Talk:Hundreds of SUNY New Paltz students demonstrate, storm administration building

Original Reporting
I, Justin Holmes, attended and spoke at this event, including from the roof and in the Haggerty Administration Building. I am the Chair of the SUNY New Paltz Student Senate, and the primary administrator of Wikipaltz, the free database about the politically peculiar community of New Paltz, NY.

I am in some of the photos, and can provide verbal or other statements to verify the authenticity of my reporting.

I can be contacted through the media mentioned on my website: http://www.justinholmes.com (unsigned by Justin Holmes)

Also used * (moved from in the article)--Cspurrier 23:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I, Stephanie Adika, attended this event and made the comments posted. I am the Vice President of Academic Affairs & Governance of the SUNY New Paltz Student Association. Stephanie Adika 01:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do the two of you have any idea how childish this article looks, or how completely inappropriate it is for either of you to be involved in writing it? This is not a news article, this is a tract. And it should not be on Wikinews. It makes you and your organization look foolish, and it makes Wikinews look bad for letting you play in the sandbox.


 * Wikinews is about news reporting. Journalism. I, for one, would appreciate it if you though of it that way, rather than as place to flame a burner or tag on an alley wall. - Amgine / talk 02:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Amgine is obviously very upset about this article - to the degree that Amgine has edited the Main Page of WikiPaltz, albeit only for a minute, attacking me personally, saying, "Justin, your article is about as poor a reflection on you and your organization as this edit is of me."


 * Amgine provided no suggestions or even points of criticism until I went and posted on http://journowiki.org/w/index.php/User_talk:Amgine specifically asking for help in making our article and our movement more legit. At this point, Amgine responded with a few remarks, not without a touch of condescention and insult, on my talk page on WikiPaltz.  I tried to respond to these concerns, but was treated only with personal attacks henceforth.


 * As for the concerns posted here, it's quite clear at very least that there's less than consensus on how "completely inappropriate" it is for us to be writing this article. Again, Amgine has no suggestions whatsoever or even indications as to specific parts of the article that are problematic.  I don't know how to begin to reconcile this problem without having some idea what is so bad about the article.


 * I think there may be a fundamental disagreement here on the concept of neutrality. As far as I've ever observed, no person in the world is neutral, no matter what they may say.  Professors, Journalists, Police Officers, Judges, and many other folks in the world are supposed to be "viewpoint neutral" but I don't think that there is any such thing in the human soul as neutrality.


 * Neutrality comes, in my view, from the collective agreement and consensus on issues - a phenomenon we have all experienced in dealing with Wiki. For someone to say that I should not engage other people in a Wiki environment on issues of my own experience is to suggest that the only people who should be a part of this community are "neutral" people, and while I'm only 23 years old, I haven't met one of those yet.


 * I would love for our state-appointed and funded Administration to show themselves here and work out the facts of the dispute so that we can arrive at a truly NPOV article. I think we're very close.  However, the HAB won't do this - they will continue to hide behind a public affairs office which spreads lies and twists the ideas of the student body.  Therefore, we hoped to make use of a  resource where the power of numbers and consensus trump the "man with the loudest megaphone" environment we are used to.


