Talk:West Ridge Academy/Archive 1

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)

Good grief StormRider - chill out - whats the big deal if its is part of the project? Are there really any hard and fast rules as to why a page should be included or not? Doesn't it create more visibility to editors of all stripes to be more aware of this article? I would think that anyone in the LDS project would like to know this article is out there - especially if controversial edits happen occasionally (which you yourself insinuated is something that happens once in a while). With a potentially controversial topic like this, shouldn't we be asking ourselves, why SHOULDN'T it be part of the LDS project? I have tagged hundreds of articles to be added to the LDS project in the last year, many of them with less to do with Mormonism than this article. I agree with TallNapoleon - I just don't get why this is a big deal. I think the vast majority of editors both Mormon and non-Mormon would be fine with including it. This is not a controversial thing we are doing here - no offense, but frankly your vehement opposition is a little odd and your explanations are incredibly nit picky. I just don't get it. These are my last thoughts, as I don't want to waste anymore of my time on this topic. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:04, 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)

Alan, please let it go. Repeating your mantra in multiple pages when the consensus is that GO did nothing wrong is beginning to look like harassment. --Kbdank71 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

When I am discussed irrelevantly on an aticle, I chime in. And your interest here is what? I like the vandal fighting, but dealing with abusive admins is a far bigger problem that I am more than willing to devote my time to. Alansohn (talk) 19:32, 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)

I will warn you once only; this page is to be used for this article and how to improve it. It is not for this personal crusade you have against Good; if you persist in this type of harassment you will bear the consequences of your actions. A piece of advice, if the shoe fits, wear it. I still feel sorry for Good; although we often conflict with one another, these silliness that follows him is unwarranted and does not help Wikipedia. Focus on the article and how to improve or move on. --^StormRider 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean the same person who uses this article for personal attacks now insists that only he can edit this talk page and is issuing a "warning". Focus on your edit war, not on personal attacks. I've moved on, but it appears that your edit war continues. Alansohn (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on with GoodOlfactory (I thought he/she was being very helpful in resolving the edit war between myself and Storm Rider) but it looks like an anonymous user that works for West Ridge Academy is vandalizing the article again. Is someone going to block this user? Storm Rider, I can compromise with the edits you made on the missionaries, and I can even compromise with where you placed it. Would you be willing to compromise that this belongs in a Mormon-related category? Evergreen International is in the category Latter Day Saint organizations, I would be willing to compromise and put it in that category if you can't agree to it being in the category "Mormonism".--76.23.49.1 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue going on with Good is unfortunate, but is being worked on. These types of things happen on Wikipedia at times; both Alan and Good are good editors, but conflicts happen as personal animosities evolve into disputes. The rule to remember is that if an edit does not focus on improving the article then move on. Let's hope that Good returns to this article and contributes; it typically only attracts a very narrow range of editor participation and each one is valuable.

I have warned the ANON doing today's poor edits twice. I think three editors have reverted him today. Should they continue, I have no doubt they will eventually be blocked from editing for a period of time. When it is this flagrant and there has been no attempt to explain themselves, I favor longer terms. Let's just wait and see.

Here is my thinking: The Academy is not sponsored by the LDS Church and has no formal relationship. However, what is clear is that the Academy, located in Utah, employs LDS and in fact, as you have pointed out, invites LDS Missionaries to be on campus. I think the reference actually called them service missionaries and did clarify that they do not proselyte formally i.e. their purpose is not to act as teachers, but as spiritual counselors to all Christian youths regardless of religious affiliation. Does the presence of missionaries on the campus indicate this has to do with Mormonism? I tend to think not just like I don't think the article on France even thought LDS missionaries work there should be categorized as Mormonism.

I freely admit that I am a bit of purist when it comes to categories and wikiprojects. I don't use them freely nor do I think they should be used freely by others. What is needed is a direct relationship. I do think the category of Utah belongs as well as all of the others because they directly apply to the topic of the article. I looked at the Evergreen site and they freely indicate to others that they are focused on LDS people. The West Ridge Academy website has no such focus; it appears the school is for all youth regardless of religious persuasion. Do you see this as a difference? To me it is rather significant. The Academy does not profess to be an LDS organization whereas Evergreen does. Does my thinking make sense to you?--^StormRider 20:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is your direct relationship: Critics of the academy occasionally allege it is (or was) a Mormon run institution. Maybe it isn't anymore, maybe it never was, but there are a lot of people who think it is, people who call it a "Mormon Gulag". Whether you agree with those critics or not, that group of people is there. Does it have to be more direct than that? --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Storm, thanks for the explanation, I do understand where you are coming from better now. Let me try and explain my position as well as you did :) My thinking is that this school itself barely conceals that it is a Mormon facility, and more importantly, it is entirely unique (as far as I am aware) in that it has LDS missionaries there. I'm not saying it is bad for the missionaries to be there, I am only saying that it is very unique in that it does have multiple missionary pairs there. I think that is something that is worth noting on a wikipedia article. I noticed that you added that they don't proselyte to students. While I find that to be a little silly (what does a missionary do besides proselyte?) I'm willing to compromise there. That being said, this is a Mormon topic, and it should be noted as such. I think if you look at the old logo "Do what is Right, Let the Consequences Follow" is clearly something that LDS members are going to identify with. Lowell Bennion was a famous Mormon philanthropist. Chris Buttars is a famous Mormon politician. There aren't any "Christian" missionaries there. If you look at the older versions of their website on archive.org, the institution clearly markets itself as an LDS themed program. It's a little different than France, considering most countries have Mormon missionaries in them and most specialty schools do not. Does that make more sense? --76.23.49.1 (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you mind editing the page to reflect that a Chris Wade was also invited on the KRCL radio show with Eric Norwood to discuss the academy.--76.23.49.1 (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems

I am a representative of West Ridge Academy.

The slanderous information provided by the utahboysranchnetwork (an organization dedicated to damaging the West Ridge Academy) is misleading and inaccurate. Please note the following inaccuracies.

1. Senator Buttars has not been involved with the Academy for several years. His personal IRS issues are of no concern to the organization.Addressed - I changed the phrasing around the IRS issue - and I think the rest is appropriate for the section titled "History"--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2. The stated purpose of the Academy (not camp) is as the current web site indicates "offering hope and healing to young men, young women and their families by providing quality clinical services, education, and experiences which promote spiritual awareness, personal accountability and change of heart." (http://westridgeacademy.com) Addressed - I added this in the History section, I left the old one as well - please check the wording--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

3. The Academy (Not Utah boys ranch) does not claim to "have elected to operat..." and the Director does not claim that "the facts indicate that our government..." West Ridge is governed by the Utah Department of Human Services (http://www.hslic.utah.gov/) and are reviewed annually and during the year without notice for compliance to its general standards http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r501/r501.htm) and specific standards for such facilities (http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r501/r501-15.htm). West Ridge Academy has no license infractions on file and is current with all licensure requirements. Addressed - I think the old wording should stand in the History section, but I also added the current information --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

4. The current list of directors is inaccurate. (http://westridgeacademy.com/categories/79/Default.aspx) I compared the lists, and the current list appears accurate - who in the article is not correct? --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Buttars was still on the list earlier. I updated the list and link earlier today. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

5. All donations, whether in cash or in-kind are gratefully received by the 501(c)(3) Academy. The list of Donors and nature of donations is kept confidential. Not sure what you are saying with this item - article states it is a 501(c)(3) already --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently added the sentence about their 501(c)(3) status as well as removing the unsourced sentence about donations from Deseret Industries that had a fact tag for 4 months. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

6. The original logo from 1964 did not contain the phrase as indicated, but is also not relevant to recent history and current operations. Fixed wording to "in the past" rather than "original" - I think it is interesting information though, so I am leaving the rest in. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Understood leaving it in, but would it not then make sense to include all historical logos, not just one that lends towards furthering a POV? --WestRidgeAuthorized

7. West Ridge has spiritual advisors from many faiths including LDS Couples called as service missionaries. No proselyting takes place on campus. (http://westridgeacademy.com/pages/294/default.aspx) Addressed by another editor--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

8. Articles from disgruntled former clients are not third party nor without bias. Some articles from 3rd party reviewing bodies include the Private School Review (http://www.privateschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/27854#Editor), Woodbury Reports (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5382.shtml ) and College Bound Network (http://www.collegebound.net/content/article/boarding-school-spotlight-west-ridge-academy/8574/) - all of which are organizations that review programs like West Ridge around the nation. Including articles from a non-professional "writer" and not including articles from industry professionals such as sited here would seem to also further a POV and not create "balance" as sought for --WestRidgeAuthorized

