Talk:John Freshwater/Archive 1

Archive 1

WP:BLP

I've looked over the article quickly and noted most of the information is well-sourced and written in an acceptable manner for the biographies of living persons policy. Just a note to keep the policy in mind for future editing. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just removed information about Freshwater's immediate relatives, in line with WP:BLP of these other individuals, including specific days the mother was married, or the days the children were born. They are not public figures, and outing such personal information is not relevant to John Freshwater's notability. BLP states:

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability."

Thanks. Ann arbor street (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

External link

I reinstated the external link [1]; this is the organization created by the parents of the student that initiated the case against Freshwater. It's pertinent, I believe. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but it seems a little slanted to one side in my opinion. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The "bible on the desk" site ([2]) is used as a reference (does that pass WP:RS?), but I believe had been an EL before that. I don't believe the site to be slanted since it doesn't mention Freshwater specifically and even doesn't advocate any opinions Freshwater opposes. It simply advocates the anonymity rights in these types of cases, something Freshwater's attorney even argued for when presenting one of their own witnesses in the administrative hearing. It's association might be slanted, but then so is that above mentioned reference. I could agree with you more that it doesn't meet WP:EL based on relevance to the topic, since the anonymity issue was a minor point, really. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps the description of the external link could be changed? "Protecting Students- Website from the parents of a student who was branded". When I look at that, it makes the subject of the article look like a monster who students need protecting from. That may be so, but isn't that a matter for the courts to determine? I'm not sure, it just doesn't look too good on a BLP. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"branded" was the language all the papers were using to report on this. I suppose it is "alleged" branding (though there is that investigation used by the school board as evidence for motioning to fire him that concluded this was a branding; not sure if they used that language). Could the link description be made more ambiguous? The bulk of the article was written before anonymity was broken in favor of speeding the hearing along; we could include the Dennis family names instead of "a student" or "two parents of students" and then explain the link as the organization created by the Dennis'. I've seen it done before as well where references are also included as links; we could also include the "bible on the desk" link for balance? But that seems messy. On thinking it through, I'd be OK with getting rid of it again. Any thoughts on the "bible on the desk" reference? Had you identified any other NPOV concerns? Rkitko ^(talk) 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the article in close detail, and I don't really have any knowledge about this subject, the external link description just stood out as not fitting in well with a BLP, at least how it's described at the moment. Sorry I can't provide more clarity here. Best, Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 02:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

NYT

This hit the New York Times yesterday (I was surprised to hear the hearing is still going on): Teacher With Bible Divides Ohio Town. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Referee's Tesla Coil Finding

Rkitko,

I tried to include the referee's dismissal of the Tesla coil incident, even quoting directly from his report. Rather than a summary deletion, would you suggest some better wording?

My original (perhaps feeble) attempt: The sensational cross-burning charge was directly dismissed with the words, "Once sworn testimony was presented, it [became] obvious that speculation and imagination pushed reality aside." Auntmabel (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for the quote, the idea is just as clear without it. And those words are not what "dismissed" the charge; that's just the referee reporting that the charges were dismissed (not himself dismissing them).

There was nothing wrong with my wording; I'm not sure why Rkitko removed it, as it doesn't represent anything in that source. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The referee did not "dismiss" the charge; he simply noted that Freshwater was asked to not use the device again on students and he complied, which is why the referee considered that matter closed and dealt with before the hearing even began ("Further, and more crucial to a review of the Amended Resolution [to terminate Freshwater], the use of the Tesla Coil by John Freshwater did not seem to be a proper subject for the Amended Resolution"). That's not a dismissal, nor is it a finding that the incident did not occur, so it would be incorrect to include the "allegedly" language in the lead section of the article.

