Talk:Barrington Hall (Berkeley, California)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

How 'bout some action?

So all this discussion has been fun and everything, but I came here to create an encyclopedia. At this point, the discussion has gotten incredibly repetitive (and mindblowingly, there are still requests for editors to repeat themselves), it's mostly about who said what instead of the article, and I don't think anything is really getting accomplished. So I'd like to make a concrete proposal. At some point this article will be unprotected, and it wil be edited. We all need to collectively decide what those edits will be. Here's what I propose, in roughly this order:

1. Delete the reference/link to bonussugar.blogspot.com. There's a clear consensus that it's not a reliable source.
2. Add sources (reliable ones other than bonussugar) to each graffiti item for which they are available. I'd recommend putting the {{fact}} tag on all that do not have a reliable source.
3. Once sufficient time has been given to add sourcing info, delete all graffiti items which are unsourced (I assume adding sources shouldn't take more than a day or two, the page being locked doesn't stop people from looking for sources).
4. Once all graffiti items have been sourced or deleted, we can see which and how many there are. At that point it can be debated whether they are notable/trivial/whatever and how many should be included, whether all sourced ones should go in or just a selection, whether it should be a list or mentioned in the text, etc.

I'd like to get a reaction to this proposal, counterproposals etc. I think the key here is to focus discussion on what should be in the article. I also think it might be more clear to handle the various elements separately instead of arguing everything at once. I recommend we reach consensus agreement on a course of action, and at that point request the page be unprotected. I realize that some may disagree with the consensus we reach and may even revert war over it, if that happens we deal with the disruptive editors. Let's try and bring this to some sort of conclusion. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support as the guy proposing it. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not consensus that JD is unreliable. Per your request at RS a few minutes ago, [1] I notice that you were told the opposite, basically.-Cindery 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't agree, feel free to make a counterproposal. Otherwise, your disagreement is noted. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I Support your proposal Milo. I'm willing to compromise on my WP:TRIV if each item is actually sourced & cited. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support also. Sounds like a good way forward. Should end this never-ending debate.-Localzuk^(talk)
• Support as a starting position. Hiding Talk 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support as contructive way forward. David D. (Talk) 01:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support and hope for the best. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• You have to engage in discussion to gain consensus. The state of the discussion viz RS is that you have not resonded to (6x today): the source matches the claim. (The argument that the source is de facto unreliable per RS is false, and not supported by RS.) Voting is not consensus; Wikipedia is not a democracy; and If you can't make an argument via discussion, you don't have an argument. "Voting" to abandon discussion because you cannot respond to a point in the discussion is, of course, absurd.:-) -Cindery 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your selective reading of RS does not interest the majority of people active in this discussion. Likewise you are selectively applying wiki is not a democracy and votes are evil. I agree, this is absurd. David D. (Talk) 06:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it was your misinterpretation/misapplication of RS that is at issue here: the source is not de facto unreliable per RS, it has to be discussed on its merits. Pointing out that abandoning discsussion to vote is not helpful for furthering discussion is helpful (and obvious).-Cindery 07:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted the discussions as finding the merits of the blog to be wanting, using RS as a guideline to come to that decision (as well as soiciting opinion at other venues). I know you disagree with the consensus but it is wrong to say there was no discussion. Also, I think if you read the proposal above it does not abandon discussion, in fact, it seems to be a starting point for discussion. In this case discussion would focus on each graffiti tag and the sources that are available for each. David D. (Talk) 07:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the "proposal" is based on the flawed propositon that the source is de facto unreliable per RS (or that there is any "consensus" about that). Beginnings of discussion of source-on-merits is below.-Cindery 07:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just submitted a request for unprotection, per this proposal. Assuming it is unprotected, I'd like to encourage all editors to use clear edit summaries (referencing policy and this talk page where appropriate), to give the other side the opportunity (time) to make edits and respond to changes, and if a revert war breaks out revert once to the consensus version and if further reverts are needed, give others a chance to make those reverts. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

the source matches the claim

Ok, lets talk about this. "the source matches the claim" Where does this come from? Well, it's a corollary to "Exceptional Claims require exceptional evidence." However, in this situation that argument is inapplicable. It would require us to accept the premise that the source had a minimal level of reliability in the first place. You keep bringing it up over and over, but it's totally irrelevant. "Oh, yeah, the info is so unimportant we don't need a source!" If it's that unimportant, then wikipedia shouldn't be printing it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(:edit conflict) No, and as recently pointed out again on RS, sources are considered on a case by case basis, on a number of criteria. In this case, the source matches the claim because a language expert is verifying graffiti. (If we wanted to verify a climatological claim, we'd want a climatologist. If it was a new scientific theory that changed everything accepted about climate, we'd want more than one climatologist, peer reviewed journal. Etc.)-Cindery 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are conisterd on a case-by-case basis and in THIS case it's not reliable. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, no one has ignored your six protestations.