9. Any invitations to attend an antagonistic group dedicated to the destruction of West Ridge Academy (see thier site at http://web.mac.com/goodk/www.MormonGulag.com/Main.html) is not useful. Though they may not be useful in your opinion, the academy is not without controversy, and Eric's website has garnered some attention, so it does need to be represented I think.--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Agreed - Represent it - but represent it honestly.... not as journalists, but as individuals with a POV opposing the Academy. Let's call it what it is... then cite the sites. No problem! --WestRidgeAuthorized

10. Eric Norwood likewise refuses to allow his file from West Ridge Academy to be made public so that the public can see what his reasons were for attendance, whether he completed the program successfully or not, and whether or not there were abuses received by, or handed out by Mr. Nowood during his stay at West Ridge. Perhaps you can suggest a specific edit on this one? Do you have a news article or source explaining what you are saying? If so, I will gladly add that info to the controversy section as a rebuttal--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) It would be against HIPPA for me to discuss any details of Mr. Norwood's stay at West Ridge. I only reference his stay in rebuttal to his own public admittance of being there. Likewise, it is against company policy to discuss legal actions, pending, proposed, contemplated or otherwise. Instead of quoting any existing letters or requests which were made privately, I will simply ask here, publicly, if Mr. Norwood and his associates are willing to allow West Ridge Academy to open their personal treatment files to the public so that the public can see all of the information leading up to and including his stay. If he refuses here, you have citation. --WestRidgeAuthorized

11. All references to the web.archive.org.... appear to be from the old Utah Boys Ranch and still have copyright marks at the bottom - but West Ridge Academy did not give its permission for their copy and re-publishing, nor do we accept that the articles are indeed genuine. I am not an expert on wikipedia policy with respect to copyrights and the web.archive site - can someone else chime in?--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) More specifically - any references from an organization from 10 years ago ran under a different name, under different leadership, with completely different executives etc., is likely of interest only to those looking for opportunities for misquoting. Current information can be had by contacting state licensure (which I have referenced) or other professional organizations that review West Ridge (which I have cited) or by contacting the National Association for THerapeutic Schools and Programs (http://natsap.com). It is not found in discussion of past leaders, past articles etc. It is not unlike gauging a Caddilac CTS by the Cimmaron of the 80's. Yes, they both bore the Caddilac name. Or, it is like comparing the 2009 CHicago Bulls NBA team to the Chicago Bulls team of the 1990s. Same name, maybe even some same employees, but comparison is unrealistic. Likewise, comparing West Ridge Academy of today to the Utah Boys Ranch of 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago is likewise unrealistic and problematic. Thus, archived web articles chosen to support a POV are inappropriate, just as it would be inappropriate to compare the Eric Norwood of Today to the Eric Norwood 15 years ago... --WestRidgeAuthorized

In short, all of the information provided in the currently "locked" document is defamatory and inaccurate. It is misleading and breaches copyright and outright misrepresents the truth. West Ridge Academy seeks for this article to be removed, even if the entire topic must be removed. Use of any of the true third party articles would be acceptable or publications from its current web site etc.

Please advise on next steps.WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First, becoming a registered contributor is a good step. It demonstrates commitment to the project and facilitates editing interaction.

Let's talk about some of your comments:

1. Senator Buttars - I think he is mentioned in the context of being a founder/director. I am not a fan of this being cited, but actions by the director impact the school and can at times impact the reputation of a school. In that his violation occurred at the Academy, it will be difficult to say is should not be cited.
2. A quote is acceptable, but put it in quotes and add the reference.
3. I think a lot of your past edits, if you were the Anon was making the edits, begin We or Our; we do not speak in first person ever. We can quote experts and reliable references, but that is all.
4. If there are references about the individuals from different faiths that would be very important to mention.
5. It is appropriate to identify sources and where they come from; blogs are not acceptable references. Please review reliable references to confirm.
6. All copyrights are or should be respected on Wikipedia.

If I did not address anything from your comments it is because I personally saw nothing wrong with adding it to the article. One of the historical problems with this article is that it started as an attack piece by those who supported the Gulag blog. This topic has narrow interest by the body of editors of Wikipedia and additional information will be helpful. Please review some of our policies before editing to understand the value of neutrality. Facts by reliable references will always win out at the end of the day here. Glad to have you on board as a registered editor.

When you are ready to edit, propose it here first and let's see what other editors think. --^StormRider 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am already fixing some of the problems raised.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We should keep those with a conflict of interest from editing this page. WestRidgeAuthorized, please review wiki's NPOV policy. It appears as though this was the same anonymous user making disruptive edits earlier ( see comments on Norwood's personal records ).

From what I can see on the discussion page, the "Utah Boys Ranch Network" was blocked from editing this article, as they should be. WestRidgeAuthorized should also be blocked from editing and creating a sock puppet. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose removing the additions stating that the Academy has no license infractions and is subject to unannounced visits. That comment was added by a representative of the school (WP:HOST, WP:NPOV) and there is absolutely no references for that statement. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, no - I added it. And I included a citation request.--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would you add it? There is no reference for it. What is Wikipedia's policy on using the site for promotional purposes? I was under the impression that the anti-West Ridge group was banned, why is "WestRidgeAuthorized" allowed to edit after making several disruptive edits and being warned by several editors? It seems like the article is getting less and less neutral. By the way, I will register so I can continue to edit different articles on this site. I am very pleased with the editors conflict resolution on this article. Thank you. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I add it? It is a statement of fact given in good faith that counterbalances the controversial edits which I believe helps us maintain neutrality. Notice I added a citation request? I would like to see it sourced and if it is not I am sure the statement will be removed. Do you have a citation that refutes that statement? If so, let me know and I will remove it. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the problems raised by West Ridge - I made the assumption that the proposals were made in good faith, so I accepted most of them. See my comments in the numbered list above, and in the article itself.--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no reference for it and it is likely unverifiable. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person making the claim? Also, why was a citation needed box added to the word "Journalist"? This seems like a punitive statement that is not neutral in point of view. Eric Norwood has been published in several places, including a newspaper in California. See here: http://web.mac.com/goodk/www.MormonGulag.com/Contact_Utah_Boys_Ranch_Network_West_Ridge_Academy_Mormon_Gulag_Utah_Boys_Ranch.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.49.1 (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When an Anon editor registers, the registered name is not a sock puppet of the Anon. A sock puppet results when a registered editor creates/registers under a new name. I don't think this applies to this new user; although I suspect that this new user is the same user that was prviously an Anon editor.

No group is banned; we do not have such a policy. Individual editors may be blocked for periods of time for repeated disruptive edits. The way to prevent being blocked is not to repeatedly make disruptive edits while also ignoring warnings. Being published does not make an individual a journalist; a journalist is a term used for professionals. Does that make sense to you? --^StormRider 01:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest Storm, it doesn't really make sense. Eric Norwood claims to be a journalist, I found at least one published newspaper article (in about ten seconds of searching) by him (referenced below). What else would be required in order to call him a "journalist." His "Trapped In A Mormon Gulag" article is also all over the Internet. I'm not sure what defines a journalist (I'm a lowly civil servant :) but it appears as though the title is being removed in order to discredit him, which does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia. But I honestly don't see the big deal in calling him a journalist, especially if he has been published in multiple places. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See edits under numbers above --WestRidgeAuthorized

PROPOSED ARTICLE - Removal of COI/POV

Please review the following and add edits/commentary to help create an appropriate version of the Article for West Ridge Academy.

The current version has been created by a group whose mission is to destroy West Ridge (See their sited home page). The owners and operators of West Ridge will also have a POV/COI problem but are dedicated to accepting genuine third party input and edits that accurately represent the facts, not allegations, assumptions or history that is not relevant to current operations or practices.

Thank you for your support and assistance.

[6]

Please provide a reference indicating the "current article was created by a group whose mission is to destroy West Ridge Academy." I don't see the Mormon Gulag blog being used as a reference, and see that nearly all the current references are from the official Utah Boys Ranch web site or a third party reference. Please also review the IP address for "WestRidgeAuthorized" to ensure this is not the sock puppet of the original ANON editor who vandalized the original article. The proposed article is almost identical to the previous edits WP:HOST and is equally biased and lacking a NPOV. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone take a chill pill

Chill out everyone - I think the article is getting to a more stable state now - both West Ridge's edits, and the controversial content will likely be represented to make sure there is WP:NPOV.--Descartes1979 (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is locked, please review the citation needed box around the word Journalist. The reference can be found here:

http://web.mac.com/goodk/www.MormonGulag.com/Contact_Utah_Boys_Ranch_Network_West_Ridge_Academy_Mormon_Gulag_Utah_Boys_Ranch.html--76.23.49.1 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am hesitant to call him a journalist based on his own web site - but maybe I am being too cynical. (Not that it really matters to the content though.) Is there a better reference for that? --Descartes1979 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Call him a 'writer' instead--that's undeniably accurate. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with calling him a writer, but I did dig up an article from "The Signal," the newspaper referenced on his website. http://oldsite.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=49022&format=html. I think journalist is appropriate, and it seems like it is only in dispute because the representatives from West Ridge Academy want very badly to discredit him. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The question here is not one of discrediting the "writer" but putting it in perspective. The only articles cited are those from one POV. The Writer went back and sought for archived (and outdated) web information that no longer applies to support a POV, posted media coverage from himself that supports a POV, but did not go back and post all of the articles during that same 10 year period that might have had a different POV. I gave three current examples (above) of postings from industry professionals. These show up on any search on the first page, but these are not cited. Neither are the countless articles from local papers over the past decade which support a view different than the WRiters. (One current article cited above by example).

