Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Looking for Alaska and Michael L. Printz Award
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	JayHenry
Parties involved	JayHenry, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, Czolgolz
Mediator(s)	Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Comment	Participant bowed out of mediation and is not going to participate in the disputed pages.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Looking for Alaska and Michael L. Printz Award]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Looking for Alaska and Michael L. Printz Award]]

Request made by: JayHenry 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Looking for Alaska, Michael L. Printz Award, John Green (writer)

Who's involved?

JayHenry, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, Czolgolz

What's going on?

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (hereafter LAEC) has been inserting a comment that John Green made on a blog in response to a post that LAEC himself made on the blog. I believe the way the quote is being used constitutes original research and also POV. The quote says that Green himself is criticizing the award, when it's clear that he's not. I believe the quote is being taken out of context to play up a controversy about the Printz Award, John Green's book, and to make a broader criticism against the American Library Association. An organization with which I was unfamiliar prior to this week.

What would you like to change about that?

As I believe the quote is POV and OR, I do not think it belongs in these article at all, let alone with such prominence. The controversy around Green's book should be sourced per Wikipedia's guidelines. I have real issues with quoting a living person out-of-context like this, especially when the quote is being used as criticism.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

User_talk:JayHenry is fine.

I have read over the pages and their associated talk pages. All users have accepted mediation. I am posing some questions to get a better picture of the issue and users involved.

If at any time for any reason, you feel uncomfortable with my assistance or how I am handling this case, please do not hesitate to let me know so we can work through any issues.

I have proposed a compromise. Please let me know if it is acceptable.

LEAC has bowed out of mediation. Closing case, contacting other parties. Vassyana 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here I will post some questions to help me understand the positions of the editors involved and the issues in the disagreement. Please just provide short responses of a few sentances maximum. Any in-depth debate or discussion, please keep to the discussion section below.

• How does WP:RS and WP:V apply to the disputed quote, in your opinion?

JayHenry - Response

I believe WP:SPS is fairly clear. John Green's comment is self-published as defined by WP:SPS. It is not vetted by an attorney, editor or peer review. It is just a random posting on an internet site. There are 6 criteria for when a self-published source may be used and this quote fails three of them:

1. it is relevant to their notability;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;

This quote is not relevant to Green's notability; it is contentious; it involves claims about third parties. The policy says SPS should not be used if any are failed. Also, the next part of WP:RS is WP:REDFLAG. The quote also fails redflag. LAEC has said repeatedly that he believes John Green is criticizing the ALA. That's an exceptional claim from someone who has received an award from the ALA (and I assume therefore much of his livelihood). This blog posting, however, is not an exceptional source.

I'm not arguing John Green did not type the response in question. I'm not sure how blogspot.com works or if it's possible to fake this. But Wikipedia policy is very clear that a quote is not, by definition, fit for inclusion. This quote is a textbook example of when a quote is not fit.

This quote is in response to LAEC's own criticisms. This is little different than if I approached John Green at a book signing, asked him a question, recorded it on YouTube and then used it as a source. It's original research to the point that it's almost reporting. The reason this sort of thing is prohibited: imagine if someone asked John Green, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" And Green's response was then listed on his Wikipedia entry? His response, because of the very nature of the question, is going to be damning. Similarly here, John Green's response presupposes LAEC's criticisms. This method of gathering content for wikipedia seems to me like an ambush.

I also feel this is a violation of WP:NPOV, but you didn't ask about that so I won't go into it. --JayHenry 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czolgolz - Response

I feel the quote is something that Green said in passing, and is not especially relevant to the article. If we include the one sentence then it's taken out of context, if we include the entire blog entry it goes on far too long. I don't really see Green is saying 'My book is sexually explicit and should not have won this award'.Czolgolz 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's not what Green is saying. He is saying, however, modifying your paraphrasing, 'My book is sexually explicit and should not be read by my own children (if I had them) until they are 14.' Since the ALA award is for 12 year olds and the author himself says what he does, that's relevant to the Printz Award.

People come to an encyclopedia for unbiased information. Anyone looking at the Printz Award page may find it very relevant and very interesting that award winning authors won't give their own award winning books to their own children. And we have this in the words of the author himself. The bending over backwards to find reasons to exclude this information from the Printz page is understandable on an ala.org page but not on a wikipedia.org page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also came across this quote from the ALAN reviews: "A warning to readers: Green's novel contains a lot of explicit language, some drug use, and explicit sexual situations. However, each of these situations is handled with depth and maturity and is vital to the development of plot and character." It's all a matter of opinion, and if we include one opinion, we have to include them all. Czolgolz 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling - Response

The John Green quote is John Green's quote as typed into the computer by himself. He is the author of the book that won the award. That seems primary to me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this an actual controversy, or the author responding to some criticisms? Can you provide a reliable source towards either view?

