Talk:Houston Chronicle/Mediation

This page is reserved for the mediation between Katefan0, and Rangerdude concerning the content of Houston Chronicle and related articles. Other people should post their comment in the "Outside views" section.

Rules of this mediation

While the mediation is ongoing, disputants will restrict their editing to Houston Chronicle as much as possible. If edits on the article repeatedly cause problems with disputed content the mediator retains the right to close down editing entirely as per common mediation procedure.
No comments aimed at the other party or their edits should contain loaded language that can be construed as offensive or otherwise hurtful.
Mediation should be done in good faith without regard for previous editing behavior.
Comments should be made about the other person's edits and not them as a person. If possible you should try to bring sources to the table which the mediatior can review.
If, somewhere along the way, you think there's a possibility to reach an agreement on any of the disputed points, let it be known as soon as you can.

Katefan0's view

Before I begin my remarks, I'd like to reiterate my objection to leaving the article open to editing by the parties involved in this mediation. I agree that small edits would be no problem. But, as the histories show just today, while Rangerdude has yet to modify portions currently under dispute, he has begun adding content that I find somewhat questionable [1], as has User:Nobs01.

I have issues with the article in its current state on two levels. I will state pretty much all of them for now for the record, but I think it may be more useful and less daunting to try to take each other's points one by one once it's all been laid out.

Macro

On the macro level, I find the article in its current state to be bloated with "criticism" information that, in my opinion, does not rise to the level of seriousness that warrants being included in an article on a paper the size of the Chronicle; or, that does not rise to the level of seriousness that warrants the sheer amount of text included. This has the effect of unbalancing the article severely in terms of the article's overall NPOV treatment. I point to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which states: The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance.

Major events or scandals, of course, deserve a proper airing. But, for example, does the Robert Jensen complaint [2] warrant inclusion? If it does, does it warrant the amount of text currently used? The Chronicle surely receives complaints about many things; obviously, an editorial suggesting that the US may have brought some of 9/11 on itself published right after 9/11 when emotions were raw is going to draw fire; is "hundreds of angry letters" really enough to warrant this type of attention when the Chronicle reaches more than 500,000 people every day? Just like we would not list every gripe or even lawsuit against General Motors in a Wikipedia article, we should resist adding every gripe against the Chronicle, unless it rises to a level of seriousness that warrants it. We can discuss what this bar might be, but I argue that the article in its current state far exceeds it. Again, from NPOV: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

I also find some of the criticism in the article justified with questionable sources, primarily the Houston Review, a free conservative newspaper put out by some students at the University of Houston. Does this qualify as a credible source? Are their opinions expert? Is this limited circulation printed source really any different than a blog, which Wikipedia generally discourages for use as a source? Additionally, the paper is now defunct and its website no longer functioning. Rangerdude has provided sources by linking to the Free Republic, where some old Houston Review articles have been reposted. Is this appropriate? I won't press this issue because I have no reason to believe that the text has or has not been altered after being placed on Free Republic, but would like to raise the question. Some of these questions may be beyond our answering in this venue, more appropriate for a policy discussion. But they are worth asking.

Micro

1. Another recent addition, the Press Club of Houston section. This is a perfect example of a criticism that does not rise to the level of inclusion. It is nothing more than a cheap shot of the sort the Houston Press, a competitor tabloid, takes all the time. While no doubt embarrassing, did it impact the community by an iota? Did it change the nature of the paper? No. Therefore, it should not be included.

2. The section that has been entitled Editorial Practices. This is a dispute between User:Nobs01 and myself, who I believe Mgml has asked to participate in this mediation. Nobs created this section, in my opinion, as a way to criticize the Editorial Board's policy stance without actually having a critical source. He adds two quotes -- one from Jack Sweeney stating that the Chronicle's Editorial Board is nonpartisan, then underneath a quote from an editorial criticizing conservatives. [3] He is cherry picking quotes and then presenting them so as to give the appearance of deception on the Editorial Board's part. I have removed this quote repeatedly and asked Nobs to cite a source if he wants to make that criticism, but he adds it back. In fact, the entire section is pointless, so I removed it entirely with my last edit. This is another example of why allowing disputed sections to be changed while mediation is ongoing is frustrating at best and ineffectual at worst.

3. In general, the light rail memo controversy section is entirely too long and is a major reason why the article as a whole appears unbalanced. It takes up nearly 1,000 words of space for what has amounted to something that did not greatly impact the community as a whole. I do think the subject should be treated in the article, but it doesn't need this kind of detail (maybe it needs its own article, as User:Johntex has suggested). Beyond its excessive length, specifically, I object to these sections:

4. In late 2002, Chronicle website managers accidentally posted an internal memorandum to reporters on its home site Rangerdude and I have already spoken about this and I thought we had an agreement. I don't know who added reporters back in (maybe it was User:Nobs01), but who this memo was addressed to is in question. Therefore, reporters should be removed; the fact is that the memo itself only gives clues to who its audience might have been, without being explicit in its address. My personal opinion is that it was addressed to the Editorial Board itself, but it's just that, my opinion.