 * I knew in writing the article that my own biases would seep in - as a human I expect this in everything I do in life. However, I hoped that the WikiNews community would question instances where my writing was POV, and indeed they did.  I worked to make changes - usually within minutes - to satisfy the NPOV requirements, and in reading this article, it's really hard for me to see how it falls so far short. Justin Holmes 05:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am impressed with Justin's ability to respond with such civility on this talk page. Good for you,Justin. Neutralizer 13:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I fully agree - Justin's approach, which is anything but "childish", does him great credit. I'm disappointed that a new user, who has obviously put in a lot of serious thought and time into this piece, has been subjected to such unmitigatingly negative comments that in my view are, or come close to being, personal attacks. If an editor has concerns then they should make them in a constructive and friendly way. I'm really quite surprised that someone with such experience should think that this is an appropriate way to talk to a new user. I'm sure that the last thing any of us want is to drive people away from this project, but I fear this will be the effect if we are not able to be a bit more positive and welcoming. Rcameronw 23:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand Amgine's concerns and agree that all links to this groups Wiki are innappropriate and should be removed. I checked a few of them out and they aren't exactly NPOV which would be the standard that we'd expect from Wikipedia links. In terms of the group writing their own article, I don't see the problem with that asusming it's NPOV, which at the moment it clearly isn't. What the authors need to do is get someone to go straight to the HAB and interview them about the demonstration. If they decline the interview then get some older comments and try to give as much space to their position as possible. One or two quotes are not enough. Remove your Wiki as the source. It's inappropriate. That said, I understand that Wikinews is about NPOV and accuracy, but origianl reporting is HARD and the Wikinewsie who takes it on doesn't generally have the benefit of large news outlets distilling the information that the rest of us do when we write articles. They should be cut a little slack, and the rest of us should be actively improving the article. To the authors: It's imperative that you try to interview the HAB and give as much time to them as you did to your own position. The rest of us will edit when neccessary. If you want to publish an original article you have to be prepared to do all the work. If you're uncomfortable with this get a volunteer from the student paper. --Wolfrider 14:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * CommentI note Wolfrider's comment below;
 * "It still seems tilted to one side, but I agree with you that it would be difficult to get an official opposing viewpoint. Plus, it's such an excellent example of original reporting. I think it's fine. --Wolfrider 00:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)"
 * which begs the question, what changed Wolfrider's opinion? Perhaps it was just the persuasiveness of Amgine's argument or perhaps someother information we can all take note of. Just curious? Neutralizer 17:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What changed my mind was taking into consideration Amgine's comments and then re-evaluating the story based on them. I can see where his charge comes from, and there is a legitimate issue there. As such it should be dealt with. Also, he mailed me a suitcase filled with small unmarked bills. 40 grand. Untraceable. Thanks my man. --Wolfrider 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any way or how this article could be considered childish, compared to all the three line articles that often get published around here. Lets Remeber also to be Nice to each other and not bite the new comer. I like this article. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Justin Holmes and Stephanie Adika are officers in an organization which is currently, from my very unknowledgeable position, losing in a struggle to gain/retain control over some form of student union building on their campus. Their reporting is akin to plastering WN with their campus handouts - it is not reporting. And no one intimately involved in a dispute should pretend to "report" on the disagreement; it is unethical for them as a participant in any form of negotiations and unethical to pretend to be able to address the topic neutrally. - Amgine / talk 22:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * However, this is a community based news service. It really doesn't matter who started the reporting as long as the community writes it conform with Wikinews policy. If the article is ammended and is no longer in violation, it is a legitimate piece. --Wolfrider 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Although I think Amgine's comments may be a little strong, they were, in all effects - appropriate. The article is poorly structured, poorly sourced and unbalanced.  Issues were not addressed, they were complained about.  Journalism is something this article doesn't represent - this article is nothing more than a self-appraisal by the members of the student union.  Writing an article about something you did is not a good way to be objective.  You can choose to be journalist or article subject, but you can't be both.  --Mrmiscellanious 23:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm neither disputing nor agreeing with the concerns. If editors have concerns then of course they should raise them. The issue I have is that those concerns were raised in an unfriendly and unhelpful way, likely to deter users from coming back in the future - and I do not think that personal attacks are ever appropriate.