JayHenry - Response

This specific quote is just the author responding to criticisms -- specifically those of LAEC. The controversy arises because the main character in Looking For Alaska receives a blowjob. And the characters (high school students) also smoke and drink and talk about sex. A reliable source on the issue is "Why YA and Why Not; Blurring the line between traditionally distinct markets.", by Sue Corbett, Publishers Weekly, September 5, 2005. This talks about the controversial content in Green's book. But it doesn't tie his book into a broad campaign of criticism against the American Library Association. --JayHenry 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czolgolz - Response

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling - Response

What to Do About Sexually Explicit Teen Books? is where the actual controversy begins. On the excellent AS IF! Authors Support Intellectual Freedom blog in which numerous award winning authors contribute regularly, one such author, Brent Hartinger, author of The Geography Club, said (and plan2succeed is me):

A poster, plan2succeed.org, has posted some thoughts that I think get to the heart of the issue in the censorship of children's book. I thought they deserved to be highlighted in their own post....

He then directly quoted me, then directly responded to the issue generally. I suppose it's too much to republish here. And this blog by Brent Hartinger resulted in 107 comments. Among those comments are those of John Green, including the material raised in this mediation. The issues raised are directly related to this mediation.

So while I may have set Brent Hartinger to thinking, it was he who "thought [it] deserved to be highlighted in [its] own post." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there third party sources that report on this controversy/criticism? Can you provide those sources?

JayHenry - Response

The reference above, from Publisher's Weekly, and other similar examples if there are any, would be appropriate to source the criticism on the Looking For Alaska page. Again I won't go into WP:NPOV issues at the mediator's request. --JayHenry 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czolgolz - Response

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling - Response

There may be. I don't know of any, but I have not searched. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add the generally, this very topic is in the news regularly. This week it's Sports Illustrated suimsuit issue not going to public libraries. Last week it was the Newbery Award award book having the word "scrotum" on the first page. And on and on. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation accepted by all involved parties. Please indicate if you accept my assistance as an informal mediator:

• Accept

Accept, and thank you. Czolgolz 14:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. JayHenry 16:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Accept. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject

I believe the quotes in the original Looking for Alaska article, while not neccessary, are sufficient to cover this issue. They seemed forced when placed in the Prinz Award article, and do not, in my opinion, warrent a second placement. Czolgolz 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czolgolz, having now read the recently expanded LFA page, I now agree with you that the topic is covering in depth on that page. Assuming it stays there, it does not need to be covered in depth on the Printz Award. However, that page should at least include a reference to the material on the LFA page and its significance to the Printz award. By way of quick example, not word perfect, see John Green page (or LFA page) where author questions age inappropriateness of Printz Award. Just saying see page so and so for more information is not enough to inform the readers of the reason for the reference. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JayHenry, good idea to bring this matter here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Compromise suggestion

Wikipedia discourages primary sources and blogs. Use the PW reference, and potentially other third party references if they can be found, to source the issue and frame the discussion. Since this is a single side issue, keep rewrites of it to a few sentances. The rewritten section should reflect what PW and other third party reliable sources say about the controversy. The personal opinion of any involved editor, or the author in question, should not be reflected in the rewritten section. Focus on what third party reliable sources have reported.

In order to prevent further edit disputes, the section could be rewritten and achieve consensus here at /Award controversy, before being added to the article.

If the blog article "needs" to be included, just neutrally and plainly state that the writing community has discussed this, without acribing an opinion to the posting or comments therein, with a simple reference link to the posting. Looking for Alaska can mutually link under to Michael L. Printz Award and John Green (writer). Michael L. Printz Award and John Green (writer) can both make single sentance brief mentions of controvery regarding the age-appropriateness of Looking for Alaska, with wikilinks. Is this acceptable? Vassyana 07:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And for complete fairness and to prevent further edit wars, I'll let others make the changes. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 08:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'll try to write a draft tomorrow. --JayHenry 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for your good nature and cooperative attitude on this solution. I am glad we can move forward on this. I'd just request that we discuss the revised version here and make sure it is acceptable to everyone before porting it over to the main article. Vassyana 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll put a draft at the sub page /Award controversy and let everybody look at it. --JayHenry 14:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've written something that I feel deals with the issue completely, but without blowing it out of proportion or raising original issues; but also not whitewashing. --JayHenry 18:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what about on the Printz page itself, like a short reference of the controversy that is relevant to the awarding of the Printz award to a book the author wouldn't give to his own kid. And the text you wrote does not even raise the whole reason we are here, namely, the question of the Printz award for books even the authors themselves would not give to their own kids at the ages the ALA grants the award for. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... it looks like we have a total failure to communicate here. John Green explicitly stated that he believes the ALA does not push this book on 12-year-olds. And even if he did, your blog posting is not a valid source. I thought we'd established both of those things. I don't even know how to proceed. --JayHenry 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said he said that, and he doesn't say that. The issue is not whether John Green thinks the ALA pushes the book on 12 year olds. Who cares, he's one of millions, and it certainly would not need to be on the Printz page. The issue is as I've always stated and as John Green stated -- this author would not recommend his own Printz award winning book to his own child at age 12, unlike the ALA as evidenced by the Printz award, because of its age inappropriateness. That's the issue, not whether John Green thinks the ALA is pushing the book on kids.