The concern is not one of factuality, but one of relevance and balance. Per my statement above, I could quote bad press for hours about the Caddilac Cimmaron circa 1984, but the CTS of today is a much different animal. Likewise, I could likely find plenty of questionable practices using TODAY's standards for many companies from 10 or 15 years ago. The question is not what WERE they, but what ARE they. WERE is interesting ONLY if it is used to show what it has become. So, that Datsun was a cute, little-known automaker in the 70s is interesting ONLY if it used to show how it grew into the giant Toyota is today. That the old Utah Boys Ranch used currently common practices in 1990 and no longer uses the same clinical practices today is not only to be expected, but applauded. Places like Wiki are not meant for battles of POV, which this has been and continues to be. It cannot be neutral unless every article is posted, and every change is noted, and current practices are cited from current clinical manuals and so on and so on... That is why I petitioned the removal of the entire topic - because there will always be some level of disagreement on proper representation. Those that oppose the Academy will seek to slant towards their view. Those that give their life's work to the academy, likewise. I would be pleased to simply state that it is a Residential Treatment facility and cite external links so that users can judge by those sites, not who wins the wiki-war, what is what. But, until that happens, I will continue to seek to point out imbalances just as those opposed will seek to do the same. It is a tragic, and horrible waste of time and energy. I would prefer to be helping troubled kids, instead of fighting over wiki-entries. --WestRidgeAuthorized —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestRidgeAuthorized (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

West Ridge, please advise how contesting the title "journalist" is putting things in perspective. Thank you. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE REVIEW: The Utah Boys Ranch in the past claimed to "have elected to operate completely free from the restraints imposed by governmental grants, subsidies, or contracts." The Utah Boys Ranch Director stated that "the facts indicate that our government believes the laws governing separation of church and state are violated when governmenr [sic] dollars are used in any program that promotes and teaches religious principles."

This statement on the current article was taken grossly out of context. The remainder of the site indicates that in 1999, the Utah Boys Ranch opted to no longer accept state contracts for adjudicated and other teens that were wards of the state. This decision came due to the desire to continue its mission which included both moral and spiritual elements. The State of Utah required that the spiritual elements be removed to allow for the contract to continue. This statement from the then acting Director was a statement that the Boys Ranch would give up the State funding rather than give up the spiritual emphasis and elements. It was not a statement of separation from licensure or proper operations, but one that indicated that it no longer would maintain state contracts for students. This is grossly misleading and should be quantified or deleted --WestRidgeAuthorized —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestRidgeAuthorized (talk • contribs) 04:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link for "the remainder of the site." I just reviewed the article again at it appears as though the context, as per referenced, is correct. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WRA, could you provide some links to some of those articles you mentioned? My apologies if you've already done so and I missed it. BTW, you can sign your posts by putting 4 ~s at the end of it. It helps the rest of us keep track of who said what. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy edits

Maybe I'm confused, but it seems like West Ridge Academy's involvement with this article is extremely inappropriate. (it appears) as though they began by making disruptive, anonymous edits and only registered after the article was locked. They clearly have a vested interest in the organization looking as good as possible, and considering that those who want the organization to look bad were banned, this does not seem like it is fair to allow them to continue to make un-NPOV edits. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not making edits. They are discussing edits on the talk page, which is appropriate. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They made multiple disruptive edits that were reverted by moderators. They are now trying to impose those disruptive edits (i.e contesting the title "journalist" and using the term writer with "quotes" around it. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This user is making no contests that other, outside parties haven't made. If you are a Journalist, provide the credentials. Creating articles on blogs, or editorials in newspapers or you-tube videos do not qualify an individual to be a journalist. If the term writer is offensive, provide graduation information and credentials. This author has been published in numerous magazines and white papers and industry journals, but my credentials are in the Sciences (BS in Computer Science) and MBA - Finance. None of those credentials, nor my published works in various trade rags qualify me to be a journalist. Taking exception to how you are labled is a strong indication of COI, not an indication of strong interest in article neutrality. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a journalist. I am not Eric Norwood, either. I take exception to you contesting the term "journalist" in order to discredit your detractors. Clearly you have a COI and should not be trusted to make any edits on this page. This article is not a promotional venue. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear as to why it is assumed that this user has made many historical inappropriate edits. This IP serves hundreds of users. Many of those served by this IP are, legitimately or not, upset and outraged at the article created by what they feel is a one-sided POV author that only posts articles about past controversy and allegations of wrongdoings and does no research of postings of positive outcomes, reviews or current policies, procedures and oversight. I cannot help that. This user has only followed process and procedure and sought for WIki input as for best practices to more appropriately balance the article. This user has made no edits to the article directly. This user has proposed changes and his own sub page has been created for edits, which 76.23.49.1 has removed all description and left the two controversy articles alone. I would think that it is not this users involvement that should be questioned. Ask yourself this simple question - what neutral or positive information have you posted regarding this topic? I provided 3 articles in #8 above that are current, relevant, and from unbiased 3rd parties. I referenced the current state licensure regulations and current web site. Again, what non-controversial or slanted information have you provided? WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is West Ridge Academy libeling Eric Norwood in this discussion? --76.23.49.1 (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They are welcome to contest on the talk page. Due to their COI they are strongly discouraged from editing the main article. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Remaining Problems and Citations Requested

(Note - some of the issues previously found here have been cut and pasted below under more clear headings)

Citation for Licensure Practices and Oversight and review: The programs are licensed on an annual basis with periodic visits from a Licensing Specialist to monitor and provide technical assistance and to insure compliance with Core and Categorical Rules of Treatment that govern programs and facilities throughout the State. - http://www.hslic.utah.gov/youthtreatment.htm.

Citations added. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Current License: All Licenses are a public record - http://www.hslic.utah.gov/aboutlicenses.htm.

Citations added. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

POV issue - "Fascination with the word - Mormon". The board of directors is not composed solely of LDS individuals. Some members, both past and current are or were prominent LDS leaders. The statement would lead readers to believe that all members are "mormon". This is not the case

Accuracy Issue: Richard Eyre and mary Ellen Smoot are not members of the board of directors. They exist on an advisory board only and are not members of the Board of Directors. http://westridgeacademy.com/categories/79/Default.aspx

Was this web page just changed? I could have sworn the title of Advisory Board was not there yesterday. In fact, two of us took the Eyres and Smoots off the board only to readd them because information on them was located under the heading Board of Directors, although not on the top list. Alanraywiki (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There was an error on the web site. There were two "Board of Directors" Headings which, gratefully, this discussion pointed out. This was corrected. This is also correct on the 990 filings. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that for the time being we should not consider the West Ridge Academy web site a reliable source of information about the academy. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is illogical that West Ridge would alter its primary site to manipulate a wikipedia article. To the extent that any source discovers a typographical or other content error, West Ridge will fix the page. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that for the time being, the West Ridge Academy web site is very suspect. I don't understand why they are allowed to push their particular POV on this web article. Clearly they have a COI and it appears as though they are modifying their website in order to alter the content of this article. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I updated the list of board members, although I still wonder if the page was changed. I also changed the reference to the IRS Form 990 filing as a more reliable source, and that citation does not show Eyre and Smoot on the board. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

POV Issue: Why mention past members filtered by reigious affiliation only. Mentioning only past board members that were Mormon would indicated pushing a particular bias or POV. Either mention all past board members, or none, but not only the "Mormon ones".

