Misplaced Pages

Talk:West Ridge Academy

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Storm Rider (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 13 June 2009 (→Old board members and current board members: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:48, 13 June 2009 by Storm Rider (talk | contribs) (→Old board members and current board members: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the West Ridge Academy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
WikiProject iconUnited States: Utah Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Utah.
WikiProject iconSchools Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the West Ridge Academy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Image

I think the article would benefit with the image at this link which stated on the West Ridge website, we have authorization to use it. Might be a nice aesthetic addition to the article. I tried to do it - but I am still figuring out the bugs with my Firefox installation on my new Ubuntu box (won't let me download images). I knew there was a reason I haven't done Linux in a while. Can someone else give that a try? --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reboot

My head was spinning trying to go through all of the conversations above, so I am going to do something pretentious. I am archiving everything, and lets reboot this discussion. Everyone and their dog - please read the article carefully in its current form - seriously - read it again - I made more changes. Then, list what you think is wrong with the article below in bulleted format.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Like this (for you new editors).

Thank you for the reboot - it was necessary. I find the article reasonably PC with one correction . DoonRay (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Opening Sentance: West Ridge Academy is classified in the industry as a Residential Treatment Facility (or center), not a youth rehab. From Woodbury Reports " West Ridge Academy is a non-profit, non-denominational residential treatment center for boys or girls " DoonRay (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you can tell me the difference between a "Residential Treatment Facility" for youth, and a youth rehabilitation center? I don't see a difference - and the latter is more clear as to what the center actually does. Correct me if I am wrong.--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's mine:

TallNapoleon (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The at-risk teens should go. A number of the Mormon Gulag teens allege that they weren't sent there for being "at-risk", but for rejecting Mormonism or coming out as gay. It's not for us to say that these teens are "at-risk", as this begs a number of questions. Better to not say it at all.
Fair Call and agreed to edit - but remember that the reasons the teens were sent there are best known by the teen's parents. 173.10.26.145 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Disagree - the allegations should be reflected in the controversy section. The lede and overview should reflect the current state of the center. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The quote in the lede should be moved elsewhere. It's unnecessarily awkward.
I cut out a bunch of it - how does it look now?--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The Mormon Gulag folks explicitly allege that prosletization takes place. This is worth mentioning, in light of the claims by the missionaries that they don't prosletyze.
Is every allegation that the Mormon Gulag folks want to make going to be part of the article? DoonRay (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Of more interest here - I find it interesting that we are spending more talk time and more article space about the POV from some disgruntled teens from a teen treatment facility that treats a few hundred kids a year than is spent on the LDS church "Controversy and Criticism" section. I don't see protests listed by specific blogs or individual names or individual suits. Certainly the LDS church has had thousands of suits... but they are not listed individually as we are 'discussing' here. Are we off base in our scope, scale and perspective? DoonRay (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE READ - ALL - I might suggest that the mormon gulag folks and other critics create a site, like the one created to criticize the LDS church here and post to their heart's delight there, rather than seek to push a POV on the informational page about West Ridge. That way, specific allegations from specific individuals can be outlined at whatever depth is appropriate and general controversy issues can be referenced and pointed to the criticism article on Wiki. DoonRay (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Two thoughts: 1) I tend to agree that the controversy section might be a little bloated - a discussion about WP:UNDUE might be warranted. 2) I wholeheartedly DISAGREE to create a different article with criticism. That to me is a clear case of a WP:POVFORK. (I actually think that the Criticism of Mormonism article is a pretty big POV Fork too - and I expressed as much many times in that article.)--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to see less on governance, and more from the school's point of view. Right now there's a lot about the allegations, and not a whole lot about what the school actually says it does. This should be rectified.
What from the school would you like to see that is not in the primary web site? DoonRay (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the reference formatting and some capitalization. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot

Will now automatically archive all threads after they have been inactive for fourteen days. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Objecting to revert

I'm unhappy with the revert made earlier today by Voire Dei (t c). The result is to restore quite a lot of unsourced material and to remove some pertinent and well-sourced items.