Rjanag, the trouble with your wording is that it implies the Dennis family exaggerated their claims about the branding. This is not what the referee said at all. It's actually unclear what his "... it became obvious that speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside" comment was in reference to. However, it certainly doesn't explicitly state that the Dennis family or the other students were the source of the speculation and imagination. In fact, it seems more likely that the comment was directed at the "video, audio, and print media" in the preceding sentence. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Page 2 of the pdf document in question says "the Tesla Coil matter had been concluded", "that case was closed", etc. More importantly, in that same paragraph it suggests that reports in the media of his "using a tesla coil to brand students' arm with a cross", which is what your version of the article says, is not entirely accurate. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also dissent on that narrow interpretation of the referee's statement, and agree with Rjanag. Even if the referee's statement is to be understood strictly to apply to the media reports, what terms did the media use? "branded", "burned", "cross", "held down arm". These are all terms used by the Dennises. It's somewhat amusing that what was "obvious" to the referee, is "unclear" to us.

Similarly, the use of the term "allegedly" is appropriate since no court of law has declared that Freshwater did these things.Auntmabel (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag, you're making an inferential leap. The referee's report does not specify which reports in the media were inaccurate. In fact, it doesn't mention inaccuracy at all; he just vaguely referred to speculation and imagination. This is a very poor source to make the claims that the branding incident didn't occur since there are absolutely no specifics! And Auntmabel, a court need not rule on something, especially since it was not taken to criminal court, for it to be true. The fact that Freshwater's employer had directed him to stop using the Tesla coil in that manner is quite enough to establish that the events were more than alleged. In fact, this was one of the reasons why the school board decided to consider firing Freshwater in 2008. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Freshwater’s employer directed him to stop allowing students to touch the Tesla coil; the employer did not make any statement in that directive that any student had been burned or branded. Thus, an instance of burning or branding was not “established” by the employer’s directive. TheronMikolas (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The school board, in its original June 2008 resolution, cited the branding as grounds for termination. Additionally, the HR On Call investigation found that Freshwater did brand a cross into the student's arm. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The branding allegation was never substantiated and was not included in the school board’s 2011 resolution firing Freshwater. No medical expert ever examined the alleged injury. No one other than his family claimed to have seen a burn on his arm. As a reminder, Wikipedia’s policy regarding this is clear: “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.” Per Wikipedia’s policy, the allegation of the burning/branding must be either removed entirely from the article or the outcome—as a result of the sworn testimony, referee’s recommendation and board’s 2011 resolution—must be clearly and explicitly stated in the article. To do otherwise would constitute libel. TheronMikolas (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of WP:BLP and I do not think any of the text runs afoul of that. You have to agree, though, that the referee's report says next to nothing about the branding issue and certainly doesn't support any statement that the Dennises exaggerated their claims. In fact, the major reason the referee closed that part of the case was because the administration handled the issue: "By letter of January 22, 2008 as authorized by Principal William White (Board Exhibit 6 - Attachment 16) the Tesla Coil matter has been concluded." This was a procedural closure of that portion of the case, not a judgment on either the Dennises or Freshwater. Your recent revision presents wildly inaccurate information. I corrected it (especially further down the page). I may remind you of WP:NPOV when it comes to article content. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The HR On Call investigation and report became irrelevant as soon as Freshwater asked for the administrative hearing. The hearing became the replacement for the HR On Call investigation and report. One of the chief distinctions between the HR report and the hearing is that HR did not record the interviews nor take sworn affidavits, whereas all the testimony before the referee was sworn and subject to cross-examination. Many, if not all, the witnesses interviewed by HR On Call appeared as sworn witnesses in the hearing. That is why the referee made the point in the significant statement, "Once sworn testimony...". It would be an error for anyone to continue to rely on the HR report. The board's January 10, 2011 resolution (superseding the June 2008 resolution) did not cite the Tesla coil incident as grounds for termination. Based on this, the WP:libel policy requires either "alleged" to be used with the terms "brand", "burned", etc., or that the terms be deleted. It would be better to use "alleged" followed by the explanation as proposed.Auntmabel (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be ok with tempering the language if we can ditch "alleged". He admitted in the hearing testimony to zapping students with the Tesla coil. Would something like this be more acceptable, "His dismissal involved a debate on creation and evolution in public education, and his improper use of a Tesla coil on a student's arm, variously reported in the media as branding(media source) or burning(media source) in the shape of a cross." Rkitko ^(talk) 22:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] First of all, you all need to stop edit warring on this subject; now that it is clear there is disagreement, none of you should be making edits to this text until a consensus is worked out here. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's edit warring policy.