And now we see clearly why you have been so driven in this matter -- you have misunderstood the entire underlying premise. You say "I thought we'd established both of those things." Apparently, you do not even understand the basic, underlying facts of the case. John Green's feelings about the ALA are irrelevant. What's encyclopedic on the Printz award page (where the award is for kids 12 and up) is that a Printz awarded author would not give his own award winning book to his own 12 year old due to sexually inappropriate content for, in John Green's own view, 12 and 13 year olds.

Perhaps we need the mediator to confirm this basic underlying quote-based fact so you understand why the Printz award page is the place for the quote. And if you have been so far offbase all this time, perhaps the mediator will consider whether the appropriate spot for the Printz award controversy is on the Printz award page, not on the LFA page and not totally written out all together by a total lack of an understanding of the underlying facts. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, please help! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please help. I really thought I did exactly what we agreed upon in your proposed compromise. --JayHenry 04:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions are:

1. Include a brief statement into the Controvery section such as: "The online writing community has discussed this issue, including the author of the book.<ref>''insert reference to blog here''</ref>" (This is true and neutral. The reader can decide for themselves by reading the reference what the blog says about the issue.)
2. Include a brief statement in the Printz award page such as: "The content of some Printz award books is controversial."[Wikilink "some Printz award books" or "controversial" to Controversy section in LFA article.] (Simple statement of fact, linking to the controvery in question.)
3. Include a brief statement on the author's page, such as: "One of his books, Looking for Alaska, has been the subject of some controversy."[Wikilink "controversy" to the Controversy section in the LFA article.] (Simple statement of fact, linking to the controvery in question.)

I believe this would provide neutral statements while accomodating both of your concerns. What do you guys think? Vassyana 18:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds really great. You are really providing a valuable service. But let me ask this. The blog being 107 comments long, I doubt anyone would read it all.

Further, instead of saying just "The content of some Printz award books is controversial," because that's sort of a given for any list of books from any source, it would be better to say, in my opinion, "The content of some Printz award books is controversial even to an awarded author who would not give his own book to his own child for reasons of sexual inappropriateness."

To say some controversy exists then to point to a huge blog is like saying controversy exists in ancient documents then pointing to the Bible. Also, that controversy in and of itself exists is not what's encyclopedic. There's controversy everywhere. No biggie. The encyclopedic part, namely the part most interesting and unusual about the controversy is 1) the source of the controversy is the book's own author, 2) that author says he would not give his own book to his own child whereas the awarding organization would, and 3) the author stated the reason he would not do so was for sexual inappropriateness for children aged 12 to 13.

Please take that into consideration. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vassyana...non POV statements, and links to the outside articles. LAC, I can't justify using half an article to talk about sometihng the author said in passing. Czolgolz 13:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be so simple: WP:SPS! And yet. --JayHenry 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we all agree. I don't want half an article on it either. I have been asking for a sentence or phrase. Greenspan says something in passing and the whole market tanks, so merely saying something in passing is not the issue. I have been asking for John Green's sentence or phrase, or paraphrase of him, precisely so no POV is introduced. I think anyone can see the significance of an author not giving him own award winning book to his own child is clearly encyclopedic--that must be added in a wiki way. Wiping it completely from existence by saying it was said in passing or by just generically saying some controversy exists generally is wimpy, not wiki. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable source that reports on his statements? Vassyana 17:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very clear that we don't agree. --JayHenry 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the definition of reliable source that reports on his statements. That blog where he said what he said, and possibly his own personal blog, is the only place I know of. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. How does the blog where the author's statements are found fit under WP:ATT? How should it be referred to in the article; by direct text, by footnote? Under the policies and guidlines of WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, what limits are there on using the blog for explicit commentary in the article? These are the questions that I think need to be asked and answered. They cut to the core of the disagreement. Vassyana 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers:
JayHenry. I was happy with the initial compromise that we all agreed on. I was less happy with the second compromise, but would have accepted it. It's clear to me that John Green's quote is governed by WP:SPS and not acceptable material for Wikipedia. Also, I think it's significant that Green is responding to LAEC's own blog posting. LAEC's very user name is a reference to the anti-ALA campaign that he wages on Wikipedia and off. I'm not making an ad hominem attack, I'm just reading the essay on his user page. If Green knew that by engaging LAEC his comments would be used against him and out of context on Wikipedia, I'm sure he wouldn't have posted in the comments thread of the blog. This is precisely why WP:SPS exists, to protect people from POV campaigns or traps like this. We have adequate, neutral sources for the controversy of the content in Looking For Alaska. The fact is that none of these sources drag the ALA into it. --JayHenry 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee.