Rcameronw 23:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Very good Job
Very nice article with lots of picture.☺ Good Work. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * ditto above. congrats. Neutralizer 19:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wonderful work. Congratulations. --Wolfrider 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - GREAT original reporting! --82.141.53.251 05:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Is there any chance this article could be the second lead or featured article on the main page? What is the process by which articles are selected for this distinction? Justin Holmes 20:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikinews as a whole attempts to direct its reporting towards an international audience. This would be best as a "Feature story" in that regard. I'll make the change. To Justin Holmes, the links to make changes to the leads is on the "Write/edit article" page found on the left column navigation box. -Edbrown05 22:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

POV
While the point of view and requests of the students are explained, the administration's arguments are not. Submarine 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Could the author add this to the article? --Wolfrider 22:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try - honestly, the campus office of public affairs has been a bit abusive to students, and I'm not entirely comfortable trying to express their arguments. I wish they would do it. Justin Holmes 22:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Now the tag, perhaps Submarine or Wolfrider can lift this back to developing. -Edbrown05 22:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll lift the tag Neutralizer 22:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have added the Administration's position as they gave it to the newspapers. I don't know what else I can really do to try to make it more NPOV.  Any suggestions? Justin Holmes 22:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok I just added some stuff Gullickson said and removed the tag. Hopefully that wrinkle is out of the way of this great story now. Neutralizer 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Justin Holmes, who is a part of the story, made a comment on my talk page which I think is a newsworthy part of the article so I have added that comment as a quote from him in the article and used my talk page as the source. If anyone feels that is not appropriate, feel free to edit it out. Neutralizer 22:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It still seems tilted to one side, but I agree with you that it would be difficult to get an official opposing viewpoint. Plus, it's such an excellent example of original reporting. I think it's fine. --Wolfrider 00:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Never say that it is too difficult to get another's viewpoint. That is lazy.  There are still quite a bit of items that are questioned, though.  For instance, a few items:


 * Seems to be a contradictory ("not offered a seat, we were offered 1 seat") statement?


 * You have misquoted me. Read the quote you copied - I said, "we were never offered *such* a seat," refering to the HAB's assertion that the Student Association was to be afforded a seat on a six-person commitee alongside two other students.  Even if this were the case, it would be unacceptable.  It would still mean only one student government official, and two students selected by the HAB.  Furthermore, the President is no longer discussing that committee.  We gave the HAB a chance to organize the committee with the proviso that it would consist of a majority of students.  They declined that oppurtunity, so the Student Senate, which I Chair, will go forward with the project. Justin Holmes 07:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems great, but it would be nice to add in what the counter-points are.


 * I think you may be mistaken about the current conflict. The Students and the HAB were united all year during the 2004-2005 academic year in calling for the renovation project.  The conflict arose when the HAB tried to take control of the project.  Imagine the inverse scenario:  A $10 million capital project comes in to renovate the Administration Building and students try to start a committee with 4 students and 3 administrators?  The students would never behave in such a brash way.Justin Holmes 07:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Expand and descibe these items more? Unaware of the issue.

As well as there is extremely low text of the other side's positions, which isn't very sufficient to the large amount of text for the student's sides.

So, no tagging of NPOV or anything, but just a few items that I think should be cleared up. --Mrmiscellanious 04:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm finding myself commenting on more issues than I would like to on this page. Of course I have positions on these issues, and I have no problem expressing them, but if this article is going to contain futher details about these issues, I'd like to get some quotes from other student leaders.  I'm not sure that these issues should be covered in serious detail here - they each warrant articles in their own right, and I'm certain that they will each be covered in detail on WikiPaltz in time.  I'm going to wait until at least Monday, when the Executive Board Executive Board meets and I'll see if anyone wants to either comment for this article or start new ones.  Justin Holmes 10:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. I've taken this story back to Developing stage, as it seems you are planning to add more to this article.  --Mrmiscellanious 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow what a week
It's 6:38AM Sunday morning (I'm still awake of course) and we have been working pretty much constantly for days with little sleep. R.J., Jenny, Claudia, Colin, and I are in Binghamton at the SUNY Student Assembly conference. Today, we showed pictures and videos to the SUNY Student Assembly, a state-wide legislative body of student government leaders.