1. If the source is not reliable then the claim is hollow (consensus is that the source is unreliable, see above).
2. Another approach is, even if the source is reliable, but the ONLY source available, treat it with suspicion, especially if it is on blogspot (that is why WP:RS mentions third party sources).
3. Alternatively, if there is only one source then it is hard to see how it could be notable. Especially since the notable graffiti, according to slingshot, was the dialog not the graffiti tags.
4. And my relevant red herring, as you like to call it; reliable sources are not blogs that conveniently appear during the talk page discussion.

Don't play us for fools, WP:AGF does not stretch that far, I'm afraid. David D. (Talk) 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not find your above comment civil. Restating that the source is de facto unreliable per RS is not an argument, nor is true. And it has already been pointed out that the graffiti is: examples of graffiti. And that there is more than one source, both for graffiti in specific and graffiti in general.-Cindery 06:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Civil? Mr. Kettle, I think you know Cindery. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't find that civil or helpful, either--I've been extremely civil to David. And it is not a response to the discussion; does not move discussion forward.-Cindery 06:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, are these strawman arguments intentional? We know they are examples of graffiti, but why are they notable, slingshot does not imply that the graffiti tags are notable. Forget the general graffiti and discusss the specific graffiti. Where are the mutliple sources for the JD graffiti? If you can produce them there is no argument here. The fact that you refuse to cite these mutliple sources is revealing. Which pages in the Green Book? You implied above that they are in there. If not there, where? At present we have one source (too convenient to be trusted) and no claim for notablility. David D. (Talk) 06:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misreading that JD/JC is not the only person to note specific graffiti--there are now three sources. (The "graffiti in general" has been established, but provides context for JD as reliable source--JD is not noting something in specific which does not have an established context.) "Strawman" is not civil, nor does it make any sense. I told you your "too convenient" was irrelevant, and I notice you were told that on ANI as well. "Notability" is a red herring which has been addressed multiple times now--the graffiti are examples, not personages which must meet a notability standard.-Cindery 06:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two other sources for the JD graffiti tags? Which ones? Or do you mean there are two other sources that mention graffiti but not the specific examples cited by JD?

Well if there is no context for the JD tags I still wonder why they are important for the article. By the way, why can't the SF Chronicle graffiti tags be used instead to the JD tags? Then you could have some examples, if you feel that is really necessary, and at least we have a standard source for those.

When I outlined the scenario on WP:AN (not ANI) I did not mention names, I was soliciting opinions, do you think I misrepresented the situation? I tried to be decribe it objectively. David D. (Talk) 07:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh no, I think titling it "Gaming the system" was completely impartial and accurate. :-) The point I made though, is that you were told your "too convenient" accusation was "irrelevant," and yet you still bring it up. Re JD--I think you're misunderstanding: there is context for JD (graffiti in general was significant; that was established) and there are three sources for graffiti in specific (including JD). As noted above, the SFC is one of the sources.-Cindery 07:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The title was to attract attention, but you're right it does imply a lack of good faith, I do admit that. The reason the "too convenient" is irrelevant is becuase blogspot sources were dismissed without discussion. There was no need to discuss other motives, however, only two people responded, I had hoped more would weigh in. Personally, i could go with the chronicle as a source, if specific examples are going to be in the article, I draw the line at a blog as a source. David D. (Talk) 07:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that you have a clear IDONTLIKE it bias against blogs. While you may "draw the line" at them as sources, Wikipedia does not.-Cindery 07:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs come in many forms and JD's happens to be at blogspot. I would say I have a IDONTTRUST bias. I think this is a justified bias when it is the only source, only one entry AND on blogspot. Why not do a straw poll with random wikipedians, I'm betting it will be in the 90 percentile with respect to people that don't trust that specific trifecta for a source. Hopefully that will help you understand the context of my comment above.