LegitimateAEC. How does the blog where the author's statements are found fit under WP:ATT? It appears to me the quote is fully attributable to John Green. Further, I believe he discusses what he wrote on the As If blog in his own blog. For that and for other reasons, I am 100% certain the John Green in the As If blog to be quoted is the real deal. How should it be referred to in the article; by direct text, by footnote? In the article, I say the relevant text should appear only, with a footnote linking to the As If blog. Under the policies and guidlines of WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, what limits are there on using the blog for explicit commentary in the article? Well, under NPOV, the quote can be added with little to no additional or explanatory text since it explains itself. I think this minimizes NPOV to zero chance. Regarding the Manual of Style, I beleive the quote can be added in a very positive way that will enhance the page, if that's what MOS is about. These are the questions that I think need to be asked and answered. They cut to the core of the disagreement. Yes, and I like your style of handling this, though honestly I'm no policy expert and on that I look to you for guidance.

Let me say a few words with regarding to JayHenry's answers so that the record is clear. John Green is NOT reacting to me; rather, he is participating, as I did, in a blog thread created by Brent Hartinger, author of The Geography Club. To that end he responded, at least indirectly, to what I, Brent Hartinger, and others raised. This is perfectly appropriate and I did not, as JayHenry seems to imply, force John Green to respond to me. Come to think of it, I was pleasantly surprised he joined in. You see, I first respond to Brent Hartinger.

As to my name, LEAC, it is not anti-ALA; rather it is designed to expose more publicly the ALA's own stated defiance of the US Supreme Court Case it lost in 2003 called US v. ALA. LEAC is a quote directed from the case that is directly opposed by the ALA. I'm just the messenger--the real problem is the ALA leadership's --not individual ALA members-- defiance of that case in numerous ways, though in a legal fashion. I am not claiming illegality.

Now my making the ALA's actions public does not mean the material is not wikiworthy or that people would not find it significant that an ALA award winning author would not give his own award winning book to his own child due to age inappropriateness of a sexual nature. It only means it came to my attention because I may be more attuned to that issue than others--like Rudolph Giuliani would pay attention to the finer points of the Yankees that most of us might miss. But the issue of the increasing sexualization of children via books is not one I made up. Just ask Naomi Wolf or the other major sources who have raised this issue.

Then JayHenry says I am using John Green's quotes "against him" and "out of context." No. John Green is to be respected for saying what he did. Even while praising the ALA, he has publicly stated his own award winning book is not age appropriate for his own child, if he had one. The ALA would let his 12 year old read the book. John Green thinks 14 should be the minimum. That takes guts to oppose the ALA, albeit on this narrow but highly significant issue. I applaud John Green for doing this, just the opposite of what JayHenery says I am doing.

In this situation, John Green's own quote about his own award winning book and his own child is not, as JayHenry has been saying, "POV campaigns or traps like this."

Further, JayHenry says, "We have adequate, neutral sources for the controversy of the content in Looking For Alaska." Again, the issue is not that the book contains controversial content. Most books do somehow with somebody. So that statement is irrelevant. The issue is a Printz award winning author not giving a Printz awarded book to his own child due to sexually inappropriate material he himself wrote. We have John Green saying so himself. That's the key, and it's perfectly wikipediable and in fact useful information for people who look for guidance from the ALA on what books to give to children.

Lastly, I do not consider JayHenry raising the origin of my name as something personal in nature.

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put some thought into this and I would like to note a few things.
WP:SPS (from WP:ATT) reads:

1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I have highlighted the areas where I think the blog is most problematic, you may judge the other criteria for yourself. Since the blog is not the author's site, it is not being used in an article about itself. The use of that source is obviously a contentious issue.

WP:BLP reads:

• Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

This is very clear and very strong language about making claims regarding a living person. WP:BLP#Reliable_sources is also important to note.

