Talk:West Ridge Academy

What happened to citation needed boxes

Why is R.Fiend continuously removing things without the [citation needed] box? Can we get some editor arbitration here? He is obviously to emotionally invested too be a neutral editor.

--Utahboysranchnetwork (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also I would highly suggest R. Fiend and UBRN both keep their edit summaries civil. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

After he has called me a jack ass and used other offensive profanity at me? I think he has exhausted any good faith on my part. --Utahboysranchnetwork (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee, that's rich. A role account intent on attacking this place accuses me of being "to [sic] emotionally invested" in a place I know next to nothing about to edit it neutrally. Then goes on to accuse me of calling him a jackass. Fantastic. You do know that edit summaries are saved for posterity, don't you? -R. fiend (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, let's everyone calm down a bit. R, please remember WP:BITE. UBRN, please read the stuff on civility, NPOV, and single purpose accounts. Considering that this is a new article I actually think it's in pretty good shape, let's try to work together to improve it. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've said this many times, my only intent is on keeping the information factual. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements, and that is clearly the intent of this user. To make this a venue for a West Ridge Academy commercial. He adds things to the article, like "provide "quality clinical services, education, and experiences which promote spiritual awareness, personal accountability and change of heart..." but removes important, referenced material involving a named person Gordon B Hinckley, who has their own wikipedia page and a primary source citation. He just deleted that because he said "who gives a sh*t. I get bulletins from a taco stand."

You've got to be kidding me.

I have compromised quite a bit on this article, it should be clear that all I want is to deal in facts. I also deny the claim that this is a single role account, I have used wikipedia for years but have never had to upload a photo so I've never created an account.

I maintain that R. fiend is not following WP editing guidelines.

--Utahboysranchnetwork (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to again ask that everyone take a deep breath and calm down. I read the bit about that bulletin, it does sound like a mailing list thing and appears to be much more innocuous than the article made it out--however it also does imply a connection with the Mormon church. I've been involved in the protracted conflict over at Ayn Rand--which has currently gone to ArbCom--for the past few months now and believe me we do not want this page to wind up like that. So let's all try to engage one another more civilly and work towards building consensus. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo

The photo is so nondescript that it could be anything. It adds little to the article and should be removed. Better to explain the article in the text. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-education

Does "reeducation" seem like a loaded, ill-defined buzzword to anyone else? I'm a bit worried about the sourcing of some of these claims. -R. fiend (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way to flag this for WikiProject Utah, if there is such a thing? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is. Or Wikiproject Mormon or something. I'll look for one of those. -R. fiend (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know what is incorrect or needs citation instead of trying to hide the ugly truth.

There is nothing factually inaccurate in any of my edits. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Please read WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RS. This is mostly a good start for the article, but we have to maintain neutrality. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Find a better picture. Those could be any two people in any office on God's green earth, and adds very, very little to the article that couldn't be added just by saying that they prosletyze. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the picture is simply of one blurry, nondescript fellow, and the back of someone else's head in a room that could be any place. It adds nothing to the article, and is a poor quality picture to boot. If someone can supply a photo of the camp itself, or something else of consequence that would be great, but this one is just useless. -R. fiend (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mormon? or just Christian?

Several edits have been made to describe this camp as specifically Mormon, is there evidence of this? The camp's site never seems to describe itself as Mormon, although it's pretty clear it has Mormon influence. Any reliable sources say it is specifically for Mormons? -R. fiend (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to be owned by the LDS Church and the website does not state it is Christian in the quick review I read. It is not acceptable to label an organization anything without a reputable reference. If LDS work at the facility one cannot assume that it automatically is LDS. I wonder that given the fact it is located in Utah it is possible not to have LDS working there? Someone is stretching credibility, synthesizing, and have forgotten the simple principle of NPOV. --^StormRider 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Most of the footnotes seem to source either DailyKos or a site called mormongulag.com. Are those reliable sources? -R. fiend (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, is utahboysranch.org a more reliable source?

Ever heard the term "evidence over interest?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahboysranchnetwork (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Kos is a third party source, although obviously not neutral. Neither thmormongulag.com nor utahboysranch.org are neutral or third-party sources (they're both involved), so they have to be used carefully. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is probably not appropriate for Utahboysranchnetwork/Good K to add info from "mormongulag.com" as a source, since he owns that site. 99.146.153.139 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice find. At least when I'm pissing off both the Academy's staff and it's detractors I know I'm doing something right. I like how I'm accused of removing all references to Mormonism in the article, even though I left most of them in, and even added one myself. Now, I've been called many things in my life: asshole, shithead, jackass, dick, ad nauseam, but Mormon, well, that's a new one. Also, Good K/UBRN, it wasn't me that got you banned. I actually has nothing to do with it. -R. fiend (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mormon or Christian

It is just flat out false to call West Ridge Academy a Christian program. It is 100% Mormon.

There are pictures of some of the top LDS leaders posing with the executive director of the academy, the former prophet of the LDS church mentioned bulletins he receives from the Boys Ranch, all the food comes from Deseret Industries, there are four missionaries there, the staff and board of directors are 100% Mormon!

Now I know Mormons hate wikipedia, but this is nothing more than concealing the truth and I expect more from Wikipedia. For that reason I will be editing "Christian" to "Mormon" unless challenged with a substantial fact or truth claim stating otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahboysranchnetwork (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately to say that it's a Mormon academy at least in theory requires a neutral 3rd party source. Shouldn't be too hard to find one, though, and it seems to be pretty clear that's the case, so I'm just going to slap a citation needed on it until we can find a source. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag not needed because the hidden source (now blatant, since controversial), says it is Christian-based, not just Mormon. If the institution says it's Christian, we have to take their word for it. Perhaps there are a lot of Mormons that work there, but...it's Utah! The focus of this article should be on the academy, not the LDS Church. However, a small, well-referenced section about its LDS influences would probably be all right.