5. The memorandum then proposed several "investigative" news stories and editorials designed to examine "the campaign led by Tom DeLay and Bob Lanier to defeat rail expansion." DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past. This paragraph lists a specific charge in the memorandum about how the Chronicle wanted to examine DeLay and Lanier's opposition to light rail in the past, but gives no context about why. I inserted the following sourced context, which Rangerdude deleted for reasons I'm unsure about. [4] Beyond the value the additional context adds, it seems only fair to me to DeLay and Lanier to outline their opposition to light rail, since we quote the memo accusing them of a "campaign" to defeat it. Of course, there is also proper criticism of DeLay's position, as NPOV demands. To me, removing the context about why DeLay and Lanier opposed light rail also argues for removing the specific quote in the memo, which can be accessed by clicking on the link anyway.

6. Later, the Houston Press tracked down Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen, who gave a statement in defense of the memorandum: Previously, this sentence characterized Cohen's remarks as unapologetic, which I objected to on the grounds that the quote stood by itself. There is no reason for us to characterize his remarks as one way or another, since the quote is obviously so. Now, this sentence reads "who gave a statement in defense of the memorandum," which I object to on the same grounds. Cohen's quote clearly defends the memo. There's no need for Wikipedia to assert such when the quote clearly stands on its own.

7. Consistent with the memorandum's stated "specific objective" [15] (http://www.robbooth.net/chrnmem.shtml), the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption. This sentence asserts as a matter of fact that the Chronicle's memo affected its coverage, given that the "specific objective" referenced was to have a coordinated campaign of news articles and editorials about light rail. A more proper treatment would be something like: "The Houston Review charged that the memo affected the Chronicle's coverage of the light rail referendum, during which the editorial page remained ..." The language in use now is too authoritative.

8. (same paragraph) Additionally, I think the Review's content analysis is not appropriate for inclusion. Rather, there should be a link to this source that anyone can click on, but as it stands the numbers add no value to the article as a whole because they give no information about how many articles, opeds, editorials etc. the Chronicle ran prior to the memo. Therefore, it does not help our readers make a decision about whether the memo affected the Chronicle's coverage; rather, it just bulks up the section uselessly.

9. (same paragraph) I also object to this information: TTM declined to do so, indicating that they did not believe the Chronicle would objectively represent their position in light of the memorandum. It is not correct. TTM representatives stated publicly that their reasons for refusing were 1) because they didn't have to by law, 2) because they were afraid their donors would become the subject of Chronicle articles, and 3) because they were afraid it would infringe on their donors' Constitutional rights. Nowhere has Rangerdude shown that TTM said publicly that it was because they were afraid the "Chronicle would not objectively represent their position." Rather, Rangerdude has argued that one can infer that that is how they felt from their previous stances -- but we are not here to interpret, we are here to summarize.

10. (same paragraph) I also object to the characterization in this sentence: Among the election-related stories proposed in the memorandum was a project labelled "Ground zero for November" that proposed stories negatively portraying the "funding" behind METRORail opponents.[17] (http://www.texansfortruemobility.org/press.shtml)[18] This states authoritatively that the memo proposed "negatively portraying the funding behind metrorail opponents." In fact, the memo read: Ground zero for November: The campaign led by DeLay and Lenier to defeat rail expansion. Who is doing the funding? What is the history of the San Antonio-based think tank doing the the research to discredit rail? There is nothing in this question that says their funding will be portrayed negatively, per se; it simply raises the question of where the funding is coming from.

11. After TTM refused the paper's request, Chronicle lawyers filed a criminal complaint under chapter 273 of the Texas Elections Code against TTM with Harris County, Texas District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal accusing them of fundraising improprieties First, I think having the statute number in this sentence is unnecessary. It is meaningless information to the casual reader. It is better to explain what that statute is (see Wikipedia:Explain jargon). Secondly, I in the past have objected to using criminal as a characterization of the complaint. My personal opinion is that the complaint was just that -- a complaint, neither criminal nor civil. It just happened to be a complaint about a violation of a criminal statute. But the language gives the appearance that the Chronicle had the choice of filing a civil or a criminal complaint about this specific violation, and chose criminal, as one might if going before a court of law. Another editor supported using criminal so I have backed off of my insistence on changing it, though my objections remain.

12. accusing them of fundraising improprieties paired with the jargony sentence that comes later (However, TTM was registered as a non-profit 501(c)6 organization rather than a political action committee (PAC) and thus not obliged to submit a PAC financial disclosure under state law.[19] ) is too little detail, too clumsily delivered. NPOV compels us to explain why the Chronicle felt its complaint was justified, just as we must explain why TTM felt it was not. This is the version I wrote, which I believe is superior, which Rangerdude replaced pretty much in its entirety:

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

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

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

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

Simply including a link to 501(c)6 and stating the Texas code is not enough and does our readers a disservice. There are other small problems with the article, but these are my main objections. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude's view

Here's a summary of my positions and my views of what should be done. First, I will note that I am content with the light rail section in a form similar to its current version found here [5]. To date the bulk of the dispute has revolved around a couple different points surrounding this section's various components. I'll address each by number corresponding to those in the discussion section.