As for the content issue itself, while I already expressed above that I don't completely agree with Rkitko's wording, it is also clear that there are serious NPOV and veracity issues with TheronMiklas' edits (which Rkitko linked above):

• Calling charges "sensational" is not ok regardless of what you think about the issues. Even if the charges were proven wrong, our job is only to present the facts, not to pass judgment (this is the same reason we don't say "Hitler was a jerk" in our article on him; the facts can be allowed to speak for themselves).
• It is simply inaccurate that the charges "were directly dismissed with the words, 'Once sworn testimony was presented, it [became] obvious that speculation and imagination pushed reality aside.'" As I already said once, those are from a report summarizing the proceedings; that quotation itself is not what officially "dismissed" the charges, it's just a third-party summary.

Rkitko, as for your concern (which, if I understand correctly, is that you're worried the wording I added before might suggest that the family itself was the one exaggerating), what about changing that wording in the lede to "the latter issue was eventually dismissed when it became apparent that media reports of the branding were exaggerated"? rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder on the edit warring. I was getting whiplash... rjanag, just two subtle remarks about your two bullets: A) "sensational" is the term used by the Referee, page 1, and B) the Referee is charged by the statute with the responsibility of producing a finding of fact, so the report is not just a third-party summary by the Referee, but intended as an official finding of fact. If your "third-party summary" refers to my clumsy wording, I'm happy for suggested changes.Auntmabel (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the referee did not report on any findings of facts with regard to the Tesla coil incident. The emphasis in his report is on procedure, in that he didn't feel the incident was appropriate grounds for termination because the administration dealt with the issue already. The primary reason he "closed" that part of the case was not "when it became apparent that reports of the branding were exaggerated" (your original wording) and it is wholly inaccurate that the referee "found that the Dennis family's allegations were unsubstantiated." He did not. He said nothing of the sort. And to cherry pick one sentence that doesn't represent the primary reason the referee closed that portion of the case puts undue weight on a minor point in his report. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag, my major problem with including that point is that if you read the referee's report, he indicates the primary reason he closed that portion of the case (and I'm not sure what he meant by "closed" since, as a hearing referee his job was to make a recommendation to the Board, so wording such as "dismissed" is inappropriate) is that the administration previously handled the Tesla coil incident, and thus the referee thought it an inappropriate Grounds for termination. I think the current wording represents this most accurately. I'm not sure if this belongs in the lead. Your modified wording is still worrisome because it implies the exaggerated media reports were the reason it was "dismissed," which isn't even close to reality. If that were the case, the referee would have spent much more ink on the issue, citing exhibit after exhibit to make such a point. Instead, he refers only to a letter from the school's principal, which detailed how the administration had dealt with the Tesla coil incident. That's why he considered the matter closed. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Quotation