The logo is nice to have since it's official. Not sure what value a picture of a road sign is, but it can stay too, for now. —Eustress ^talk 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't. If there are significant and substantial sources documenting its close ties to the Mormon church then we would violate WP policy by saying only that it is Christian, especially since it is debatable whether the LDS is Christian at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are these sources better? (see 1, 2). (Also, keep in mind that the LDS Church is the fourth largest Christian denomination in the United States (see here and here), so calling it Christian wall also be politically correct in either sense.) —Eustress ^talk 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it looks like they just got pulled from the Boys Ranch website or information. I'm not sure about this issue... does anyone else have thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that Mormons aren't Christian is a POV statement in itself; Wikipedia, in the LDS Church article, calls the church Christian in no uncertain terms. Calling the camp Christian if it is in fact Mormon is not incorrect, any more than calling Paris a European City instead of a French city is incorrect. However, if it is not strictly Mormon, calling it that is wrong. We are better to err on the side of caution and call it Christian, while noting its Mormon influence, as the article does. Besides, the camp is an authority on its denomination or lack thereof; they get to decide it for itself. The question is not whether it is predominantly Mormon, but whether it is officially so. If they deny it, we need a damn good source refuting it. -R. fiend (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree that Mormons are Christians. I don't think that matters to this article or conversation. However, what makes this "academy" unique is its direct association with the Mormon church. They use pictures of missionaries and LDS General in there marketing materials. No one is making a comment about Mormon's or the Mormon church other than this residential treatment program was founded by a prominent Mormon, is funded by the Mormon church, is staffed by four Mormon missionaries and two Mormon seminary teachers, a Mormon chapel and clergy, etc. This is all verifiable fact. I have to wonder who is complaining about someone documenting this connection on what is supposed to be a reliable and open source for information and why they are able to convince editors that facts should be censored if people don't like them. It really is discouraging.--Utahboysranchnetwork (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Find reliable sources for all that and you can add it; your say-so doesn't carry weight here. Saying someone "gets bulletins" from this place means nothing. -R. fiend (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The LDS Prophet mentioning "bulletins" he receives from this place carries weight for a lot of people. That is only one piece of evidence that this is a Mormon themed program. You can't expect the world not care about everything you don't care about.

--Utahboysranchnetwork (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone being on a mailing list is not evidence of control of influence by that person. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. If you want to expound the idea that this place is a Mormon institution you're free to do so, but use information and sources that actually back that assertion up. -R. fiend (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not reading the sources I have given you. Please follow the link, you will see that this is not just a "mailing list" but that it is a letter addressed to Church leaders praising the Utah Boys Ranch and the good it did for his life. Please take the time to read the citations before dismissing them. --Good K (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's still irrelevant. People praise things all the time, but that does not establish an official relationship. All this article said about it was that a senior LDS guy received bulletins. That's neither informative not interesting. If, as has been claimed, the only place of worship in the academy is specifically Mormon, find a reliable source and add that; that, at least, would be significant. Bulletins and praise aren't. -R. fiend (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Please review the meaning of reliable sources. Blogs are not acceptable references. It cannot be identified as a Mormon or LDS institution unless there is a direct ownership of the academy by the LDS Church. It is synthesis to assume it is Mormon because LDS individuals are employed, founded, assist, fund the entity. If you have a reference that states the LDS Church owns it, then it is LDS. This is just really elementary editing standards. If the same standard was used elsewhere we would have to state the Catholic church is really LDS because the LDS Church donated one million dollars to make improvements to the Cathedral of the Madeleine some 15 years ago. --^StormRider 18:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing the website, the spiritual emphasis page, the Academy does not allude to any relationship with the LDS Church, but rather a say non-denominational Christian program on Sundays. However, when reviewing the testimonial page it is evident that the some students come from LDS backgrounds and measure success by their LDS accomplishments. I have yet to find a stated sponsorship by the LDS Church, but I have not read everything yet. The most that can be said about the program is that they use a Christian, nondenominational, spiritual emphasis in their program. It is obvious they think it is important for a happy future for their students. --^StormRider 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: What is West Ridge Academy's religious affiliation: Christianity, Mormonism (specifically), or none?

Putting "Christian" in the lede places undue weight, especially due to the fact that the program appears to be very, very Mormon. Given that a "Christian" program would generally not suggest this--I'm guessing most readers would see that and think Protestant, at least at first--I don't think mention of its religious affiliation should be made in the lede. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose, but saying it is officially Mormon when there is no evidence that this is the case is against numerous policies. It is obviously Mormon influenced (is there anything in Utah that isn't?), but an organization cannot be officially anything unless that organization says so. It appears they make no such claims. The Mormon influence is covered pretty well in the appropriate section when discussing the leadership and support from Mormon charities (the bit about who gets bulletins is completely irrelevant and a weak attempt to create an argument that it is run by the Mormon church, violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). If there are further cases to be made about the role of LDS in the academy then they should be added with reliable sources. Looking at the website, I'm not actually sure they even claim to be Christian, though it is very clear that they take a very theistic approach in their programs. There seems to be a dearth of reliable sources on this topic, most coming from the group itself (a good source when discussing their stated aims and general facts, but clearly not unbiased when looking at anything remotely controversial) or from websites made specifically to attack them (such as the Mormongulag site) and blogs (like DailyKos). Sites such as this generally do not meet WP's reliable sources standards. There are some news stories that seem legit, but not many. -R. fiend (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to be perfectly clear that this RFC has not yielded or established any consensus... so allow me to propose one:

West Ridge Academy, formerly called the Utah Boys Ranch, is a Residential Treatment Center for at-risk young adults in West Jordan, Utah, USA. It has faced considerable criticism from former residents, who allege systematic physical abuse and Mormon religious indoctrination. How's that sound? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tall, when I looked at the references for complaints all I saw was a personal blog; that is not an acceptable reference for complaints. We need to provide a reference that demonstrates actual complaints, as in they went to the police, filed a complaint, went to court and were found guilty of the alleged behavior. All I saw was a single report in a first hand account without any peer review or confirmation. Did I miss something? --^StormRider 18:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I responded to a request for comment, but the more I review edits the more I think this is a joke. Personal blogs are not references, how many times does this have to be said? There is no need for comment, but there is a need for an admin to block some of the people that are making wild, unsupported allegations.

I did look at the Youtube reference that had several teenagers making statements in protest, but I just couldn't tell if the protest was along a street on a Saturday afternoon or at the Academy itself. Was this covered by a local newspaper or did the protest only garner attention from kids using their ipod? This is also not a reputable reference. This whole argument is made of whole cloth. Either get some reputable, reliable references or put down the axe and go back to blogging; Wikipedia demands a higher quality of editing. --^StormRider 18:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To use those sites to detail allegations surrounding the Utah Boys' Ranch is not at all in violation of WP policy. It is clear that people are alleging that these things took place, and unless you believe that they are not, in fact, former residents, there is no reason not to include the allegations, especially as they form a significant part of the basis for this institution's notability. Prominent individuals such as Andrew Sullivan have run with this story, and www.mormongulag.com has a number of testimonials from former residents describing alleged abuse. I believe there is also mainstream media coverage. Now to establish whether abuse actually HAPPENED requires more than a blog for a source. However a blog is perfectly sufficient to establish allegations of abuse and the fact that there is growing social activism about this place. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See [1] and [2]. Norwood lived there, he's got a book in the works on this. To simply not mention the allegations would be a serious and egregious violation of WP policy. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What is required are reputable sources to support claims; and I have yet to see a really reputable source. IMHO, I am not against mentioning the gulag site, but the context of the comments needs clarification; it is not neutral, it is not scholarly, at worse it is rumor and at best it is unsubstantiated stories. Serious and egregious? That is a stretch and possibly POV. Are there any legal actions? Has there been any third party investigation of the allegations? If so and not mentioning them...that is egregious. All we have is a small group that no one has identified as legitimate and no one that has verified their claims. Blogs are seldom, if ever, valid sources on Wikipedia. The allegations would have merit IF legal charges have been filed. If not, then all we have is very sensationalized recordings from individuals who claim to have been residents.