1. A dispute has waged over how we should present the Chronicle's role in implementing the light rail memorandum. I am content with the current version reading "Consistent with the memorandum's stated "specific objective" [13] (http://www.robbooth.net/chrnmem.shtml), the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption." The initial dispute over this section was whether or not a previous wording implied that the Chronicle had changed its positions around the memo. I propose that the current version makes no such implication though, and is factually accurate in its present form. The following sentence regarding the Houston Review content analysis was added in response to requests for additional sources by willmcw, though Katefan apparently wants it removed, saying that it is "cluttering up" the paragraph. I believe at minimum a link should be retained.

2. A dispute has emerged over the inclusion of the word "criminal" to describe the type of investigation the Chronicle initiated. I favor its inclusion. Katefan desires its removal. I am very strongly in favor of its inclusion because it is the word used in the Texas statute that was used by the Chronicle to make the complaint (see here [6]). Furthermore, I believe that its removal removes needed specificity from the article. I also believe that removing it obscures the exact nature and severity of the Chronicle's action, especially in light of the fact that the complaint was found to be frivolous & thus would be an edit that favors the Chronicle spin.

3. A dispute has waged over whether we should characterize TTM's activities with the word "refusal" to indicate that they "refused" to release their contributor lists. I objected to this terminology on NPOV grounds after Katefan added it because "refusal" implies that TTM chose not to or failed to meet an obligation under the law, yet Texas law in fact makes no such requirement of them. The Chronicle itself in its self-coverage of the dispute purported that TTM had supposedly "refused" to disclose its donors, so repeating their characterization of it also carries with it their POV. Furthermore, the original phrasing by Katefan was vague in that it did not clearly specify who or what TTM supposedly "refused," hinting strongly that it was some legal obligation - which is factually inaccurate. In response I've offered the following current language and favor it: "During the campaign the Houston Chronicle made a request to Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main critic of METRORail, to provide the paper with a copy of their financial contributor reports. TTM declined to do so, indicating that they did not believe the Chronicle would objectively represent their position in light of the memorandum."

4. There has been a dispute over whether technical names of TTM's legal designation etc. should be mentioned in the article. The initial purported concern was that most readers would not know what a "501c" organization, or specifically a 501(c)(6) organization is. To resolve this I expanded the wikipedia articles on 501c's and added this text link. I contend that 501(c)6 should be retained because (1) this legal status was, and its falling outside of the Texas law that the Chronicle alleged to have been violated, was the main reason their case was dismissed, (2) the article uses legal specifications such as Political Action Committee to describe other types of groups, and (3) it is easy to accomodate an explanatory link through 501(c)(6).

5. This dispute has involved what sources should be used and cited in describing the dispute. Katefan made revisions to this paragraph that were overwhelmingly based upon the information and presentation containted in the Houston Chronicle's self-coverage of the criminal complaint. I responded that this is inappropriate without disclosure because the Chronicle, being a party to that complaint itself, should not be taken as an objective source on the matter (and indeed it was not - the Chronicle's self-coverage portrayed TTM as if they had broken the law, which the DA found they had not done). I noted both then and now that I do not object to using material from the Chronicle's self-coverage IF (1) that material is clearly attributed to the Chronicle and (2) it is properly contextualized to indicate it is representative of their POV in a contentious case. It should not, however, be used as the primary piece of source material for the article especially when others exist, foremost among them being the Texas statute itself.

6. A dispute over citation styles has also emerged. This stems from a couple of article sources added by Katefan with her initial edits. The original format of this article has consistently employed the footnote style of citations throughout. The sources added by Katefan, however, were cited using the hidden embedded text style of citations. I immediately noted that this was inconsistent with the rest of the article and asked her to use a consistent style - particularly with the Houston Press article entitled "Ties That Bind?" which could be easily linked using the footnote style. This matter of dispute IMO has a very simple solution and is a clear cut case per all the style manuals. It could be rectified in a matter of moments, but my requests for this to be done have gone largely unanswered. Rangerdude 03:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response

A couple of things may be said in light of Katefan's comments above. On each point where we differ I will indicate my position and justification and, where applicable, some compromises:

1. Article balance in general First, it seems to be a recurring issue that Katefan's objections are with the amount of negative material in this article. They are not nearly as much directed to the facts I have added to this article as to any piece of information that is negative about the Chronicle in general. One of the original issues was the deficit in positive material about the Chronicle, however this complaint is now moot as an extensive history and awards sections have been added as the article developed, thus counterbalancing critical material. In its current form the article contains an extensive and relatively balanced mix of positive and negative factual information about the paper. I have not objected to the addition of facts that reflect positively on the Chronicle, however Katefan seems to object to each and every fact that reflects negatively on the Chronicle. I believe this is an untenable position to hold. Loading the article up with information that is favorable to the Chronicle while excluding all that is unfavorable results in an article that strongly tilts towards the Chronicle's own POV and thus violates wikipedia's NPOV policies. As noted, I did not object to Katefan's desire to include more positive factual material about the Chronicle right down to each and every little obscure journalism award they've received. I do, however, object to her attempts to remove any unfavorable factual material while simultaneously retaining favorable factual material as that severely tilts the article's direction. Like it or not, there is extensive ongoing controversy presently surrounding the Houston Chronicle, its alleged political biases, and the manner in which the paper is administered. When a major broadcast media outlet and one of the two major political parties in Houston are actively and openly boycotting a newspaper as large as the Chronicle it's a problem and an issue worthy of full discussion in this article. Removing all critical material about the paper constitutes cleansing and spin that appears designed to water down the severity of current problems and controversies involving this newspaper.