We must be careful in how the blog is used, if it is used at all. How can the blog be used without conflicting with these considerations? Vassyana 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say, "The use of that source is obviously a contentious issue," that is obvious only from JayHenry's total misunderstanding of the controversy being what the author said viv-a-vis age inappropriateness as opposed to merely bad language in the book, as JayHenry keeps thinking this case is about to shoehorn it into oblivion. So any contentiousness is only here and only created by JayHenry--John Green was not contentious in his remarks and even praised the ALA. He praised the ALA! Now that is not contention! By the way, I am suggesting a quote be added where the author later said great things about the ALA, his former boss. Now does that sound like I am suggesting it be in there to say something bad about the ALA when the author is saying something good about the ALA? No, I am suggesting it be in there because it directly relates to the Printz award -- author gets Printz award but author will not give book to own child due to inappropriate content. Inappropriate content in and of itself is not the controversy here either. That is a subject covered elsewhere. And the author saying he would not give his own award winning book to his own child, particularly where he adores the ALA, is just plain not contentious. There is no contention in his statements. He is merely noting he would not give it to his own child. Also, nothing in the quote casts any aspersions whatsoever on John Green, or even on the ALA, for that matter. There is NO contention in the quote by the award winning author. The only contention is in JayHenry's constant efforts to change this controversy from what it is to what is is not, then to argue why what it is not should not be included. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JayHenry was not the only user to object to using the blog as a source. Regardless, even if you and JayHenry were the only participants, if it is a matter of contention between you, it is contentious. The policy for sourcing is strict under WP:SPS in regards to this kind of source. Since the article is not about the blog, it does not fit the criteria for inclusion. If you feel there is an applicable exception, please explain how the quote could be included under the policies and guidelines. Alternatively, please provide some reliable sources that report on his comments. We must adhere to the appropriate policies and guidelines if a stable solution is to be found. Vassyana 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. As I said, I'm no policy expert. So I'm not going to go into this further, not going to parse wiki policy. I just added the information to the page designated as a "stub" in an effort to contribute as directed by the stub template that encourages people to contribute. However, apparently due to the successful nature of JayHenry's contentiousness regarding the building of a stub page, and despite stub pages not having to be letter perfect while they are being built, it appears my addition of a single phrase directly quoted from a person awarded the Printz award will not be included on the Printz page. The Printz page will remain pristine, as JayHenry wants, and not include an actual controversy by an actual award-winning author that may be of actual interest to the wiki consumers generally. JayHenry may have just won this battle, but wikipedia's readers just lost out on otherwise wikiworthy information that may have been perfected when the page is no longer a stub. It's 1984 again. I give up. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the attacks on JayHenry. He was not the only editor who opposed the addition. Please do not frame this in terms of censorship. You must be cautious in your choice of sources. The standards for living persons demand reliable sources and the removal of any unsourced claims, regardless of if they present the subject in a good, bad or neutral light. If an issue should be framed in a certain light, a reliable source should be cited providing that commentary. I am simply asking that all participants adhere to the relevent policies, no more and no less. Vassyana 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Until now your mediation has been flawless. Now you claim I have made attacks on JayHenry when all I was doing was summarizing his method of argument, namely characterizing my arguments as being different than what they are or rephrasing them, then addressing the different/rephrased arguments he himself set up. And JayHenry is the only editor who did that. And I raised the issue due to your prompting about the issue being "contentious" to show that was JayHenry's doing, not related to the underlying issue that seems to have fallen from view. Use strikeouts to make a retraction or I will not be able to give you a satisfactory rating. And as to the policy issues you raise, I hinted they are above my head and said I give up. I meant it. I just can't see how John Green is not a reliable source on John Green. I give up trying to explain it to people who change my arguments then dismiss the changed arguments. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand your point about censorship, though it appears something like it happened here. How ironic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious. LAEC, this started as a dispute between you and somebody other than myself! I was a latecomer to this, who happened to have just read Green's book, read the page and noticed that the quote was not acceptable per wikipedia policy. You've spent all this time trying to present me as biased (or incapable of comprehension), and I'm not. I don't care about the American Library Association or any of these other issues, in fact, if you look at my edit history you can see that the main reason I came to wikipedia is to improve the articles about Hippos! But once I got here I read the policies, and I believe those policies exist for a reason, so I tried to make sure they were followed. That's the whole story on JayHenry's agenda. --JayHenry 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, but irrelevant. Wiki policies are very strong guidelines but not hard and fast. Because I personally don't know how to play the wiki policy game with people who are against my edits because of my name and what I wrote on my user page does not make the facts different. Any normal person would say an author not giving his own award winning book to his own child due to sexual inappropriateness despite what/who the award was for would find that to be very unusual and noteworthy. Any one would agree that where the author puts that in writing, that essentially proves it. Obviously main stream media is again being used as a sword to keep the record clean--since MSM don't report on it, it must not exist. Funny, because MSM rarely if ever reports on this type of thing. But the author did, but we're all supposed to ignore that because that's supposedly wiki policy. I'm sure it's not but I'm not able to prove it. I've been successfully jammed. The fact that I have lost this mediation does not change the facts one bit. It just means I'll have to edit somewhere else until more JayHenry's come to save the day. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have a few points to bring up.