What is interesting is that there is no explanation of what type of individual is enrolled at this Academy. Where do they come from? What was their behavior prior to entering the academy. How many had legal problems prior to entering. Is this academy unique in their methods? What does the normal student look like after leaving the academy? How much does it cost to enroll a student there? All of this information is missing and what we have is someone with an axe to grind yapping about Mormon connections and the LDS President receiving a bloody bulletin! Give me a break. It is an independent academy working with troubled youths and at least some of the people who work there are LDS. End of that part of the story. --^StormRider 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That a number of former students are making these claims (see the Testimonials section of the mormongulag site) is notable. Furthermore it is alleged that some of these "troubled youth" were sent for reasons of their sexuality, or questioning/rejecting Mormon doctrine. Considering how much of this place's notability is related to the allegations from this site to simply largely ignore them strikes me as highly problematic. Why don't we take this to the reliable sources discussion board? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that when a group of teens gets together, makes videos, making all types of allegations from sexual abuse, physical abuse, living in a concentration camp, etc., but not one of them steps forward to discuss their allegations with the police, the world should take notice and believe that someone is doing something dastardly? In today's media rich world where anyone can post anything they want on the net, those who make criminal allegations without ever filing a lawsuit, fail to make a complaint to the police, or any other similar action, appear at the very least to lack credibility. All I can think is that their allegations are baseless or are without merit. These are the types of allegations where individuals are compensated in the millions when accurate; however, not a single one has filed a lawsuit. You really think this is normal behavior? Or that it is even notable? Please, take it to the discussion board; this will be interesting. Oh, BTW, if you really believe these allegations please let me know. I have a miracle cure for cancer, weight gain, male enhancement lotion; all on the net and I will only charge you $150 for a sample of each. After all, it says it on the net so it must be true.

"Troubled youth" (I like the inference with the quotes). When you read the website you read that these are individuals in crisis and troubled. Are you trying to say these youths are the cream of the crop or that they are just like any other youth in school? You are bending over backward to make these people into little angels. There is a reason that schools like this exist and it is not because little johnny is an angel. They are individuals that need professional assistance. Exceptions may exist and I suspect they actually do exist, but attempting to paint them as honest, noble, credible people is just not an acceptable story. If even one of them was true, there would be lawsuit in the millions. If there is not, then the litigious society of today has failed these young people. Knowing lawyers as well as I do, please know that it is an impossibility. --^StormRider 02:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Tall, not one of those policies applies to a conversation on sources. Wikipedia have very definite policies about what is a reputable source and what is not. A blog and private recordings are not acceptable references. Do you have any policy that supports your position? We do not have to accept thee claims of any individuals who has a personal gripe about anything. At best this is fringe and at worst this is slander. Until there is a reputable reference there is nothing to talk about; precisely, there is nothing on which to base an entire article.

If what you are saying is that a small section that does not over-balance the article where these Blogs and private tapings have been made, fine. I can support that. However, it should be clarified that no reputable sources support any of these claims. As an aside, have you read some of these allegations? One of the ones I read they removed the name of one of the perpetrators because it was demonstrated the individual was not present. Who does that??? Who removes the name of the perpetrator and keeps the story? It demonstrates an egregious lack of credibility. --^StormRider 18:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC comment: doesn't seem like a reliable source. I can see taking it out of the lead, but that blog doesn't fly for sourcing it as "Mormon." Cool Hand Luke 04:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I qualify for giving RFC comments since I'm a relatively new user, but I found this through the Community Portal list of topics that "requested wider attention". I similarly browsed the site as Storm Rider above, and I think the part on their philosophy page is telling: "A connection with Deity can be life-changing for the students we serve." Officially at least, it appears Christian in the same way as Alcoholics Anonymous (which, while based on giving oneself to a higher power - usually God - is not technically Christian). Mormon ties, I think another comment about "isn't everything in Utah?" sums up that influence. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of their clients are Mormon - but that doesn't make it a Mormon organization. Until such time as West Ridge describes itself as overtly Christian/Mormon, labeling it as such is inappropriate in my eyes. (This is addressing the RFC, not what others have said about it.) Recognizance (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment: The Eric Norwood piece ('Trapped in a Mormon Gulag') appears to be self-published and thus not a reliable source. Despite the claims made on the blog site, I couldn't find any evidence that his article has been published anywhere that would be a major news outlet. On this page, the Ranch identifies itself as a 'nondenominational Christian organization'; in the absence of claims from a reliable source that it is anything else (and blogs and YouTube postings don't cut it, with respect to WP:RS and WP:VERIFY), putting 'Mormon' in the lead doesn't seem acceptable. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Civility