Please reference what board members are not "Mormon ones." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.49.1 (talk • contribs)

I agree: WRA, if you can provide a comprehensive list of former board members and their religious affiliations, that will help to determine whether the article in its current form focuses disproportionately on Mormon board members. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indicating religious preference of any board member would be an invasion of privacy, just as indicating religious preference of any employee. If the information is publicly known and documented, that is fine, but to intimate that they are all Mormon without citation is unfounded. Stating each members preference would be inappropriate. Wiki sources should know this. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

POV Issue: Why mention a Past Logo that, again, may have a Mormon influence only. What about all other Logos and mottos? Why exclude them? "Do what is right" is included in a Mormon Hymn. It is also a catch Phrase used by wikiHOW: http://www.wikihow.com/Train-Your-Conscience-to-Do-What-Is-Right, It is also the Merck Code of Conduct. Perhaps, of most relevance, the quote started, as far as we know, with Ludvig Van Beethoven “Then let us all do what is right, strive with all our might toward the unattainable, develop as fully as we can the gifts God has given us, and never stop learning”: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/then_let_us_all_do_what_is_right-strive_with_all/192296.html. So, to quote this as a mormon hymn line is accurate, but Biased and slanted towards POV.

The full quotation from the Utah Boys Ranch logo read "Do What Is Right, Let The Consequence Follow," which appears to have particular relevance in Mormon scripture. I think it is reasonable to conclude that it signifies a Mormon influence on the Utah Boys Ranch philosophy, but have added the full quote to the article to provide unambiguous context. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please cite the Mormon Scripture to which you are referring. Again, citing snly a single logo from many that supports the "Mormon centric" POV is a COI. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A Google search for "do what is right" "let the consequence follow" turns up many references, almost exclusively quotations of LDS writings, speeches, scripture and hymns. I do not think it is necessary to provide additional documentation. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue here should be restated. The logo is neither good nor bad - let the reader decide. What is inappropriate is that it is represented as with many other indications as a "mormon thing". This is also neither good nor bad, but we dont typically talk about the "golden Rule" as a catholic thing, or "a penny saved..." as a masonic thing.... WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Quotation/POC: The First Paragraphy under Controversy, if left alone, would lead reasonably individuals to believe that the claim was that the Boys Ranche wanted to operate outside of the control of State or Federal Government or oversight. The entire article discusses a time when the Ranch opted to no longer accept placements by the State of State-funded youth. The decision was made to no longer accept these adjudicated teens because the state required the removal of spiritual elements of the program. Thus, the Boys Ranch at that time was faced with the decision of taking State-Funded kids and changing their mission and vision to no longer include any spiritual elements, or to reject the state placement contract (Not state oversight and governance) and find clients in other ways.

Please address and correct WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the paragraph to make the context for that claim clear. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat more clear. I would recommend adding, The boys ranch as of 1999, during a time when it was divesting itself of all state contracts......described its goal.... WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality / Inflamatory Language: The second paragraph indicates that Eric Norwood "published an articale detailing abuses and controversial practices." This should be "published an article detailing alleged abuses and alleged controversial practices." unless there is some sitation of legal findings to the contrary. His Web Blog / YouTube campaign alleging abuse does not make it so, thus... alleged is required for neutrality.

A fair point. I have changed "detailing" to "alleging." Tim Pierce (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation pending WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Spirituality; role and who guides

Mormon missionaries are used as spiritual counselors on campus according to references provided. Is there any information on their training, background, and qualifications? Also, are there any counselors of other religions represented on campus and interacting with youth?

Unrelated: is there anywhere we can find out how long the current director has served? I could not find it on the website for the academy. Also, who is Proficio Mgt? That organization and the leadership of the academy seemed to be the same. What is the realtionship?--^StormRider 16:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Proficio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of West Ridge Academy (actually, of Children and Youth Services Inc.) according to their 990. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdated Sign

(Note - moved from above for clarity)

Accuracy Issue: The picture shows a "Utah Boys Ranch Campus" sign that does not exist.

That claim does not seem credible. I think you must offer some evidence that the subject of the picture does not exist. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How Can I show that the sign does not exist? Can you prove that it does? As you state so often, the burden of proof that it is current and exists lies with you. The current picture from the same vantage point is shown here: http://westridgeacademy.com/pages/287/Default.aspx - The name "Utah Boys Ranch" has been removed from all materials, signage, buildings etc., as of its change back in 2005. It is not logical that we would retain old signs four years after a major name change. Please use any of the existing photos found at http://westridgeacademy.com/pages/287/Default.aspx. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The author of the existing picture at File:WestRidgesign.jpg says that the picture was taken in December 2008. I have no reason to disbelieve that claim. I do not doubt that the sign has been taken down, but as you seem to agree that it is a legitimate image of a sign that appeared on the site in the past, I do not see the problem. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is laughable. First you want me to prove that the sign doesn't exist... Now you see no problem with a sign that you agree has been taken down. If you want a historical sign posted, fine, but annotate it appropriately. "Historical Sign used prior to Name Change in Early 2005" The name change is a matter of public record. As of 2005, there was no more Utah Boys Ranch. If the intent of Wiki is a neutral POV, than asking for proof of the non-existance of something is comical at best. Have the author park his car next to the sign with his current 2009 license plates or some such if you really want proof. Proving something does NOT exist is inconsistent with Wiki. Use an old picture to further point users mind towards the Utah Boys Ranch (not West Ridge Academy) if you wish - just annotate it correctly. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how a sign like this, either with the former name or with the current name, adds any value to the article. Photographs of the building or grounds would be helpful, but not a sign with directions. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - other than having the"utah boys ranch" name on it - it is not relevant. Plenty of current pictures of current facilities are avaialable at source site. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to the existing photo, but it is the only free photo that we presently have of the West Ridge facility. We cannot upload pictures from third-party web sites for copyright reasons. If you can upload some of those photos to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under a free image license, we can use them in this article. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my first reaction was that I thought you were claiming the photo had been faked. That would be a very unusual charge, and I would have needed you to offer some evidence that the photo had been altered. That is why I responded the way I did. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. No intimation of fraud was intended, just that it focussed attention on old names etc., I will upload some pix presently. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's either use current photos uploaded to commons, or annotate this picture correctly. It is not a WRA sign. If you want it to stay, annotate "Past Sign used while Firm was Named Utah Boys Ranch". To make things VERY easy, I have annotated on the Official Web Site on these three pages that all pictures of facilities are provided for use on the public domain. If current pictures are needed, these are also now all available legally. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the narrative under the sign and hope that a current picture will replace it. --^StormRider 14:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles Assessing West Ridge are from Single POV

(Note - thread moved from above for clarity)

POV Issue: Citing controversial articles that question the practices of a past organization and seeking to push those into present is questionable - but acceptable as long as the language is appropriate. However, not publishing articles on the Other side of the argument goes to forwarding one POV. From my argument above... it would be appropriate to include articles with either neutral or opposite bias. I have included Three neutral, third party, current references, and one that would likely be viewed as more biased, though it was a journalistic effort from a local widely distributed professional newspaper. (Deseret News).

So you are asking to remove anything that is biased unless it is in favor of your organization? Please review WP:Host--76.23.49.1 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No request to remove anything was made here. The indication is that to have only one POV set of articles is not neutral or balanced. Include ALL of the articles, particularly ones from disinterested third parties. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

8. Articles from disgruntled former clients are not third party nor without bias. Some articles from 3rd party reviewing bodies include the Private School Review (http://www.privateschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/27854#Editor), Woodbury Reports (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5382.shtml ) and College Bound Network (http://www.collegebound.net/content/article/boarding-school-spotlight-west-ridge-academy/8574/) - all of which are organizations that review programs like West Ridge around the nation.

From the Deseret News - A local, high distribution Daily Newspaper - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20090415/ai_n31538696/

WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The allegations by former students have received coverage in some major media (most notably Andrew Sullivan's blog, and they're sufficiently notable that the should be mentioned in context--despite the fact that they are WP:Primary sources. What would be really nice is if folks could find some news stories that covered the allegations in more detail. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon, what is going on with the "journalist" title for Eric Norwood? Can that be added back, considering the references I provided earlier. I find it very interesting and suspect that West Ridge Academy is contesting this, in order to discredit one of their detractors. --76.23.49.1 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "journalist" title altogether, since I do not think it is relevant to bicker about his "title." It is not important at this point how to describe his occupation; what is important is what he wrote. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It only became important when the official representatives from West Ridge Academy tried to discredit the writer. I find that extremely troubling. I propose the term writer, as that is more accurate and informative than what is there now. Furthermore, there is no reference for the academy being "infraction" free. The website only lists that they have a license, not that there have been no complaints filed. Please review. --DoyleCB (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact, I think the flow of the article is better without any title there at all, even if there had not been an argument over which word to use. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point about the claim of "no license infractions on file" lacking a source. I have removed that claim. Presumably if there are license infractions on file, someone can source them and they can be added. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are we arguing about a title here? If he is a bone fide Journalist, does that give more credibility to his allegations (which still need to be called allegations btw). Call Mr. Norwood what you wish. I do not see any citations indicating journalistic education or certifications or diplomas. Where one is published or quoted as arguable. The topic here is not the credibility of Mr. Norwood. The references under "Controversy" to his sites are acceptable and he can claim to be whatever he wants in those venues. However, similar attention must be given to others that claim to be professionals as well that may have a different POV, or no POV. Add the articles provided as a balance. Giving the readers only Mr. Norwoods articles to read is a COI and supports only one POV. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually think it is necessary or appropriate to add references to positive blog posts about the West Ridge Academy in order to achieve a balanced tone. It is not necessary to give each "side" equal airtime in order to maintain a neutral point of view. The core description of the Academy essentially sets the tone for the article -- in a way it is the Academy's POV. The "controversy" section simply acknowledges an existing noteworthy claim about the practices at the Academy. I think the tone in the article is sufficiently neutral as it stands. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that negative or controversial web/blog articles that assess past practices are relevant, but Independant, 3rd Party assessments of current practices are not? 16:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that I don't think the links you have offered would add anything of significance to the article that isn't already there. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So, is there anything in the article that shows any third party assessment, qualified or not, except from a Controversial Point of View? — WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason not to add the links to 3rd party, independent inspections; in fact, it would be highly prejudicial not to include them. Let's get a grip on what neutrality means. A blog, Mormon Gulag, has no review, is highly biased, and is more screed than review is included but 3rd party inspections don't add anything? You're kidding right? --^StormRider 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not kidding. The West Ridge Academy's mission and goals are very solidly sourced at this point. What does http://www.privateschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/27854#Editor (to take one example) add to the article? Tim Pierce (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WestRidge, please sign your name typing four tildes "~" it is found in the top left of your keyboard. Somehow we are getting small font command when from your edits and it distorts every other edit thereafter.--^StormRider 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gladly and thank you for this input WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Twp, you remvoed the Mormon Gulag link; was that intentional? Although I don't view Mormon Gulag as a reliable referencne, I think it belongs as an Exterior link for no other reason than to note their existence and their relationship with the academy.

As far as the other two links that I added, both are 3rd party reviews of the academy. Their review would be valuable to readers who seek a 3rd party, objective review of academy itself. --^StormRider 18:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your assistance. We are down to a few minor issues and making good progress. Our thanks again WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

why remove the Mormon gulag site? It seems extremely biased to reference the web sites of organizations that are commissioned by the facility and not a website solely dedicated to discussing it and exposing it.--166.134.67.110 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mormon Gulag site is already referenced as the source for the Eric Norwood article. Adding it in "External Links" is redundant. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically we don't use See Also to repeat links that have already been made; I am not sure how this applies to the Exterior links section. Does anyone know what the policy is? --^StormRider 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My reading of Wikipedia:External_links#References_and_citation is that if a link has been used as a formal reference then it should not be included under "External Links". I realize that page is a guideline, not policy, but I think it's appropriate to follow it here. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the deal with the Choose the right thing? If we are going to list things from the past, it needs to be clearly marked when did it begin and when did it end? Is there a motto used today for the academy? If so, let's list that. --^StormRider 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the "Do the Right Thing / Let the Consequence Follow" motto, it was cited (properly, I think) as a former motto of the organization as evidence of the ranch's Mormon influence. WRA disagrees that this motto has anything to do with a Mormon point of view but I think it is relevant. I don't think there's any dispute that this motto is no longer in use. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.

All slogans, mottos, mission statements etc., from the Utah Boys Ranch were disbandoned in 2005 when West Ridge Academy replaced the Utah Boys Ranch as the primary business entity.

There is no Motto for the boys and girls today, but the Academy uses, as its tag line and even on its marker to the property "Offering Hope and Healing" - This is on every web page, brochure etc. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits in this category WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

It appears as though the Mormon Gulag was removed as a link and sites that promote West Ridge Academy were added. Why not add all of them? It appears as though this article is becoming a marketing tool for West Ridge Academy. Please revert the edit to include the mormongulag.com website, considering it is a site solely dedicated to informing the public about their opinion of West Ridge Academy. It is much more informative than the sites that were added today. --DoyleCB (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mormon gulag site should be added back. These are serious, notable charges and they need to be at least mentioned. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think the Gulag site belongs; I think I said that above. I have noticed that Tall has already added it back so that should take issue off the table. Thanks for doing that. --^StormRider 20:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See above: the Mormon Gulag site is already mentioned in the article, as a source for the Eric Norwood material. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Board of Directors

Since topics seem to run together, I will post single topics in single areas henceforth

the current article indicates that "Former Utah State Senator Delpha Baird, former West Jordan, Utah Police Chief Ken McGuire, and former West Jordan Court Judge Ronald Kunz were all members of the founding Board of Trustees.[12]"

This is incorrect. These names are taken from a 1999 archive. Members of the "founding Board of Trustees" did not include any of these.

WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Founding Memebers" of the Board of Directors included Dr. Lowell Bennion, Gordon Madsen, Normand Gibbons and Dix McMullin.

There have been numerous, notable board members over the years. Many of these are or were LDS (Mormon). A majority of the board has typically been Mormon. Others, including two fathers and rone reverend, were not LDS. Many of these figures are Utah icons and leaders in industry.

Please, at a minimum, correct the incorrect listing of founding members. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - I removed the word "founding" - Lets see a reference before we start listing names of the founders.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not concerned about listing or not listing board members - just making sure that whichever is done is done accurately and without POV emphasis added. Thank you for this edit. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I can provide, from West Ridge Academy records, a list of prominent LDS and non-LDS board members. There is no public web site that I know about that carries this list. It is an internal record that I could certainly put up on the West Ridge Official Site, but the records are with the State Registrar in archives, and not listed online. This is your call. IF you want the list, I will provide it. If not, I am ok with where things presently stand. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If possible, it would be helpful to add the current board of directors. The article currently identifies the religious affiliation of some individuals; it would be helpful to identify the religious affiliation of all people. Of course, I am not sure it if relevant, but if it is mentioned we should be complete in identification.--^StormRider 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are the lists you asked for

Current Board of Directors

Debi Gilmore - Barrie Giles Howard Schmidt John Anderson W. Dean Belnap Sharlene Bentley Lavar Christensen Shane Evertsen Patrick McBride Nate Shipp Robert Stubbs Colleen Thompson John White Sally Wyne

Current Advisory Board - Stan and Mary Ellen Smoot Richard and LInda Eyre

Notable Members of Past Boards Lowell Bennion David Marriott Don Fulmer Emil Fetzer Ken Garff Dr. John Bevan Reverend Douglass Lobb Father Jerald Merrill Judge Frank Wilkins Phillip Rusk Dr. Ralph Moffatt Gov. Norman Bangerter Ronald Eubanks Neil Harding Judge Stirling Bossard David Featherstone Paul Tingey Thomas Ivory Mona Daniels Roger Clawson Delpha Baird Lynn DeBry Steve Ogden Ron Simmons Ronald Kunz

Since the list of past directors is buried in the 990 forms in state archives, I have no reference. Likewise, I cannot, for privacy sake, indicate religious preference for any of these, though some of them by title (Father/Reverend etc) should be obvious. West Ridge has no problem indicating that the majority of board members over the years have been LDS (Mormon).

WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We are going to need a reference for some of these names (see names added to article). Is there anyway that the Academy can provide a reference, add it to their website, etc? Thanks. --^StormRider 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Gladly - Please find the complete history of leadership and board membership here

WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete Header

NOTE - Header is incomplete. West Ridge Academy serves both Young Men and Young Women, not just "BOYS" WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for which we can correct this error? Something from the westridge website perhaps? --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly... from the front page of the site... "Since 1964, West Ridge Academy has been offering hope and healing to young men, young women and their families by providing quality clinical services, education, and experiences which promote spiritual awareness, personal accountability and change of heart."

Also - From the External Links...as of June 2006 Report "At one time, the West Ridge campus was just for boys, but recently they have added an adjunct girls program with the two campuses being adjacent to each other. However, both programs are run completely independent of each other, and although they currently share the cafeteria, they do not use it at the same time."

Is this sufficient?? WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Added to the article.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, nicely done WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

COI Tag

An editor added the COI tag, but there is no explanation on the discussion page that identifies the editor and what biased content has been added as required. If it is not explained here, I will delete the tag from the article.--^StormRider 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the tag based on the objections that WestRidgeAuthorized (t c) initially presented. I have no objection to its removal. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the tag. West Ridge Academy clearly has a conflict of interest and has proposed many edits that cast the facility in what I believe to be an innacurately positive light.--32.158.101.30 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A variety of viewpoints and proposed edits are being discussed on this talk page. The editors that are actually editing the article have no such COI issues. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WestRidgeAuthorized has made NO edits, but has brought POV/COI issues to light. The very phrase above "in what I believe to be an inaccurately positive light" indicates a strong POV. I have no problem removing the COI tag as the article has undergone multiple changes since its original form. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. There does seem to be a bit more of a level field in the reporting of facts now, but the article still has a way to go.--^StormRider 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your assistance WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Major reorganization and restructuring

The article was pretty weird and hard to follow, so I reorganized it - and grouped like topics together. Now I think it is much more readable - though the Controversy section has what I think is a little disproportionate emphasis. Whatever your view - please review for accuracy and citations. I think we have addressed the factual errors and any misleading information suggesting current practices which are really legacy practices. At this point for my part, I am more concerned with the factual accuracy of the article. The rest of you can quibble about the controversy of the facility and make sure the "editorial" is something everyone can agree on.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done and nice editing.