2. Sources - Katefan has objected to the use of sources in the article, calling several critical sources (specifically Free Republic and the Houston Review) "questionable" and attacking their credibility. Despite this, I have yet to see any valid information that disputes the accuracy of the material cited from any of these sources leading me to believe that her challenges to the use of these sources are not in fact critiques of their validity but rather ad hominem attacks upon the sources themselves. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that both the Houston Review and Free Republic have played various roles in publicizing several of the scandals and controversies that have given rise to allegations of bias at the Houston Chronicle itself, most notably the light rail memorandum - which, if I am not mistaken, was first publicized by them. To exclude them for the reasons Katefan has suggested would accordingly be akin to excluding the Powerline and Little Green Footballs blogs from the article about the forged Dan Rather memorandums, even though they broke the stories.

3. Houston Press Club awards - Here it is contended that inclusion of the Chronicle's shunning by the judges in the Houston Press Club awards despite being a shoe-in for the prize is a "perfect example" of information that "does not rise to the level of inclusion." Yet if you look at the "awards" section all sorts of awards the paper has won, both major and downright obscure, are listed in full detail. If its okay to list a gazillion awards they have won for good news coverage etc., is it not a fair balance to list a single award where they were very noticeably shunned for bad coverage? Removing this would be yet another example of trying to cleanse the article of all that is unfavorable about the Chronicle while retaining only that which is favorable with an end result in violation of NPOV.

4. Rail Memorandum Controversy - issues:

It does not bother me to state that the memorandum was a "memorandum to reporters" as it clearly proposed stories for reporters to write. There is also little doubt that at least some, if not all, of the recipients of it regularly write material that appears in the Chronicle. If somebody has an alternative phrasing though I am open to it. Perhaps we should state that it was a "memorandum to writers" or a "memorandum to staff" or something along those lines.
Tom DeLay - I removed the additional content offered by Katefan regarding Tom DeLay for several reasons, which contrary to what has been implied, I stated in full detail at the time. First, its length and detail was excessive for the context in this article. It was asserted to be a "response" to a factual description of what the memorandum itself said (including direct quotes from the memo), yet the "response" was more than twice as long as the original sentence. Second, this "response" went way off topic on issues of political fundraising that, if anywhere, belongs on the Tom DeLay article (which I also suggested at the time as an appropriate compromise). This article is about the Chronicle's memo controversy - not a complete history of Tom DeLay's highway lobby contributions. Third, the section added by Katefan exhibited strong characteristics of original research, consisting primarily of a link to the Opensecrets.org campaign contribution database and making original conclusions based upon data found in that database. The current form of this section, to wit The memorandum then proposed several "investigative" news stories and editorials designed to examine "the campaign led by Tom DeLay and Bob Lanier to defeat rail expansion." DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past. is far more balanced by contrast as it includes a one-sentence description of the memo itself followed by a one-sentence description of the memo's context, indicating that DeLay is indeed a long time rail opponent but without extraneous original research material attacking DeLay.
Cohen's quote - It is obvious from Cohen's statement that he defended the memorandum in an extremely unapologetic manner, to wit "I make no apologies for having a thorough discussion of the issue. We have nothing to apologize for…There was an inadvertent posting of it to the Web site, and I'm sorry about that, but I make no apologies for the contents of it." To object to a simple factual assertion in the article that Cohen defended the memo is to deny the obvious here. It is pertinent to note that the Chronicle defended and stood by the memo in the article's text because this indicates the nature of their response to the controversy. Since they stood by it we should say just that! There's no fault in stating an obvious and undisputed fact.
Memo and editorial consistency - I strongly dispute that the current text says the memo affected the direction of the paper's coverage. It does nothing of the sort, though this straw man mischaracterization of my position has been made against me previously. Rather it says simply that the editorial position was "Consistent with the memorandum's stated "specific objective"" - as in they both strongly endorsed and promoted rail. This is an undisputed fact, and to state that the memo and the editorials took the same position is 100% factually accurate. As to the proposed change "The Houston Review charged that the memo affected the Chronicle's coverage...," this is unnecessary as the current wording does NOT assert that the memo affected the coverage on its own and a subsequent sentence already attributes this assertion to the Houston Review.
Houston Review content analysis - I added this sentence describing the Houston Review's content analysis after User:willmcw, who agrees with Katefan's position, specifically requested that I include it as a source rather than a summary sentence of their position. In fact, Willmcw even requested that I go further than the current sentence and ADD specific quotes from the Houston Review, so I'd suggest that he and Katefan reach an agreement on this issue. I'm generally content either way, be it a specific statement of their results or a summary sentence followed by a link to the effect of "A Houston Review content analysis of the paper's editorials suggested..."
TTM's reasons - Contrary to Katefan's claim I have shown multiple places where TTM explicitly indicated their concern over the Chronicle's biased rail coverage as a reason for not providing the paper with their donors. First, the Chronicle itself paraphrased TTM's spokesman on 10/23/03 in their self coverage asserting this: "the donors want to preserve their right of free expression as a group rather than as individuals who could be vulnerable to criticism from powerful institutions. He listed Metro, the city and the Chronicle as examples of such institutions." Second, TTM published several articles on its official website [7] attacking the Chronicle's bias including a copy of the memorandum [8] on a link titled "Chronicle's intent on bias in reporting, in their own words" [9]. Katefan did not acknowledge the validity of TTM's own material as a source for their objections to the Chronicle's alleged bias despite this evidence.
Negative potrayal of anti-rail persons - Katefan claims that the memo does not indicate an intent to portray rail critics negatively, however the memo is very explicit throughout that this is indeed its purpose. First, it states in summary that its "specific objective" is to "make rail a permanent part of the transit mix here." Second, in characterizing the two suspected funders of rail opposition (DeLay and Lanier) the memo indicates that their respective involvement is a negative, to wit: "for better or worse, (mostly worse, I would argue)." Third, the memo directly likens rail opponents to a well known historical case in another city, analogizing rail opponents and freeway proponents with the negatively portrayed interests from that case: "We in Houston have our own version of the "Chinatown" story of the early 20th century Los Angeles, when the currency of power was water... Since World War II, Houston's currency has bee concrete." Fourth, the introductory phrase of the section on anti-rail funding is entitled "Ground zero for November," indicating that it explicitly pertains to impacting the election. Since the memo has already asserted that ensuring a rail victory is its "specific objective" in that election, it is necessarily the case that "Ground zero for November" means a negative portrayal of DeLay, Lanier, and rail opponent financing. Fifth, the memo's concluding phrase directly indicates its intent to negatively portray rail opponents, to wit: "They (the voters in November) need to know who has wielded the power to pour concrete, who still wields it and to what lengths the concrete pourers will go in order to stop rail."[10]
Texas Statutes - The specific chapters of Texas statute under which the complaint was made, and the fact that these chapters did NOT apply to 501c organizations, are the crux of the case and the reason why the District Attorney dismissed it as frivolous. A revision of this section proposed by Katefan removed this material, and along with it any indication that the statute cited by the Chronicle did not even legally apply to TTM under Texas law. Citing the statutes and giving accompanying links (all of Texas' statutes are online at the state legislature website) gives readers a direct means of checking this info for themselves.
The word criminal - Katefan states her objection to this word's use is as follows: "My personal opinion is that the complaint was just that -- a complaint, neither criminal nor civil." But this personal opinion is factually incorrect because Texas Statute DOES distinguish between criminal and civil complaints, and also explicitly identifies the type of complaint made by the Chronicle as "criminal" with the word "criminal" being used repeatedly (see here [11]). An erronious personal opinion is not a legitimate basis to change the wording of a sentence that is drawn directly from what the law itself says independent of that personal opinion.