I would like to politely remind all editors to remember to assume good faith, avoid personal attacks and be civil. If things get any more heated on this page I will be taking this to WP:WQA. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when one party basically comes out and says that their intent is to paint something in as bad a light as possible. Despite the delusions of some users, I have absolutely no interest in this camp thing. I happened upon this article last week and found it to be a POV hatchet job, so I decided to clean it up (calling something a "Mormon re-education camp" is hardly NPOV, or verifiable). I would not be at all surprised to find out this camp is as bad as many of its detractors say, but without reliable sources there is very little that Wikipedia can say about it. The truth is that anyone can get on the internet, set up a website, and make any claim they want, that doesn't mean that not taking their word for it is assuming bad faith, we just simply cannot take their word for it. I'm tempted to agree with much of what StormRider says. If there is rampant physical and sexual abuse, why is there no evidence of lawsuits? When there is, we'll have more to go on. -R. fiend (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The allegations are serious enough to warrant mention--as allegations. And you should also remember not to bite new users, even if they are pushing a POV. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tall, Wikipedia has a strict reputable reference policy. These references you are supporting fail them; however, I am pleased if you prove me wrong. It is the height of civility to enforce our policies. Can you please provide any policy that would consider youtube, private blogs, etc. as reputable and worthy references for Wikipedia. If not, please desist from saying they are acceptable. It just does not seem like common sense to accept these claims as legtimate when they don't even talk to the police or file a lawsuit. --^StormRider 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that we are accepting the claims--the point is that the claims are being made. The radio show for one seems to show that. I'm in class atm, so I cannot lookup appopriate poliicy, but to say "X says Y" it's perfectly acceptable to use X's blog as a source. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If I make a blog post saying Rudy Guiliani molests children it would be decidedly against Wikiepdia policy to state in his article that he has been accused of child molestation, citing my blog as a source. If legitimate media pick up on the story, or if a lawsuit if filed, then we'd have a basis for including this. But a random internet site or a random blog is hardly any better than "I overheard some guy saying this at the A&P." -R. fiend (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Point, but other media sources are beginning (I mentioned Andrew Sullivan, and there's also the radio show are beginning to run with this. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the "radio station" cited? The programming on this radiofree station is hardly the stuff of CNN, ABC, or a major media outlet. This is a backwater radio station; I don't think it meets any standard of reputable. It is volunteer driven...which will often lead to programming driven by the volunteers and not by professionals. Come on Tall, quit trying to force this issue and give it legs. If we have to wait until something real happens, then the result will be a better article that includes a verifiable issue. Right now we have unsubstantiated rumor. Again, I only came here because of the request at religion and philosophy. I have no horse in the race, but I see no reason to allow Wikipedia to be abused by people with an axe to grind. Keep our articles above board and legitimate and allow blogs to continue to handle the this quality of complaint. We lose nothing by waiting and have credibility to lose by forcing this now. --^StormRider 01:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply put I feel that to simply not mention the allegations at all is, well, fishy. Maybe we should do an RFC to get some outside folks? TallNapoleon (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that would be helpful. Please note that I don't think I have ever stated that it should not be mentioned at all, but that the context needs to be clear. Considerable effort has been expended by these individuals to allege all kinds of abuse, but there appears that no criminal investigations, no legal actions, and no reputable or reliable sources are available to substantiate the claims have been alleged.

The article started as an attack advertisement and now really needs to be fleshed out with some of the more common information readers would find in an article of similar topic, a school. There is a common evolution for an article that started so poorly and this has only begun to enter a neutral territory. --^StormRider 01:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but remember that it appears that the allegations form a decent part of the school's notability. I'll get an RFC together when I have time... if you get to it before I do that'd also be fine. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Storm Rider is neutral enough to comment on this page. A member of the Mormon church might not like the association with a notoriously abusive facility, whether or not that association is real. --67.49.250.18 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Mormonism-related controversies

I added this category as a compromise position. Originally Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Category:Young people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were included, which clearly wasn't correct because there is no official connection between the LDS Church and the organization. However, this is a Mormonism-related controversy, because some of the allegations are that there is Mormon indoctrination, despite the organization's profession of being non-denominational Christian. It's been nicknamed the "Mormon gulag" by some: that alone seems to make it "Mormonism-related."

So, yes, in my opinion it is Mormonism-related; but that's quite different from having no official connection to the LDS Church. There are tons of articles in Category:Mormonism-related controversies that are completely unnconnected to the LDS Church, but they are indeed "Mormonism-related": Bear River massacre; Genetics and the Book of Mormon; View of the Hebrews; Eber Dudley Howe; etc. That seems to be exactly what kind of thing the category is used for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture of the LDS General Authority Jeffrey R. Holland at West Ridge Academy with the CES director W. Rolfe Kerr. Is that not enough of a connection? http://web.mac.com/goodk/www.MormonGulag.com/The_Mormon_Connection_-_Mormon_Gulag_.html --67.49.250.18 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean. It may be enough to support calling it a Mormonism-related controversy, but it's certainly not enough to support an argument that there is an official connection between the church and the organization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you support stating that BYU has an official connection with the church? Plausible_deniability --67.49.250.18 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely off-topic, but no, I don't think that's a good comparison, since BYU is part of the Church Educational System, which is explicitly an official arm of the church. We don't reproduce conspiracy theories on WP, unless such theories are supported by reliable sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So is that a no, you can't prove BYU is officially connected? Interestingly enough, West Ridge Academy is also part of of the Church Educational System. That is why there are seminary teachers there, and that is why W. Rolfe Kerr was there. Look, I don't have a dog in this race, and it's not a conspiracy theory. Have you seen how many kids have corroborated this fact? Take a look: http://mormongulag.proboards.com/index.cgi With all due respect, you say I need reliable sources yet the only sources you have supplied or POV -- from the UtahBoysRanch.org website. That is hardly reliable, in my opinion. Do you disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.250.18 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No—that is a "yes", you could prove BYU is officially connected (of course). Where is the proof that West Ridge Academy is part of CES? Seminary teachers can visit kids in school (both public and private) in Utah and teach LDS seminary on "release time". That doesn't mean every school in the state is "part of" CES. As for using the official organization's website—I already explained that on your talk page. Because the article is about the organization there's no problem with citing what the organization says about itself. Whether or not that is accurate is another issue, but it is one that in order to question we need reliable sources, which you haven't provided. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think being Mormon allows someone to have a NPOV on this subject? Seminary teachers are there full time, they don't visit during their "release time." That is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.250.18 (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there are CES workers "on campus" is completely irrelevant and should not be added to this article. There are CES workers on pretty much every single school campus in the state of Utah!, whether it's a private or public school. This is also the case in other states, and in many areas of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as far as I know. Yes, some are there "full time"; i.e., they teach there all day. Similarly, Mormon missionaries visit pretty much anywhere they are allowed, especially if there are Mormons there, and if they visit Mormon kids in this school, it's hardly relevant to this article—unless, of course, the intent is to suggest some sort of LDS Church control. (I'm not sure what your initial "being Mormon" has to do with anything.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The missionaries are not there "visiting" they are called to serve there. This is a fact. They have offices there. This isn't saying anything about Mormon missionaries, it's just a fact that readers can interpret however they want. How many residential treatment facilities have two sets of full-time missionaries on staff? I only know of one, West Ridge Academy. How many residential treatment facilities or private schools have seminary teachers there on staff? I only know of one, West Ridge Academy. My question was, can someone who is Mormon edit this article in a NPOV way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.250.18 (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Provide reliable citations for any of this and it might matter. To answer your hypothetical question about a Mormon—perhaps you should ask one to get an answer that might mean something. But yes, anyone can edit an article in a NPOV manner if they exercise restraint and proper methods. Whether they should or not is a different issue, and one that is a personal choice for the editor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

First hand testimony and pictures aren't reliable? Where does it say that in the WP editing guidelines? --67.49.250.18 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I have nothing against protecting the article pending discussion, but why was it rolled back to the version by a banned anon immediately before? -R. fiend (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A banned anon? Your edits were horribly POV, that is why the article was rolled back.--67.49.250.18 (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not why it was rolled back. There was an edit conflict before I posted this, but here are my reasons. If there is evidence that you are a previously banned user, anon, you will be blocked and R. fiend's version will be locked in:

Page lock

I've come to see really how far apart different editors are on this article. I tried to come in today as an outsider to the article and to simply clean it up—neutralise the terrible POV in the article, delete the unsubstantiated innuendo, delete the non-reliable-source citations, ask for reliable citations, clean up the grammar and organization, etc. Every step 67.49.250.18 reverted my actions and disputed my reasoning (see above). Then, User:R. fiend comes in and completely revises the page, without so much as a word to anyone on a talk page. And it is a big difference what User:R. fiend included and what was there before.