1. I have no power of enforcement. This mediation is not binding. I am not an admin. I am not anyone special. I am just another editor who volunteered to take this case.
2. Mediation is not about winning and losing. It is about finding a middle ground.
3. You must be willing to compromise in order for a mediation to be successful.

That being said, LEAC, the other side has compromised on this issue. They even found reliable sources about the controversy. You must understand how it appears, regardless of your true motivations, when you express a strong viewpoint on your user page, express the same strong viewpoint in the source you cite, are pushing an edit that reflects that viewpoint, express an unwillingness to review the guidelines and policies, express a lack of interest in finding reliable sources and refuse to compromise. Please reflect on that and understand how it appears. Vassyana 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, this is too much. Now you are changing the facts. Maybe it's just so long no one can be blamed for not knowing how it started out. I'm just flat giving up -- that's not out of "unwillingness." I've compromised over and over again, except with the total removal of the information that is not a compromise. I've been consistent throughout, as has JayHenry in taking the argument elsewhere then cutting it down from there. It's just too much time arguing with people who will not even let a single phrase by the author in on a stub page. You are even still claiming you don't see what's in the John Green quotes you just added here I've been pointing out over and over again. As Simon & Garfunkel said, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. We'll my input has just been disregarded. And there you go with raising the issue of my user page after I pointed out its irrelevance to this particular matter and how it does not change what John Green said. I never said John Green agrees with me. It's irrelevant if he does or doesn't. Oh, who cares. It falls on deaf ears anyway. Can you believe we all wasted all this time on this stupid matter of adding a phrase from John Green to the Printz page which was a stub in the first place? And you are still not seeing the issue? Really, after all this time it's too much for me to take anymore. I'm not even going to look at this anymore. It's disgusting the way you can get ganged up on here and wikiworthy information is thereby kept from public view. I'm removing this page from my watchlist. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a sufficient compromise. The inclusion of this entire quote becomes a violation of WP:WEIGHT. The problem is that I disagree with LAEC that Green is questioning the age appropriateness of the award. Green is saying that the Printz Award never suggests that the books it awards are therefore fit or encouraged reading for 12-year-olds. The inclusion of this quote violates WP:NPOV and it is WP:OR to draw the conclusions that are being drawn from it. I'm not trying to whitewash the controversy. But I propose that a better compromise would be to use WP:ATTributable sources, such as newspaper coverage of the controversy, than to use this massively long blog posting. --JayHenry 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JayHenry, you apparently agree with me and Czolgolz, at least partly, but you don't realize it. You complain about the inclusion of the entire quote. But the compromise is to leave the entire quote on another page with a short reference to the other page on the Printz page. Problem solved. Further, you are making an interpretation of John Green's quote and you have previously called interpretations original research. So your interpretation is original research and cannot be included. Besides, your interpretation is not accurate, as Green is saying marketers and book sellers don't sell the book to 12 year olds, and the ALA is not part of that group. And factually, as opposed to what you are interpreting, when libraries and supermarkets promote that gold seal Printz Awarded book to children 12 and up via various means including large posters announcing the best books for "young adults" in "YA" sections or selling the book in supermarket checkout aisles, the book is in fact being promoted to those children by the authority that slaps the gold stickers on the book in the first place, namely, the ALA. Besides, it is logically impossible to say the award is for kids 12 and up, some of the books may not be for some of the kids, and the gold seals do not disclose for whom the books are intended, while claiming the books are not recommended for 12 year olds and are not promoted to them -- that would be like selling Playboy magazine without a brown paper cover and located in the children's section of the magazine stand -- one could not argue the magazine is not being promoted to children. So again, problem solved. Lastly your prosposal is to use another source for John Green's direct quote. But that means the quote cannot be included as there is no other source, and this is likely the reason why you suggested another source. Fortunately, wiki policy allows for the use of blog entries in appropriate circumstances. This is one of those circumstances. So, thanks to wikipedia policy in this case, problem solved. All in all, all problems solved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm making an interpretation of his quote, and yes it's original research and yes this is exactly the reason the quote should not be included. The operative part of the OR policy in question is WP:SYN. The use of this quote is violating it.
• My position is not that the quote should not be included on the Printz award page. My point is that the quote should not be included anywhere in Wikipedia. Especially since it's being used to push POV.
• You claim, "Besides, your interpretation is not accurate, as Green is saying marketers and book sellers don't sell the book to 12 year olds, and the ALA is not part of that group."

