Talk:Katie Sierra free speech case/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dates

Resolved

It says she ran away in 2000, should this maybe be before all the stuff that happened in 2001? Murderbike (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Arghh, and the attempt at creating a flawless GA in one edit is ruined! Way to rain on my parade dude ;) скоморохъ 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... damn, I only requested this article earlier today! Anarchist Task Force, solidarity!--Cast (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a valiant effort comrade, maybe we can find some way to blame our leader? Murderbike (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I always blame the failure of the Black Guards on The People's Front of Anarchia. Splitters!--Cast (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pacifism

Perhaps the line, "Sierra is an anarchist-pacifist" and others should be changed to at least include "self-proclaimed" or something. Hard to be considered a pacifist when she is allegedly wearing very provocative slogans calling for the burning of any nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.69.248.21 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We usually take self-identification as sufficient grounds for identifying someone as of a particular ideology. If you read our article on anarcho-pacifism, you might conclude that there is nothing unpacifistic about wearing provocative clothing - in general, pacifists are only opposed to violence and coercion, not provocative speech. You might also note that the allegation by Jacob Reed repeated by Principal Mann that Sierra wore slogans promoting the burning of America did not stand up in court. Regards, Skomorokh 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting the idea that there is nothing unpacifistic in provocative clothing. At the very least, the language of the shirts, if they did exist, would put her at odds with her own club's manifesto of "[t]his anarchist club will not tolerate hate".

If the Wikipedia assumption is that self-identification is sufficient, then I see nothing wrong with the article. I would hope a more objective lens would be used, however, but I'm just a Wikipedia neophyte, so don't mind me. And sorry I didn't sign the previous comment. Travis Garris (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the pacifistic or unpacifistic nature of the t-shirts is just your and my opinion, and we don't include editor's opinions in articles (see No original research), so we would need a reliable source that said Sierra was not a pacifist in order to challenge it. But to me, personally, the slogans the sources do report don't seem hateful. As for hope of a more objective lens, we really only mirror what the reliable sources print (per neutral point of view), which in this case is overwhelmingly sympathetic to Sierra. Wikipedia is not the place for righting wrongs, just a vehicle for information transmission. Don't worry about all the jargon and signing-in rituals, it's less daunting than it seems. Regards, Skomorokh 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Contact Info?

I was wondering if anyone is aware of any projects Ms Sierra is currently involved in or if she can be contacted personally or through a particular organization? Thanks for any help on this in advance... DavidMSA (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know that too. McKinney was the Vice Principal at my Junior High School years before his promotion to Sissonville Principal and Ms. Sierra's unfortunate persecution. Because of what I already knew about his character, his behavior in her case did not surprise me at all. Raphael (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's three of us. I'd like to know, myself, as I go to the same school and live in the same general region as she used to. I've got a few questions to ask her. - J-Whitt (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

First of, an exact date of birth would be nice.

Now, this article checks out OK in terms of copyediting and the like. But this article suffers from a lack of NPOV. The article definitely leans toward the direction of Seirra. And, there are statements without references. For example:

"Without reading Sierra's literature, Mann refused to grant permission for such a club in the school, and had to ask Sierra several times to return to class when he would not explain his decision."

First of all, this needs a reference. And, the way this is worded does not come of as a NPOV.

• Reference added, second clause attributed. Skomorokh

"Reading the back of Sierra's t-shirt, fellow student and aspirant U.S. Marine Jacob Reed allegedly told her, "If you don't like this country, then fucking leave", and subsequently received detention."

Is this relevant?

• Reed is a notable figure in Sierra's trial, and these comments are some of the few that made it into reliable sources. The article speaks at length about the pressure/harrassment Sierra faced in school, so it is of encyclopediac value to present the reader with a concrete example of this.

"The day of the incident, Mann summoned Sierra to his office and told her she would no longer be allowed to wear the shirts, and claimed that Sierra had violated his prior orders by making flyers for the club available to other student"

"Claimed" definitely seems to be a POV.

• No, it is verified by the source: "Mann also claimed ((Sierra)) had violated his prior orders by making the flyers available to other students, and placed her on a three-day suspension." Skomorokh

"Although some board members were initially helpful, comments turned hostile towards the end of the meeting, with Sierra being told "[t]his isn't something funny or cute…[y]ou're talking about overthrowing the government", and having her actions characterized as "like you stood up and waved a Japanese flag on Pearl Harbor day.""