Now, I'm not going to claim that either version is wrong. Strictly speaking, I think User:R. fiend's version is probably more appropriate, because he has strictly applied the WP criteria of requiring reliable sourcing, etc. But I don't think it would be fair of me at this point to lock in User:R. fiend's version, especially since he made such dramatic changes when it was obvious that active editing was going on by other editors. For that reason, I've reverted User:R. fiend's edits back to the version that existed just prior to his edits, and protected the page for a week days to let everyone think about how we should be approaching editing here.

I'm no longer going to edit this page, but I am going to keep an eye on this, and I want editors to discuss things here. If material is removed because there is no reliable sourcing, that is fine—that's how WP works. If editors can come to some sort of agreements prior to one week, just let me know and I will unlock the page and it can be edited again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In light of me now finding out that 67.49.250.18 is indeed a banned user, the lock is being removed and I'm rolling back to R. fiend's version, which is now the most recent version posted by a non-banned user. What a mess! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate bit of edit history! With only a modicum of research it is apparent that there is a small nucleus of editors that also were past students of this institution. They are adamant, uncompromising, and determined to spin this article into a reflection of their own blog pages and to use it as a tool to achieve their own political ends...the closing of the school. Good Ol'factory, although I appreciate that you eventually arrived at the proper conclusion, it is sad that you first supported a twisted view and one that has no basis in reality. It speaks volumes about your own POV and your first "reactions" to dealing with topics that may or may not deal with Mormonism. A sordid history of edits today indeed.--^StormRider 08:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I could be said to have "supported" any "twisted view". I came to work at the article with what was there. I didn't check first to see if there had been recent crazy edits that others had not reverted yet. I don't see what that has to do with any particular POV at all—I came here as an outsider and took the article at face value. I did my best to work with an editor who was posing challenges as I went. I assumed good faith, essentially. If you want to fault me for that, fine—but it accomplishes little except to piss the person off that you are criticising (i.e., me). If you have any other problems with any of my edits on pages about Mormonism please let me know explicitly what they are; don't just issue broad innuendos and suggestions that I probably have some overarching POV problem. If they were not meant to be one (I assume not), your comments at least come across as a very cheap shot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, pull your horns back in. Each of us has a POV; to think that we don't is a sign of naiveté, which I don't think you are. You may just not be aware of your own strong POV on some topics.

I did the same thing as you did; came to the article blind (seems like there was a request for assistance which brought me here initially), saw an obvious problem that there were no legitimate references for some very perverse allegations against an institution, and started working on it. Soon realized that an editor(s) obviously has an axe to grind and was anything but neutral.

What I think is telling is you reverted and then locked, but then reverted only because the user was previously banned...not because the POV was wrong, which IMHO is the far greater issue. I question your sense of neutrality for some subjects is all; that is not necessarily a negative thing. However, I hope you at least take this as something to consider. Only you can determine if there is any validity to it. IF (may be a big "if") there is validity to it, you may want to go a bit slower when it comes to some topics. That does not mean you change your opinion, but before taking an administrative action related to Mormonism, think about how neutral your decision is.

This specific article has nothing to do with Mormonism except from a tangential position. This academy has no direct relationship with the LDS Church or any of its affiliates. I have no first hand knowledge, but have only gained this from reviewing legitimate references. I have no horse in this race, except when editors are attempting to force a relationship with the LDS Church that does not exist. Your attempt at adding such a category was what first triggered by review today; I missed the real fireworks that followed. Your position was made clear to me simply by reviewing your own edits. --^StormRider 09:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is somewhat ironic considering the most common name that I hear arise in complaints about Mormonism-related POV, but ....

For starters, I didn't "attempt to add such a category" in the wholebread way that you suggest. I removed Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Category:Young people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and placed the controversies one in its place, pretty much as an attempt to compromise.

You may have disagreed with the decision to revert and then lock, but you were not the one doing it, and you've obviously overlooked some broader points that admins have to keep in mind when performing actions. Had I locked the preferable "correct" version, the other editor obviously would have viewed the lock as illegitimate and just something I did to lock him out of the process once another editor came in and made a change. I was assuming good faith and trying to include him in the process. While that may have resulted in a less than ideal version being temporarily locked, it was an attempt to bring both parties to the table, not an attempt to enforce what I personally viewed as the preferred version of the article. Had I done what I wanted to do, I would have locked the revised version. But I didn't, because I tried to be fair. You think it's more important to get things "right", but you're not an admin and I guess possibly aren't concerned about some of the broader issues I was considering.

You say you "have no horse in this race", but really, I do doubt that. Surely you have some "modicum" of interest in protecting the LDS Church from the kinds of insinuations that were occurring. From the limited amount I know about your backround, to suggest otherwise would be in my opinion as unrealistic as any other editor saying they are 100% free of POV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We are traveling further abroad than appropriate to this page. The horse is this topic, West Ridge Academy not the LDS Church. As far as West Ridge Academy is concerned I am ambivalent. However, when someone tries to force a relationship with the LDS Church, then as I said above, I am concerned. I have a POV and it is freely acknowledged and I view it as absurd to think otherwise. Nothing more was desired than one individual with a POV to acknowledge another with a POV; let's move on. If we need to kibitz further we can do it on our own pages. --^StormRider 09:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you see any other obvious activity of the same sort here, you can let me know. I've started a club for the editors that are coming up as duplicates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone was pretty astute to make the connection in the first place; hat's off to each of you. Cheers.--^StormRider

LDS Project tag?