I have not been happy with DoyleCB (t c)'s apparent POV here, and I think he was foolish to engage in substantial article editing after requesting arbitration, but the actual edits in this case seem to me very reasonable and consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. I propose restoring them. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First, thank you for asking about this here rather than participating in actions that will lead to edit warring. Your exammple is one that we should all follow.
I would encourage all editors not to do any significant edits unless first discussed here. As far as Doyle's edits, the first several that I saw looked POV to me. For example,
  1. I see no need to delete the sentence, "It seeks to provide clinical services, education, and other programs for teens at risk" from the introduction paragraph. This would seem to be important because it specifically states "clinical services" and "teens at risk". Someone has stated that the young people themselves do not consider that they were at risk young people, but they are not the people to ask. Their parents obviously thought they were at risk or they would not be sending them to this very expensive school. More importantly, its inclusion fulfills the role of an introductory paragraph by summarizing the article.
  2. Why continue to delete past board members? We have been given a entire list of all past members and each of these people are on them. Is that some of them are not LDS that is so bothersome or what? The reference has been given and should be used.
  3. The state reviews the facility annually; why not state that? I see no reason to have deleted this. Is the objective to remove any information that describes the oversight of the facility?
  4. No reason to remove a clarification for Buttars' "controversy". What is the objective for removing it? It would seem beneficial for readers to understand exactly what the problem was.
  5. This new information about a law suit being filed in 2008 by Tyler Elsey is meaningless. Anyone can file a lawsuit and many lawsuits are thrown out for no basis. It would seem that what is needed before adding this is a verdict. Has there been any verdict yet? Do we know when a verdict might be given?
  6. No need to remove the clarification that Norwood was a student. It provides the reader the benefit of knowing that he was there and his experience is first hand.
  7. GBH receives "bulletins" about the academy...he also receives the NYT, the WSJ, and untold number of other things to read. This is a classic case of OR and SYN. It means nothing, it does not define a relationship, it does not provide anything.
That is just my initial thoughts, but what I reject most is the fact that Doyle was the editor who requested arbitration and since that time (s)he has consistently attempted to ignore all consensus editing and independently goes off. Is there a problem working together? Descartes was doing a good job of mediating; is there a problem continuing down that path? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 12:59, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on the matters of Buttars' resignation, Norwood's status as a former student, and the issue of Hinckley's receiving "bulletins" from the school; the first two should be included and the third should not. Here's why I disagree on the remaining issues:
  1. The mission statements are already included as properly sourced quotations from West Ridge Academy literature. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Board members: I think overall this is a red herring and we would be better off leaving them off entirely. That said, the list that DoyleCB added (Delpha Baird, Ronald Kunz, and Ken McGuire) is supported by the reference provided. The other board members are not. Doyle's edit is simply better sourced. If I have misread the reference, please correct me.
  3. The statement that "the state reviews the facility annually" is not supported by the reference provided, as far as I can tell. This is an unsourced assertion.
  4. I am perplexed that you would say a 2008 lawsuit against the academy is "meaningless". The lawsuit may not have had merit and may have been dismissed, and any outcome should be included, but I think it is beyond question that it is relevant to an article about the academy.
If I have misunderstood your objections or the references given, please clarify so I can understand better. Thanks. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


I also object to the revert made by voire del. I find it to be very disruptive. As far as the list above, I believe that my list is better sourced and is not reflective of a POV shared by those who support the academy. That does not mean that the edits are flawed or without merit. Let me give some examples:
  1. Past board members. I have referenced a verifiable list, from an external source, while West Ridge Academy has not. They have attempted to use a list that has most people blacked out (why would they black out the list, who else is on it that they are trying to conceal?). As far as the credibility of references go, my reference and list for past board members is substantially stronger.
  2. Hinckley publicly spoke about the Utah Boys Ranch on at least one occasion. That is significant to many people. Hinkley does not commonly speak about the NYT, WSJ, or the other red herrings mentioned.
  3. As far as what the Academy states it does, that is stated many times throughout the article. They claim that they have been helping people since 1964, but also claim that the old facility and new facility are two completely different entities. I think that re-stating the mission statement of the current academy all throughout the article is inappropriate, especially given the disclaimers made about anything stated prior to 2005.
  4. The controversy surrounding Buttars forced retirement is not known to everyone, the details and complaint are not public record. It would be misleading to indicate that Buttars "only did this" and to make assumptions on exactly what he was guilty of and what he was not guilty of. Retiring amid controversy seems accurate.
  5. The clarification around Norwood being a student came at the heels of the dispute over whether Norwood should also be allowed the title journalist or writer. Since it seems that the consensus is to not add the title, I also feel that the title "former boy" is unwarranted.
  6. It is correct, some students, former staff, and parents agree that not everyone is sent there for being "teens at risk." To assume so just because they were at the facility begs the question.
  7. I strongly disagree that the lawsuit is meaningless. I do think that the lawsuit is relevant and that seems to be the consensus of the other editors, so I won't comment on that.
  8. There is no verifiable reference that the state reviews the facility annually. If there is a reference for that, I would not object to adding it back.
  9. I also strongly feel that this article belongs in the category Mormonism, or Mormon-related controversies. Any objections to that?--DoyleCB (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Can those editing also be careful when reverting to previous versions. It is messing up the reference formatting and other non-controversial corrections. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I problem with the law suit is that filing a law suit can be done by anyone, for any reason: real, imagined, nuisance, harassment, etc. Today, I can file a lawsuit against the US President for terrorism, but until a judgment is made, it is meaningless. Filing means nothing because the foundation of our law system is innocent until pr oven guilty. We do not know if there is any merit to the lawsuit or anything else.
Did I read the claim correctly that it was filed in small claims court? Does that seem strange to anyone? If this was a real issue, it would be a felony change against an individual and not be small claims court filing against an organization. More importantly, it would be brought by the State of Utah's prosecutor's office. Sexual abuse is not something that is handled by an individual and is a serious charge and this court filing looks like anything but serious. --Rider 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a reminder to everyone to sign your comments using four tildes. When you don't sign your comments the dialog gets confusing to follow. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits are contested - consensus first and then edits

Doyle, what's up. Do you not understand that your previous edits are contested? Please do not enter into another edit war or violate the 3RR rule. Understand that your proposed edits have been rejected and questioned by editors and we are working through them. Once consensus is achieved, the article will be edited. Cheers. --Rider 19:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Old board members and current board members

Critics have made an claim about the LDS Church is related to this school. Strangley, that is supposed to be significant, but the LDS Church has sponsored numerous schools in the past, just not this one. I can understand how a critic would hate to have their claims proved silly by the presence of Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, governors, and State Supreme Court Justicese, etc. on the board in the past. It seems to take the carpet out from under the argument that this is an LDS organization or even that it is related to Mormon doctrine, Mormonism, etc. The only thing that can be verified is that LDS work at the institution, that the founders were LDS, but nothing more.

We have been supplied with a list of all past board members by the Academy; all that is needed is to add the reference. --Rider 19:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:West Ridge Academy Add topic