Definitely not NPOV. "Although some board members were initially helpful, comments turned hostile towards the end of the meeting"? The quote by Bill Raglin does not have a quote.

• What is the issue here? Initially, some board members reacted positively to Sierra, then later some reacted negatively. The wording is from the source, and the quotes are cited after the period mark by another source. Skomorokh

"The following day, The Charleston Gazette published comments by Mann to the effect that the messages on Sierra's t-shirts included "I hope Afghanistan wins" and "America should burn."; Mann later claimed he had been misquoted, and that he had taken his information from Jacob Reed."

Again, "claimed" is not very NPOV.

• Why is "claimed" not NPOV? When someone expresses a proposition, they are making a claim that a certain state of affairs obtains. The Charleston Gazzette made one claim, Mann made another - what is the issue? Skomorokh

"Students spit on Sierra's mother's car at Sissonville High, and her friends' parents wouldn't give her rides home from school.[8] Threats, taunting, jeering by her fellow students escalated into physical assaults, and Sierra's mother pulled her out of school;[9][10] the threats would ultimately cause Sierra to flee the town."

I think all the parts about spitting, taunting, etc. could be summarized into "Threats by her fellow students eventually caused Sierra to leave the town." ("flee" is not really the right word either).

• I take your point about "flee" and have changed it to "move out of". However, the more detail we give to incidents the better, as it allows the reader to form their own opinions rather than tely on claims like "Sierra was harrassed"; if I am a reader who is sceptical that this harassment took place, and I think maybe it was just vigourous debate, the information about spitting and taunting decisively disabuse me of this notion. Skomorokh

"Sierra's pro bono lawyers claimed that Mann was responsible for disruption, and that he could have taken the opportunity to teach his students about tolerance and constitutional rights instead of making misleading and incendiary comments in the media."

If you're going to say "misleading and incendiary", then it either has to be a quote (and then actually use quotation marks), or it's a POV, and in which case it needs to be deleted.

• I notice you don't object to saying the lawyers "claimed" here, interesting selectivity. The wording is in the source; if it offends you, feel free to use quotes. Skomorokh

"There, the self-proclaimed "road sisters" took in a concert by Tanya Donelly, whose attempts to convince them to turn back were futile."

Relevance?

• The source considered it relevant, and it gives the reader information on the personal life of the subject beyond the school incident; this article needs more biographical info, not less. Skomorokh

Noble Story (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• General comment: If the article appears to present the subject in a favourable light, it is because the reliable sources used are overwhelmingly sympathetic to the subject. Original interpretation by Wikipedia editors in order to restore perceived balance is generally highly unwelcome, as it is fundamentally at odds with our policies on verifiability and original research. We are to represent verifiable information, not some editors perspectives on the Platonic truth of the matter. That said, I have addressed some of the concerns above and welcome a thorough GA review. Thank you for your comments thus far. Regards, Skomorokh 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to recuse myself from reviewing this, as I think my neutrality has been skewered, for various reasons, which affects my review. Hopefully another reviewer can do a better job. Regards, Noble Story (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I admire your integrity, and thank you for your good faith initiative in reviewing. Best, Skomorokh 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

1. It is well written Please address the following issues:

   Biography

   The following: As a child, the family moved around frequently is grammatically incorrect.

   The quote by Principal Mann is too short to deserve a blockquote.

   Please link to Suspension (school punishment)

   Do not link dates without years (October 29, November 2, June 24, November 27, June 5, July 12).

   Remember when the quotation begins in the middle of a sentence, the period goes outside of the end quotations. Proofread for this issue in Background, Escalation, Reaction to controvery

   Articles about American topics usually adhere to American spelling guidelines. "Defence" is Oxford spelling.

   Television shows such as Court TV should be italicized.

   I don't understand the context of this quote: and queried as to why Sierra was opposed to what was "pretty much payback".

   This portion of a sentence: Previous principal Forrest Mann having resigned from the school system following the controversy,[21] his successor Calvin McKinney identified Sierra's "questionable attire" is awkward. Please rewrite it.

   Beliefs:

   Please rephrase the first sentence as accurately as possible to reflect what Sierra calls/describes/labels herself vs. what she is.

   People at Sissonville High would be more accurate.

   Only unless a quote contains a colloquialism or otherwise obscure reference should any terms within the quote be linked. Please de-link "flag-waving" or any other links in quotes unless they are not generally understood terms.