Is this your invention, the IDONTLIKE thing, I have not seen anyone else use it? David D. (Talk) 07:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It's not the only source for graffiti in general or graffiti in specific--it's one of many sources. It's an offshoot which functions as a kind of subpage of Sugarhigh! which is hosted by abstractdynamics, under the registered domain www.janedark.com. Polls are not consensus, and would not further the discussion of: the source matches the claim. You clearly stated that you "draw the line" at blogs. Wikipedia does not. Your bias against blogs is your problem--no one has to justify blogs in general to you. I'm glad we identified the problem.-Cindery 08:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This dialogue has become increasingly ridiculous, but "You have to engage in discussion to gain consensus" takes the cake. I can't imagine how a sane person would look at the hundreds of posts on this page and insist that discussion hasn't been engaged in. "Source matches the claim" does not need to be refuted because it's not policy, it appears nowhere in RS or anywhere else. I don't believe it deserves to be dignified with a response. In fact, I don't think there's any point in discussing "bonussugar" at all any more since we've decided it's not a RS and doesn't belong in the article, not to mention that everything being said about it has been said many times already. The repetitive nature of the debate indicates that discussion has exhausted itself and it's time to take action. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And as I have said repeatedly now, bonussugar doesn't de facto fail RS--it has to be disussed per multiple criteria. Citing RS is not an argument. Repeatedly stating that it de facto fails RS and you have "consensus" on that is not discussion of a specific source in context. If you feel there's no point in discussion and that all you have to contribute is incivility like "I don't beleive it deserves to be dignified with a response" feel free to take action to exercise your right to leave instead of engaging in discussion.-Cindery 15:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, considering that another editor has made a proposal and several people have agreed to it and the fact that Cindery has not made any counter-proposals and there seems to be overwhelming consensus to press on with this, we should go ahead and enact the proposal. We don't have to sit here trying to convince a single user of the merits of the argument as they just reuse the same arguments with no merit (see the hundreds of posts for evidence of the discussion over this).-Localzuk^(talk) 15:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The "counterproposal" is Wiki policy for content disputes: discussion. Discussion isn't determined by "voting," and in any case it's 3 v. 3 for leaving the graffiti list. Again, reiterating over and over that something fails RS de facto instead of discussing a specific source in context is not discussion.-Cindery 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not "3 v. 3 for leaving the graffiti list." It's unanamity-less-one for removing them not if sourced within a few days—sourced to a reliable source which specifically does not include bonussugar. They are to be "left" for a few days only, during which they are to be marked as needing citations. It seems to me that you have a pattern of confidently stating things you say are "agreed to" that appear to be highly optimistic personal inferences or reinterpretations of what has actually been said. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As noted, it's not a vote--but that is incorrect. There is no unanimity whatsoever regarding the source: there's me and Adam. (And Arg did not specify "a few days.") The quality of the "opposing consensus," which is a small number in spite of aggresive recruitment efforts, :-) has been noted also: based on flawed propositon that the source de facto fails RS, comes from editors who haven't contributed anything to the article except arguments over YT and/or this source. But that's a sidetrack from the point: discussion is the way to consensus (and there's been a continuing refusal to reasonably discuss the source on its merits).-Cindery 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1) You introduced the phrase "3 v. 3."

2) You say "Arg did not specify "a few days." Here's the sentence: "Once sufficient time has been given to add sourcing info, delete all graffiti items which are unsourced (I assume adding sources shouldn't take more than a day or two." Yes, I should have said "a day or two" rather than "a few days."