Descartes added an LDS Project tag today, which I deleted because this has nothing to do with the LDS Church. It is not sponsored by the LDS Church and has no relationship. Simply have LDS members who work there is not enough to tag; if it were we would have to add every major corporation, sports team, etc. that has members in their organization. Am I missing something? --^StormRider 16:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That is fine - in the past I have tended to err on inclusion, but if there is strong objection to it, then I have no problem. I tagged this one just because I am somewhat familiar with the controversial nature of the facility - it tends to crop up now and again in the media, and the Mormon connection is always mentioned. I believe the "no relationship" comment is incorrect though. I could be wrong, and I understand there is no official relationship, but the directors of the facility have all been Mormon, and the Book of Mormon is used often in the facility as a rehabilitation device. Also I have read many anecdotal stories of teens being sent there due to their objections to the Mormon faith. Don't ask me to source those statements though - I can't prove it. Just trying to give a background for why I tagged the article. I leave it up to the other editors to decide if they want to include it in the LDS project. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with having it so tagged. Besides it's not as if it shows anything on the main page--it just flags it for the attention of editors on the LDS project. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the tag is inappropriate for the reasons stated above. The tag is for those topics that are directly related to the LDS Church and its affiliates. As I stated, having members in their employ or even as directors is insufficient to merit the tag. I have only known one individual who was a student there for two years, but no others. However, his experience does not support the critique of others, but that only means his experiences was not the same not that it invalidates the experience of others. If LDS church does not have anything to do with the project, then why should it be tagged? Because the critics also happen to criticize the LDS Church is not enough to include. --^StormRider 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just want to make sure we are all clear about the connection with Mormonism, I found a few references to the Utah Boys Ranch (the old name for the West Ridge Academy:

• According to this [3] article by Mormon Times there are permanent offices for the missionaries at the WRA, and there are couples with specific missionary callings to the facility.
• Gordon B. Hinkley mentions that he received bulletins from the Utah Boys Ranch in this talk: [4]
• One website mentions that 100% of food is provided by Deseret Industries - I am trying to track down that source...
• Numerous testimonials at this website [5] indicate that reading the Book of Mormon was mandatory, as were church attendance etc.

I am not taking a position on this topic because I am just learning about it, but based on all of this evidence you guys can decide if this is an LDS related article or not. To me it sounds like it. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion about what strategies are used by an organization and who is sponsoring the organization. I have yet to see a single reference that demonstrates a legitimate claim of a direct relationship to the LDS Church. The Gulag site does not come close to meeting the standards of a reliable reference; at best it is a private blog. Why would Hinkley receive an update/bulletin? Did he privately or personally have a sponsorship, directorship, etc. If he was receiving a bulletin as the President of the LDS Church, then that is something different. I have yet to see a single reference that demonstrates what the relationship is. DI provides services to a wide range of people, but that does not prove a relationship.

Without a doubt members of the LDS Church are privately involved with the Academy. The Academy claims they use spiritual resources to assist in providing balance in the lives of their students. This is not rocket science people, but to state there is a relationship the LDS Church would have to directly sponsor the Academy the same as it is for every other church, group, institution that sponsors a program. If there is a directly relationship, then state it, if not, then drop it and move on. --^StormRider 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion about what the LDS project tag means. It doesn't mean or imply that this is directly connected to the church, that there is an official relationship or anything of the sort. It doesn't even show anything on the article page at all. It simply marks the topic as something related to Mormonism and therefore of interest to the editors working on LDS-related articles. Considering that one of the most prominent allegations against West Ridge is that it is a "Mormon gulag" it most certainly appears likely that the LDS wikiproject might be interested in this page. Again, to reiterate this changes nothing on the article page, so I don't see what the concern is. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No confusion, I just don't buy the argument that if anyone says Mormon, it belongs. To me that is exactly the reason not to use any tag related to the LDS Church...Mormon Gulag is a highly partisan website with no attempt at balance, facts, etc. It is a total opinion. There is no scholarly review, no attempt at confirmation of facts; it is whatever individuals want to regurgitate and everything, EVERYTHING, accepted as fact. I am not sure if you have every worked with youth, but let's just say they have a reputation for exaggeration.

LDS work project interested in this page? You have got to be kidding. This article started out as a complete hack-job by Mormon Gulag; it was a joke and it took effort before it came close to being anything resembling neutral. There are hundreds of institutions that attempt to work with troubled youth; this is but one them that is set up as a private school and I have yet to see any reason for its notoriety except that it serves the Utah community.

I can see why it is attractive to Mormon Gulag to attract attention by using the name Mormon, but simply because they use it does not make it so. Your willingness to link this article to the LDS Church is prima facie evidence as to why Mormon Gulag uses the name...it works. --^StormRider 01:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging this with the wikiproject tag in no way links this article to the LDS Church. It is that simple. It simply brings the article to the attention of other editors who are interested in subjects related to the Mormon church. By virtue of the allegations against it, I believe this article would be of some interest to those editors. Again, the Wikiproject tag is not visible from the article page, so I just don't see what the problem is. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Deseret news endorsed the facility as a Mormon facility here : http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_living/mission_life/?id=7284.

I believe that it is only logical to include this in the Mormonism category. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK we're talking about two different things here: The category is something for sorting the article. It appears at the bottom of the page. The Wikiproject tag appears only on the talk page, and is purely for editors. I see no problem with adding the latter, and frankly don't care about whether or not it has the former. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and why should this go with the LDS Project page? How is it related? --^StormRider 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The LDSproject page states its scopes as follows: "This is a WikiProject on elements of the Latter Day Saint movement, Mormonism, Latter Day Saint history, doctrine, practices, and other cultural effects inspired by Joseph Smith, Jr.." Please describe how this article falls within this scope? --^StormRider 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cultural effects and practices. Really, though, I don't see what the big deal is. It doesn't affect anything except to maybe attract other editors who are interested in LDS-related topics, and frankly at this point to deny that this topic is LDS related is a bit tendentious. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I readded the banner. If they aren't interested, they can remove it. If you'd like, I can post at their talk page as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is "they"? I am a member of the project and I have already removed it.

Please explain how is it "cultural effects and practices". It is not the Church, it is not any organization of the Church, it is not even affiliated with the LDS Church or any part of the movement. Are you saying that any organization that has members of the LDS Church or is operating in the state of Utah is a function, belongs to the LDS project page? A little tendentious? You are kidding right? There is no logic other than YOU want it that way; that is being both tendentious and contentious.

I think project pages and categories have to relate to the topic at hand. This has NOTHING to do the LDS Church, its doctrines, its culture, its practices, it was not founded at the direction of the Church or anything else, etc. The only, single relationship is the the Academy employs members of the Church. If you have any other evidence, please bring it forward.