We received a solid standing ovation. I snapped a few photos - I'll put them up when I get back to New Paltz. Justin Holmes 10:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand
Holmes is a major participant in the events at the school so I think his comments are not only fair game but add extra juice to the story. I like it ! Neutralizer 23:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiPlatz links
In my opinion all links to www.wikiplatz.com are innapropriate, and unless someone produces, before I finish my sandwich, a pretty good reason why they should stay, I'm going to remove them. Inline links to one party of a dispute is not NPOV. - Borofkin 03:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings. Since its original reporting, perhaps the links are just part of the original report. I am concerned that a lot of people put a lot of work into a published story and then, over a day after publishing, two editors come in with edits within 3 minutes of each other ( 02:18,02:20 and 02:21 ) and completely turn the article upside down without any talk page discussion. I think the people who have worked so hard on this article should have a bit of time to respond to what has been happening to the article in the past hour or so. So, now that the suggestion is being made to drop those links, perhaps we can let the article rest in developing overnight until the original reporters have a chance to respond; what's the rush? Neutralizer 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How about reading their front page? Do you understand the term p0wned? Used? - 24.85.85.76 03:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope; what is pOwned? Neutralizer 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean; but I don't really see a problem; we are used as sources often? Neutralizer 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I just think they should have a chance to defend themselves; particularly in regards to Amgine's edit, and now that it's back in "developing" I think we have plenty of time to talk about it and let everyone get involved here on the talk page before doing anythig else. Neutralizer 03:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to cut them a little bit of slack considering the work that goes into original reporting. This article needs to be seriously cleaned up, though. - Borofkin 04:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure about the WikiPaltz links. Of course I would never have linked to a conventional website in the way that I linked to WikiPaltz, but since WikiPaltz is Wiki, I didn't see the problem - folks link to WikiPedia all the time from WikiNews.  If it is a serious offense for POV watchdogs, by all means let's remove it.  I want to be in absolute compliance with NPOV guidelines.  Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss (somewhere) the POV implications of linking to other Wikis?  As for the accusations that we were "pOwn"ing, I'm really sorry if we gave that impression.  I have the utmost respect for WikiNews - I wake up to it every morning.  I was so excited at the prospect that we had made feature article that I went a little overboard on the cheesy announcement on our Wiki - capital letters with H2 on the main page.  It was a bit corny, but I don't think it amounts to "pOwn". Justin Holmes 05:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * One comment I'd make is that a link from WP to WN is just a traditionally link between wikimedia foundation projects - links outside the list of projects, even to another wiki, would fall under the same POV guidelines as any other link. Lyellin 13:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent (hopefully) NPOV edits
Although I feel strongly that links to WikiPaltz are not only appropriate but of added value to this article, I have eliminated them in the interest of satisfying what seems to be a consensus that they constitute POV content. However, I really think a discussion should ensue in water cooler or somewhere about when linking to outside Wikis is appropriate. If such a discussion already exists, please post a link in this space.

In addition, I have eliminated the picture at the end of the article, which Amgine said was merely "mugging for the camera." While I think it is still legitimate content to show that organizers were very happy with the event, I understand that this is walking a very thin line and I'd like to be very safe about making this article NPOV.

As for more content from the HAB, the fact of the matter is that they haven't said much and won't say more for the time being. As a student government official, it's very difficult for me to get any information from directly from the HAB that would make sense to post here. Of course our student newspaper is working on this, but they won't put their reporting here - they'll put it in the paper. You must understand that the HAB is meticulously tight-lipped when it suits them, and now is one of those times. You may not like that there are only a couple of quotes, but there really isn't more to post. Which parts of the article do you think need HAB reaction?

When the HAB speaks again, we'll post it either to this article or to a future one with more relevance as news.