5. My objections to Katefan's version on the light rail memo - I have several standing objections to Katefan's version of this section as reproduced above:

By removing the word "criminal" it does not properly characterize the nature of the complaint. This is in conflict with the language of the Texas statute itself.[12]
The entire second paragraph asserts that Texas law requires PACs to make contribution disclosures then presents the Chronicle's allegation as if this law applied to TTM. TTM, however, was not a PAC nor any other type of organization falling under the statute and this needs to be explictly stated. Simply saying that it was a "non-profit" does not cut it either, because this also neglects to reveal that the Texas law does not apply to non-profits.
The second and third paragraphs worded in such a way as to suggest that TTM exceeded Texas law's allowances for "educational" advertisements.
The second and third paragraphs are generally vague as to what Texas law itself actually says and applies to. Since the nature of the criminal complaint and the grounds for its dismissal were very technical, relying directly on technical legal registrations for different types of organizations, neglecting to include them does a serious disservice and produces a misleading result.
In short, the entire wording proposed by Katefan is overly sympathetic to the Chronicle's POV. The reality of the case is this: the Chronicle made a criminal complaint to initiate a criminal investigation before the election and the DA investigated and found that complaint was frivolous, dismissing it completely for being made without merit. Given those circumstances, the use of vague legal characterizations, squirrely wordings, and other semantic games that make it sound as if the Chronicle had a legitimate case is wholly inappropriate and constitutes a strong POV towards the Chronicle itself.
Per the source that was originally cited for this version, it is based primarily upon the Houston Chronicle's self-coverage of a legal proceeding that they were a party to. For the aforementioned reasons in my first post, I believe it is very inappropriate to use the Chronicle as a primary source on this part of the section. Their POV should also be disclosed in any place that their self-coverage is employed. Rangerdude 02:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current Version

Also, please note that I am supportive of most of the current version's wordings. Please see here for a comparison of the changes that myself and others have already made to the previous version to accomodate various requests by Katefan and others. Rangerdude 04:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Format and Request

I have posted notice to MGM regarding ongoing activities on this mediation page involving User:willmcw that I find to be obstructionist in nature and generally detracting from the progress towards resolving this article's many disputes. As organized by MGM and agreed to upon its inception, this mediation was to be divided into two parts involving the primary dispute between myself and Katefan and secondary disputes involving all others. The mediation page was created to reflect this, separating out the two areas and specifically instructing editors other than myself and Katefan to conduct their proposals in the designated section on the lower half of the page. Invitations were also evidently extended to editors who indicated an interest in participating so that they may comment in the designated section. Earlier today Willmcw breached this agreed upon arrangement by making a unilateral and unauthorized addition of himself into the upper section reserved for the discussion between myself and Katefan. In doing so he rearranged the page's format to include his comments in that section and added himself to the mediation header.[13] Upon encountering this unauthorized change I restored the original format and made note of it. Willmcw refused this and again made an unauthorized addition of his name to the upper portion of the page. [14] I have since restored the original formatting yet again, though I am not confident that Willmcw will abide by it nor am I confident that his participation here is being made in good faith given this event and other related developments.