John Green says "the ALA does not hand it to 12-year-olds or say that it's appropriate for 12-year-olds." Your claim above is completely inaccurate as he does specifically include the ALA as part of the group that doesn't push the book to 12-year-olds.

• My proposal is to source controversy about "Looking For Alaska" from a reliable source. John Green's response to your blog posting does not encyclopedic content make. It's not Wikipedia's role to manufacture this controversy.
• This is no different than if John Green said something/anything on his video blog in response to me and we thus included the entire quote, and said it was a matter of tremendous significance. This quote is not an example of when a blog posting becomes legitimate source matter for wikipedia. The relevant policy here is WP:SPS.
• It's also a matter of proportion -- right now, half the page on Looking for Alaska is dedicated to this quote. That's way, way too much.
• You are pushing an anti-ALA agenda. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your cause. I'm saying that Wikipedia is not the battleground for you to make your case. --JayHenry 21:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the SYN policy and I don't see that it applies. Nothing is being combined to make a point. The quote is just a quote.
• Regarding a reliable source, there is no higher source on what John Green wrote than John Green.
• I did not manufacture the controversy. I responded to another author raising an issue. The John Green quote by John Green is not manufactured. Certainly you are not suggesting John Green did not write his own comments, are you?
• The SPS policy does not apply. John Green is John Green. Is he supposed to fact check himself? Is he a questionable source, award-winning as he is?
• Regarding your comment that the LFA quote is too large, first, I did not add it. Second, you are showing your own crusade to strike out material you do not like. We are talking here about the Printz page, not the LFA page. We are suggesting a short sentence reference the LFA page. That is the subject. Open another case if you want to expand to the LFA page. Third, as to proportion, besides my not being the author, the page is a stub page. As the page gets built as invited by the stub message, do you really think wiki policy is to keep things looking proportional as the page is being built? Yes, if the page was final you may have a point. As stub editors, people have to have a chance to build the page without others chopping things that look disproportionate.
• The John Green quote that he would not give his own Printz award-winning book to his own child due to sexual inappropriateness is relevant whether I am "pushing an anti-ALA agenda" or not. Whether or not you agree with my supposed cause or not is irrelevant as well. I am not using wikipedia to battle my case. I guess you haven't seen my web site lately. The quote added is John Green's quote. Not a single word, not even a conjunction, is mine. Nothing of mine own was added. Zero. It is pure John Green. John Green not giving his own Printz award winning book to his own child due to sexual inappropriateness is in John Green's words. Please do not mislead people by saying I am using wikipedia as a battleground. So far the battleground is you striking out any change I make no matter how wikiworthy or how minor and compromise does not make itself evident from your responses.
• Really, I am open to guidance here. Your guidance so far has been misguided, irrelevant, and untrue. Further, each time I address your misguidance, you raise new issues that are similarly misguided. But the point is wiki policy, not 3 strikes you're out, so please continue to provide addition comments/suggestions. Just note that the total removal of things with which you disagree is not compromise. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify a few points point -- this was a mediation request for Looking for Alaska, Michael L. Printz Award and John Green (writer). The issue is the quote, not the specific page.

I have a compromise: to include the controversy, just not using this quote, which I believe is inappropriate. I feel strongly that the controversy around this book should be mentioned, but this controversy must be presented within the realms of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This is what I stated in my initial request for mediation.

Finally, I'm not "raising new issues," but trying to direct you, specifically, to the parts of the policy being violated. My objection remains that this is OR and POV and I was trying to explain more clearly why. All my "new issues" are, in fact, sections of the Wikipedia policies on OR and POV.