   Did Sierra use the term "Propaganda of the deed"? Referring to previous point. If she did not, put it in her own words. If she did, put it in quotations.

   Per the MOS, blockquotes are reserved for longer quotes - a good guide is 4 lines or more.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   Cite this, and provide examples, please: In her first week back at the school, she was harassed, mocked and insulted by other students.

   Please provide examples of "scathing" treatment. From reading the description, I'm hard-pressed to believe the quote from The Charleston Gazette and the response from a teenager who responded to this crisis by running away is more than a slow news day and young adult tendency to overreact.

   I notice you depend a lot on the Court TV source. I get nervous when I cite a source more than 5 times. Ideally, I'd be more comfortable if you could use more sources to shore up the claims from this one.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   Seems to cover the controversy well, but I have a question at the Good Articles talk page if the naming should reflect the controversy of Sierra's teenage years. It's not reasonable to expect her biography to be updated if she no longer makes news, so naming it just after her is a bit inaccurate. I'm rather new to GA review, so I'm getting the opinions of other reviewers to answer this.

4. It is neutral

   Are there no local newspaper or television reports of the school board meeting on October 29? Your references are from politically motivated sources. Does the school board itself keep transcripts? You do have a reference to The Charleston Gazette, but if the claim of the article is that the controversy attracted international attention, more neutral sources should be available.

5. It is stable

   Relatively stable. I notice a user by the name of Katiesierra has been editing and/or vandalizing it. As there seem to be no edit wars, this portion passes.

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images

It is an interesting article that reflects many facets of conflict. I think it has a lot of potential. I'm placing the article on hold until for seven days to give you an opportunity to address these issues. You can contact me here or at my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Initial responses from Skomorokh

Thank you for taking the time to conduct this most helpful review. I have addressed as much as clearly needed addressing, and I have some comments on the remainder, if you would be so kind as to entertain them:

• There are no blockquotes used in this article, only inline quotation, epigraphs and quote boxes, all of which are used appropriately.
• I tried to address the punctuation issue, but I am unsure in cases wherein the quotation begins mid-sentence, but is longer than a sentence fragment. For example, in the following sentence: John said the dog "went in to the park. I saw it enter.", is the punctuation correct?
• The context of the payback quote is, I believe, the asserters belief that the War in Afghanistan was the United States' revenge for the September 11th attacks. I do not think it appropriate to state this in the article, as that would constitute original research.

Beliefs

I do not understand the problem with the opening line of the beliefs section, it seems very clear and is taken directly from the referenced source: "Katie admits she is an anarchist, but says that while anarchism is often associated with a violent overthrow of government, she is a pacifist. She opposes all violence and advocates "a peaceful revolution." After all, she says, anarchism is about freedom, and violence violates the freedom of others."

Regarding wikilinks within quotes

As a non-American, I did not immediately understand why someone would reference the waving of flags as a negative thing; only after reading the flag-waving article did I understand the connotations of jingoism. As for anarchy, that article contains much on political economy that I believe the average reader would miss, taking the term only to mean chaos or anomie.

Propaganda of the deed

Neither the source or Sierra explicitly referenced propaganda of the deed, but it is historically uncontroversial that this is what is meant by anarchist terrorism, again something that the casual reader could not be expected to know.

Factual accuracy

• The paragraph beginning "The ban on her right to return" is referenced, unless otherwise stated, to the Hafenbrack/Smith article. I consider it excessive to put an inline citation next to every piece of punctuation in a paragraph relying predominantly on a single source.

• I have altered the term "scathing" to unsympathetic, which is verified by the Reason source's coverage. You mention that you think something the Gazette wrote may be little more than a slow news day; I do not understand how this is relevant to Wikipedia's policies of verifiability. I tried to include negative reactions to Sierra because so much of the coverage is sympathetic to her. Quoting from board members and unsympathetic media coverage goes some way to show the reader there is at least two sides to the story.

• Regarding Court TV, I understand that you may feel uncomfortable by using a single source, but our policies on verification only flag this as a concern when the article is largely based on one or two sources. As Court TV accounts for less than a quarter of citations (14 out of 77, by a quick scan), and where more than half of the Court TV citations are either for direct quotations or are backed up by other references, this is not a serious concern.

Naming convention

I take the point that the article focuses mainly on one controversy, but I believe there is sufficient information on Sierra's background, activities after leaving highschool and her personal beliefs to make this a full biographical account. Whether or not the title of the article should be altered is a question for WP:RM; I have no strong opinion on the matter.