3) I'm not sure I understand the reference to Adam. Proposal was explicitly supported by Milo H Minderbinder, J.S, User:Localzuk, Hiding, and David D.. You don't actually say in so many words that you oppose, but I am assuming you do. I do not see any other opposition. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (undent): the "proposal" isn't a valid proposal, as it is based on the flawed propositon that the sourve de facto fails RS. Discussion--using reason-- is the appropriate means for establishing consensus. Adam and I have clearly stated that we support the source. Arg has not participated in days, but believes the graffiti list should stay (and not just because there are sources, but because he saw the graffiti...)-Cindery 16:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• That he saw the graffiti is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an oral-history collection of the personal reminiscense of WIkipedians, it is a compilation from published, reliable sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • He's not a citable source, nor did he argue that he was. But it is not "irrelevant."-Cindery 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• The source matches the claim. Is that not sufficient? We have been emphatic about the fact that the grafitti is a very important aspect to any article about Barrington Hall. To not include it would be a disservice to the Wikipedia and this article. I am personally of a mind that there are some types of information that naturally fall outside of the requirement for a source. If I were to call Mardi Gras "colorful," would you insist that I source it? Well - you are insisting here, and Cindery and I have responded. This is beginning to feel like goalpost moving. I worry that in addition to being "anti-blog" and especially "anti blogspot.com blogs" some of you are working from a position of "anti grafitti" and possibly "anti Barrington." --AStanhope 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(conflict)It is irrelevant whether or not you see the proposal as flawed. It is a proposal that 6 editors support vs your opposition. Regardless of your opinion of the proposal, it has overwhelming support from the majority of those involved in this debate. The proposal doesn't say that the bonussugar link is a defacto failure of RS, it says there is clear consensus that it doesn't pass RS (as supported by the 6 editors). As I have said before, please provide new arguments as your old ones are not well supported and the majority of people here do not support them. Re-using them again and again is getting no-where.

In response to astanhope - it is irrelevant whether or not the source matches the claim - the majority of the people here do not feel that bonussugar is a good enough source. Your comment about whether or not a source is needed is true - some things don't need sources (like saying that water is wet, tree's grow in the ground etc...) but something like a description like 'colourful' for the mardi gras depends on the context and all of this is completely irrelevant.

I know that for myself, I do not like the use of blogs that fail our reliable source guidelines (and therefore fail the verifiability policy) in articles. The fact that it is posted on blogspot is only relevant if it has no real way of backing up its authenticity and its links to a claimed owner. Finally, I am only here to try and improve the site - by preventing poorly sourced and information that fails to show its particular notability, being included. I would suggest that you try and assume good faith-Localzuk^(talk) 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam, no goal posts are being moved. The significance of the graffiti will be discussed in the article, examples from reliable sources will be given (SFC). You have got your wishes. The fact that yourself and Cindrey insist on the JD graffiti tags being used as specific examples is starting to look like vanity. Were you and Cindrey the authors of this graffiti is this why you are fighting so hard for its inclusion? David D. (Talk) 16:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Cindrey, There has been discussion, MUCH discussion about the merits of the source, in multilpe locations: talk:RS, WP:AN and here. We don't need to have a unanimous decision to move on. As far as i can tell the majority think the JD blog source is not reliable when considering four different factors. It is the only source, the blog only has one (new) entry, is on blogspot and there is no claim to notability for these specific graffiti tags. This is reasoning, it has been discussed but you choose to ignore it. Ignoring the arguments and inferring that the decision is solely "based on flawed propositon that the source de facto fails RS" is illogical. You may disagree with the arguments but you cannot claim that arguments were not discussed. Worse is you argument from authority that seems to be your last resort having failed to win consensus on whether the JD blogspot is a RS. You are now trying to imply that only editors that have made significant contributions to the article should be given due weight. This is a clear misinterpretation of the "it is not a vote philosophy" to try force your hand. Most would consider an outside view to be more objective in a case such as deciding if a source is reliable or not. David D. (Talk) 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Page is unprotected

And I've removed the link to bonussugar per the consensus that it's not a reliable source, and added {{fact}} tags to each graffiti item. Please add references (other than bonussugar) to each item for which one exists and as you do feel free to remove the respective tags. Also feel free to add any sourced items or swap ones in the list with ones in the text. Happy editing. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus, as I said. There has still been no response to: source matches the claim.-Cindery 16:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes there has been response to that - it is irrelevant. The source fails WP:RS and as shown by the 6 editors who now support the proposal.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible the sources could be established alongside the graffiti so we can establish that they are indeed sourced. Hiding Talk 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That needs to happen otherwise it will be deleted as vanity. David D. (Talk) 16:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• As I said, repeatedly stating that in your opinion something de facto fails RS is opinion, not reason/an argument. In order to make a "vanity" argument you would need some evidence--such as that Adam, Arg and/or I have demonstrated any vanity in editing this article. We are all experienced editors, and have contributed objectively to this article with the ideal combination of source knowledge and background knowledge.-Cindery 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't appear to be and experienced editor in the wikipedia environment. An stop repeating your de facto fails RS interpretation of the discussion above, it is falling on deaf ears now since you have not made the case that this is what actually occurred. Repeating it idenfintely will not make it so. David D. (Talk) 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Localzuk, thanks for the revert, but I don't think it's necessary to remove the San Francisco Chronicle reference. I also think as a show of good faith it would be good to leave any additions or swaps to the graffiti list (although any new ones should have a FACT tag if they don't have a reference), at least for the short term. I'd recommend providing the opportunity to put citations on items in the list so we can all see which and how many actually have reliable sources, and at that point move on to a discussion of which (if any) should remain in the list.