I would like to state emphatically that I object to Willmcw's behavior in adding himself to the upper discussion and note that I explicitly requested that he NOT be a party to the primary mediation between myself and Katefan due to the history between myself and Willmcw and for reasons that have unfortunately been confirmed by this action. The result has been unfortunate in that Willmcw's additions here have (1) produced undue agitation by bringing another dispute I am involved in with this poster into this mediation and (2) distracting attention away from the issues discussed in the initial posts by myself and Katefan, which, though they contained many unresolved differences, were at least making progress in getting the issues out on the table. I consider this an unfortunate development, though not unforseen given the history between myself and Willmcw (which I have openly disclosed and stated my concern about from the outset).

I would accordingly like to request that comments from all other editors other than myself and Katefan as well as the mediator be directed to a separate and distinct page of mediation, properly designated as such and linked to at the bottom of the mediation between myself and Katefan. Furthermore, comments other than those appearing in the upper section should be moved to the second page, where appropriate, or deleted, where not appropriate to the mediation. I fear that the current state of affairs is too distracting to the point that any real progress that was being made, even if small, is now overshadowed by comments and edits that are not made in the best interest of reaching an equitable solution or agreeable consensus. Because of this I urge that the separation of the sections be conducted as soon as possible. Thank you. Rangerdude 02:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outside Views

Please make a subsection for the view of each different person.

Willmcw's view

I was invited to join this mediation by the mediator and have accepted that invitation. Articles on topics directly linked and related to the Houston Chronicle, such as biographies of its writers and controversies that it has been involved in, are part of the same set and must be included as well. Overlapping editors and issues are involved in all of them. I call on all editors involved in this mediation to follow wikiquette and share wikilove. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Journalism scandals#Houston Chronicle (2002)

user:Rangerdude added a new section to the article that included this text:[15]

The memorandum was widely circulated and criticized in other Houston print and electronic media outlets, however paper quietly removed it from their website and made no further public comments about the incident.

I changed it to:[16]

The memorandum was widely circulated and criticized in other Houston print and electronic media outlets, however paper quietly removed it from their website and commented that it was one of many story pitches received but not acted up.[17]

user:Rangerdude's:[18]

The memorandum was widely circulated and criticized in other Houston print and electronic media outlets, however paper quietly removed it from their website. When questioned about the memo, Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen refused to apologize for it. Other than Cohen's remarks the paper made no comment.[19]

Mine:[20]

The memorandum was widely circulated and criticized in other Houston print and electronic media outlets, however paper quietly removed it from their website. When questioned about the memo, Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen commented that it was one of many story pitches received but not acted up and refused to apologize for it. Other than Cohen's remarks the paper made no comment. [21]

In this case the editor seems to be trying to present the matter in an unnecessarily harsh light by omitting and then removing the newspaper's explanation. -Willmcw 00:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The characterization above is misleading and inaccurate. The section of the article that Willmcw is using to make the claim that Cohen "commented it was one of many story pitches received but not acted on" is in fact a sarcastic jibe at Cohen several months after the scandal and containing no real quote by him. In full it reads:

Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen said the memo was merely one of many story pitches he got and would not influence the paper's undying efforts to provide comprehensive and fair and informative and zzzzzzzzzzz'

In the same section of this sarcastic sentence the author referred to the Chronicle as Houston's "In-House Light Rail Newsletter" and extensively mocked the paper's tendency to link light rail to making Houston a "world class" city. To use a remark that was obviously made in satire and jest as if it were a paraphrase of Cohen's "response" is misleading and dubious at best. Fortunately, Cohen's actual quoted response was indeed documented in an earlier Houston Press article published the week of the scandal. According to that quote Cohen does identify it as a "story pitch" but says absolutely nothing indicating that it was "not acted upon" as Willmcw asserts. Here is Cohen's full quote:

"It's no different than what the Houston Press would do as it was contemplating a series," he says. "I make no apologies for having a thorough discussion of the issue. We have nothing to apologize for…There was an inadvertent posting of it to the Web site, and I'm sorry about that, but I make no apologies for the contents of it."[22]

Since that's the only quote by Cohen and the other article was obviously being sarcastic, it's what we have to go by. Rangerdude 00:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why you object to including Cohen's explanation and make it appear as if he never gave one. It appears to me as if these edits push a POV into the article. -Willmcw 00:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position, Will. I do not object to including Cohen's explanation and in fact quoted it above in full with a link to the genuine quote. That genuine quote says absolutely nothing that indicates the Chronicle did not act upon the memo, as you claimed. What you attempted to pass off as Cohen's explanation, however, was not a quote but rather a sarcastic mockery of his explanation that does not rise to the level of source material for his response. Rangerdude 00:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cragg Hines