RJanag, I agree that the quote doesn't belong in the introduction. I had placed the quote down in the body of the article where it belongs, from whence it was deleted by Rkitko. The quotation is very significant. Can you suggest better wording?Auntmabel (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the referee quote is very significant and does need to be included in the article. TheronMikolas (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It's marginal, at best, and is not the primary reason why the referee felt he did not need to address the Tesla coil incident. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Referee used the term "alleged" with the descriptions listed in his first paragraph of Specified Ground No. 1. The Referee's statement in question rebuffs the descriptions, with the solid basis of "sworn testimony". In this he did address the allegations, and went on to rebuke the board for even including it in the Amended resolution since they had already closed the matter in January 2008. Yet, every news article keeps bringing up the allegations, and the perpetuation of this practice in this article seems to be a violation of the NPOV, doesn't it? The Referee's use of the phrase "...more crucial..." on page two grammatically demands that the antecedent also be "crucial": this quotation with the "plausible explanation" context. No, the quotation is definitely not marginal, it is crucial. Perhaps the article should omit the "Dennis" reference, and also include the next (plausible explanation) sentence?Auntmabel (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Associated Press, in an article earlier today, was once again mentioning the burning/branding allegation without telling readers about how that matter was resolved. This afternoon, the news organizations affiliated with the AP are now correcting those articles by moving mention of the burning/branding allegation to the very last paragraph--and, importantly, clearly letting readers know that the allegation is no longer an issue: “Freshwater was also accused of burning students' arms with the image of a cross, but that allegation was resolved and not cited in the board's final firing recommendation.” TheronMikolas (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not alleged if he admitted it under sworn testimony during the hearing. The referee would have spent much more time on the Tesla coil incident, citing exhibits, etc., if he actually set out to address it fully. Instead, his comments basically translate to, "the administration's action was a sufficient remedy for this matter." And I still think it's unclear whether he's rebuffing the allegations or media reports. Don't you think if he really set out to fully handle the Tesla coil incident, he would have spent more time on clarity in that section?

The Telsa coil incident was a major part of the coverage of the case, so it's natural to find the article here mentioning it. Reading through the article again, I don't see any undue weight given to the topic; I think it's handled appropriately. I don't think quoting either sentence is appropriate. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Rkitko, I think you may be experiencing a fundamental misunderstanding about a Tesla coil. True, Freshwater freely admitted allowing students to touch the energized coil, even as science teachers have done with thousands of students across the country for over 50 years. However, touching doesn't automatically produce "branding", "blanching," "burning", etc. In fact, that was the very issue that was the subject in the hearing. The referee apparently concluded that it's very unlikely that branding/blanching/burning/etc. result from a Tesla coil as used in the classroom, hence his use of the words "speculation and imagination". This is the point he's making with the quotation we're discussing.Auntmabel (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm well aware of what a Tesla coil is. I'm also aware that Freshwater admitted in the hearing proceedings that it left red marks on his (Freshwater's) arm and that most students pulled away "because it hurts." Your point about the referee's statements are your inferential leaps. "The referee apparently concluded that it's very unlikely that branding/blanching/burning/etc. result from a Tesla coil as used in the classroom, hence his use of the words 'speculation and imagination'." - You cannot support this statement; the referee was not explicit in the report. He did not conclude anywhere in the report that it was "unlikely" that the Tesla coil produced the branding/blanching/burning. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So where in the report did he conclude that the Tesla coil did produce the branding/blanching/burning? Auntmabel (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said he did. He didn't; the article doesn't currently claim he did. The point I've been making here is that he says very little about the Tesla coil because he considered the matter concluded by action of the administration. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Rkitko, I’ve offered several grammatical and logical arguments that support the inclusion of this quotation from the report. To recap: 1. the referee’s report statutorily supersedes the HR On-Call report; 2. the referee considers this statement crucial; 3. the referee characterizes the “red welts, blistering, swelling,” etc. as allegations; 4. the referee characterizes the specification in the Amended Resolution as “sensational and provocative”; 5. the allegations of branding appear in nearly every media report; 6. it is a logical error to equate an admission by Freshwater that he permitted students to contact an energized Tesla coil, with a confession of “burning”/ “branding”, etc.; 7.to the extent that the WP article fails to employ the concept of “alleged” with these claims, the article does communicate the erroneous (and potentially libelous) notion that they have been established as factual.

You have expressed your opinion, and arbitrary assertions, but you have not demonstrated that these arguments are invalid.

May I suggest the following wording:

• In his finding of fact regarding the Amended Resolution’s allegations of injuring students with a Tesla coil (commonly described as “branding” in media reports), the referee wrote, “Once sworn testimony was presented, it [became] obvious that speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside. There was a plausible explanation for how and why the Tesla Coil had been used by John Freshwater.” He went on to observe that the matter had already been adjudicated by the administration in January 2008, and was not a proper subject for the Amended Resolution. He did not recommend this topic as a ground for contract termination, and this claim was not a basis for the Board’s January 2011 resolution to terminate Freshwater’s contract.