Cindery, I'm glad to see you adding references to the article. Please put references using a REF tag or other on specific graffiti items so we (and all readers of the article) can see which sources verify which items. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been consensus for inline cites--I like the refs better as a list due to the to Green Book; many articles have lists of refs instead of innline cites. See every other USCA article, for example.-Cindery 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While inline cites may not be necessary, there needs to be some way that readers of the article can tell which information comes from which sources. I have no objection to removing the fact tags as long as their removal comes along with some addition that indicates the citation. The issue isn't that the sources aren't acceptable, it's that the article needs to make clear which items they support. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"no discussion/no consensus"

Cindery, while consensus is always debatable, I'm not sure why your revert included the comment "no discussion". There certainly was discussion since the edit I made was exactly what I proposed above, and which a number of editors agreed with. "No discussion" seems to be a flat-out lie. Could you please explain your comment? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there has been a refusal to discuss the source on its merits/source matches the claim. Stating over and over that ir de facto fails RS is not an argument, and refusing to "dignify with a response" is not indicative of engaging in discussion in good faith. Note also that Localzuk and Hiding are deleting the two uncontested graffitos...-Cindery 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we simply don't accept the source as reliable. It has been discussed in length. We looked at it under the suspicious circumstances is showed up in and judged it invalid. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

With the page being unlocked and edited, I'd like to remind all editors about WP:3RR, if you are unfamiliar with it I'd recommend reading it. In short it says that no editor may revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How to cite sources

Assumeing everyone is ok with following WP:V I'll be converting the in-line weblinks to using the <ref> system.

Here's a quick explination of how the system works (taken from WP:FOOT)

1. Place a <ref> ... </ref> where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags.
2. Place the <references/> tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here.

This page itself uses footnotes, such as the one at the end of this sentence. If you view the Wikicode of this page by clicking "Edit this page", you can see a working example of footnotes. The new format cannot be mixed on a page with the old Footnotes3 format—you must pick one or the other.

Here is an example of how it looks to cite the same source more then once.

Sample refrences

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a huge improvement for this article. As it is, there's no way of knowing what info is sourced, and which of the numerous sources it's sourced to. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

They don't all have to be cited inline (particularly if they would be cited a lot, or are not available online). Per policy the original editor to use ref format gets to choose--as I have cited as links not footnotes, that would be me.-Cindery 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection to actualy citing sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Citing sources, I see three options, all of which include something included in the text (not just a list at the bottom). I assume this page is intended to use the Harvard referencing on that page? There are three options and I don't think anyone here cares which is used. But right now, none of the three is used, there's no sourcing of facts, just a list of references. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I added an example of how it works when you cite a source more then once. I think it looks very clean and easy to read. It's not redundant at all either. If the entire paragraph is supported by the same source then we would only need one citation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is the way to go especially since there are so many references associated with this page. i added two more examples to the mural section including an example of the YouTube link being used twice. David D. (Talk) 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are two objections 1) the format for inline cites of quotes will be links, not footnotes, per me. 2) not everything needs an inline cite, esp. as the Green Book would have to be cited so many times, is not paginated in its online form,and many of the sources are newspaper sources which aren't online, so inline cites for them wouldn't be to links.-Cindery 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations are not synonymous with links. There does not have to be a link associated with a reference. What it does do is help the reader identify which reference/s is/are being used as a specific source. David D. (Talk) 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just used in-line cites in the mural section. This is definitely desirable so that each source is obvious. This article has many references you can't expect readers to picjk their way through each reference to find the relevant source. David D. (Talk) 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope--it's my call and footnote format is not what I choose.-Cindery 17:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's your call, you need to cite the facts somehow. In your last edit, you didn't just switch the format, you removed the cite on the second line of graffiti. Please put some sort of cite on it. You also need to choose a citing format that actually cites info, there are three options listed at Wikipedia:Citing sources and the article currently uses none of the three. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

