Talk:Reed College/drug use dispute

NPOV Debate (General)

This page is the subject of periodic spasms of change (and sometimes vandalism) from first-timers (either to Wikipedia or to the Reed page) who think the page is too positive about Reed. The "Drug Use" section (see talk below) is a frequent target, though several other sections get hit as well. The general comment is that the page is POV in being too positive. I have just done a brief survey of about 20 other small college pages, including Swarthmore, Haverford, Grinnell, and many others, and Reed's page is in no way unusual, certainly not in being overly positive. If someone wants to make a serious contribution about, e.g. the curriculum (too conservative?), to politics (too liberal?), or something else that can be based in some sort of objective fact, please feel free to do so. But consistent vandalism in the form of spurious negative commentary does not belong here. NPOV doesn't mean mindlessly adding negative comments until the page seems "balanced". Add facts, not opinions. -- Gnetwerker 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Use

(Left the heading in since this will no doubt come up again)

And how prescient you were. The overall tone of this article can be summed up as: "Hooray for Reed!" Much could be done to ameliorate this, but I've started by adding some relevant drug info. IronDuke 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment in "NPOV" section on your "Hooray" comment. I reverted your comment "although deaths from heroin overdoses by members of the Reed community were not uncommon in the early to mid 90's." This is completely false. I believe that there may have been one heroin OD at Reed since 1977 - I am checking into it and will post shortly. If you have data otherwise, please post it. Current statistics on drug use show Reed in-line with other colleges. -- Gnetwerker 06:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things: please refrain from wholesale reversions of edits when possible. In this case, there were other sentences that I took out, in addition to putting the ones about heroin in. And you took out mention of heroin in the list of drugs. Does that mean there was never heroin at Reed? Extraordinary, if true. And you are in any case quite wrong about the number of heroin deaths among members of the Reed Community. As for "posting my data," if we want to get into that, about 70% of the article is unsourced (and I'm being generous). IronDuke 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you offering the fact that a majority of the article is already unsourced, as justification for adding even more unsourced and dubious information? Matt Gies 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. IronDuke 19:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Duke - I am not going to spend my time editing your revertable edits. Of course there has been heroin at Reed. If you would like to add that, go right ahead. The rest of your edit was POV BS. Regarding sourcing, I have the 2003 Reed Drug Use Survey and access to the College's records. What do you have? Something you googled from the Quest to Willy Week? If you have evidence of heroin deaths being "common" -- or even "not uncommon" (what does that mean, exactly?), then please post it here first. -- Gnetwerker 07:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this issue makes you unhappy. I don't consider the deaths of Reedies from heroin overdoses to be "nonsense," and it puzzles me that you do. A few technical matters: I don't see any sourcing for the binge drinking claim, or that "Reed pursues a drug and alcohol policy focused on internal rather than police intervention." I don't really see any source for the 2003 heroin study except here on the talk page, either, but I'm assuming good faith. It interests me that you have access to Reed's records; you could help me improve this article by looking up Michael Babic , Jeremy Weiner, John Rush, and Nick Fisher. (I think I have these spelled right.) BTW, are you on the Board of Trustees at Reed? IronDuke 14:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have googled for the four names you mentioned above, with no results. (This does not particularly mean much, as their claimed noteritiy (herioin OD's at Reed) hardly guarentees they would show up in a google search) But it's a data point. Duke, please state where you got those names (and all your information) from... JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To correct you -- information (fact) does not make me unhappy. Repeated vandalism does. You have presented no evidence that heroin deaths at Reed are (or were) "not uncommon", yet you continue to insert that absurd phrase into the page. I have reverted the edit (again). If you persist, I will ask to have the page protected. On Monday I will check into the cases you have listed -- easier if you provide what years they purportedly died. Student confidentiality will prevent me from saying anythign specific about them, but I may be able to find public sources, if you are correct (which I doubt). If you would like to create a standalone page about your beliefs regarding Reed's history of drug deaths, go right ahead -- see how long it withstands scrutiny.

While I knnow from personal experience that there have been no drug-related deaths at Reed since 1997, I nonetheless went through virtually every copy of The Quest since 1997, and have seen no references to student heroin deaths. Students have been hospitalized for various substance overdoses, usually unspecified but the most common being alchohol, but no deaths. I have also searched the Oregonian archives going back to 1987, and there are also no references to deaths of current Reed students from drug overdoses. Micheal Babich, who died on January 28, 1989, of an apparent heroin overdose, was 22 at the time, and was no longer a Reed student. His death did not take place on campus.

The binge drinking claim (re Reed) is from (currently) internal information. Regarding wider trends: cf Barbarians At the Tailgate? Students Accept Drinking Rules, But the Alumni Strike Back The New York Times; November 19, 2005; Less Diversity, More Booze?: Binge-Drinking Study Looks at College Demographics The Washington Post; Oct 31, 2003; Drinking Lessons: As Alcohol Problems Grow, Colleges Seek New Remedies The Washington Post; Apr 16, 2002; College Towns, School Officials Seek End to Post-Game Rioting; String of Disturbances Part of Growing Trend, Observers Say. Washington Post, 4 April 2001.

However, there is a student (Psych322) Survey that has been done since 1999 (http://academic.reed.edu/psychology/pluralisticignorance/drugsalcohol.html). Regrettably, the 2004 numbers are not posted, but it does abundantly verify one piece of my posting -- students perception of drug use at Reed vastly exceeds the reality. The 2003 survey on substance abuse in general, not heroin specifically) is also a Reed internal document. I will get a full reference for it this coming week.

Regarding the change in policy, a quick perusal of the Reed Drug and Alchohol policy (http://web.reed.edu/academic/gbook/comm_pol/drug_policy.html) confirms this.

My affiliation with Reed (other than that I was a student in the 1970s, and continue to be affiliated with the College today) is none of your business. -- Gnetwerker 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't have time at the moment to address the specific drug issues you bring up, other than to thank you for looking into those names. To the best of my knowledge, none of those people died "at Reed," and yet they were all heroin users there participating in a culture that was at once hostile and yet tolerant of heroin use. As for your affiliation with Reed being none of my business, I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I believe it is the business of Wikipedia. "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged." [[1]] If you are, for example, a member of the Board of Trustees or are employed by Reed or have a vested financial interest in it, then I would ask you to recuse yourself from further edits to the article, especially ones that involve points of contention or controversy. Your comments on the talk page, however, would be welcome, as long as they are civil. However, referring to my edits as "nonsense" or "vandalism" is also a violation of WP policy. I can point you towards the links for those policies, but I'm running late for work, will try to do it later. IronDuke 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I decline to limit my activities on this page, and stipulate that my writing about Reed does not constitute "autobiography", and further that I am not "primarily responsible" for the College sufficient to create a conflict of interest. Further, IMHO excluding every student, staff, faculty member, alumnus, or other affiliate of Reed would be counter-productive. and it is not called for by the Wikipedia guidelines.

Second, as long as we're talking about Wikipedia policy, you need to look up the policy about Verifiability WP:V. Your edits violate this policy. The statement that "heroin deaths were not uncommon" is a complete violation of that policy, as it is utterly unverifiable (even if it were not also false). If you post information that is appropriately sourced, it will not be reverted. Preferably, you will cite it here in 'Talk' first, and let the community discuss it before it gets added. -- Gnetwerker 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal

I'm not sure why you put the words "primarily responsible" in quotes. My suggestion is and was that you may have, for example, a fiduciary responsibility to Reed College and, as such, a duty to recuse yourself from this page. Obviously, you are not in and of yourself Reed College, such that your comments could not be strictly speaking considered "autobiography." And yet, the WP policy I quoted remains: "...editing an article about... your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged." No one person can be said to "own" Reed and therefore no one person can be accused of promoting his or her own business by boosting Reed in this article. But if, for example, a member of the Board at IBM were to make changes to the IBM article, that would be a violation of WP policy. My suspicion is that this is an analogous case. Although I believe I know who you are I do not wish to name you as 1) you have a right to remain anonymous on these pages and 2) I could be quite wrong about your identity and therefore I would not be inclined to insist on your identifying yourself. However, I ask that you stipulate that you have no financial or fiduciary responsibility for the well-being of Reed College, as that is a clear conflict of interest. If you can honestly do that, I withdraw my request for your recusal. IronDuke 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the phrase "primarily responsible" in quotes because it is the phrase that appears in the WP policy statement. Reed is not my business and this is not an autoiography. Other than that, I do not accept your interpretation of the guidelines, and will not rise to your bait. Reed has 1300 or so students, tens of thousands of alumni and parents, 200 or more faculty and staff, roughly 40 Trustees, and thousands of substantial donors. Which of them, in your opinion, should be constrained from participation here, and in which class are you? -- Gnetwerker 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of baiting you. I indicated above what the parameters for participating in the editing of this page were, as per the Wikipedia guidelines. I am taking your refusal to deny that you have a financial/fiduciary relationship with the college as an admission that you do. As for my own connection or lack thereof with Reed, I assure you that I have no such relationship. IronDuke 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add this: I may be in error in my interpretation of the WP policies. Perhaps a way to resolve this might be to seek mediation on the specific issue of whether, for example, trustees may edit articles on institutions they are members of. Is this acceptable to you? IronDuke 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should strive to correct or reinforce your understanding of the policy before we undertake anything as heavyweight as mediation. Why don't you post on the discussion page for the policy? My refusal to tell you my relationship with Reed should not be interpreted to mean that I have any particular relationship. As a matter of law, as it turns out, college board members are not always fiduciaries for their institutions, so this in and of itself may not even be dispositive. -- Gnetwerker 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not altogether certain how you mean for me to correct my understanding of policy. Posting on the discussion page would not, I think, be a fruitful way to solve the issues that have arisen between us. Perhaps I can simplify my point a bit here: I, myself, have no interest in seeing Reed succeed, nor do I have any interest in seeing Reed fail. Can you say the same? I have no desire to see "positive" or "negative" facts about Reed included in this article, merely notable facts. My suspicion is that you are too close to the institution to edit in a NPOV manner, but I may be wrong in this. I invite you, again, to mediate this dispute with me. IronDuke 02:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Legends

The stuff below does not belong here. It could be part of its own Reed Legends article, if people felt like that was a legit topic for WP.

(Unlike the circumstances of most Reed legends, there are still alumni alive who will vouch for the veracity of the MG story. Specifically, the vehicle's alleged owner claims that while he was abroad playing Capoeira in Europe one summer, several inbrebriated friends thought it might be funny to push his car into the foundation. . . and then could not remove it. Though the story cannot be confirmed, the alumnus still lives in Portland and is still pissed about the whole event.)

The placement of a copper time capsule in Eliot Hall is suggested in the blueprints but has not been confirmed.

IronDuke 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Made a pass over the article and tried to weed out the more transparent examples of POV. There were many, so I'm not going to write about each one but summarize and say that the article looked an awful lot like a brochure for Reed. Many of the comments were entirely unsourced, and some of them would not be appropriate even if they were. If anyone has a problem with any of one of those edits, I'd be glad to get specific. IronDuke 02:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're removing unsourced material, I removed the entire Social/Polical and Drug Use sections of "Reputation". First, they occur in no other similar college page, second, as noted they are unverifiable, and finally, they seem to meet the same POV test as IronDuke has stipulated above. -- Gnetwerker 07:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was improper. I had thought that even though you and I appear to disagree on the emphases that are appropriate to place in this article, that together we were actually improving this section, adding sourced and verifiable information. I had left a few things in the section that you had added even though I was uncomfortable with them, even though I believe you ought not to be editing this article at all, as a way of trying to compromise. If you believe the drug section should be removed, perhaps an RfC would be in order. IronDuke 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was completely proper. I invited you to discuss your concerns on this Talk page before editing a document that has been largely stable for months. Your edits have been uniformly POV and also not Verifiable, and this one is no exception. I have removed the unverifiable comments and retained those supported by specific citations. The fact that you retained some well-sourced facts that I added only to ameliorate your POV doesn't make it any better. If you want to stop editing and have a discussion here, relying on concensus to determine the outcome, then please do so and stop editing -- that is the Wiki way. In the meantime I will remove any statement that violates WP:V -- Gnetwerker 02:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on the right track again. Let's see what we can do to provide relevant, cited information in the drug use section. Although I think we can work together on this, again, I would ask that you not edit the article directly, but simply post suggestions on the talk page. If I am wrong about you, and you have no stake in Reed, please accept my apology in advance for insinuating that you did. IronDuke 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you not edit the article, especially to remove sourced, relevant information balancing your own POV (which is well-recorded here on these pages). Anyone who makes the claim "heroin deaths at Reed are not uncommon" has a clear POV (see results of my research below). However, I will refrain from further edits if (and only if) you will. -- Gnetwerker 05:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I asked for (and got) temporary page protection. We will unprotect the page when we work this out. You first. -- Gnetwerker 06:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose locking down the page is a reasonable short term step. I'm not sure what it is that we have to work out from your perspective, but I can tell you mine. There are three issues: 1) Your relationship with Reed, which you refuse to divulge. This relationship does not mean that I think, for example, you would be inclined to lie about Reed. I'd liken it, rather, to a doctor diagnosing himself. They are certainly capable of doing so, but are instead supposed to rely on other doctors to diagnose them. 2) You seem to have a problem with the drug section in general. This makes me question how dedicated you are to providing a fully-sourced, verifiable, non-argumentative section (and when I say "argumentative, I mean adding in your own thoughts about Reed's drug use/binge drinking in relation to other colleges. It is akin to writing, "Yeah, sure there are drugs at Reed. There are drugs everywhere. What are you gonna do?") Your multiple edits of the section, then wholesale deletion of the section, are troubling. 3) Tone of talk comments. You have improved greatly in this area over the past few days, and I appreciate it. I hope you (and I) continue in this vein. IronDuke 15:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Use Again

I'd love it if people other than Gnetwerker could weigh in here. I'm going to leave the heroin deaths out of this section for now, as Gnetwerker quite rightly points out that I have no verification at hand (other than knowing for a virtual certainty that they happened). But the tone of the drug section as it was before I edited it was defensive and argumentative. Not WP style. IronDuke 02:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how one can definitively rebut a baseless claim such as the one that IronDuke has made, but I went to Reed today and spoke to Mary Catherine Lamb, head of student services there, and someone who has been at Reed for 12 years. I also spoke to Steve McCarthy, a member of the Board of Trustees who has been on the Board since 1988. Reed has not had a heroin death of a current student (or anyone else for that matter) on campus or off campus since at least the mid-1970s (which is not implying that there was one then -- this is as far back as anyone can remember and/or find records). Now of course you can charge this is some kind of cover-up, but either person will speak on the record on the subject. As noted earlier, there are also no local news reports of such deaths in the archives of the local paper, The Oregonian. I can supply contact details for these references if needed. -- Gnetwerker 05:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people I'm talking about didn't die at Reed. They died after long battles with heroin that were either begun at Reed or exacerbated at Reed. That's why I was really hoping you could help me out and check on the fates of those alums. Does Reed track alum deaths? Manner of death? I would dearly love to research it myself, but I suspect I don't have access to the records that you do. Did you look those names up? But I hope I've made it clear that I've already conceded that verifiability is an issue here, and I won't be readding anything about heroin deaths of members of the Reed community unless and until I have some solid cites. What concerns me, again, is that your edits do not conform to WP policy. But this is why I'm hoping others can contribute. IronDuke 15:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be happy with the answer, but records confidentiality prevents the College from commenting on individual cases. I did look up all three names in available public records, and only found Babich. No one denies there has been (and occasionally still is) heroin use at Reed -- just like virtually all colleges and universities in the country. Hospitalizations and other interventions for substance abuse certainly occur at Reed. The question at hand is whether this is a distinguishing characteristic. I will stipulate two things: 1) I believe that drug use may have been either above-average or at least more open when I was a Reedie in the 1970s; and 2) Reed has long had the reputation as a place where drug use was more frequent, more blatant, or both.

However, the section of the article that you barged in on was the result of a long-running compromise between current and former Reedies who wear the drug-use reputation as a badge of honor, and the verifiable fact that Reed drug use has moderated to become about average compared to other institutions. This is why the Pluralistic Ignorance page is in fact relevant. Reed's reputation for drug use has now become a self-perpetuating myth (applied to current affairs, that is).