Owen Courrèges of the KSEVradio-affiliated "Lone Star Times" weblog described Hines as the "most abrasive, pompous, and obese liberal ideologue" on the newspaper's staff.[23]

The other day user:Rangerdude created an article, Cragg Hines, and linked it to the Houston Chronicle, which is on my watch list. The Hines articles had a carried a highly perjorative and POV remark from a blog.[24]. In Wikipedia blogs are not considered reliable sources for anything that I am aware of. I tried to at least modify the attribution, but as a result now user:Rangerdude is accusing me of harassing him and deconstructing his edits. I have never harassed him. If I have violated any Wikipedia policies please say so. In the meantime, please stop making unsupported personal attacks on me. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to throw epithets at each other. -Willmcw 22:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Hines article in discussion was created as a stub to expand wikipedia's content in general. The "highly perjorative (sic) and POV remark" constituted a single sentence citation from a well known and widely publicized Houston Chronicle critic, Lone Star Times. It was included to indicate a critical perception of Hines' writing style that happens to be representative of and shared by many f Hines' readers in the conservative talk radio audience. Even if other sources are generally preferred, there is no policy on wikipedia prohibiting blog information from being used and in this case the particular blog is distinguished for its specific relevance to critics of the Houston Chronicle. Nor is the Hines article the basis of my description of your harassing behavior. Rather it is but one of the many most recent examples. Your demonstrable practice of appearing to make nearly constant subsequent edits to almost all of my work, the overwhelming majority of them deconstructive challenges or needless word rearrangements, on virtually every wikipedia article I contribute to is my indictment against you, Will, and it dates back several months. I've asked you many times to cease and desist, both politely and, more recently, in stronger language. Thus far you have persisted in spite of these outstanding requests and, as noted, if the need arises I am more than prepared to take my case against you to the next level of wikipedia. Rangerdude 22:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites and weblogs, which are not acceptable as sources. Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Visiting a stranger's personal web page is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly — with significant skepticism. Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

"An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group."...Gee, Katefan, and what exactly was it that the quote I added did? Oh yeah, that's right - it used a political website for a source to discuss the opinions of that website, and in turn its larger audience at the radio station that sponsors that website, about Cragg Hines. The view was stated in a brief one-sentence segment and was fully attributed with a complete disclaimer of what LST is and believes. Rangerdude 00:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not useful. Please try to refrain from being uncivil. The prohibition clearly states that partisan blogs should only be used to source claims regarding like-minded groups (in other words, ones with no axes to grind against each other). If this conservative blog is criticizing Hines for purportedly liberal views, clearly they are not of like-minded groups and the source therefore is not appropriate, according to this policy. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for any sarcasm, though the same appears to be passing for source material as of late on related issues. Regarding the guideline you quoted (not a policy but a guideline), I believe you are misreading it. First, it does NOT say that there is a source prohibition on "partisan blogs." Blogs are not even mentioned in that provision, and where they are elsewhere discouraged, the stipulation is for personal websites and blogs. The section you excerpt only states that "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution." No prohibition - only caution. That caution is what you quoted, but in full context I believe you are not understanding it correctly. It states that such sources are discouraged "except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." That does not mean the article itself has to be about a like-minded group. That means that a quotation of a political website has to be contextualized as a discussion of that website's opinions OR of the opinions of a like-minded group, as in groups that are in agreement with that website's opinion. As long as we note that it is Lone Star Times' opinion that Cragg Hines is X, or that KSEV listeners - a like minded group - share Lone Star Times' opinion that Cragg Hines is X, quotations from them are proper. An improper quotation would be stating "Cragg Hines is X" without properly noting that X happens to be Lone Star Times' opinion, which is not shared by everybody. Rangerdude 02:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Savidan's View

Is this still going on? The mediator hasn' commented since June!Savidan 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside views 2