Neutrality

If these reports you mention exist, I have not come across them in an exhaustive search of Google News, Books, Scholar and Findarticles.com. I would be more than happy to accommodate them if they emerged. My guess is that international attention was only drawn to the matter long after the school meeting, and so it would be unreasonable to expect international coverage of it. The international attention referred to in the article is from two sources - the Japanese media and liberal Western editorializing (e.g. Monbiot). I do not speak or read Japanese sufficiently well to find sources in that language, and opinion pieces are not the kind of neutral sources you are looking for, I imagine. As I mentioned, the coverage of Sierra in the sources is mostly sympathetic, and as Wikipedia is a tertiary source which does not engage in original research, the article reflects this.

Closing

Thank you for a thorough, insightful and fair-minded evaluation of the article, it has been most helpful. I would not have guessed that you are new to GA review, I am confident that you understand the GA criteria and I hope the above problems can be resolved in time for the article to meet them. Regards, Skomorokh 11:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Response: I apologize for the delay. I wanted to approach the article after changes with a fresh mindset.

The blockquotes I was referring to are in epigraph tags (odd name). By giving prominence to these one-line statements, it's an issue of POV. Blockquotes or epigraph tags, either way, are reserved for longer quotes - at least four lines.

I think your punctuation issues have been taken care of. Once the majority of other issues have been resolved, I'll give it one more look-over for punctuation. As for the payback quote, I just don't understand what the sentence means. This portion: queried as to why Sierra was opposed to what was "pretty much payback" does that mean Mr. Reed thought Ms. Sierra got what she deserved in being ostracized? That he was paying her back? That she deserved payback much more severe than what she is getting? I don't get it at all. I suggest you delete the sentence, start fresh with Reed's quote and rewrite it.

I understand your point about flag-waving to a non-American, but you have sufficiently covered extreme nationalism in later portions of the sentence so that the term flag-waving is quantified. I think you're safe to delink the term. My objection to "propaganda of the deed" stands. You're putting words into her mouth, or giving her a more sophisticated way of saying what she's trying to say. That should be struck from the article completely. Or, you can put it as a See also link.

Regarding the paragraph beginning as The ban on her right to return to the school having been lifted, I was mocked and humiliated in high school (I think everyone would claim to be, actually) but not as an anarchist or a protester. What makes Sierra's treatment different from every other student's? I was looking for examples of how her reception was excessive and disruptive.

You've taken care of the "scathing" description, so I can't object to the it, so this is more of an observation. The Charleston Gazette seems bored by Sierra's antics. This is either a valid reaction or one designed to make her feel as if she's a petulant child. Of course, she just may be a petulant child, but this is unclear in the paragraph. I don't believe the school board or the school's administrators expressed any desire to shoot her in the head, but teenagers have a tendency to overstate for effect.

For the sources, I think you can find better ones than CourtTV. I really do. I suggest you start with West Virginia newspaper websites, and then try The New York Times and Washington Post sites. For more conservative sources, try The Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal or FOX News. Your article is about controversy. At that, you have to work a bit harder on neutrality than the normal article about something less interesting. If you claim you have exhausted all these avenues and have found nothing at all, I will look for more stories - which I might be more successful in doing since I have access to a university library. But if I find what you could have easily found...you'll owe me $1,000 - and a Good Article.

I'm still weighing the issue on renaming the article. We'll revisit that later. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sources I take your point about being extra hard on neutrality in articles with a controversial subject (especially with respect to WP:BLP). When writing the article, I went through every page of Google News, Scholar, and Books search for the subject, including anything useful that was freely available. Taking your advice, I have run a "katie sierra" Google search on the following domains, with unimpressive results:

• dailymail.com - no results
• wvgazette.com - no results
• wvmetronews.com - no results
• wvnewsline.com - no results
• timeswv.com - no results
• herald-dispatch.com - no results
• charleston.net - no results
• wchstv.com - no results
• wciv.com - no results
• nytimes.com - 1 result, "Family Fare" - already included as a source
• washingtonpost.com - 1 result, "The Consequences of Objection" - already included as a source
• washingtontimes.com - no results
• foxnews.com - 1 result, letters to the editor from presumably non-notable individuals, inadmissible as either a reliable source or as a notable opinion