Specific Conerns Need to Be Addressed
I think everyone who has concerns with the article should go over it and bring light to them here. That way we have something to work on other than very general "It's unbalanced" or "Unethical." To the author: please provide us with an email of the HAB, or HAB members. Wikinewsies can then email them to ask for a response to the article, or the student's position in general. If they choose not to respond that will be what we quote in the article. If a method of contacting the HAB for their opinion is not provided the story should not be published. After we get word (or don't) we should then vote on publishing the article and go with whatever decision is made. The vote should only take place AFTER we have an opportunity to contact the HAB. --Wolfrider 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Great idea. I would really appreciate if someone else could contact the HAB and provide their viewpoint - to me, that's how neutrality is achieved: by gathering a plurality of views, included those which are most biased and passionate, and formulating them into a consensus document.


 * Contact info for the HAB: I'm not exactly sure where in the HAB to direct you, so I'll give a few ideas:


 * The Office of the President of the HAB - Poskanzer himself probably won't respond, but they'll direct you to a place where you can get comments, probably to public affairs - poskanzer@newpaltz.edu


 * The Office of HAB Public Affairs - Eric Gullickson, HAB Spokesman - gullicke@newpaltz.edu


 * If it would be prudent to provide more or other contact info, let me know and I'll fetch it. Justin Holmes 01:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I sent a letter to Gullickson and asked for his response a number of issues in the story. I also gave him the URL of the piece so he can look it over and respond to anything directly. I haven't emailed the Office of the President of the HAB as it's late and I have to go to bed. I'll post his response if/when I get it. --Wolfrider 02:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a small corrective edit to remove the reference to the wiki at the school as being a voice exclusively for the students. Justin has assured me that anyone can contribute to that wiki. Neutralizer 03:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If they do not do so, however, it is a voice exclusively of the students. Therefore, your "correction" is factually wrong, and qualifying ascription is removed from the article. - Amgine / talk 03:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Amgine, I wonder how you would know noone other than students has ever contributed? Neutralizer 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While I don't particularly like the phrase "student's take" (perhaps "student's point of view" would be better), the wiki is hosted on servers of "The Student Association of SUNY New Paltz" -- http://www.newpaltzsa.com/senate/w/. Based on the URL, the site is assocated with the student senate in some way. While the wiki may be open to editing by anyone (Amgine, perhaps unwisely, proved that!) it is apparent that, almost exclusively, students and student supporters are the editors. Why not rephrase the deleted edit to indicate that the Wiki is generally oriented toward students and necessarily represents their point of view? --Chiacomo (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good thought, but I would try to be even more factual by simply saying what Justin said; "WikiPaltz is open to editing from students, faculty, administrators, alumni, community members, and anyone else. So far it’s mostly been students and faculty"...and let's not mislabel faculty as being students for the sake of making a point. Neutralizer 03:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

How's this; "Student Leaders set up a Wiki to gather information about SUNY New Paltz and to mobilize the emerging protest movement. WikiPaltz grew quickly in the months after it was set up in July, 2005, and is open to editing from students, faculty, administrators, alumni, community members, and anyone else. Thus far, most contributors have been students and faculty." Neutralizer 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole bit about "...students, faculty, administrators, alumni..." could be shortened to "community members and the public at large". Of course, I'm certain that if members of the administration began to edit and attempted to prominently feature their lies and distortions, they'd be shunned and blocked (as is the right of the administrators of WikiPaltz, unless they have an NPOV clause in their operating procedures). --Chiacomo (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's very presumptious. I assure you, if administrators began editing, they would be given the same respect as students and faculty.  We feel that we have the power of right on our side, and we would absolutely welcome HAB input on our Wiki.  Generally, we enforce NPOV on all pages except those which describe events or people (ie Professor reviews, police encounter reports, etc).


 * We do not have any and (I hope) will not make any "rules" for our Wiki. We hope that NPOV and input from all parties will be respected because editors feel it's just, not because the rules say so.  If people vandalize or violate copyrights, we may suspend them in the future but thus far, the only bans have been of spambots.