If you lost friends to heroin addiction, you have my most profound sympathy. It is possible that a discussion with Mary Catherine Lamb (503-777-7521, the Dean of Student Affairs at Reed, will shed some light on the status of your friends. But you are the one using WP as a bulletin board for what appears to be a private vendetta against Reed.

If you study my edits on this page over the last 4 years, you will see that I have been striving to create an article that is NPOV and consistent in style and content with the pages for similar colleges and universities. Nonetheless, the Drug Use section (unique to Reed's page) has always been a problem. Should WP be a party to perpetuating a myth as fact? I think not. And your personal tragedy does not change things. -- Gnetwerker 17:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sympathy, if it is indeed genuine. I have no vendetta against Reed, public or private. I think your use of the phrase "barged in on" is instructive here, implying, as it does, that this was a private space, and that only those who were involved in the discussion ought to have any say, and that of those individuals, it was you who ought to have the final say. I believe this is contrary what we're trying to do here. I took your invitation and studied the edits you made over the last four years. Some were better than others, some pushed POV, but what was most unfortuate were the entries accompanied by hostile summaries or talk page entries. In any case, I hope that work together constructively on this page. IronDuke 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-indented) Perhaps the phrase "barged in" was intemperate. However, part of my issue with you and your edits is that you, avowedly, have no specific experience with Reed, and you have provided in your two weeks on this page not a single piece of sourced material that didn't come from a trivial Google search, and that one an out-of-date and hearsay (second-hand) reference to an erroneous and poorly-constructed survey, which is itself not in the public record. One of the biggest challenges that WP faces is the battle between experts and non-experts editing pages. WP does not structurally value expertise. I made a total of four substantive edits before mid-February 2005 (i.e. about a year ago). The page moved forward in fits and starts, but generally improved. Since then, it has been the subject of repeated vandalism and near-vandalism, a category I continue to put your heroin comments into.

I, in the strongest terms, deny any intentional POV in my edits, but then informed minds can differ and one is not the best judge of one's POV or lack thereof. However, it is easier to see in others. The community that has improved this page over time has moved in the direction of allowing a certain amount of unsupport "color" in the article, and I think that is fine. Reed's historical drug use reputation is itself a fact, and I have never tried to delete it, but I think that an NPOV view must place it in an appropriate context -- current school policies as well as actual statistical data. In the meantime, I am appalled at the time and energy spent on this issue -- when people thought the PhD claims were POV, I got the data. When people thought the Admissions information was POV, I got the data. When people made bizarre claims about the buildings, I got the data. And now you made an untrue and outlandish claim about heroin deaths, and I got the data -- you are absolutely, positively, and without a doubt wrong on that issue. And your response? Attack me personally and suggest I recuse myself. No, no, and no again. And you have the temerity to suggest that my talk entries are harsh? At least they are on-topic.

If you have a positive suggestion for the page, make it in the space above. Despite your lack of knowledge of Reed, in Wikipedia everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I and the others who work on the page will expect it to be supported, verifiable, and NPOV. This is my last entry in the meta-conversation. I look forward to your contribution on the subject. -- Gnetwerker 06:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of several different discussion threads

NB: Several different discussion threads, “NPOV, Drug Section, Recusal, etc.” were deleted and moved to another page. I have put them back in place for the reasons below. I have also, in replacing them attempted to put them in as much of a chronological order as I can and still have the entries make sense which I think is WP policy.

Gnetwerker: An important principle of WP is that we assume good faith. I’ll confess, I’m finding it very difficult to do that in this case. I understand that you object to the substance my edits, that you maintain that I lack knowledge of Reed, and that I am pushing POV. While you have a right to all of these objections, you do not have a right to bury this discussion. Merely asserting that you do not wish to hide the discussion is essentially meaningless when you, in fact, hide it.

There are at least two or three ongoing disputes between us (that I know of, perhaps you have other issues with me). The first dispute is about the “Drug Use” section. The issues there are notability, verifiability and POV. It is not, I think, an easy thing to untangle. But I had thought that, together, we were actually improving that section, even if we didn’t agree on all points. The second issue concerns other edits I made removing what was, in my view, unsourced and POV material, and your subsequent inclusion of a straw poll that is misleading at best. “Colorful” vs. “rigorous?” But that is it’s own issue and if anyone actually responds to the poll, I’ll try to say more than subject. The third issue, and most important, is your conflict of interest in editing this page. That you are attempting to sweep that under the rug confirms my fear that you would not suddenly begin to edit this article in an NPOV manner.

In any event, my opinion is not the deciding one here, it is the opinion of the WP community. But they must be given an opportunity to make an informed decision, and ready access to an ongoing debate is part of being informed. The discussion we are having is neither “old” nor “moribund.” I think you must know this; you’ve actually left your own comments on the page dating back to September! Perhaps there is some way in which those comments are “fresher” than the ones you and I exchanged just days ago. Gnetwerker: there is no, repeat no, legitimate reason to move this still very live discussion elsewhere. I cannot stress that enough. When the issue is resolved, appropriate archiving of the discussion can and should happen. In the meantime, do not do this again.

I think, all in all, that I’ve been pretty patient with your breaches of NPA and lack of civility, and that I have tried to reach out to you on that and other issues. You have admitted (?) that your talk entries have been "harsh" and "intemperate," and that is perhaps a beginning. However, as I know you are aware, WP is not a usenet group. There is no room for flaming here. IronDuke 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. As any normal person would realize, the discussion wasn't "deleted" -- it was moved to a dedicated page, with a giant, red-bordered box at the top of the page directing people to it. Happens all the time. (Please note on Wikipedia:Vandalism the quote "it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page".) This is why User:IronDuke can't be trusted to make a meaningful contribution here. 'Nuff said. -- Gnetwerker 07:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to sigh here as well. You moved a discussion that was currently in progress and kept far older discussions in place. If you had wanted to make a legitimate archive, I believe you would have removed older edits first. And in fact, you removed one of my comments from the same time period, then decided it was for some reason acceptable to you, and deigned to put it back. This is transparent. IronDuke 17:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.s -- I restored the page to its condition before your complaint, and undid your arbitrary re-ordering. -- Gnetwerker 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let this one go. The last thing I want is for there to be a revert war on the talk page. However, my reordering was not arbitrary, it was an attempt to undo your penchant for posting things at the top of the page when, I believe, we are encouraged to make new posts at the bottom. In fact, I believe your straw poll would have gotten more traction if you had done this. IronDuke 17:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.s -- For those interested, here is the page referenced: Talk:Reed_College/Jan06 Edit War. It contains only the flame war with IronDuke (now again copied above), and little of consequence to the body of the Reed page (IMHO). Here is the box that was at the top of the page directing interested readers to the page:

The entirety of the lengthy and possibly ongoing discussion of the January 2006 edit war between User:gnetwerker and User:IronDuke is here: Talk:Reed_College/Jan06 Edit War. It has not been moved to hide it, but to re-focus this page on the subject matter. -- Gnetwerker 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make up your own minds. -- Gnetwerker 07:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

medcabal help

Hello all. A request [2] was made for the mediation cabal; I am here to help as part of that.

User:IronDuke, you have suggested in your mediation request that User:Gnetwerker is a trustee of Reed College. I can practically promise you that this is not the case. Trustees do not hang out on wikipedia. In the mean time, I need to remind everyone involved to assume good faith; in other words, please trust that the other editors working on this page are similarly dedicated towards improving and helping on the article.

User:Gnetwerker and User:IronDuke, could you please very briefly (i.e., in one or two sentences) define what you think needs to change about the page as it currently stands?

Sdedeo (tips) 15:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Drug use" section should be reverted to its pre-IronDuke state. The emphasis on heroin use, together with the spurious reference to the Williamette Week article, is POV (though not as POV as IronDuke's original contribution) and misleading. -- Gnetwerker 17:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I think the page is in decent shape. I would make a few changes in the drug use section, mainly to remove some parts that I think are argumentative and not wiki-style and find sourcing for drugs claims there, eg, it's common knowledge that Reed has a reputation for excessive drug use (one thing Gnetwerker and I agree on), but I haven't seen a really good source for it. In fact, as I've mentioned before, I thought Gnetwerker and I were making progress on that section before he had it protected. My main concern is the appropriateness of Gnetwerker editing this page (given his position at Reed, whatever that may be, and the edits he has made and the poll he has initiated) and I'd love to get some feedback from people on it. IronDuke 17:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should say to both of you (Gnetwerker and IronDuke) that neither of the preferred versions will probably survive.