Do you ever read what you write and consider how it applies to yourself? Please explain yourself here, gain consensus and then take action. But until someone says you have been appointed the new Wikipedia God, I am reverting and seeking consensus. Maybe we should be seeking comments from others. --^StormRider 20:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm going to make a post to the LDS WP talk page before proceeding further, but I just don't see what the big deal is. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh is right! No discussion, no explanation of how it is relevant or fits within the scope of the project, nothing, but your unilateral decision to re-add the wikiproject. Telling another editor your opinion does not equate to gaining consensus; consensus involves discussion, the exchange of ideas, and a final, communal decision.

I asked multiple times for an explanation how this topic relates to the LDS movement. The only response I got was, "Cultural effects and practices" and nothing else, no explanation, absolutely nothing. Then it moved to a denigration of my position, "frankly at this point to deny that this topic is LDS related is a bit tendentious." I am denying it not because I am biased, but because it does not make sense! I also continue to deny that this Academy has anything to do with the "culture" of the LDS people. This school is not unique in the nation and its educational practices are not novel; how then does it tie into LDS culture? Please answer the question. Are there any scholarly books that explain how this school, or schools like them, are unique to the LDS people, LDS doctrines, or anything similar.

The second allegation/statement is that it is tied into LDS practices; please explain that? How is it tied into LDS practices? I am seeking discussion so that we can arrive at a decision; I am asking you to defend your position without telling me I am stupid for taking an opposing position or for you to blindly throw down reasons that don't apply or aren't accompanied by an explanation as to why you think they apply. I have already quoted the scope of the LDS wikiproject and IMHO, it does not apply to this topic. If it applies, tell me why you think so.

The last thing is the repeated statement you don't see why it is a big deal, i.e. those others are making a stink about nothing. This is a way of aggrandizing yourself and belittle all others that disagree with you. It is funny that you were the one who made the unilateral decision to continue to bring back the edit after I raised the objection. OBVIOUSLY, you thought it was a big enough deal or you would not have continued to bring back the edit. When it is not a big deal we just let it go...which is not what you did. What you continued to do is tell me it is not a big deal and I should go away and let you have your way.

In looking at other similar articles, Family Foundation School and Mission Mountain School, this project has two wikiprojects listed (more than the others); one for schools and the other for Utah state. I have no problem adding more, but my sole objective is to ensure that they apply to the topic of the article. --^StormRider 01:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#West_Ridge_Academy. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Something is beginning to smell again in Denmark

It appears we have the return of the Gulag gang again; i.e. anon editors that only edit this article and twist information to further their blog. What this article cannot be is a blog to further their POV, their opinion, and their objectives. The article is strictly about West Ridge Academy. It is not about the LDS Church or anything else. I reverted the last jumble of edits that violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. I have warned the ANON that authored the edits and he will be blocked if he continues to edit war.

Given the controversial style of editing that is going on, I strongly encourage all edits to be brought to the discussion page first prior to making edits. In doing so, the article will be improved rather than turn into an edit war. --^StormRider 04:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Or how about the edits I reverted the past two days that appeared to come directly from the school, extolling the virtues of "Our program"? Semiprotection might be good for this page. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like storm rider is only concerned about preserving the image of the Mormon church. I'm new to this, how do I get moderator's assistance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.135.158.192 (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't go to moderators over content disputes as a first step, 32. You try to work out a consensus. You only go to the administrator's noticeboard if other users are being disruptive. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, but I am being threatened with being blocked by Storm Rider for editing this page. He left a warning for me on my messages. I don't believe that is fair. I looked briefly at his page, and it is full of quotations by Mormon celebrity figures. I don't know if this is the case, but it seems like this person is very concerned about the image of the Mormon church and does not have a neutral point of view. I do not want to be banned from this site for a vendetta that this Storm Rider apparently has.--76.23.49.1 (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is laughable. I have fifteen quotes on my talk page, five of them are by LDS. The following is my list of quotes:

• 1. Bas Van Fraassen, philosopher
• 2. Ralph Waldo Emerson, philosopher
• 3. John Calvin, Reform theologian
• 4. J. Kenneth Grider, Nazarene Christian theologian
• 5. John Wesley, Anglican theologian
• 6. Pope Benedict XVI, current pope
• 7. C.S. Lewis, Academic
• 8. Dallin H. Oaks, LDS apostle
• 9. Neal A. Maxwell, LDS apostle
• 10. Jeffrey R. Holland, LDS apostle
• 11. St. Irenaeus, Patristic father
• 12. Roger Bacon, English philosopher & Franciscan friar
• 13. Abraham Lincoln, US President
• 14. Gordon B. Hinkley, LDS President
• 15. George Albert Smith, LDS President

33% is full of LDS quotes? Biased? This is a specious allegation. What is clear is that I have been a student of relgion and phiolosphy.

You will be blocked IF you violate the three revert rule. Warnings are required in order to block you; we do not block editors if without first warning them of problems with their edits. It is better to heed the warnings and, in this case, bring your edits to the discussion page and stop making the same edit repeatedly. You can begin by discussing how this topic is related to the Mormonism? Is the Academy sponsored by Mormonism? Why do you think it belongs in the category? I am a bit of a purist; catgories and wikiprojects need to apply to the topic at hand; if not, I will delete them on all articles. I clean out those that don't apply. In this article it was the categories for Mormonism and Child Welfare Activism; neither of which applies. When you are contemplating adding a category, it would be helpful to review the cateogry itself and ask yourself some questions: "Is my article similar in scope to the other articles listed" and "Does the article fit the category". Too often editors have an agenda, an axe to grind, and they end up misusing categories and edit from a horribly twisted POV. The result is Wikipedia is harmed and our articles made worse. I try to prevent that as much as possible. --^StormRider 02:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have my issues with Storm Rider, however edit warring is not the way to improve an article. Read WP:3RR--essentially, if you revert changes on a page more than three times in a 24-hour period, you get blocked for a day (the exception being if you're reverting vandalism). When content conflicts arise, the correct course is to discuss here on the talk page and try to reach consensus. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Napolean, can I get some assistance then? Storm Rider keeps reverting my edits, I don't want to be banned but he is trying to remove the Mormon related references, because apparently he/she doesn't like the connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.135.13.228 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page in light of the disruptive edits being made by anonymous editors. Anon, no one wants to prevent you from adding legitimate edits to WP, but because of the controversial nature of some of the changes you have made, it would indeed be best to do as Storm Rider suggests and discuss the changes here before they are made. The page is now protected from editing by anonymous users, so I strongly encourage you to register a username at WP and begin using it to make edits. The editing restriction will expire on this page in one week but if the disruptive edit-warring continues after that the protection might have to continue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love to register and participate, but this is sort of frustrating. Are wikipedia articles really determined by intimidating new editors into not offending certain moderators? Good Olfactory, do you mind letting me know what "disruptive" edits I have made so I don't do it in the future. All I did was add the category "Mormonism," referenced the Deseret News article about missionaries, and added the quotes from the official Utah Boys Ranch web site. I'm so confused and discouraged right now :(

--76.23.49.1 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

When another editor tells you there is a problem with your edit, the first thing to do is go to the discussion page and explain why your edit is a good one. In doing so, you will find that other editors will chime in until a consensus is reached. If no one complains, then it generally will stay in the article until someone thinks they can improve it further. What you chose to do is ignore the multiple times I asked you to do just that. Please do not claim frustration when you ignore warnings and advice. Ignoring warnings is disruptive, repeatedly reverting to the same edit violates policy and is considered disruptive editing.