If you know something I don't...Skomorokh 16:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilinks I disagree on flag-waving, but it is not very important, so I have removed it in deference. Propaganda of the deed was interpretation on my part, (a degree of interpretation is unavoidable in writing any article), but as you have challenged it and I have no source to back up my interpretation, I have removed it. Skomorokh 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let me do some searching. My connection to the database is tenuous right now, so I might have to wait 24 hours or until Monday when I can get to campus. If I find anything, I'll email it to you. --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'd be surprised if you found a source as comprehensive as the Court TV article, but if so, all the better.Skomorokh 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Payback quote - I have expanded the sentence giving context; I hope it is clear now. Reed thinks America's invasion of Afghanistan is "pretty much payback" i.e. an eye for an eye, and does not understand why Sierra would oppose what he sees as legitimate causus belli or justified retribution. Skomorokh 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Epigraphs Epigraphs are certainly not reserved for long quotes - if you are at all unclear on this check out the examples of correct usage given at Template:Epigraph. Skomorokh 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• NPOV I am unclear as to which of Wikipedias policies are being violated with respect to the The ban on her right and Reaction to controversy sections. I don't see what relevance your or my opinions of what constitutes boredom or valid reactions or sufficiently nasty treatment at school has - the factual claims in the articles are referenced, the opinion is attributed. WP:V and all that. If you could cite specific claims that need clearer inline citation, content you think is given undue weight, unclear context for the reader or some other policy-based issue, I'd find it much easier to address your concerns. Gracias, Skomorokh 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I clarified Mr. Reed's comment a bit further. That has been resolved. Well done.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations the epigraph template has the same appearance as a blockquote. I'm referring to the rules of MOS.

• I'm still thinking on the 3rd part, and still trying to log in to my library... --Moni3 (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad we have resolved the Reed issue. Regarding epigraphs, WP:MOSQUOTE does not mention epigraphs anywhere. An epigraph on Wikipedia is almost by definition a short-form pull-quote; every example at Template:Epigraph is one line long. Epigraphs are used in this fashion in the Good Articles Jim Bell, CrimethInc., Dyer Lum, Era Vulgaris (album) and the Featured Article William Gibson, with no objections from reviewers. Skomorokh 14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move The arguments are finally balanced, but there is a consensus among interested account holders who have taken part in the debate that the article should be moved. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Katie Sierra → Katie Sierra suspension controversy — The core focus of this article is not the life and times of Katie Sierra, but a specific series of events that occurred over the space of two years and revolved around a controversial suspension. Sierra is not notable independently of the controversy, for example as an activist or Rosa Parks-style figure. According to WP:BLP1E, biographies of individuals who are notable for one event only should be rewritten to focus on the event, not the person. —Skomorokh 16:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. Go nuts. --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support per BLP. Subject herself has no notability. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose You have two choices, either to create a suspension controversy article and not include her name, or leave the article at Katie Sierra. It is not the custom of Wikipedia to name articles in a manner to include why they have an article. Bill Clinton is not named Bill Clinton (Governor of Alabama and President of the United States) for example. Baby Jessica is not named Baby Jessica who fell down a well. There are countless examples of un-notable people who have articles because of a notable event that they are associated with. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are never only two choices. Baby Jessica is named so because that is what the media called her. Bill Clinton has an entire article because he was the governor of Arkansas, actually, and the president - so naturally his entire biography would be of interest. Katie Sierra became notable for a year she spent in high school. Just like Mary Beth Tinker, who clearly has no article, but instead her article is under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. --Moni3 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

According to our naming conventions, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