I request that editors involved in this mediation stop making personal attacks. Thank you. -Willmcw 21:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Insofar as the topics discussed on this mediation page are concerned, as well as the content currently existing here and found in the posts above by myself and Katefan, I do not see any "personal attacks." If you are referring to your separate activity of following me around wikipedia in a manner that is deconstructive to the medium and personally harassing towards myself and other editors, which I objected to yesterday elsewhere on wikipedia over matters unrelated to this mediation (and I'm fully prepared to demonstrate your aforementioned behavior if the need arises), then it is of no bearing to this mediation beyond your involvement and will be addressed as appropriate in the appropriate sections of wikipedia (which this is not) pending your etiquette, or lack thereof, demonstrated from this point forward. Thanks. Rangerdude 21:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - Your attacks on me are apparently related to the editing of this and related articles. Therefore it is germane to this mediation. If you believe that I am violating specific Wikipedia policies, please say so. In the meantime, please stop calling me a "stalker." -Willmcw 22:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    - My objections to your continued patterns of personal harassment and deconstructive behavior against me on other portions of the forum belong just there - on other portions of the forum. As noted repeatedly to you, I do indeed contend that you are behaving in a manner that conflicts with both the spirit and letter of multiple wikipedia policies and guidelines, among them requirements for civility, etiquette, abstaining from personal harassment of other posters, and stipulations that edits should be made in a manner that is constructive to the purpose of building an encyclopedia. Insofar as you have intentionally followed me to well over a hundred different articles on virtually any subject for apparently no other purpose than deconstructing, obstructing, dismantling, needlessly modifying, and making excessive demands of my edits, both major and minor, to degrees of standard that are neither assigned to you by any authority on wikipedia nor among those standards you apply to yourself while making your own edits, then yes I do describe your behavior as wiki-stalking, willmcw. And I'll further remind you that such behavior is widely considered to be a form of trolling, which has been cited and used as a basis for wikipedia arbitration and moderater intervention against editors who engage in it excessively in multiple cases. I've asked you repeatedly before to cease and desist this behavior and will ask you again to remove your discussion of it to the appropriate locations, be that talk pages or another medium of wikipedia if, by the continuation of the said behavior, further steps towards remediation become necessary. Rangerdude 22:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - We're in mediation now. -Willmcw 00:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
        Then please address my objections to your posting behavior instead of misconstruing my repeated attempts to inform you of them as "attacks." I have substantial outstanding objections to the way you conduct yourself on wikipedia regarding my edits in general revolving around your bad habit of following me around the forum and agitating rather than constructing. I could not be more clear than I have in stating my objections to this behavior, so please come up with a solution or response. Rangerdude 09:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - - - Editing the same articles as you is not a crime. You've "followed" me 19 times and I've "followed" you 27 times. Big deal. I'm sorry if you don't like my participation in this encyclopedia, but that is no reason to use personal epithets. In any case, since you have rejected my participation in this mediation I've asked user:MacGyverMagic to suggest some other mediators. I'm sure we can work together if we can avoid personal remarks. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is a "big deal" will when the behavior exhibited extends well beyond simply "following" somebody to areas of common interest. Of the 19 articles where you state that I've "followed" you the larger portion of them and virtually all the major edits were areas of common editing interest where your previous participation was little more than coincidence. This includes Sheila Jackson Lee, Ludwig von Mises Institute, List of historians by area of study, Paul Gottfried, Race Card, Council of Conservative Citizens and List of political epithets, among others. In some of these cases my edits had nothing at all to do with your previous material and instead pertained to completely unrelated portions of large, existing articles. In others my edits came for unrelated reasons to your own both weeks and months after your participation. By contrast as I have detailed here [25] an unusually large number of your "followings" (at least 22 specific articles) came directly from your use of my editor contributions page to follow me, which you were using to intentionally seek out and unduly scrutinize my edits in a manner that failed to assume they were made in good faith as wikipedia requires. In several of these cases, as noted in detail on the above link, you immediately began making subsequent changes to my edits that were largely deconstructive in nature, consisted primarily of removing and severely diminishing valid material I had added, and frequently attempted to make bad faith demands of "proof" against me that are neither required by wikipedia nor abided by in your own editing practices. This last count also includes multiple cases where I had provided perfectly valid material and/or full source citations that demonstrated my addition beyond any reasonable doubt, but which you either neglected to read, misread, or misunderstood several times in succession due to a bad faith assumption you made against me, prompting you to remove and/or diminish the valid material anyway (examples include the Saxe Coburg and Gotha incident, the Houston Chronicle boycott incident, the bizarre sematical incident on Negrophobia, and the Dickens quotes among many others) and causing needless extended discussions and disputes to simply restore things that you had no valid reason to remove in the first place. Regarding mediation, if there is a mediator who is willing to handle this dispute I would ask that they contact the two of us by our talk pages. Furthermore, if mediation does begin, I believe this section or its relevant contents should be moved from this mediation page to the new one so as not to distract further from progress on the Houston Chronicle article. Rangerdude 18:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think it would be best to move the light rail content to an article like Controversies in the city of Houston it would be easier to NPOV since it wouldn't have to be in the context of the paper. I'm not from houston, but any other controversies in the city which the paper is involved in but not exclusively party to could be moved as well. That shortens this section quite a bit. --Uncle Bungle 06:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Editorial practices subsection was created to quote specific language the Chronicle uses without comment or criticism. It was specifically created to allow the reader to get a taste of the language employed on topics of interest, for example, the results of democratic elections in America, and respecting the judgement and decisions of fellow citizens of the electorate. (I do not understand the contention that quoting the Chronicles' own words without comment is "unfair", or "POV"). Renaming it "Quotes" is just fine. Nobs01 18:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediator comments

I'll need some time to go through all this text. Please be patient. Willmcw: while you may be involved in the dispute, please keep your comments in the outside views section. I specifically stated that only Katefan and Rangerdude were to post in the main section. Your comments will still be read, it's just so responses and comments don't get mixed and so it remains in a readable format for myself. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

- Actually, you specifically invited me to participate in this mediation.[26] I never received a 'disinvitation'. ;) However if you are engaged in this effort I'll let you proceed as you like. I urge you to stay involved. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of material for me to get through to get a feel for the dispute. Please have a little more patience. I should be able to to say more in the comming week. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:23, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)