I am having trouble figuring out the references, but the "drug use" section seems admirably well sourced. The only thing I would quibble with is the discussion of how drug violations are handled; Reed's policy seems to be precisely the same as any other university, and this sentence: "That Reed pursues a drug and alcohol policy focused on internal rather than police intervention[2] is one cause of the perception" is unsourced and IMO should not appear.

As for the emphasis on heroin use, AFAICT, the section discusses both heroin, "opium drugs" and marijuana?

Here are the paragraphs in question. I've gone through quickly and removed what I think are things that violate WP:CITE in a problematic fashion, and further tweaked it myself.

In 1996 the student newspaper "The Quest", and later the Williamette Weekly, reported that a survey on drug use reported 7 percent of students using opium drugs; the margin of error was not reported.[1] In a 2003 survey with a larger sample size, three students (about 2%) reported using heroin, within the margin of error of the national average of 1.2%.(citation needed!)

The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey[3] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reeed campus. The survey suggests that the perceived level of drug use dramatically exceeds the reported level drug use on campus. For example, while the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week, the actual reported use is once a month.

The official position of Reed's administration is that drug use on campus is not substantially different from other colleges and universities.

Why don't both of you make edits to this as you see fit? Perhaps we can reach a compromise version this way. Sdedeo (tips) 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, it is common for people involved in a group to edit a wikipedia article on the group. NRA members edit the NRA article, Christians edit the christian articles, Americans edit the America articles, and there will always be Reed community members editing the Reed page. The general wiki process, which seems to be working fine here, ensures that the helpful aspects of those edits are retained while the POV parts are discarded. Sdedeo (tips) 19:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sdedeo, first off, thanks for your help on this. I think this is a good way to begin. Here's my first pass (explanation follows), changes italicized.

Reed College has long had a reputation as an institution that tolerates relatively excessive drug use. (Citation definitely needed, am horribly busy but will try to work on this.) In 1996 the student newspaper "The Quest", and later the Willamette Week, reported that a survey on drug use reported 7 percent of students using opium drugs; the margin of error was not reported.[1] In a 2003 survey with a larger sample size, three students (about 2%) reported using heroin, within the margin of error of the national average of 1.2%.(citation needed!)

:The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey[3] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus. The survey suggests that the perceived level of drug use dramatically exceeds the reported level drug use on campus. For example, while the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week, the actual reported use is once a month.

The official position of Reed's administration is that drug use on campus is not substantially different from other colleges and universities. (Citation needed)

I think my requests for cites are self explanatory. The big problem I have with the graf I struck out is, when the actually survey in question is examined, the data do not support the conclusions in the article. The largest difficulty with the study, for our purposes, is that in almost every question, the study asks students for their perceptions of drugs and alcohol use on campus. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to tease out those two elements, and this is a section on Reed's drug use, not consumption of alcohol. In fact, the best data in the survey suggest that the difference between Reed students' perceptions of drug and alcohol use and the actual use of these combined substances is virtually the same. It is true that students have a greater expectation of marijuana use than is actually present, but this says nothing about any other available drug, nor do any other questions address it. The tables in the study are not perhaps as clear as they might be (or perhaps I'm just not as smart as I might be) but what I read the marijuana table to be saying (and Gnetwerker, I'm counting on what I perceive to be your greater math skills here to correct me if I'm wrong) but they appear to suggest that 75% of all Reed students had tried marijuana in 1999, as opposed to 35.2% of college students nationally that same year [[3]]. If that's right, that would mean that Reed students are using marijuana at a considerably higher rate than students at other schools. IronDuke 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IronDuke -- can you provide the source for the psych dept study so I can look at it myself? Even if you think the study is bad, if the Reed psych department makes a claim about drug use at the school based on studies, we should probably report it; this is a component of WP:NOR. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, some of the raw data could be cited. I am just reluctant to countenance "crossing out" information and sources from an article (articles should strive to be as information rich as possible.) Sdedeo (tips) 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's a link next to the study, but it may a bit wonky. Here's what you're looking for: [[4]] IronDuke 01:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a draft:

Reed has had a reputation as a haven for experimental drug use since the 1960s. The mid- to late-1990s saw an increased use of heroin at Reed, as with other colleges. In 1996 the student newspaper "The Quest", and later the Willamette Week, reported that a survey on drug use reported 7 percent of students using opium drugs; the margin of error was not reported.[1] In an internal 2005 survey 2% of students (3 students, given the sample size) reported using heroin or other opiates, within the margin of error of the national average. (Monitoring the Future)

Nonetheless, Reed's real or purported drug use remains a point of pride to some students and alumni. The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey[3] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus. The survey suggests that the perceived level of drug use dramatically exceeds the reported level drug use on campus. For example, while the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week, the actual reported use is once a month.

The position of Reed's administration is that drug use on campus is not substantially different from other colleges and universities, and backs this with an unpublished survey.

I am currently struggling with the Reed administration to publish the survey sufficient for it to be used here. However, I am also looking for more recent published material. Since seem to have deemed the (utterly unreliable) college newspaper (The Quest) worthy of citation, I am seeing what I can get from them. The bottom line is that (and I can supply the internal Reed document to the Mediator) Reed has largely fallen in line with peer institutions regarding drug use. While not trying to hide the historical reputation, if Wikipedia publishes IronDuke's version, it is abetting the "Pluralistic Ignorance" documented on the Psych department page. Regarding the page, the graph and stats regarding marijuana use is clear and unequivocal: "reported norm = once a month (3.71, s.d. = 2.41) perceived norm = once a week (5.79, s.d. = 1.45)". The "P" (which is to say, margin for error) is less than 0.01. I am going to ask the Professor in the class for more recent data.

Finally, here: [[5]] is the citation for the 1.2% number. The 2005 number (for "annual" as opposed to "lifetime") use is now 0.8, according to the original source report: "http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/05data/pr05t2.pdf" from the Univ. of Michigan. For background, here: [[6]] is an AP story with a sad (but also now out-of-date) story from 1998 on Portland's drug problem (unrelated to Reed). Sadly, meth addiction is a bigger problem in Portland at the moment, but there is no evidence that Reed College is any different from any other college in the country in the extent of its drug problem.

I want to remind everone that IronDuke has not posted a single verifiable citation as part of this argument. I think it is about time he makes good on his claims. -- Gnetwerker 07:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnetwerker, it seems that IronDuke has provided a number of citations for his work here? I am not sure I get the drift of your argument, however.

The version you (I believe Gnetwerker) propose has a few minor problems with citing sources: in particular: "The mid- to late-1990s saw an increased use of heroin at Reed, as with other colleges." (needs citation for increase in usage.) "More recently the basis for the drug use image is largely historic, following a national trend and giving way to changing values." (original research: need source for "changing values.") "Reed's real or purported drug use remains a point of pride to some students and alumni." (need citation for "point of pride".)

However, other than that, it also seems good to go. Let me try a "compromise" version combining the two contributions and tweaking myself.

Reed College has long had a reputation as an institution that tolerates relatively excessive drug use since the 1960s. (citation needed.) In 1996 the student newspaper "The Quest", and later the Willamette Week, reported that a survey on drug use reported 7 percent of students using opium drugs; the margin of error was not reported.[1] In an internal 2005 survey 2% of students (3 students, given the sample size) reported using heroin or other opiates (citation needed), within the margin of error of the national average. Monitoring the Future

While a high level of drug use remains part of Reed's image among students, the reality may be less extreme. The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey[7] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus; the survey suggests that the perceived level of drug use dramatically exceeds the reported level drug use on campus. For example, while the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week, the actual reported use is once a month. Similarly, students tended to dramatically overestimate the number of times their peers were sick or vomited because of drug or alcohol use. On average, students believed that drug use was close to "very prevalent" at Reed before matriculating, rating it 7.5 on a nine-point scale.

The position of Reed's administration is that drug use on campus is not substantially different from other colleges and universities, and backs this with an unpublished survey.