Now, if you were a reader looking for information about that controversy in West Virginia about the anarchist kid who got suspended for anti-war activism, what would you expect the title of the article to be? Suspension controversy is hopelessly ambiguous. West Virginia suspension controversy is not appropriate, because its being in West Virginia is not the defining feature of this controversy, and the reader might reasonably fail to identify the title with the topic. Sissonville High School suspension controversy is inappropriate because little of the media coverage that refers to the controversy in passing mention the fact that it occurred at Sissonville High. All of the media reports mention Katie Sierra and that is because, I put it to, Katie Sierra is the defining feature of this controversy. Regards, Skomorokh 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only is the IP address ineligible to offer an opinion in a survey, he also has our naming conventions wrong. We regularly do add qualifiers in parenthesis behind users names to more accurately describe them. For BLP reasons, as I mention above in my Support, I am going to be bold and go ahead and make this move, seeing no legitimate objection to it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck, Swatjester? Because the dissenter is an IP they are not allowed to offer an opinion? You steamroll through your preferred action on an article with NPOV issues one day into its listing at Requested moves? Not cool, man. I strongly feel we should let the community have their say. Skomorokh 19:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Relax bro, and have a nice cup of tea. "My" preferred action is inline with WP:BLP. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The hasty move was unnecessary (and IPs are welcome to contribute to surveys), but I agree with the substance of the proposal: the subject herself is not notable and attempting to write this article as a biography distorts it. The new title seems to be in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Geometry guy 11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sorta oppose for now. The article is currently a biography and the title "Katie Sierra" best reflects that. See my comment below.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The article is not a biography and shouldn't be as Katie Sierra is not notable per se. The article deals with a controversy and the proposed title is an appropriate one (see WP:BLP1E: "Cover the event, not the person"). — AjaxSmack 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to make the title ridiculously long. The subject is inherently about Katie Sierra. It is not about a tornado that hit the town, it is about a person. Name it as such, "Katie Sierra". The article is very well written and should also be given good article status. But what it does not need is an unnecessarily long name. If there were two articles, one about Katie Sierra and a second one about this incident you could of course use two names, but that is not the case, and the shorter name is better, Katie Sierra. The article does not go into ridiculous extraneous childhood details of Katie, it stays very much on topic, about the events of her life that made her notable. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Hmmmm... the move appears to have happened despite having been listed at WP:RM since only April 29, but none of the housekeeping associated with closing the discussion has happened. What would you like, people? Do I tidy it up and close it, or reverse the move, or what? Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverse it, please. The only time qualifiers are ever added after someone's name, and they are always in parenthesis, is if there are two people of that same name. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article defines its subject in a way that allows readers to find it easily. Qualifiers in brackets are there to disambiguate. The purpose of this proposed move is not to disambiguate but to clarify that the article is not a biography. It is an article about an event, and should be named in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). If the event centers around an individual, then that person's name should be part of the title to help readers find the article. See e.g. Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and Baby Jessica case.

It is unfortunate that someone moved the page already. I suggest leaving it for now and reversing the move if consensus opposes the proposal. Geometry guy 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sierra's biography isn't in itself notable, so this article should be around the controversy surrounding her suspension and its title should be "Katie Sierra suspension controversy". However, as it is, the article is written like a biography. Therefore, "Katie Sierra" would more accurately reflect the article's content. I suggest re-structuring the article to make it clear that it's about the controversy not the person. Until that happens, I have to agree with 199... in that "Katie Sierra" is the most appropriate title considering the article's content and structure.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" dilemma going on here. I suggest not getting too hung up about the order in which to procede: Wikipedia is not perfect. Geometry guy 13:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really care what is done first, although I am getting a little annoyed by all the moves. My point is that the solution isn't to just move the article to "Katie Sierra suspension controversy" without changing the article to reflect the title.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have made this clearer but it is my intention to rewrite the article to focus on the event(s) instead of the individual. As it mostly does anyway, I didn't think the order of activity would be an issue. Regards, Skomorokh 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back, as there's a rough consensus here that the preemptive move was not a good idea. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You have written such a fine biography on Katie Sierra that I would recommend creating a separate article on the Katie Sierra suspension and build it up separately from this article. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. As the second GA reviewer, it was my idea to change the title. Katie cannot be expected to make news her entire life and we are not a crystal ball, so it is unlikely her biography will be updated regularly. Therefore, the article can only cover the notable part of her life, which was her year in high school. Furthermore, the controversy article were it to be created, would say everything this article says now. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just being an anarchist pretty much makes someone notable - there are very few anarchists in the world and very few in the categories Category:Anarchists by nationality, which by the way is an odd misnamed category - if anarchists don't believe in government how can they be categorized by nationality??? 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to address there. I can't address the category comment, but if you're suggesting anyone who claims to be an anarchist deserves an article, I'm baffled as to how to respond to that other than, "No, they don't", unless they've made national news doing something. Being special doesn't make one notable. I'm pretty darn special, too, but alas - no article for me. --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is that there are so few anarchists in the world that the few articles we have about them is fine. It's not like there are thousands of articles about anarchists - there are only a few hundred. And I have no way of addressing the fact that you, like everyone, are pretty darn special. The article on Jessica McClure stems from a single event that took place in her life when she was a year and a half old that attracted mega-attention, and there will not likely be any continuation. The category has been suggested to be renamed to a more reasonable name. There are thousands of Jessica McClures that have articles because of a single event in their life. There is probably an article about Rodney King, for example. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that my point is that if the national media identify a person prominently by name there is no reason for not having an article to explain who that person is. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