You are welcome to remove the "The Academy resists such characterization" line - the Academy does not resist being tagged as a program that focuses on moral and spiritual values.

The concluding paragraph is still misleading. It would be more clear by doing two things, First - add the year of the statement "Back in 1999 the Utah Boys Ranch...." and second, add a final sentence such as ... "As such, West Ridge Academy does not admit state-funded youth but draws its clients from private-pay sources." The purpose of that final paragraph (Back in 1999) was to inform the public, be it badly worded, that the firm would no longer accept state-funded clients.

WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Any Thoughts Here? WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

TWO SPELLING ERRORS: Opening Paragraph ... "West Ridge Academy at one time was a campus only for buys"(Should be "Boys") and Last Sentence - separation of church and state are violated when governmenr [sic] (Should be "government") —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestRidgeAuthorized (talk • contribs) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed "boys". The other sentence contained an incorrect spelling in the source, hence the "sic", but I did not change it because it is a quote. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Buttars

I propose editing the article to indicate Chris Buttars still receives a salary from the Academy. According to their 2007 tax filing he receives more than fifty thousand dollars in compensation. This seems to contradict the statements from the Academy claiming Buttars has no involvement with the facility. Thank you. --DoyleCB (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These two things may not be inconsistent. Can anyone find documentation for when Buttars resigned? Tim Pierce (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That section of the 990 is for former employees, and he receives no salary, only pension benefits like any other retiree. Alanraywiki (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Chris Buttars mentioned in the article because he served for fifteen years as director or is he mentioned because while he was director he violated Utah election law for having election materials in his office (I think that was the issue of the "controversy")? Was he dishonorable in some other way? Maybe we can break out the history section from the controversy section?--^StormRider 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that non-profit charities had "retirees." I believe this should be added to the article.--DoyleCB (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost all non-profit charities have retirees, and most have retirement plans. There is nothing significant about this. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy only has one, and has been "offering hope and healing since 1964." They also claim that Chris Buttars has nothing to do with the facility. That is factually incorrect. He has a pension from them. Which is public record. I am unable to find any such similar non-profit that has retiree's or retirement plans. --DoyleCB (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That is strange, I just did a search for non-profits and retirement and found over 9,000,000 hits on google. It would seem that non-profits, on a large scale, offer retirement plans to their employees. In the future, try using google, the answer to your question was quite easy to ascertain.

Does Buttars have horns or is it just a rather biased view you have of him? I personally don't know the man, but you seem to have a very negative view. I know that he is LDS and I have heard they eat infants; he must have horns or a forked tail, or something demonic to garner this kind of attention. Cheers. --^StormRider 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm. I'd ask you to be more civil. I really don't think your comments are helpful or necessary. I am simply correcting the facility's erroneous statement that Buttars has no involvement with the "Academy." Thanks :) P.S I also notice you haven't compromised on any edits. That is discouraging. --DoyleCB (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Biased editing always has two sides. All editors have a POV and no one is without one; however, when a "side" becomes a bias it is easily recognizable. It is not bad, or wrong, but it is foolish to attempt to act as if it is not there. My last comments above was more an attempt at humor; I still think it is pretty funny. You have to remember that there are some pretty funny rumors about Mormons. You obviously have a thing going about Buttars as an individual and it is best to just admit; it is not wrong, but it is factual.

If you have a reference for saying that Buttars has a hidden relationiship of authority with the academy, let's see it. If not, please do not attempt to paint the fact that he retired from the school as something sinister; that's just plain silly and is not appropriate. I draw a line between bias and silliness. What you stated is that non-profits don't provide retirement plans and that was obviously incorrect. This is not serious and it is okay to laugh every now and then. --^StormRider 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to more accurately state that Buttars retired amid controversy over personal, non-Boys Ranch related issues. His retirement was due to personal issues, not issues about his leadership at the Boys Ranch. Properly separating the two is a more neutral, factual position. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor COI

I believe that Storm Rider has a strong Conflict of Interest. Look at his comments above. I feel like they are definitely uncivil comments. Furthermore, please provide one link to a non profit residential treatment facility that offers a retirement plan. Or to people that have "no affiliation" with the facility giving them the retirement package. That would be a "similar" facility. Thanks :) --DoyleCB (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly states he did have an affiliation with the facility. He has since retired from the position so he no longer has an affiliation. Just because someone receives retirement benefits from an organization does not mean they are still affiliated. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are two non profit residential treatment facilities selected at random from a Google search, and looking under the employee benefits section: [7] and [8]. You will see that the benefits for employees of nonprofits are pretty much the same as those of for-profit companies, including retirement plans. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Please add citation needed box for the past board members that have been added. There is absolutely no verifiable reference for such a claim.--DoyleCB (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mission Statement in Header?

Is allowing their mission statement and slogan in the header of this article the direction Wikipedia really wants to head with their articles? I thought that this might violate the Wiki Host policy? --66.74.10.34 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is done all the time on Wikipedia...as long as it is in quotes and referenced so that readers understand where it is coming from. Does that make sense? --^StormRider 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it adds to the article. When there was a negative description in the header, you said it didn't belong in the header but in the body. Why the double standard? Is your religion coloring your POV, Storm?--66.74.10.34 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

West Ridge Handbooks on Wikileaks

I am submitting a copy of the West Ridge Academy employee handbook and crisis intervention program training manual to Wikileaks as we speak. Would the editors allow a reference to those documents once they are up? I feel that some of the documents, such as the "Ecclesiastical release form" are very compelling and indicative of a different kind of West Ridge Academy than is being represented to the public. Thank you :)DoyleCB (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is the entire document where context can be verified, I see no problem. Are we able to verify that it belongs to West Ridge Academy and the date it was issued? --^StormRider 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is probably okay unless there are copyright issues. Wikileaks allows copyright violations, but Wikipedia cannot link to them. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All West Ridge Academy treatment handbooks, policies and procedure manuals, parent handbooks etc., are protected by copyright. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy handbooks are not protected by copyright as far as I can see. I guess West Ridge will have to file a complaint. Date issued was 2007 and it clearly is labeled by West Ridge Academy. DoyleCB (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DoyleCB: any work produced by a private entity is protected by copyright the moment it is set down in a tangible form. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. WP:LINKVIO states that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Alanraywiki (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if a staff member of West Ridge Academy overtly made public the documents than it is freely in public domain. Is that not correct? --DoyleCB (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem With External Links

Both "third party reviews" are not unsolicited. The "Academy" pays for these reviews. Please consider removing them.--DoyleCB (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not see anything that stated they were hired, but what appears evident is that both are professionally qualified to offer such reviews and both appear legitimate. More importantly, they are links and not mentioned in the article.