Does this work for people? Sdedeo (tips) 16:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be right to say I've misread the chart in question and Reed students do not use marijuana at more than twice the national college average? Can someone lay that out for me, just so I can relax about it? IronDuke 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sdedeo: actually IronDuke has not provided any original citations other than the original Williamette Week-from-Quest citation. The remaining citations he uses are from my research. However, that is beside the point. Here are specific citations you requested:

"The mid- to late-1990s saw an increased use of heroin at Reed, as with other colleges." -- there is no citation for this at Reed (this is my basic issue with IronDuke), however, there was an uptick in heroin use in society in general, as attested to by the aforementioned University of Michigan survey, and more specifically here: [Overdose Deaths — Multnomah County, Oregon, 1993-1999].

"More recently the basis for the drug use image is largely historic, following a national trend and giving way to changing values." -- Again, the Univ. of Michigan study shows the national trend, as does this: [from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings], though admittedly they are unsure as to whether the decline will continue.

"Reed's real or purported drug use remains a point of pride" -- While this is self-evident to anyone who has every been to Reed, there are nonetheless citations, notably the Reed Student Handbook (no online version, but a public document). Also, the previously mentioned (and notoriously unreliable) Williamette Week [[8]]

Regarding Reed's policy regarding drug use, the previous WW also quotes this:

"I want to assure you that we will do nothing intentional to hinder, frustrate, interfere with or otherwise undermine your investigation," Steinberger wrote to the FBI in a confidential memo obtained by WW. "But I hope you will understand when I say that, at the same time, we will be unable actively to be a co-participant in any investigation you undertake. In terms of both our resources and our traditions, we are just not well-suited to do the kinds of things you would like us to do."

which I would argue is the needed citation for the "Reed policy" quote from the original article.

However, I need none of those citations for my draft. Here is my suggestion:

Since the 1960s, Reed has had a reputation for tolerating open drug use among its students[9], and the 1998 Princeton Review listed Reed as the #3 school in the "reefer madness" category[10]. While a high level of drug use remains part of Reed's image among students, the reality may be less extreme. The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey[11] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus; the survey suggests that the perceived level of drug use dramatically exceeds the reported level drug use on campus. For example, while the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week, the actual reported use is once a month. Similarly, students tended to dramatically overestimate the number of times their peers were sick or vomited because of drug or alcohol use. On average, students believed that drug use was close to "very prevalent" at Reed before matriculating, rating it 7.5 on a nine-point scale.

Reed's administration claims that drug use on campus is not substantially different from peer institutions, and backs this with an unpublished survey. One 2005 college guidebook ranks Reed at about the same level as several peer institutions ([[12]]).

this drops the whole section about heroin/opiate use. I think this is justified because the whole thing arose as defense/response to the original unsourced/incorrect quote that "heroin deaths are not uncommon". In reality, the basis for heroin use at Reed is essentially unsourced, as the only citation (the Williamette Week one) is 10 years old and not a primary source. The argument in these talk pages about heroin use is misleading in general, which is how this argument got started. -- Gnetwerker 19:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnetwerker -- I feel happy about recommending this to Ironduke as an excellent compromise version. Dropping the WW survey (the 7%) and the later (3%) one IMO is a bit iffy; as I've said, I generally think it's a good idea to make WP as "information rich" as possible; if Ironduke wants to put those back in, I certaintly would support it as well. Ironduke, what do you think here? Sdedeo (tips) 20:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, Sdedeo! Vis the omitted info, I wouldn't mind properly sourced/cited additional information there, but I don't think either IronDuke's 7% number nor my 3% response falls into that category. I am still trying to get Reed to release their survey (I have a copy, but it isn't "public"), but they will probably only do it "defensively". In general, addition of this information is seen as highlighting an issue out of proportion to its actual importance. I have some sympathy for this position, as there is no "Drug Use" section on other college pages, even ones that have much worse drug problems than Reed's. -- Gnetwerker 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 1960s, Reed has had a reputation for tolerating open drug use among its students[13], and the 1998 Princeton Review listed Reed as the #3 school in the "reefer madness" category[14]. While a high level of drug use remains part of Reed's image among students, the reality may be less extreme. The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey[15] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus; the survey suggests that the perceived level of drug use dramatically exceeds the reported level drug use on campus. For example, while the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week, the actual reported use is once a month. Similarly, students tended to dramatically overestimate the number of times their peers were sick or vomited because of drug or alcohol use. On average, students believed that drug use was close to "very prevalent" at Reed before matriculating, rating it 7.5 on a nine-point scale.

Reed's administration claims that drug use on campus is not substantially different from peer institutions, and backs this with an unpublished survey. One 2005 college guidebook ranks Reed at about the same level as several peer institutions ([[16]]).

Addendum -- I would like two other things: 1) an admission from IronDuke that I have a right to post and edit here without further harassment regarding my affiliation; and 2) When we're done, can we move this whole, long discussion (including the Drug Use argument, Recusal, Mediation, etc) to a page linked from the Talk page (as I tried to do once already)? I think the length, ferocity, and citation demands of this discussion is an inhibition from participation from the larger community (either Reed or WP). -- Gnetwerker 02:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no good reason to remove anything from the talk page that was added this year. If you feel like tidying things up a bit, I would have no objection to your moving the 2005 stuff to an archive. If you removed everything that had been written by you and me on this talk page, (which I see that you are anxious to do), it would be blank, unless you were planning, as you did before, on keeping old and moribund discussions in place while removing fresh ones. As for your continuing to post here, I cannot stop you. I am entitled to my opinion regarding the propriety of that, and to remind you that others, while so far not agreeing with me that you ought to recuse yourself entirely, have also suggested that you take special care not to push POV. If you were to continue to make POV edits, in addition to making edits based on secret Reed memoranda and claims to inside knowledge, I would feel not merely free to question your affiliation again, but obliged to do so. IronDuke 04:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’ve taken a stab at this with some fresh research. What I’ve mostly tried to do below is remove the “yes, some people somewhere might think Reed has a drug problem but it doesn’t and even if it did it isn’t any worse than any other school’s” tone out of the article. It’s that sort of thing that’s made this article in general read more like a brochure for the college and less like an encyclopedia article about Reed. Also, I believe the Reed data are being interpreted incorrectly. I’ve asked several times for anyone to correct my interpretation (if it is in error), since no one has, I’m assuming I’m right about it for the moment. What Gnetwerker’s version implies about the study it does not in fact say.

Also, rather than cite the WillyWeek editorial, can someone (perhaps you, Gnetwerker?) get ahold of the Oregonian editorial written by an actual Reed student about this topic? Might be something there. As for Reed backing up its claims with an unpublished survey, well… um… no. WP: No original research, and that’s just for starters. I believe that Reed would claim this, but it needs to be sourced, and by sourced, I mean an actual “Look here it is everyone can see it” source. Gnetwerker, you were right to reject my edit claiming members of the Reed community had died of heroin overdoses, as I provided no evidence for this other than my own personal knowledge. Your inclusion of this survey would fall under the same heading.

Just as a by the way, I don’t think I’ve got to justify my contribution to this article by the number of sources I inserted (merely correcting Gnetwerker’s misleading interpretation of his own sources would suffice there, I think). But if we’re keeping score, I’ve now put in three, although I'm basically wlling to drop the WillyWeek thing if the version below is acceptable. We don't want to beat the subject to death.

So, here goes:

Reed has a reputation for tolerating open drug use among its students. According to the Insider’s Guide to the Colleges, “Substance abuse is reportedly widespread. One student said, ”Everybody drinks, and a lot of students do drugs.”” The Guide went on to say, “According to students, the school does not bust students for drug or alcohol use unless they cause harm or embarrassment to another student.” (Yale Daily News Insider’s Guide to the Colleges, 2006, p. 771). The 1998 Princeton Review listed Reed as the #3 school in the "reefer madness" category[17]. While a high level of drug use remains part of Reed's culture, the perception of that reality may be even greater than the actual drug use itself. The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey[18] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus; the survey suggests that, while the level of marijuana use is more than twice the national average[[19]], the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is even greater than the actual reported use. One 2005 college guidebook ranks Reed 168th out of 200 on its list of the worst schools in terms of peer pressure to use drugs and lax administration enforcement (where 1 is best and 200 is worst). ([[20]])

Look forward to thoughts. IronDuke 04:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:IronDuke doesn't seem to understand the difference between Anecdotal_evidence and citation. "One student said" ... is clearly anecdote, as is the hearsay statement "according to students". More insidiously, IronDuke reveals his POV that people think Reed has a drug problem but it doesn’t and even if it did it isn’t any worse than any other school’s” is somehow distinct from the demonstrable truth, since he is clear one of the people trying to insert his POV on that topic into the article. No Verifiable citations are offered. The perversion of the College Prowler page is particularly egregious, since his interpretation of Reed's order on the list (alpabetical? the page does not say) -- a C+ out of an A-F "grade" is 168th out of 200 -- about as POV as a statement comes. If he wanted to correct the line, he might have said "a C+, versus other colleges which score as high as A+" or some such drivel. Finally, the comparison between the US DoJ Drug Use report and the Reed Psych Dept "Pluralistic Ignorance" survey is bogus -- there is simply no statistically valid way of comparing these two surveys (if you don't believe me, ask a statistician). IronDuke is comparing the U of M's annual prevelance with the reported use over varying periods in the Reed study -- these are simply not comparable. I find it hilarious that you decide that your interepretation is correct based simply on the lack of suggestion otherwise (by anyone but me, leaving out that no one but me is contributing), despite such an aggressive lack of understanding of statistical methods.