This would present both “crucial” factors for his finding of fact regarding the Tesla coil without injecting editorial opinion on the matter. This alerts the reader to the presence of strong language in the referee’s report, and may prompt further independent research to form an opinion. This, I have understood from grammar school, is one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I propose the entire article be corrected of the assumption that the “burning”, etc. claims have been established as factual, by attaching the “alleged” modifier, because that’s what the referee did.

Lastly, I would urge you, Rkitko, to exercise a double portion of restraint in all of your editing of this article. Your close working relationship with a professor who has had sharp confrontations with the subject of this article may lead you to subconsciously exercise improper bias. A number of your edits have been helpful, and I would value your continued NPOV contributions. Auntmabel (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You have no evidence whatsoever that "the referee considers [the quotation] crucial". It's his own wording, not someone else's; he's not quoting it. And, as I have already said several times, you can express the same point without quoting. There's no need for flowery prose in an encyclopedia article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think may be operating under a false impression. See below. Also, evidence is not at issue; it is simply an application of the rules of grammar. So far we have failed at attempts to "express the same point without quoting" since that requires editorial interpretation, on which have not agreed. Auntmabel (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Auntmabel, I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith. My professional connection to my boss has no bearing on my editing this article. Not that it's relevant, but I've never heard of these "sharp confrontations" you mentioned (and unless it's documented, perhaps you should consider writing, "alleged sharp confrontations" ;-). To go point by point: 1) I don't believe this to be true. The HR On Call report was an independent investigation authorized by the board (correct?), which informed the board's decision to start termination proceedings. The referee's report is a recommendation and review of the board's resolution and can't, by its very nature, supersede that investigation. 2) Yes, but it appears to be he thought it less crucial than the reason for closure of that portion of the case. 3) Of course the referee notes the board alleged these things in the Amended Resolution; his first paragraph is a summary of the first grounds for termination mentioned by the Board. These are not his findings. 4) I don't dispute that. 5) This is also true. 6) I suppose. There was a lot of testimony and re-enactment of the incident that didn't match, so it's not very clear what really happened (whether his arm was held down, no the projector, not on the projector, etc.). 7) Where in the current article does it establish the Tesla coil incident as factual? I'll have another read through, but at each mention, it seems pretty clear they were "claims" or "alleged", etc. Not every mention requires the modifier "alleged."

With regard to your suggested wording, I think we're getting closer here to something acceptable. I still don't think there's any room for the quotations, because the referee's statements were, in my opinion, too vague to draw conclusions from. If these were his findings of fact, he would have been explicit, elaborating on the "plausible explanation." The big hole here is, what was the plausible explanation? Why didn't the referee feel it necessary to write about that if it was so important? And indeed, what was the "reality" of the situation? Rkitko ^(talk) 22:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Point 1 takes a little more space: It’s a matter of law that the referee is not just another observer, interlocutor, or interloper, but is a trier of fact, according to his own words in his closing remarks of the hearing. He is the administrative hearing version of a judge in a court of law. Both the BOE attorney and Freshwater’s attorney accurately identify this (BOE closing brief, page 3; FW closing brief, page 7). According to both attorneys, who cited case law, his responsibility is to A. determine the facts, and B. recommend action to the board based on those facts and the criteria of RC3319.16. The referee’s words carry considerable weight, such that if the board decides to deviate from his recommendation, they must carefully justify it with documentation. This is the primary reason the HR report became irrelevant. But that’s not all. Under cross-examination in the hearing, the HR investigators (now become sworn witnesses themselves) admitted that they had neglected to audio record or take sworn statements from witnesses; that Freshwater’s witnesses were not interviewed; and that Freshwater was denied his right to submit a “comprehensive written response” guaranteed in the master contract under which he was employed. More than that, the witnesses who had been interviewed by HR, later testified under oath in the hearing subject to cross-examination, and several of them disputed the way their statements to the investigators had been represented in the HR report (e.g. Ruth Frady, Tamara Henry, Lynda Weston). Far more evidence (nearly 300 exhibits) and more numerous witnesses (~80) were available to the referee than for the HR report. The HR report became simply an exhibit in the hearing, Board Exhibit 6, whereas the hearing became the investigation that supplanted it. The referee’s report is an official finding, whereas the HR report is simply a report purchased by one party in the dispute. (“Independent” has always been a misnomer for the HR OnCall exercise: HR was hired by the BOE lawyer.)

