronicle made a request to Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main critic of METRORail, to provide the paper with a copy of their financial contributor reports. TTM declined to do so, indicating that they did not believe the Chronicle would objectively represent their position in light of the memorandum. Among the election-related stories proposed in the memorandum was a project labelled "Ground zero for November" that proposed stories negatively portraying the "funding" behind METRORail opponents.[11][12]

After TTM refused the paper's request, Chronicle lawyers filed a criminal complaint under chapter 273 of the Texas Elections Code against TTM with Harris County, Texas District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal accusing them of fundraising improprieties. The complaint alleged that TTM had violated Texas statutes requiring PACs to make fundraising disclosures, which is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $500 fine. The Chronicle argued that the statute applied to TTM's advertising slogan, "Metro's Rail Plan Costs Too Much, Does Too Little." However, TTM was registered as a non-profit 501(c)(6) organization rather than a political action committee (PAC) and thus not obliged to submit a PAC financial disclosure under state law.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011869/posts][13] (The separate "Texans for True Mobility PAC" is required to make full disclosure and did so with the Texas Ethics Commission.) Rosenthal dismissed the Chronicle's complaint, finding it without merit on the grounds that the allegedly violated statute did not apply to the case.

Later that year, the group revealed that that their TV and radio ads were funded by $30,000 in contributions made the day before the election by two PACs controlled by DeLay. Rosenthal's involvement in the probe itself came under fire by the Houston Press, which in editorials questioned whether Rosenthal was too close to TTM on account of accepting approximately $30,000 in donations to his campaigns from TTM supporters. <!-- Ties That Bind? The D.A. shares something with those he's supposed to be probing: campaign support, Houston Press, January 15, 2004 -->

By comparison with TTM, which was extensively attacked in the paper's editorials and covered in multiple news stories, the Chronicle devoted only a portion of one single article to the finances of Texans for Public Transportation (TPT), the main pro-METRORail group, according to the Houston Review.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011869/posts] The Houston Review further alleged multiple conflicts of interest in TPT's financing. The report involved fourteen METRORail contracters and business interests who stood to gain financially from the project and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the referendum.[14]

List suggestions here

1. I'll even start us off with the first suggestion - please make the reference source to the Houston Press article entitled "Ties that bind" consistent with the rest of the article by changing it from hidden text to a footnote link. Rangerdude 22:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Just so anyone watching this page knows, I have requested mediation. Anybody wanting to look at the entry can see it here: [15] Hopefully, this will help. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Article Move / Merge Proposal

I have created a proposal at: User:Johntex/Proposal. I hope you will go there to comment on it, but I paste a copy here for your convenience:

I propose:

(1) We create a new article titled Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy

(2) We move the content from Houston_Chronicle#Light_Rail_memorandum_controversy to that page and leave only a sentence or two there to point to the new main article. This is advantageous because:

(2.1) The overall Houston Chronicle article is unbalanced because there is more information about a few controversies concerning the paper than the paper itself - however, the paper is not famous for these controversies so this is misleading.

(2.2) This controversy is largely or completely a thing of the past and to keep it occupying such a prominent position on the main article of an ongoing business concern is particularly unencyclopedic.

(3) We move the content from Texans for Public Transportation to Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy and delete Texans for Public Transportation. I believe Texans for Public Transportation is not sufficiently notable to merit an article here because:

(3.1) The group was a single purpose organization, organized for a particular purpose in 2003

(3.2) They have not had a wide impact nor achieved sufficient notability to merit their own article, as evidenced in part by the low number of hits found by searching for "Texans for Public Transportation" on Google (0)[16], Altavista (4 - including 1 at Wikipedia)[17]. I know Rangerdude does not like Google counts, but it is completely reasonable to conclude that a PAC in this Internet-driven era that gets only 4 hits did not achieve much impact.

(3.3) Due to their small impact, there is little we can say about them. What we can say about them is really relevant to one specific controversy concerning METRORail

(3.4) They do not have any presence today so they are not likely to get more interesting in the future.

(4) We move the content from Texans for True Mobility and delete Texans for True Mobility. My reasoning is similar to Texans for Public Transportation. Although Texans for True Mobility does have an active web page, and is slightly better known (237 hits on Google[18], 264 on Altavista[19]), that is still a paltry number of hits for an organization striving to make an impact on events in one of the America's largest cities. There does not seem to be anything that needs to be said about them that cannot be covered in the new article I am proposing.

In order to keep all comments together, I hope you will put your feedback at: User:Johntex/Proposal. Thank you. Johntex 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)