Other random things: yes, I have the Oregonian editorial -- it is opinion, not fact, and in any case doesn't add useful statistics to the discussion. And your continuing attacks on my right to edit and post here constitutes a Personal Attack. Finally, I will again copy from the Vandalism page that "it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page". This is what I propose and plan to do once this issue is resolved.

Bottom line, there is no improvement in IronDuke's edit. Regarding the Reed internal study, I am absolutely happy to drop the whole thing, provided we drop everything from IronDuke that is unsupported, unverifiable, and not bogus cross-study conflation. Here would be the result:

Since the 1960s, Reed has had a reputation for tolerating open drug use among its students[21], and the 1998 Princeton Review listed Reed as the #3 school in the "reefer madness" category[22]. While a high level of drug use remains part of Reed's image among students, the reality may be less extreme. The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey[23] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus; the survey suggests that the perceived level of drug use dramatically exceeds the reported level drug use on campus.

If IronDuke thinks this is too much like a college brochure, please compare and contrast to other college pages and show how Reed's is more positively-oriented toward Reed than (e.g.) Swarthmore, Grinnell, Haverford, or any other Wikipedia Liberal_arts_college page toward those institutions. -- Gnetwerker 07:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few quick points:

Gnetwerker: the studies you point to (the verifiable ones, anyway) all support the conclusion that Reed has more than its share of drug use. I’m still not sure why you decided to use them. I think the article would really be helped if you could find a reputable, verifiable source that denied there was excessive drug use at Reed, otherwise the section looks too one-sided.

"I find it hilarious that you decide that your interepretation is correct based simply on the lack of suggestion otherwise (by anyone but me, leaving out that no one but me is contributing), despite such an aggressive lack of understanding of statistical methods." If you’ll look above, Gnetwerker, I specifically asked you for your help in interpreting the data and asked you to refute my contention that the study shows marijuana use at Reed is much higher than the national average (and, as you’ll see above, I was assuming your math and stat skills are vastly superior to mine, though you’re starting to test me on that assumption). In any case, you did not respond. Now that you have, I confess I fail to take your point. The Reed survey on marijuana covers 1999, so does the national study. I’m comparing those two years. Perhaps I may be missing something. Maybe you can dumb this down for me so I can understand it (and I’m not being sarcastic here, I really would appreciate it).

As for the College Prowler thing, how can Reed’s position on the list be alphabetical when it, um, isn’t? I don’t know why they give Reed such a high grade when it falls so low on the curve. I think it may be 172nd worst, though, rather than 168th worst, as I look at it, there are some schools listed at the bottom that have no data. Unlike you, I’m not trying to interpret the data. I can’t believe that you would take a site that is essentially indicting Reed and use it to buttress your own contentions.

Minor point: You seem to want to have the phrase “Since the 1960’s” in this section. It doesn’t bother me particularly, but did you have a source in mind?

The one student that is quoted in the Yale Guide represents… what? A representative sample of the replies they received? If they were rigorous, it will have. They provide a quote to illustrate a larger point that their research has shown about Reed. And in any case, that doesn’t address your deletion of the second quote.

Unlike you, I’ve not made any personal attacks here. I have accused you of POV editing, just as you have accused me of the same thing. Neither of those are personal attacks.

The college page comparison project you suggest is entirely irrelevant to what we are engaged in here. I hope it’s obvious why, but I can expand on this point if you insist.

You are concerned that the talk page is too long, and yet you have no desire to remove the elderly discussions that are already in place? I strongly recommend that you not attempt to sweep recent discussions under the rug. However, this one section, where you are I are wrestling with editing the drug use section, could be archived when we’re done as long as the original medcabal heading remained with a message below it saying something like, “If you want to torture yourself, please look here for the edit discussion on the drug use section.” IronDuke 17:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your points:

the studies you point to ... support the conclusion that Reed has more than its share of drug use -- False -- there is only one Reed-relevant study (other than the one I am trying to get released), the Pluralistic Ignorance Survey from the Psych department. All the others are national. The PI study doesn't compare (and can't be compared to) national trends because the survey methodology is not compatible with the U of M study. I've said this already.

the article would really be helped if you could find a reputable, verifiable source that denied there was excessive drug use at Reed, otherwise the section looks too one-sided -- you need to find a verifiable, reputable source that there actually is excessive drug use at Reed. However, as noted, I am trying to get the College to release its study (done to national CORE standards), which you will inevitably denounce as biased.

I specifically asked you for your help in interpreting the data -- I have interpreted the data in my postings. I am not going out of my way to educate you on the interpretations of statistical results.

I don’t know why they give Reed such a high grade when it falls so low on the curve. -- False - there is absolutely no information on the College Prowler page (that I supplied) to indicate the reason for the ordering of the colleges. However, typically in a survey of this type colleges with essentially indistinguishable ratings are grouped together with a grade. Thus, a C+ (which I would not characterize as a "high grade", but in line with other colleges).

I can’t believe that you would take a site that is essentially indicting Reed and use it to buttress your own contentions. -- The Prowler doesn't "indict" Reed (and I've never claimed there was no drug use there.) The contention is, and has always been, that Reed's (possibly regrettable) level of drug use is consistent with peer institutions. It would be easier and less frustrating to have this discussion if you would follow the actual argument. I am not trying to white-wash Reed's -- or generally U.S. colleges' -- drug problems!! I am saying that Reed's is no different from peer schools. Why is that so hard to understand?

You seem to want to have the phrase “Since the 1960’s” in this section. It doesn’t bother me particularly, but did you have a source in mind? -- For published sources, poet Gary Synder (Reed '51) has written and spoken about his drug use, and it was all after Reed (this still leaves the 1950s). However, I know numerous early 1960s grads ('60, '61, and '62) who tell me that the drug culture at Reed was undeveloped or little-developed at Reed during their time there. Through the late 1950s marijuana and LSD were very rare and other drugs non-existent. Reed's reputation was fully-developed (and fairly well-deserved) by the time of my arrival in the mid-1970s. All of this is, of course, anecdotal.

I’ve not made any personal attacks here. -- Accusations of POV editing are not personal attacks. Suggestions that I should "recuse" myself from the discussion because of a fiduciary relationship from the college are.

The college page comparison project you suggest is entirely irrelevant -- it is entirely relevant. Are you going to proceed to write "Drug Use" sections for each of those colleges?

you have no desire to remove the elderly discussions that are already in place? -- False -- The only discussion that predates this one is "NPOV Debate (General)", which is very short. This is not an NPOV Debate, it is an Edit War. Nothing is going to be swept under the rug -- any new page will be linked, and you can create references to it if you wish. As I noted, no changes are proposed until the mediation is complete. In any case, if it makes more sense to start with a clean slate, I am happy to do that. There is little on the talk page besides this ridiculous war.

-- Gnetwerker 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

continuing medcabal

IronDuke and Gnetweker, please please try to be less aggressive in your discussions here. Do your best to be tentative, as opposed to confrontational. Please be aware that I have no "power" here; unless you want to go with the (very backlogged) official mediators, the only way to solve this is by you coming to agreement. I promise I will not let anybody be "railroaded".

As for (1) and (2); the goal here is to get an entry for Reed's "drug use" section that satsifies WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Both Ironduke and Gnetweker have an absolute right to edit pages on the wiki as long as both follow wiki practice and respect consensus and things like WP:AGF. Let's move on from these past arguments and let them be.