The HR report is not without usefulness in this WP article, however. Since it has been the standard source for salacious media reports for nearly three years, it needs to be mentioned. The accusations it relays are the very reason for Freshwater’s “notoriety” that warrants a WP article. After all, public school teachers (allegedly) trying to teach creationism are a dime a dozen; but how many also (allegedly) burn crosses on their students’ arms? The reason for including this quote is to provide some balance, or at least an indication that the HR report isn’t the whole story.

Points 2-7: 2) Yes, less crucial, but crucial nonetheless. 3) 4) 5) 6) It may not be clear to us on the outside, particularly through the filter of newspaper reporters and their editors, but it was “obvious” to the referee, according to his own words. So, put the referee’s own words in this article, and let the curious reader do further research to figure out what he meant. 7) I believe you cleaned up most of the needed “alleged”s in your edits over the last several days. Well done! We ought to be careful that the Dennises are not expunged from the article entirely, since they were central in lodging the allegations.

And Let me express my appreciation to you as well, as you have likewise assumed good faith on my part. Auntmabel (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

PS, here's a quote from the Columbus Dispatch, titled "State Hearing Officer: Mount Vernon Teacher should be Fired for Pushing Christian Agenda," January 8, 2011.

• "Shepherd's report says that the controversial claims about Freshwater using an electrical laboratory device to burn crosses on students' arms during science experiments were overblown: 'Once sworn testimony was presented, it became obvious that speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside.'" Auntmabel (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture Caption

Rkitko, you keep fiddling with the picture caption without justifying your actions. It's time to step up and be a good wiki-citizen. Auntmabel (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I did justify it in my edit summary. You originally edited the image caption, but I objected to the "discredited" language and altered it to its current language. You then began adding unnecessary "alleged" language again. The caption describes the image without implication; there's no need to say that the photo "alleged to show" the marks on the arm. And stick to the commentary on the content, not me. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The caption absolutely does imply that the photo shows the result of the Tesla experience. This was highly disputed in the hearing. The only individuals to have claimed that the photo accurately shows the claimed injury is the Dennis family: Steve, Jennifer, and Zach. No other person came forward to verify it, no medical professional examined the arm, neither the superintendent nor principal even viewed the arm. The "independent investigators" never examined the arm. The only other person to have claimed to see the arm was a classmate, and he testified that the photo did not faithfully represent what he saw. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to state that this photo is alleged to show injury – in fact, it would be yet more complete to say that the Dennises allege. Now, why do you believe it to be "unnecessary"? Auntmabel (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By including the term "alleged," the implication is that the student and his family lied or fabricated it. That's not very NPOV. Find a different way to say it. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently: A picture from the report released by the Mount Vernon City School District of the marks left on the child's arm after contact with the Tesla coil

How about this instead: A picture from the investigation released by the school district; the image was taken by the parents who said the marks were the result of contact with the Tesla coil"

"Said" is more neutral, if a bit simple. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I begin to understand your reluctance to use the word "alleged." The ordinary dictionary definition for the term is that something is "stated or asserted without proof." There is no implication of lying or fabrication with the use of the term; there would be other words for that. So, according to the dictionary, I don't think there's any NPOV issue with the use of the term. Your NPOV sensitivity for the Dennis family is commendable. However, I don't see your NPOV concern for the subject of this BLP, or for how the current caption convicts him of the deed, when the Columbus Dispatch called it "overblown."