May I again remind you of WP:OWN Cindery? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not really your call. You don't own the article, unfortunately this is one of the realities of wikipedia. Seriously, this is how it works, if you are used to controlling your content you would be much better off starting your own web page. That way you can use which ever references you wish and which ever style you choose. David D. (Talk) 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."-Cindery 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true. But as the article stands, there is no citation within the article text itself. So it can be debated that no "system" was chosen at all. Have you looked at the three options listed at CITE? If you want to go with the Harvard reference system, start adding references like (Smith 1996) into the article text. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyering again. In this case there is no way to tell which claims match with which reference. Given that the in-line cites solve this problem why would your preferred editing style make sense? Is it possible that you will fight every suggested improvement from other editors just for the sake of a battle? Or do you have a suggestion that you would find acceptable to solve this problem? David D. (Talk) 18:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery blocked

This is just a quick note to say that I have blocked Cindery [2]. It's hardly worth a new section, but I felt the need to inform the editors here. -- Steel 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for what? --AStanhope 05:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Click on the link above ([3]). --Milo H Minderbinder 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In-line refs

For a while now my major problem here has been with the lack of reference notes within the article.

• 22nd Jan 21:41 "I think we need to quote the article and cite it with in-line quote. Half the problem here is that the reader cannot distinguish between sourced material and unsourced material."

• 23rd Jan 16:03 "The chronicle reference to specific graffiti looks promising. When this page gets unlocked we should tyr and get the in-line notes added so that specific references are easy to relate the text. It will help the article a lot"

Personally, I would be in favour of moving as many of the references to the text in the form of in-line references as possible. Is the Green Book really used as source 30 times (got his number from Cindrey's talk page)? Here we have two possible strategies. Cite each page of the pdf file that are available on the web (similar to Rosalind Franklin) page. Cite Green Book as a general ref below the inline refs unless it is used for very specific citations such as for the graffiti tags. The Rosalind Franklin approach is a little too much like overkill for me. I would be happy to cite the green book as a general reference after notes. Any other sources that would be better suited as a general reference rather than an in-line reference? David D. (Talk) 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the greenbook is the sole citation for an entire section then we only need to cite it once. Even if most of the article is based on the GreenBook then we would only realy need to have 3-4 citations to it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a viable alternative. My problem,still, is that it is not clear which bits of the current text match with to which references. I had been hopeful that Cindrey would be keen to get the references sorted out. David D. (Talk) 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Now we get to re-do all the research to try to add citations. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Barrington Residents

This article has a list of notable residents. Fair enough... but I've been having trouble finding citations for most of them. With respect to WP:BLP I think we need to be careful when associating people with Barrington Hall when no reference exists.

• Andreas Floer - Unable to find any source for this
• Joshua Clover - Unable to find any source for this
• Micah Garen - Unable to find a any source for this. Infact, our article on him claims he went to Cornell University... but that dosn't have a source either.
• Jewlia Eisenberg - OK
• Belinda Reynolds - Bio on http://www.belindareynolds.com/ sais she went to Berkly, but doesnt say anything about Barrington Hall
• Michael Lehmann - His NYT Bio acknowledges going to USC, but no mention of Barrington Hall
• Michael Tigar - His law-school bio mentions Berkeley, but not Barrington. Challenger 24 makes this statement in a paper about Barrington: "One of the contributors to that last issue, with a devastating satire of the Council, was Mike Tigar, who later worked for KPFA for awhile & most recently was heard from as one of the lawyers for the Chicago 7 who were tromped on by the judge.)" - It doesnt say he was a resident, but it gets really close.