As for comparing Reed with the Swat, Haverford or Grinnell pages: this is always tricky. Those pages themselves may be problematic, and needing significant changes. In dealing with controversial articles, I've found it's important to stick close to the article at hand. Otherwise, you get into a situation where every article is problematic, but everything has to be fixed "at once" in order to change. Let's stay focused on doing the best we can here.

OK, that all said, I have taken IronDuke's version and Gnetwerker's version and merged them (the Ironworker version?). Here is the result:

Since the 1960s, Reed has had a reputation for tolerating open drug use among its students [24], and the 1998 Princeton Review listed Reed as the #3 school in the "reefer madness" category [25]. The Yale Daily News Insider's Guide to Colleges also notes an impression among students of institutional permissiveness: “according to students, the school does not bust students for drug or alcohol use unless they cause harm or embarrassment to another student.” (2006 edition, p. 771)

The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey [26] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus. While the study did find that the perceived level of drug use was exaggerated, it also found that the level of marijuana use exceeded national averages. In particular, the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week. The actual average reported use is 50% once a month or more often. Meanwhile, on average only 25% of the overall college student population have used the drug within the last month [27].

Does this satisfy people? Sdedeo (tips) 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for persisting. As a resolution, I could accept your version. My quibble is that the Reed surveys don't compare to the national ones, per my comments above, so the comparison you make (though it may be true) isn't statistically valid. Nonetheless, the national context, properly worded, is notable. I would change the semi-colon to a period in the last sentence, but could otherwise live with this. -- Gnetwerker 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a slight edit to the national/Reed survey comparison above which I think is more accurate, and flipped the ;. Sdedeo (tips) 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This may not take into account your last edit because of an edit conflict) :Actually, let me shed some more light on the U of M study. First, the DoJ reference is the wrong one, as it simply recycles the original U of M study, which is here: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2004.pdf. That study reports 1999 "lifetime" prevelence for marijuana as 51%, "annual" prevelence as 35%, and "most-recent 30-day" prevelence as 20%. (The numbers for 2004 are available and have declined slightly). The Reed 1999 study did not ask for prevelence in this way, but asked the more open-ended question of "overall" drug use, and got a mean score of 3.71 (where 3 is 6x/yr and 4 is 1x/month), with a (quite large) standard deviation of 2.41, meaning that about 50% of the respondants fell into the category between 2.5 (over once/year) and 4.9 (almost once/week). Further, actual "last 30 days" reporting always yields lower results than "once per month" scoring, because one asks actual use within 30 days and the other asks for a perceived "typical" use. There is simply no way to deduce from these numbers where Reed would have scored on the UofM protocol.

With that in mind, I will propose an edit (changes marked):

Since the 1960s, Reed has had a reputation for tolerating open drug use among its students [28], and the 1998 Princeton Review listed Reed as the #3 school in the "reefer madness" category [29]. The Yale Daily News Insider's Guide to Colleges also notes an impression among students of institutional permissiveness: “according to students, the school does not bust students for drug or alcohol use unless they cause harm or embarrassment to another student.” (2006 edition, p. 771)

The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey [30] since 1999 regarding perceived and actual (self-reported) ~~both~~ drug use ~~and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus~~ at Reed. ~~While~~ The study found ~~did find~~ that the perceived level of drug use was exaggerated. It ~~also found~~ reports that Reed's mean self-reported level of marijuana use in 1999 was once per month, while they believed that typical use was once per week. ~~in excess of~~ National surveys[31] for marijuana use among college students in 1999 report that 35% used it at least once per year and 20% within the previous month. In particular, the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week, the actual average reported use is once a month; meanwhile, on average only 20% of the overall college-aged population have used the drug within the last month [32].

Clean proposed draft:

Since the 1960s, Reed has had a reputation for tolerating open drug use among its students [33], and the 1998 Princeton Review listed Reed as the #3 school in the "reefer madness" category [34]. The Yale Daily News Insider's Guide to Colleges also notes an impression among students of institutional permissiveness: “according to students, the school does not bust students for drug or alcohol use unless they cause harm or embarrassment to another student.” (2006 edition, p. 771)

The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey [35] since 1999 regarding perceived and actual (self-reported) drug use at Reed. The study found that the perceived level of drug use was exaggerated. It reports that Reed's mean self-reported level of marijuana use in 1999 was once per month, while they believed that typical use was once per week. National surveys[36] for marijuana use among college students in 1999 report that 35% used it at least once per year and 20% within the previous month.

-- Gnetwerker 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnetwerker: brief answer: no. I worked hard to provide a compromise set of paragraphs that I believe are accurate. I do not want to get into yet another round of edits here. Please let me know if you want to withdraw your acceptance of the latest set of compromise paragraphs I proposed at the top of this section; also, IronDuke, please let me know if you are OK with same. Sdedeo (tips) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but while the spirit of the proposal is fine, it contains a demonstrably incorrect statement: "The study ... also found that the level of marijuana use exceeded national averages". This was not one of the findings of the study -- you can call or email the faculty member who conducted it. Whether Reed numbers exceed the national average is a judgement made by comparing the two studies (Reed's and teh University of Michigan one, despite the US DoJ reference), not a finding of the Reed study. If you think this is a pedantic difference, I am sorry, but Prof. Oleson would probably be very annoyed if this claim was made for her study. -- Gnetwerker 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to argue that point; I am fine with omitting that particular comment since it comes pretty close to original research. Here are the compromise paragraphs, again:

Since the 1960s, Reed has had a reputation for tolerating open drug use among its students [37], and the 1998 Princeton Review listed Reed as the #3 school in the "reefer madness" category [38]. The Yale Daily News Insider's Guide to Colleges also notes an impression among students of institutional permissiveness: “according to students, the school does not bust students for drug or alcohol use unless they cause harm or embarrassment to another student.” (2006 edition, p. 771)

The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey [39] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus. The study found that the perceived level of drug use was exaggerated: in particular, the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week while the actual reported use is 50% once a month or more often. Meanwhile, on average only 25% of the overall college student population have used the drug within the last month [40].

Please let me know if you can live with this. Still waiting to hear from IronDuke.

Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, easy things first -- the source survey is the UofM survey -- [41]. Both it and the DoJ page referencing that survey say 20.7% rather than 25% (unless I'm missing something). And "an average ... 50%" just isn't right. That can be fixed by just saying "average", but you should really say mean. With these two changes, I'm on board. (To clarify, average -> mean is optional. I think the average/50% issue is a must.) -- Gnetwerker 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DoJ, I was adding 20% ("within last month") to 5% ("daily within last month"); the two categories are exclusive. As for "average" versus "mean", I think on consideration both are incorrect; just delete "average". Sdedeo (tips) 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you review Tables 9-02 and 9-3 in the original survey, you will see that the numbers are not additive, but overlapping (note, my protest here is in the interest of accuracy -- an overstatement (25% vs. 20.7%) of the national numbers would be in Reed's interest, which is what IronDuke is accusing me of). -- Gnetwerker 00:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sdedeo, just got home from work, sorry it took me this long to respond. Your version above looks good to me, minus, I guess, the word "average." Thanks very much for wading through this and helping Gnetwerker and myself to reach a good version of this. Really not sure we could have done it without you. IronDuke 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnetwerker, I'm not going to respond to your point by point thingie above (although it is very nicely laid out), unless you're really anxious for me to do it. I disagree with virtually everything you wrote up there, but that's hardly news (and yeah, sure, the Reed study has a good chance at being biased, but I'd like to see it included anyway once it's published). I'll just say you and I are defining what a personal attack is differently. If you can find some concrete evidence that my suggestion that you have a conflict of interest in editing this page is a personal attack, I will refrain from doing so in the future. IronDuke 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is a direct quote fom the WP:NPA page, in the "Examples" section of Personal Attacks: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Is this sufficient for you to desist from your personal attacks on me? -- Gnetwerker 00:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of exasperating you, I think if you place the quote in context, the reference is to religious, racial, affiliations etc., note their juxtaposition of "extreme" versus "mainstream." Your affiliation with Reed College is neither extreme nor mainstream - it is not the sort of relationship this passage is getting at. But perhaps my reading of this is simply convenient, and not correct. Why take my word for it? Or yours? Maybe this could go to arbcom, or some other WP procedure might work (I'm open to suggestion). You and I after all, differed greatly on this drug article at first, but I now think it is vastly superior to either of the versions we were championing just days ago. IronDuke 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought we had a deal (below), but happy to take it to ArbCom if that's what you want to do. Bottom line, you lay off or no deal. -- Gnetwerker 06:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "no deal." IronDuke 17:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

Just to be sure everyone is on the same page (no pun intended), here is what I think the resolution is:

Since the 1960s, Reed has had a reputation for tolerating open drug use among its students [42], and the 1998 Princeton Review listed Reed as the #3 school in the "reefer madness" category [43]. The Yale Daily News Insider's Guide to Colleges also notes an impression among students of institutional permissiveness: “according to students, the school does not bust students for drug or alcohol use unless they cause harm or embarrassment to another student.” (2006 edition, p. 771)

The Reed Psychology Department has conducted an ongoing survey [44] since 1999 regarding both drug use and perceptions of drug use on the Reed campus. The study found that the perceived level of drug use was exaggerated: in particular, the perceived use of marijuana at Reed is once a week while the actual reported use is 50% once a month or more often. Meanwhile, on average only 21% of the overall college student population have used the drug within the last month [45].