But frankly, I think that's crystal clear. At this point, we've both stated our cases, and I'll wait for a mediator. --JayHenry 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, from what I read, the issue is the inclusion of a quote from a blog. My take on this is that we should make sure to follow all relevant policy. This means that we should not use the blog directly, but use other reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources then this is not a notable issue. It is not our job to do original research and look for blogs etc to back up what we want to say. Rather it is our job to rephrase and re-state what other notable 3rd party sources say about the incident. In all cases we must remember that we are an encyclopedia, the guidelines and policies that we have are for good effect. Therefor I am going to propose a compromise, talk about this issue in the articles, if the issue has other 3rd party sources speaking about the issue, but abstain from using the blog as a source, as it fails at least one of our guidelines. Use reliable sources. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference of the discussion, John Green, in a blog comment said:

Well I'm flattered that "Alaska" has been defended so well by so many of my favorite authors, and what means the most to me to be honest is that so many people have said they liked the book. To highlight a few comments:

1. I'm with Mary. I have no problem with a parent reading my book and saying, "Nah, I don't want my child reading this." That's fine. In fact, if I had a 12-year-old, I might not let them read 'Alaska' for any number of reasons.

2. The book has never been marketed to 12-year-olds. Never. It is packaged like an adult book; it doesn't even say it's published by a kids' book imprint on the cover, and it's never shelved in the children's section of bookstores. It's a book for high-school students. Furthermore, the ALA does not hand it to 12-year-olds or say that it's appropriate for 12-year-olds. As Mary also pointed out, it's for a book that falls within an age range that starts at 12 and ends at 18. In my case, the book is published for kids 14 and up.

3. You know, I believe that sexual morality is important. I really do. But Jesus Christ. There comes a point when you begin to confuse having a system of sexual morals with having an actual comprehensive system of morals, and it seems like we're coming to that place in this country. The relentless focus on sex and nothing else--it's sort of weird, really. Why is it that some people find it so repugnant that a book contains a brief, funny scene about how physical intimacy can be uncomfortable and awkward and generally miserable -- and yet no one mentions the fact that it contains teenagers who binge drink and smoke?

Alcohol and tobacco abuse kill a lot more teenagers in this world than blow jobs do, and yet by focusing narrowly in on this one facet of morality, we really do a disservice to the larger moral questions: How should I treat others, and how can I expect myself to be treated by the world? What should I value? What if anything is the meaning of suffering? What are my responsibilities to the social order? How do those responsibilities differ from my responsibilities to my friends?

Those are questions worth asking, and while sexuality has some bearing on those questions, it's certainly not central to them. Maybe I'm crazy, but I've just never thought that sex is THAT important in the scheme of things. And that, finally, is why I only devoted about 800 words of my 65,000 word novel to it.

Questions. (All quotation marked statements/questions are from this case page.)

1. Where does John Green state, or state in equivilant that "says he would not give his own book to his own child whereas the awarding organization would"?
2. Where does John Green state that "the reason he would not do so was for sexual inappropriateness"?

These claims have been raised repeatedly. What are all the participants responses to these questions? The full quote is provide above for reference. Vassyana 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen that quote anywhere, and am just taking LAC's word that he said it. Czolgolz 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's that second section that proves John Green isn't saying what LAEC thinks he's saying. The whole 12-year-old thing is a total non-issue because his book isn't for 12-year-olds in the first place. The Printz Award is for writers who write teen lit -- even though an author who writes for twelve year olds can win it, it doesn't mean that all winning books are therefore pushed on 12-year-olds. It's sort of like how an author for teens could win a National Book Award, but that doesn't therefore mean that all National Book Award winners are automatically fit for teens. Same thing here. Green writes for 14-18 year olds and is thus eligible for the Printz. The 12-year-olds are a straw man. And regardless, comment threads to blog postings are not legitimate sources for Wikipedia and there's no good reason to subvert that policy for this. --JayHenry 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand LAEC's point of view, and I think I may have figured out. I think his point is that John Green says he might not let his child read the book. The ALA, however, would let his child read the book. In other words, the ALA doesn't physically prevent 12-year-olds from entering the part of the library with these books or prevent a 12-year-old from checking the books out without parental permission. I'm not sure if LAEC actually believes that John Green is suggesting the ALA should not let 12-year-olds read the book. I think Green likely thinks it's the parents' responsibility to monitor what their kid reads; not the libraries'.

And I don't understand why LAEC compares me to the censors of Orwell's 1984 but doesn't consider that an attack. But that's certainly not debating the issue at hand. I also don't understand why LAEC thinks that WP:SPS does not apply, which is the issue at hand.

Also, I don't see how I've refused to compromise. I accepted both of the first two compromises and even carried the first one out myself, doing exactly what we all agreed upon. I've been patient. When LAEC repeatedly said he didn't see how a policy applied, I pointed him to the specific part of the policy that applied. He has responded by accusing me of changing the subject.

WikiPolicy is very clear about what's "WikiWorthy." This blog posting blatantly fails. And I'm frustrated that I keep getting screamed at about it. It doesn't matter whose interpretation of the quote is correct, because a posting in the comment thread of a blog in response to LAEC's criticisms is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. --JayHenry 02:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]