Thoughts? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tigar reference is close enough for me. He was clearly part of the community. I assume some of the other refs have this info embedded in them. Is it obvious from the history who added these names? David D. (Talk) 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cindery: "all of these people are on registered student-by-house lists, under USCA history in Bancroft library" ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Andreas (deceased) was personally known to me. --AStanhope 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs a source citation anyway, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Andreas Floer: (1956 – 1991), Ian Ray: (1964-1997) both suicide. This is really sad stuff. :( David D. (Talk) 05:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect to this list, there is a good chance that if they were at Berkeley these are legitimate. What of those that were not at Berkeley? There is one link that dicusses a guy that lived in the dorms for a decade, effectly just hung out there the whole time but did not actually live there. I assume there were non Berkeley people there too? Could the USC guy fit into that category? Lived there one summer perhaps? David D. (Talk) 05:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, sure, but if there's no reference and no obvious connection with Berkeley, then that's a name that should be moved here to Talk first and moved back afterwards, i.e. only when a reference is actually found. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, whenever unsourced info is removed, it can always be restored when a source is found. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I see that the California State Library system offers access to a newspaper database with "full-text articles from over 550 newspapers throughout the United States, including over 100 California titles." Not having a California library card, I can't find out which papers or years are covered. It also offers the LA Times in an historic database from 1881 to 1984 and a more recent one from 1985 to the present. This might be a good place to look for verification. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for Cindery

I think we should incorporate the sourced graffiti tags together in their own section or, possibly a better place, a subsection of the mural section. Guy deleted the graffiti tag section and this was not really a good faith edit given our proposal above. Hopefully when Cindery returns she will have more sources too. What do you think? David D. (Talk) 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1) I don't think she will have more sources when she returns. She had ample opportunity to provide them in the last two or three weeks. She could have looked for sources then, but preferred to spend that time arguing that the existing sources were adequate. If I turn out to be wrong about this, I'll apologize.

2) I don't see why two graffiti need their own section.

3) Even the current source does no more than support the statements that "Every surface in Barrington was covered with psychedelic murals and layer upon layer of graffiti." It doesn't demonstrate that there was anything that would distinguish them from any of innumerable other vaguely-counterculture student environments that featured them. If the video didn't mention Barrington Hall, you would probably have no way to know that it wasn't filmed at, say, Butterfield B at Wesleyan[4]. They're just ordinary typical student graffiti.

4) I think a lot of this article skates on the border of vanity. Every college graduate has a tendency to think their own dorm had cosmic significance. I won't quarrel with anything that's actually sourced to a decent published source. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an oral-history project for an alumni reunion. This article needs tightening, not expansion. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with Dpb here... I tried realy hard to get Cindery to provide citations and it was like pulling teeth.

My preference is to have a few examples given in prose with some reliable sources to back them up. It's not significant enough to justify two whole sections.

As far as I've been able to discover, the only major real media attention Barrionton Hall got was a number of newspaper articles in the early 90s when police had to be called in to quell a riot and forceably evict a bunch of people. Oddly enough none of those three articles mention anything about graffiti... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There were also some mentions from the late 80s when Barrington had a reputation as a "drug house", which took quite a lot considering how many drugs were floating around colleges in those days. I've been busy, but I know I can find *some* sources for those days. (Unfortunately, I tossed all my records from my days as USCA vice-president.) The graffiti wasn't terribly notable, except that it did really cover a huge amount of the graffitiable space in the building, and there was a house policy to keep a lot of it. Argyriou (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery has been blocked again and it's possible that this one may be long term if not permanent. I'd go ahead and edit the article based on what facts are available and not wait for her return. That probably means sourcing it as well as possible and deleting anything unsourced. By the way, you guys have done a great job with the article since it was unprotected, nice work. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm basically out of sources... The article doesn't really give due weight to the most notable events (the arrests and riots near it's closure) but that can be solved. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning through external links

• Onngh Yanngh movie, by Dave Ross.

This is a sad case. Dave Ross recently dies of cancer. Some friends remember one of several movies he made while at Barrington Hall. He appears to be a fixture at bears games and his obit was even mentioned on the Radio for a game, so he must have had an impact in Berkeley. Nevertheless, I am unsure why this movie or Dave Ross are more notable than the hundreds of other alumni that passed through Barrington hall. Why should Dave Ross and his movie be mentioned in this article? David D. (Talk) 17:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand it was a traditional movie played once a year at the Hall. I don't have any sources for that, so it might end up in the pile of "things that are neat historical facts we can't verify so we can't include". A link to the movie might be worth keeping... just because links are cheep and don't need to satisfy WP:V. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, it might be appropriate if we can include a reliable source saying it was played every year there. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wish I could help you there. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But for how many years was it played, probably not enough to make it notable. David D. (Talk) 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)