Your logic is weak here; you think it appropriate to link to a blog of opinions such as Mormon Gulag, but it is not approriate to link to third party, professional reviews? Both groups have professional status and qualifications. It would be much easier to delete a screed posing as unqualified opinion such as Mormon Gulag than a professional, third party review. --^StormRider 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I just got off the phone with a representative from Woodbury Reports Inc., operator of www.strugglingteens.com. He indicated to me that while they were not paid for writing a review of the facility they do receive compensation from parents for placing them in facilities. Currently, he has two boys placed in the facility both of whom were placed there after a paid consultation. He has visited the facility and while there did not even see work crew nor was information about this program provided. The fact that complete information about the program was not provided by West Ridge combined with the fact that Woodbury Reports Inc. receives compensation for placing children in facilities discredits this as a "third party review". The www.strugglingteens.com reference should be removed immediately from the article.--Drstrangelove1 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're saying that because parents pay Woodbury to place their kids in a facility, that Woodbury has a conflict of interest and cannot be considered a reliable source? I don't see the conflict of interest if Woodbury does not have a financial relationship with West Ridge Academy. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Strange, that is total nonsense. If I am a professional consultant paid by parents to review assorted schools, my opinion is professional; it's value is its objectiveity. If it were not objective no one would be willing to pay for hearing my professional review. You don't get a better third party review; if they found something wrong they would be the very first to say it and to recommend NOT putting children in the school. --^StormRider 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is sound logic in and of itself. Perhaps I can make it more clear. Both sources are what the industry calls "educational consultants". Storm Rider is spot on. They get paid to objectively assess treatment options and provide non-biased recommendations. They do not get paid or compensated from the schools they review as that would be an ethical conflict of interest and would create a circumstance where parents would not trust their opinion as objective. There are a number of national organizations that discuss their ethics such as WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When linking to a website, please do not use a "ref" command on the talk page; clicking on it does nothing and talk pages do not have a reference section at the end of the page as the article page does. Use a single bracket "[" at the beginning and "]" att he end. You can connect the link to a word; using your link above as an example, the last phrase would read: "There are a number of national organizations that discuss their ethics such as here. This will allow other editors to more quickly check your references. (easier to understand when reading in edit mode) Cheers. --^StormRider 14:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the patience and the education WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Woodbury - It should be called strugglingteens.com, DOES have a financial relationship with West Ridge Academy. They recieve a commission. The article is not a third party review, it is a sales pitch. It should be labeled as such. --66.74.10.34 (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your claim that Woodbury receives financial compensation from institutions and not parents? Please supply that reference and we would be happy to make the change. --^StormRider 17:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I am waiting for Larry, the president of strugglingteens.com, to provide me in writing the nature of the relationship with West Ridge Academy. Once I have that, I will publish online and reference here. --66.74.10.34 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Speculation - but inaccurate. West Ridge Academy does not pay any commissions to any educational consultants, including Woodbury. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a whole lot of speculation and confusion. The group providing the review is Woodbury and it is appropriately noted as such; Anon, you are confusing the website with the entity who completely the objective review of the academy. The statements that institutions pay the consulting firm appears without merit and is wholly speculative. --^StormRider 17:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

REFERENCE ABOUT WOODBURY - The answer is posted on Woodbury's site... " Educational consultants who are "independent" avoid entanglements, financial or otherwise, with schools or programs that might influence their recommendations to parents and children. Members of the IECA organization agree to follow "Principles of Good Practice," which includes the statement: "A consultant does not accept any compensation from educational institutions for placement of a child." This clear indicates that there is no financial compensation or relationship for placement etc. here WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Loaded terms

When the "academy" claims something, the language used is "state." When former students state that their is abuse and illegal practices at the facility, they make a "claim" or "note" something. I request the editors to amend the loaded terms within the article to make this more balanced. Please review WP:WEIGHT DoyleCB (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed claim to state on external link. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doyle, please review words to avoid. Claim should not be used for either side. Organizations make statements about themselves. The word claim is not found in the article now. I changed the single time critics "noted" something to allege also. I hope this meets your concern about loaded terms. Just to make clear, the term allege is defined as: 1. to assert without proof, 2. to declare with positiveness; affirm; assert: to allege a fact. 3. to declare before a court or elsewhere, as if under oath. 4. to plead in support of; offer as a reason or excuse. 5. Archaic. to cite or quote in confirmation. There is no negative connotation to the term. --^StormRider 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alan, your change was reverted by Storm. Is he a higher level than you? Why was this done. I think state, since even Storm admits that organizations make statements by themselves, is the correct term. West Ridge "Academy" is not the only "organization" involved in making statements about the facility. Please advise or undo the reverts by Storm. The word "allege" is not used at all for anything West Ridge Academy has claimed. Again, please review WP:WEIGHT

Example of a sentence needing correction due to use of loaded terms - "Critics of the academy allege that there are several indications that suggest what they characterize as a strong connection with..." This sentence should read (for brevity, if anything else) "Critics of the academy allege that there is a strong connection with..."

I can't help but think that if the most involved editor did not have a strong religious COI the sentence would be without loaded terms. Actually, it probably should read: "Former students of the 'academy' state that there is a strong connection with..." DoyleCB (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DoyleCB - as a new editor, I think you may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing processes. There are no "levels" defined, where a "higher" level person's edits trump a "lower" level person's edits. In fact, the first rule of the Wikipedia is to ignore all the rules, and one of the other most important guidelines is to be bold in your editing. If StormRider saw something that should be reverted, he has every right to just go ahead and revert it, and if Alan does not challenge that, there is no problem just running with the edit. If you have a problem with his revert, then we discuss and come to a consensus. I also suspect you have the term COI confused with POV. I think StormRider's edits can be more characterized as POV (which we all have - thats why consensus helps us get to NPOV) rather than a COI (though I know that line is greyish).--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How about we use proper grammar

When Storm reverted alanraywiki's edit (changing state to "allege") he or she failed to use proper grammar. Can someone fix the external link to reflect that someone with a grasp of english and grammar wrote it? thanks --DoyleCB (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Request 2

I request Storm Rider be removed as the main editor of this page. This editor is making edits without first reaching a consensus on the talk page. He/She added the term "service" to the Mormon Missionaries reference without any citation or reference indicating that they are in fact "service" missionaries and what differentiates a "service" missionary from a regular "missionary". This editor is actively polluting this article with his/her own personal bias. I trust the other editors will help out, but if not I will begin the formal complaint process with Wiki admins. It should be noted that several people on Storm Riders user page have confirmed connections to the "Academy" (i.e Jeffrey R Holland, Gordon B Hinckley) Thank you --DoyleCB (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doyle did you not read the reference already provided? Here, let me quote for you:

"Eleven service missionaries meet with the school's students on a volunteer, weekly basis. The couples have their own offices at one of the West Jordan school's two campuses where they plan half-hour lessons intended to "reach every boy (and girl) spiritually," Sister Lory Wollenzien said."

I think the reference already provided clearly stated SERVICE MISSIONARIES. I also stated that clearly in my edit summary; did you miss that. No problem, things like references are easy to miss. In the future, it would be helpful to read all the references before raising a flag.

On another note, not a single, let me be absolutely CLEAR, not a single references has been provided that there is a direct relationship between the LDS Church and this academy. What is mind boggling is for anyone to assume that there is any institution in Utah that does not have LDS working for it/them. Further, that when LDS work for an institution they do not leave their religion somewhere else. Simply because LDS work in an organization does not make it an LDS organization. If you have anything but innuendo, speculation, or original research to support your claims, I am more than happy to include them, but until then all we have is allegations and opinion and nothing else. Cheers. --^StormRider 18:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let me be clear and state that there are multiple, multiple references that have been provided (some have been removed by you or other editors) that evidence the direct relationship with West Ridge Academy and the Mormon church. Just wanted to clarify that.--DoyleCB (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm. Please assume civility. We will take this up with the mediation committee. No need to be so nasty. Why don't you ask WestRidgeAuthorized what their "niche" is or if they authorize the release of a taped conversation indicating such that took place on June 9, 2009? --DoyleCB (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would caution against making wholesale changes to the article when you have just requested arbitration. It will not look well on you, particularaly when so many of them appear to be POV. I am afraid you are not going to be very happy with some of your actions. --^StormRider 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Chill out guys - Storm Rider, no need to be so caustic - we can be civil, and DoyleCB don't be so skeptical of the edits that are being made. There is absolutely no reason we need arbitration or mediation for the edits in this article. The edits are really minor if you take a step back, and the topic is not really that controversial. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Descartes, your attention to this article could be very helpful at this time. Caustic? It is difficult when working with editors who make no effort to read references, but have a knee-jerk reaction to any edit that in their opinion appear to be at all possible to this topic. I will leave you to work with Doyle and watch from a distance for a few days.

I strongly doubt arbitration will accept request made. However, if by chance they do, I will be eager to participate. --^StormRider 19:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm, please refrain from the personal attacks and remain civil. I have refrained from such and expect the same. You admittedly don't like the connection with the Mormon church - or those who are trying to make such a connection known. Perhaps that is your issue and cause for causticity. Nonetheless, your participation is still appreciated, please just be fair and keep your personal bias and wishes for the article aside. Thanks for your help. --DoyleCB (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Editors - Just out of curiosity, do you normally spend this much time on a Wiki entry? And the need for arbitration or mediation to resolve unmet needs? I am impressed with this process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.253.43.146 (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not typical of most Wikipedia entries, but it is typical for an article which is under content dispute the way this one is. The Wikipedia conflict resolution process is one of the things that continues to surprise and impress me, even many years along. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doyle: can you provide links to some of the references that document the WRA's relationship with the LDS church? I am very interested and don't think I've seen them presented here. Thanks. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I sure can. I'll compile them for you when I get a second. --DoyleCB (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider is accurate and has great perception. In a state where a majority of the population is LDS, assuming that any organization, particularly a human services organization dedicated to helping individuals in a spiritual environment would not be primarily populated by LDS employees. I will restate that there is no relationship between the LDS church and West Ridge Academy any more than there is between the LDS church and other youth treatment facilities such as Lifeline, Sorenson Ranch etc. The fact that prominent LDS people have volunteered to serve on the board, or volunteered their time should be a compliment, not a deterrent to the institution. Furthermore, the Service Missionaries discussed are just that, unpaid service couples that donate their time. West Ridge welcomes all volunteers that seek to further the stated mission of West Ridge, LDS or not. I recommend that you review the 990 of the LDS church for its entities and search for West Ridge Academy. You will not find it, but that will end this dispute. Likewise, search the LDS web site for any reference to West Ridge Academy. Now, if the LDS Church sees fit to donate to a non-profit organization such as West Ridge, it can be added to the list of hundreds of companies that do donate to West Ridge, but such donation does not create any explicit or implicit ties to the Academy. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