So, barring further complaint, I will 1) Request the page be unprotected; 2) Remove the POV lable form the page; 3) Replaced the current "Drug Use" section with the one immediately above; and 4) Archive this discussion with a prominent pointer to it. Agreed? -- Gnetwerker 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. And I'm assuming here by "this discussion" you are talking only about the drug use discussion. IronDuke 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "this discussion", I mean everything on this page related to the edit war. Also, you earlier made a convincing argument to move older discussion to the archive page. Result will be two pages, existing archive (with a few more items), and "edit war" page. -- Gnetwerker 06:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we've solved the drug use paragraph. Thank you all very much for bearing with me, and I apologize if I've been aggressive at points myself. Let's go ahead and do (1), (2) and (3) (I'll take care of that.) What I'll do is take care of the talk page archiving myself, since I've done it before and think it might reduce conflict if I take care of it. Once all that's done, I think we can close out the mediation.

Re: the 21% figure; I assumed that the numbers weren't additive, but it's a minor point and the link will let people figure for themselves. Sdedeo (tips) 20:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting comments from the talk page

Gnetwerker: in your last edit, in your summary you noted that you were “rev per mediation.” This was never agreed on. You may not have seen your talk page, where I posted this message from our mediator:

“Thank you very much both Gnetwerker and IronDuke. Being "on the other side" is very interesting, and I encourage you to try your hands at medcabal yourselves. It is definitely a learning experience. IronDuke, re: archived comments, I don't have a strong position on that sort of thing, and in general if someone objects to a talk page "refactoring", it's best to err on the side of not archiving stuff. Sdedeo (tips) 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)"

Let us, as per the mediator we both thanked so profusely, err on the side of not archiving stuff. IronDuke 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been deleted -- The mediator (User:Sdedeo) has refactored the discussion onto a separate page, as noted above, and at the top of this Talk page. I have reverted your unilateral rescinding of the mediated result. In any case, I have no idea where the above quote is from, but we spent a lot of time getting to a mediated solution, I think you should abide by it. -- Gnetwerker 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than me boring us both with a discussion on what constitutes "deleted," let me just say that moving my comments on your relationship with Reed, my comments on my own edit regarding NPOV issues, and other items not relevant to our mediated dispute on the Drug Use section to a section titled Talk:Reed_College/drug_use_dispute is arguably worse than deletion, as no one will know to look for my comments there. I have been and will continue to abide by our mediated solution, however, I would disagree with you that this solution entailed removal of my comments. I cannot see any place in our discussion where I agreed to this, and would quote the following response I made to your suggestion that we archive the discussion: "And I'm assuming here by [archiving] "this discussion" you are talking only about the drug use discussion." I posted a query about this issue on Sdedeo, our mediator's, talk page, and got the response I pasted in above here, the relevant part of which I'll quote again here "...in general if someone objects to a talk page "refactoring", it's best to err on the side of not archiving stuff." [[46]]. You may also note that our mediator expressed concern over POV issues in your recent edits: "Some of the new edits seem to have some NPOV problems, but I believe it's nothing that couldn't be resolved with patience and respect." IronDuke 20:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sdedeo is the one who refactored the comments, and is he thinks they should be reverted, it should be him who does it. I assume that he moved them because they were which were part and parcel of the Drug Use Edit War. Regarding his final comment, I completely agree -- any possible POV issues can be resolved with patience and respect. We now have other long-time contributors to this page back, and I hope you will have patience with the process and show respect for me and the other contributors. -- Gnetwerker 21:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my edits without discussion

I’m going to do my level best not to get into an edit war on this. If you’re going to make a point by point reversion of my edits, please discuss them with me first. IronDuke 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have "reverted" nothing. I have added in various items that had previously been deleted with sourced, verifiable information. You actually made each of those edits without sources, and without any discussion here, so I don't know what you're complaining about. Other edits you made removing unsourced or POV comments) have been retained without comment. If you have opposing, sourced information, then please provide it here. -- Gnetwerker 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, rather than begin what might be another contentious discussion, I'll just go ahead and let the Reed College page stand as it is and not address your specific arguments at this time, unless you feel strongly for some reason that I should, pending the arbcom decision. IronDuke 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnetwerker, please do not remove, refactor, or archive my comments

Gnetwerker, please refrain from removing my comments (or refactoring them, or archiving them) from this talk page, for any reason. If you feel that my comments violate a Wikipedia policy, do not hesitate to make an admin aware of it. In the meantime, I repeat: do not move them. They are not part of the “drug-use dispute,” as you claim in the edit summary. In part, and ironically enough, they concern your previous removal of my comments, my objection to it, your POV editing, your relationship to Reed College, and my bringing this matter before arbcom (which is ongoing). IronDuke 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Proujan

Archiving this thread here, as it is (I hope) the final chapter in our disagreement. IronDuke 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor reverted an anon's addition of author Carl Proujan. A simple search revealed these books for sale on Amazon.com:

Oceania and Antarctica (World Regions) by Carl Proujan (Hardcover - Jan 2003)
Foundations in Algebra F by Carl Proujan and Judy Pleau (Paperback - 2003)
Brain Teasers Galore! by Carl Proujan (Paperback - 1975)
South America (World Cultures) by Carl Proujan and Steve Sheinkin (Hardcover - Jan 2003)
Health & disease (Science world visuals) (Science world visuals) by Carl Proujan (Unknown Binding - Jan 1, 1974)
Beyond earth (Science world visuals) (Science world visuals) by Carl Proujan (Unknown Binding - Jan 1, 1974)
Energy (Science world visuals) (Science world visuals) by Carl Proujan (Unknown Binding - Jan 1, 1974)
SECRETS OF THE SEA. by Carl. Proujan (Hardcover - 1971)
DISCOVERY AND EXPLORATION: SECRETS OF THE SEA. by Carl Proujan (Hardcover - 1979)
Planet earth (Science world visuals) (Science world visuals) by Carl Proujan (Unknown Binding - Jan 1, 1974)
Environment & ecology (Science world visuals) (Science world visuals) by Carl Proujan

Wikipedia:Notability (people) includes in its criteria: Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. I think he qualifies. Someone should write a stub for him.

I hope editors will be more careful when reverting the work of others. -- Gnetwerker 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, at last you address me with your actual account, as opposed to your many sockpuppets. I'll just begin by dispensing with what you wrote above: "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". And these are where? I see only a long list of what appear to be out of print textbooks. But even if I am wrong on this, it doesn't matter.

Gnetwerker, you have stalked and harassed me in multiple ways. I'm sure you're aware of this, but for other who are not, here is the long, long list of all of your harassment. Here is a list of your sockpuppets. Here is a list of your suspected sockpuppets. I have been very, very patient with you for many months. But I must ask now that you refrain from reverting my edits at any time, for any reason. If I am in error, I'm sure that others will eventually point this out.

I would imagine that you are very, very close to being given a long block already. I take it this latest is your attempt to ensure that you are given such a block. Why you want this to happen, I cannot say. IronDuke 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IronDuke has trolled this page before (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker#Low_quality_tendentious_editing_by_IronDuke). It is best to ignore him. -- Gnetwerker 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]