 * The reason I said "students, faculty, administrators,...." was because I wanted to be transparent about the fact that it has mostly been students and faculty so far, so of course the bias is against the HAB. The HAB certainly knows about the Wiki - the Chief of Police told me that he monitors it, which I think it great.


 * Bottom line: If a Wiki is the source of information about a conflict, and all parties of the conflict have access to it, it should be a completely legit source. the above was written by Justin Holmes


 * Palestine. Please note there is no article "Palestine" on Wikipedia. - Amgine / talk 04:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment; I assume the edit by Amgine above was put here in error. Neutralizer 14:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it was in the nature of a refutation, or rebuttal, of Mr. Holmes's statements. If a Wiki is the source of information about a conflict, and all parties of the conflict have access to it, it should be a completely legit source. Wikipedia is a prime example of why this is not true. On topics over which there is no great conflict or debate it is a very useful resouce. Those topics which are in dispute, however, range from unreliable to, as in the example of Palestine, completely non-existant due to the massive POVioring. -


 * Sorry for goining in the middle of the conversation. but Plastine does exsist (your probaly looking for Palestine (region)) So I don't understand your example. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm certain you have the best of intentions, but the student POV is evident throughout the site. I'm not saying that it shouldn't, or that it is in some way wrong. Please excuse my presumption, but it would be interesting to watch how the wiki would respond if adminstrators began to edit and insert their own POV up to prominently linking from the front page (with big pictures and headlines). Don't mistake me: I'm proud and pleased that students are standing up for their rights/beliefs and am pleased as punch that they're using Wiki to aid in their endeavors. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, I'm being really sincere right now: I would love that. Every student would love that.  The HAB has basically nothing of value to say.  Their arguments are a joke.  They treat us like we are completely naive and like we'll comply and be co-opted by whatever they say and do.  I would love (so much) for them to put whatever picture they can find on the front page that they think will bolster their view of the situation.  so much.  Eric Gullickson: you may well read this on account of the fact that you were contacted by Wikinews to comment.  Think about this.  Come and edit WikiPaltz - present your side.  Seriously.  Bring it on. written by Justin Holmes


 * Chiacomo, I can never understand why anyone wants to presume anything about something that has not yet happened.. Aren't the issues challenging enough in their present and historical context without presuming, speculating about future possibilities? Isn't that how the war in Iraq came to be..by speculating about what kind of hidden weapons someone may have and what their future intentions might be if they had them? Neither you nor I have any idea what would happen if the admins at the school were to embrace the wiki. If I were to guess, I'd guess it would be a healing thing; but I could be wrong..so what's the point? All we know for sure is that right now the wiki is open and free; and we know that because, as you so deftly pointed out, Amgine proved it. Neutralizer 14:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether or not the Wiki is open to anyone "in theory", what matters is what the Wiki represents, as you say, in its present context. While school officials might choose to participate "in the future" I think we should all take Neut's advice and focus on the Wiki as it stands now. And at the moment, the content on the Wiki is largely representative of student views, therefore the "student's views of event" disclaimer is warrented. --Wolfrider 14:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

where is this story going?
I liked this story for what it was. Now perhaps trying to go or become something else. Too bad.