When writing an article, similar to writing all articles, papers, etc., the introduction summarizes the article. You may want to review this advice on introductions; doing so will assist you in being a more productive editor. You were told repeatedly the purpose of the introduction and you again ignored them; why? It is difficult to believe that you are frustrated when you chose to ignore the opportunity to discuss your edits. If the article does not already discuss it, it does not belong in the article's introduction. My last edit moved your edit on missionaries down into the body, but it stands out like a sore thumb. I still don't know why it belongs in the article. If there is not additional information added as to why this is important to the topic, it will eventually be deleted again.

Registering is always a good choice. It assits other editors understand that you are serious about editing and willing to be a construction member of the Wikipedia community. However, you still do not need to register to contribute; it is your choice. --^StormRider 02:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to follow-up on SR's comments above: I'm not saying the edits in and of themselves were per se disruptive. However, the pattern of repeatedly adding the same material after other users remove it and request discussion is disruptive. You do need to give heed to the edit summaries included when other users remove the material you added—that will often explain to you why the material is being removed. In such cases, discussion is the preferred first step to a solution, not re-adding the deleted material without regard to the other user's concerns. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to avoid Storm Rider all together, he/she seems very passionate about this article and those who are allowed to edit it. (who is allowed to edit this article, BTW?) But GoodOlfactory, how is adding primary sources referenced material, and adding the article to the category Mormonism disruptive while Storm Rider deleting material is not? I don't understand. Seems like a double standard. Seems like Storm Rider is allowed to determine what is said about West Ridge Academy, which is not what I assumed wikipedia to be about. Can you please clarify for me? I was reviewing the history, and it seems like when edits where added that were favorable, he/she did not edit. I noticed that Storm Rider has multiple quotes from Mormon celebrities, which makes me think that he/she is precisely the wrong person to be in charge of editing a page about a controversial Mormon topic. Thanks :)--76.23.49.1 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not what Wikipedia is about. Anyone is allowed to edit any page who is not specifically barred from doing so (in this case, anon IPs are barred from editing this article for a week). That said, no one, not I, not GO, and not Storm Rider, owns this article, and per WP:OWN editors are NOT supposed to claim ownership or control over articles. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon, rather than getting into a recitation of the "he did this and I did that", why don't you start a discussion on the material you would like to add. I'd be more than happy to lift the page protection if you and Storm Rider can assure me that there will be no more edit warring. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Goodolfactory, I added very little material. I added the article to the category "Mormonism," for obvious reasons. I added that there are "Mormon Missionaries" called to serve there, and referenced a Deseret News article that confirms this. I added some other quotations that don't seem to be in dispute. Storm Rider removed things and moved the reference of Mormon missionaries to the very bottom. That's all. I don't believe this article is being dealt with fairly because of Storm Rider. He/she seems set on removing any material related to Mormonism. I'm using solid references. Storm Rider is deleting things he/she wants to. If anyone is being disruptive, I think it is Storm Rider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.49.1 (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand that. Did you read my previous comment? Why don't we move on? If both you and Storm Rider agree not to edit-war, then we can lift protection of the page and you can propose here the changes you'd like to make, where everyone can comment on them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable, but I predict editing the article, Storm Rider removing what he/she doesn't like, and then sending me warnings and threats of being banned. If I add something useful, and Storm Rider removes it, how do I warn him/her for edit warring? Can I do that, or is this wikipedia editing job a tenured position? I would like to revert the article back to how it was without Storm Riders deletions. The only rule I have apparently violated is the 3R rule, and that is only because Storm Rider is deleting things he/she doesn't like and trying to ban me when I add them back. Clearly I am not vandalizing the page, why Storm Rider hasn't been hit with a 3 revert warning is beyond me. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why we're trying to get some discussion going, to avoid edit-warring on either side. Let's drop the tit-for-tat and move on, as I suggest above. No editor is perfect—we all have faults and I'm sure Storm Rider would admit the same. But we're not going to solve anything by warning each other at this point. Why don't you start by proposing what you'd like to change in the article? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No one should be multi-reverting anyone. That way Arbcom lies (see WP:RANDARB for a particularly instructive example). Anon, I would suggest making proposals for your changes one at a time. Pick one, and let's start working on that. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys—sorry, I'm withdrawing from the discussion at this point. An editor has suggested that I have a conflict of interest here since I've edited the article in the past. I'm OK with removing myself from the issue so as to avoid the suggestion that any resolution that is arrived at is unfair. So I've removed the protection I imposed, though it's open to another admin to re-impose it if it's needed again. I still stand by what I've said above, but will leave it to others to work this out. Good luck everyone, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to be sorry about. You can choose to be involved in edit warring in the article as an editor or in trying to deal with the edit warring as an admin. Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest prevents from doing both in the same article to protect the integrity of the process. You can feel free to edit the article, but abuse of administrative process to support your own position where you have been an active participant in edit warring is a clear violation of policy. Where you have demonstrated a clear bias in your previous edit warring, and where you even more improperly stepped in to edit protect the article in March while you were actively edit warring, it is clear that you lack the basic objectivity needed in imposing administrative actions in this article. You are free to work on this or any other article, either editing OR taking admin action, but doing both is verboten. As you have already made your choice here, any further administrative action in this article would be inappropriate, at best. Alansohn (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you have picked up a stalker during your sojourn on Wikipedia. During the years I have been here I have had a few of those little joys. I am sorry you have to deal with that type of behavior...but all is not lost. Eventually they will find a life and move on. Regardless, I would request that you not abandon this article. You may not be able to perform admin functions, but you can still contribute to this article and this article gets so few editors, you are needed. Please consider staying on. --^StormRider 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks of this nature are not tolerated, and this is the second time you have made a rather uncivil personal attack about me as an individual and I will not tolerate any further claims of "stalking" or any other incivility. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as well as WP:3RR, and ensure that your actions are in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)