On a separate note, I find it interesting that every time an editor such as Storm Rider creates an edit or offers an opinion that is contrary to the POV of certain individuals, the result is always a plea for arbitration and removal of said editor. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I applaud the work that is done by the volunteers at Wiki. Not knowing the process or procedures of this forum until recent involvement, I have found their assessments to be non-biased and fair. Certainly, I have my own POV, but have found that solid logic and citation as well as some balancing of multiple sides to an issue has reasonably been considered and handled by the Wiki crew. I applaud their effort in what must seem somewhat of a nonsensical amount of discussion about a small facility in Utah dedicated to helping kids and some past clients who disagree with past practices. I also find it nonsensical, but when those that have angst seek to thwart current business, there is no choice but to seek to at least mitigate the impact. My Thanks to Wiki for their patience and education during this process. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DoyleCB: you have commented here about West Ridge Academy internal documentation that you plan to submit to Wikileaks, and about some sort of personal phone conversation you have had with West Ridge staff. What is your connection with West Ridge? If you are a former student or staff member, I think it might be best for you also to limit your edits to this talk page, to avoid the possibility of conflict of interest. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tim: I have no connection with West Ridge. The items I speak about are published on the Internet. I did not mention a personal phone conversation I had with anyone, only a recorded conversation involving West Ridge Academy executive Director Ken Allen that is currently published on the Internet. It mentions the Mormon's being West Ridge's "niche market." It is very, very interesting. I don't want to get anyone in trouble, so I won't share those links until the owner decides to him/herself. On a side note, I am not here solely to discuss this topic. I am interested in contributing to a wide variety of articles, Mormon and non-Mormon related. I chose not to address the comments from those that are currently named in the arbitration process. --DoyleCB (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand after reading the Mormon Gulag website that there are individuals who are deeply passionate about their cause. It also does not take long to understand that it is a blog and there is no intent or interest in a factual, objective presentation of facts. Their objective is to garner support for what they see as an injustice done to themselves and their fear that it continues to be perpetrated on other young people. The problem is when these individuals attempt to use the same style of writing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses an entirely different method or style of writing. Wikipedia seeks a neutral form of writing that reports facts as found by reliable sources. We do not accept original research, biased, or unprofessional opinion presented as fact. Though Wikipedia demands that we respect the right of individuals to have a blog, we also reject any attempt to make Wikipedia to become partisan or to be used as a blog or soapbox. --^StormRider 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you arrive at such a conclusion? Why do you call it a blog? How are you percieving their intent? You keep using the word blog, punitively, to try and discredit a source. Why? --66.74.10.34 (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When you destory the edits of others, it makes it very difficult for others to edit; please do not do it again or you may be blocked.

As far as a response goes, 1) If not a blog, do you have a better name for it? 2) What do you think Mormon Gulag's intent is?, 3) A blog is not a professional, third party source. You might want to read some of Wikipedai policy regarding reliable sources so that you understand how we feel about these types of websites. There is nothing personal, but Wikipedia has deemed all blogs not to be acceptable as sources.

No one is destroying edits. Please avoid being a bully. Wikipedia policy is to maintain civility. That being said, I would describe MormonGulag.com as a website, not a blog. Can you provide a criteria for a website or blog, or explain the difference. It seems like you are calling it a blog so that it can be discredited, which is what I said earlier. Thanks again for your contributions. They are stellar. --DoyleCB (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to like to comment when you don't know what you are talking about. Is that common in your line of work or reflective of something else? Please stop attempting to interpret out of ignorance. It is too easy to simply look at the edit history and see what was done to my edit; it was unrecognizable from my edit after the anon chopped it in pieces. This type of editing is highly offensive and may quickly result in unsavory consequences for the perpetrator. When editing, there is never a need to chop up another's edit. Just ask your questions below; most editors can easily follow the line of questioning. Really easy.

It appears you have yet to review reliable sources yet though I have cited it multiple times. Until you do, there is no need to continue explaining it. Who has discredited it? That is your personal perception of the term blog. There are good blogs and bad blogs; regardless, none of them meet the standards of a reliable reference on Wikipedia. Does that make sense to you? --^StormRider 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Any published statements from an illegal recording of a conversation should not be considered. As above, I posted a "gee whiz" indicating that the group opposing West Ridge Academy came on campus on June 11, uninvited, with video cameras and hidden recorders seeking to create information they could use. I recommend not recognizing such references as valid. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doyle, Tim asked you above, "If you are a former student or staff member, I think it might be best for you also to limit your edits to this talk page, to avoid the possibility of conflict of interest." Your response was, "I have no connection with West Ridge." I am not sure you answered the question. Have you ever been a student at the school that is currently called West Ridge Academy? --^StormRider 01:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Separating Buttars Personal Issues from Utah Boys Ranch

It would be appropriate to more accurately state that Buttars retired amid controversy over personal, non-Boys Ranch related issues. His retirement was due to personal issues, not issues about his leadership at the Boys Ranch. Properly separating the two is a more neutral, factual position and does not incorrectly implicate that the controversy was over the Boys Ranch. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. Buttars retired because he used a non-profit to aid in his re-election campaign. That has everything to do with his leadership at the Utah Boys Ranch and his leadership as a politician. --DoyleCB (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Read your own article... "A complaint alleging the Utah Boys Ranch illegally aided in the re-election campaign of state Sen. Chris Buttars has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Salt Lake City attorney Thomas Thompson requested the IRS undertake a formal investigation of the private, nonprofit school for troubled youth in West Jordan. Buttars, R-West Jordan, is the tax-exempt school's executive director. Thompson filed the complaint on behalf of a client, who requested anonymity.

A sworn statement included with the complaint claims boxes of Buttars' Senate campaign brochures were "maintained" in his Boys Ranch office. It also alleges the school's telephones were used for "campaign purposes." entry here WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This complaint was just that, a complaint over where he stored his brochures, not over Boys Ranch Management or Practices. If you want to discredit Christ Buttars, hit his wiki page Buttars. Oh, my bad, I see that you already have (See References number 1,3,4,7 etc) WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my non-neutrality - what is more accurate and appropriate is - "Please consider a neutral statement about Buttars Controversy being about Buttars personal/political actions and not actions regarding leadership of what was then the Utah boys Ranch". WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are talking about. I did not write any articles. DoyleCB (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to change the wording. Even if Buttars retired due to some completely personal controversy (which he did not), it is still ok to state that he retired amid controversy. It doesn't have to be a Boys Ranch related controversy to include it in this article. Plus it is only two words. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WRA, the issue is that as he served as Director he chose to use the school facility in an inappropriate manner. It does have a relection on the school. It may be appropriate to identify the controversy in the text rather than leaving it open, but it is appropriate to mention it. --^StormRider 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Remaining Misleading / POV Comments

The final paragraph states that "in the past" (When, please annotate and cite), a goal was promoting spiritual and moral values within the system" (Again, please cite). This is fine and not misleading. However, the remaining statements leave the reader unclear as to intent and lends towards an "anti-government" POV. This was not the case. As earlier stated, and as indicated if read carefully, the Utah Boys Ranch of 1999 (ten years ago) was removing themselves from servicing government contracts (state-funded youth). I recommend adding a clarifying final sentence such as: "Thus, at this time, the Utah Boys Ranch took a position consistent with this message by no longer accepting state-funded contracts or state dollars to ensure their belief that spiritual values are part of the treatment process." WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The above suggestion is an excellent example of why you should not be permitted to make edits on this page. Your interest is clearly to make this page a promotion for West Ridge Academy.--DoyleCB (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove reference

Considering the document is half blacked out and still unverifiable and very questionable, and coupled with the proposition of an earlier editor to not use the official West Ridge Academy page as a reference, I propose removing the reference provided by WestRidgeAuthorized for the past board members . Thank you. --DoyleCB (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF? That makes no sense. Are you insinuating that West Ridge Academy is deliberately trying to mislead the public about who sits on the board? Is that really a controversial point in the article? Or are you just trying to be difficult? --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Side note - I see no problem whatsoever in using the official West Ridge Academy page as a reference. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)