If the HAB gets involved with this, then start a new story. I've already lost the thread of this one after all the gobbly goop that's been written. -68.232.153.54 15:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Reading through this discussion does not make me proud of wikinews. This article IMHO was one of the best original reporting i've seen yet on wikinews, and the original author did respond in a very civil and honest manner and did show alot of patience even when confronted with harsh criticism. But what this article really highlights is IMHO that there is that wikinews is lacking some important component which is almost essential for original reporting: while for most articles the strict NPOV guidelines improve wikinews, for certain kinds of original reporting different guidelines are necessary. What wikinews IMHO needs is a way to write "Opinion", but with a high focus on information, substance and original reporting, instead of pure rethorical propaganda. Of course such articles should be clearly tagged as such. --82.141.52.191 20:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This contributor has a good point. Let's just publish it as is and anyone who wants to do a new story based on new info can do so. Neutralizer 15:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As it stands now the story does not conform to Wikinews NPOV policy. I'm awaiting a response from the HAB and only after it arrives should we publish the article. This story is trying to become balanced and as such the HAB's view is a necessary component that needs attention. Wikinews is not about providing a forum for student activism. --Wolfrider 15:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If the HAB reads that statement, they will never respond. If they know they can keep this article from being published by not responding, they won't respond.  That is really absolutely unfair - it gives them an ultimate filibuster.  It's Tuesday at 12:42 right now.  They could have gotten back to you 100 times by now if they wanted to - their whole mission is to instantaneously spread whatever propaganda is needed to uphold these policies.  I must protest this development - I thought that there was consensus that if they chose not to respond, we would put that into the article and publish it.  Justin Holmes 16:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually made it clear in my letter that publishing of the article would go ahead with or without their comments. We'll simply add that Wikinews gave them time to respond but they declined. Time to respond is at least 24 hours. --Wolfrider 16:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Limitations of this Article
Obviously, this article is purely the result of local news, and the issue involved is very myopic and does little to affect anyone outside the SUNY campus. I must argue that the POV of this article is strongly biased towards the students, and was obviously written by a SUNY New Paltz student in order to serve their own interests, and in essence brag about their "achievement". I do believe they did a good job documenting the article and made an attempt to cover the story, but in the end, this is a very minor story about a small, little-known northeast college and an isolated event of student protest that has no chance of spreading to other campuses, since the issue at hand is purely a local one.

While I praise the effort that went into the article and recognize that good intentions are at work, I don't think this article could make it to featured status, and that in the future if people keep writing articles about New Paltz - it will either cause a lack of interest in these purely local events, or tarnish the reputation of the campus, since the articles are obviously written by rather rebellious students who seek to defame the administration of their college. This 'bad news' and information about New Paltz, a rather little-known town, will do much to bias prospective employers of New Paltz graduates as the gay marriage controversy, creating the image of an extremely liberal town immersed in drug subcultures. I hope the writer of this article takes this into account before painting this picture of New Paltz before the entire internet community. To qualify my rather unexplained 'immersed in drug subcultures' segment, one can draw that conclusion from observation of the pictures of some students, as well as the fact the President of NORML is featured in the article prominantely with high-ranking Student Government officials, creating the image that the pro-marijuana segment of the student population is highly prominent.

Response from Gullickson
I recieved the following email from Mr. Gullickson.

"Mr. Currie:

I appreciate you offering us the opportunity to respond, however, we do not wish to contribute.

Thank you.

Eric."

I see no more reason to continue to hold the article back from being published. Consensus? --Wolfrider 22:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Emailing one person isn't trying real hard. And I'd request Mr. Holmes to do this work; it should be rather educational to him to teach him more about journalism.  --Mrmiscellanious 23:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree most emphatically that Mr. Holmes should do the work. This article is part of Wikinews, and the responsibility to fix it up rests equally with everyone in the community. - Borofkin 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point in asking Gullickson again. And I note the "we" in wishes not to contribute. -Edbrown05 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Three to one against. 5 to one since I think we already know what Neut and Holmes votes will be. I'll add that part in and publish it. --Wolfrider 02:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I did not see a vote. Therefore, how could it be a consensus?  --Mrmiscellanious 20:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My assumption was that Ed and Boro had wanted the article published, it sounded like that was what they were voicing. So, again, do we have consensus on publishing the article? (And if there is a more official way of doing this, let me know MrM.) --Wolfrider 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't voicing an opinion on publishing of the article. I have no opinion either way. - Borofkin 07:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Image replaced: Image:Students at SUNY.jpg
Please replace Image:IMG 2090.JPG with Image:Students at SUNY.jpg, bad named duplicate at Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo
editprotected "thier" => "their" Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)