"Said" is fine; "alleged" is fine, too. "Discredited" would be accurate as well, since the Referee didn't believe it, the classmates didn't believe it, nor did the Superintendent or Principal. Although, I might add, that if the Superintendent or Principal did believe it, then they are guilty of the actual crime of not reporting the injury to CPS (they are mandatory reporters under Ohio law of even suspected or alleged child abuse). So, they either disbelieved it, or they willfully broke the law. Both men were put on the horns of that dilemma when testifying during the hearing. Auntmabel (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Discredited" is far too much, given that the referee said absolutely nothing about the picture or injury, except in a summary of what the board had used for grounds for termination in the first resolution (I just went back to look at his recommendation). You clearly paid more attention to the proceedings than I did. But as far as I know, testimony presented without a clear finding of fact from the referee is still just testimony. You and I cannot judge whether that testimony was accurate (for the purposes of an encyclopedia article) and therefore we cannot say the image is "discredited." Yes, the standard dictionary definition of alleged is fine and I'm aware of it, but after a vague recommendation from the referee on this matter that left much to be desired in the way of findings of fact, the use of alleged seems to suggest lying or fabrication.

I'd like your thoughts on the following point, too. The current caption does not, in your words, convict Freshwater of the deed. As we discussed earlier, he admitted making the mark on the child's arm. Now, the details of that changed from testimony to testimony. But the caption does not suggest that Freshwater held the child's arm down to do it (which would be going too far, since that wasn't addressed by the referee either and testimony on that was scattered and inconsistent), nor does it suggest the marks were burns, how severe it was, or whether it hurt, which were all points of contention and should be avoided in matter-of-fact statements. I could see how you could object to the current language if it included any of those points, but it doesn't. It simply says that the image is of marks on the child's arm. "Alleged" would imply it might have been drawn on, taken days after the Tesla coil incident, or was unrelated, which was never discussed by the referee in his recommendation. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Freshwater did not agree that the photo accurately shows the results of the Tesla coil experience. As I pointed out earlier, the only people who make such an assertion is the Dennis family. Your suggested "Said" wording is quite appropriate, and I would endorse your edit.

What about statements attributed to Freshwater that he "marked" students? It became apparent during the hearing that the lawyers regularly employed equivocation: that is, using a word with its different meanings in order to get a sound-bite that they want. Few of the witnesses were adept at navigating this trickery; Freshwater was not among them! Here is how the BOE lawyer used the word "mark": in asking Freshwater (and other witnesses) about the trajectory of the Tesla coil as it was moved across a student's arm, the lawyer used the word "mark" as though the device is a pen or magic marker, leaving a visible trail in its wake. But you know the properties of a Tesla coil, and that if a mark becomes visible at all, it does not appear immediately, but rather after some minutes at a minimum. This use of the word "mark" had the meaning only of trajectory, clumsy as it is, but Freshwater, and other witnesses, fell for it. The lawyer asked him later if the Tesla coil left marks on skin, and the answer was that it happens only rarely, and that he himself sometimes would have visible marks on his own arm only after repeating the procedure on himself five periods in the day. This is a second, though more accurate usage, of the term "mark". The lawyer of course feigned confusion (I hope it was feigned), but that was his very purpose in equivocating. Much later in the hearing, Freshwater's attorney caught on, and asked a series of questions to clarify the distinction between the two meanings.

(I don't agree that the use of "alleged" ever implies lying or fabrication; it only notifies the reader that the assertion is unproven. If the term is used after proof is offered, then that recommends that the proof is insufficient or unconvincing. No proof has been offered in the case of the photo, though it could have easily been obtained at the time through examination by a medical professional.) Auntmabel (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Freshwater/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Is the fact that Kent Hovind is a convicted felon really germane? It seems that the author is implying that Freshwater is discredited by Hovind's actions. I think this could be used to make a case that the article is biased.

Last edited at 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)