<=That is a popular point of view, but not as popular as the current guideline, WP:BLP1E. Regards, Skomorokh 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good link. Let me elaborate further. Wikipedia is not here to right the inequities in the world; it is here to provide free universal access to all knowledge which can be found in reliable secondary sources. An anarchist is only notable to Wikipedia if there are reliable secondary sources to support this. Many people are only notable for one event: when reliable secondary sources decide that such a person's biography is worth reporting, then Wikipedia can include it, but not before. The Jessica McClure and Rodney King articles may need to be moved at some point unless it is clear that reliable secondary sources provide biographies for these individuals, and not just information related to the events that made them newsworthy. It is possible that in the future reliable secondary sources will support a full biography of Katie Sierra. At the moment, they do not.

Concerning the category issue, Wikipedia categorizes by nationality purely as a matter of convenience for readers. If someone does not wish to be categorized by nationality, there is nothing Wikipedia can do without violating basic policies (WP:V and WP:NPOV): we categorize someone by nationality if there are reliable secondary sources which indicate that the individual has that nationality. Geometry guy 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: while I agree with most of what Geometry guy has said, it might be of interest to note that categories are only to be added to articles if they are defining characteristics of the topic. For example, if there were a category Category:People who wear cowboy hats, it should not be added to the George W. Bush article, because it is not a defining characteristic of Bush that he wears cowboy hats. Similarly, it could be argued that articles like Emma Goldman shouldn't have categories with nationalities because "nationality" is not at all a defining characteristics of anarchists like Ms. Goldman the way it is for anarchists like Zo d'Axa. Food for thought. Skomorokh 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anarchists are uniquely opposed to the concept of nationality, but they do still have a location, and I see no reason for not using location as a grouping for anarchists - but don't call that location a "nationality". Emma Goldman was not confined to one location, but is still listed as an American anarchist. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin who is considering whether to move move this article. At the moment I am of a mind not to move it although the majority of people who have expressed an opinion are in favour of a move (but if my opinion is included there would not be a consensus for the move). The reason why I am not in favour of the move is that we have biography articles on many many people who are famous for fifteen minutes. For example many of the Victoria Cross and Medal of Honor recipients. Should all those articles be renamed? For example Eustace Jotham become "Eustace Jotham Victoria Cross recipiant"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK so Wikipedia:Notability (people) gives a more detailed explanation of notability which justify the inclusion of "a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." in the section "Any biography", so I was not comparing like with like. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Katie Sierra suspension controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305200123/http://www.counterpunch.org/colby3.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/colby3.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-111anarchy.story?coll=sfla-news-fringe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229160241/http://www.courttv.com/trials/taped/sierra/verdict.html to http://www.courttv.com/trials/taped/sierra/verdict.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403031112/http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15460 to http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15460
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.courttv.com/trials/taped/sierra/docs/manifesto1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

GA nomination?

The article looks fairly complete. Any objections to nomination for Good Article status, or any outstanding tasks to be finished first? czar 01:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominating this as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green/Meetup/3 czar 05:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czar I think there may be a neutrality issue here, while I haven’t read past the lede, the lede doesn’t provide great hope. It says (at least when I write this message, I’m going to change this) “her activism in opposition to the bombing of Afghanistan”. With bombing of Afghanistan linking to War in Afghanistan (2001-2021). This is, of course, very loaded and unencyclopedic wording. There is also the citation for that statement, an article from In These Times, which isn’t mentioned in WP:RSP, but [mediabiasfactcheck.com/in-these-times/ a bias and fact checking website I use] describes it as being pretty biased and with some accuracy problems due to emotional wording and story selection (this is from years after the source in the article was written but I’d assume it’d still apply). It’s probably good to cite something in the body, but the first sentence of the lede? I don’t think it should be there.

I think it’d be wise to look over the article again to check for bias, a look through the references doesn’t show much to be objectionable (there’s a Democracy Now! citation which is no consensus on WP:RSP but that’s just to state the opinion of a notable journalist so that’s fine)

I’d also recommend getting someone more conservative and/or moderate than you to do the review or comb over for bias, as you appear to be an anarchist (ironic given the username) this shouldn’t be too hard and would probably find something disputable you missed.

TL;DR: There was a unencylopedic sentence in the lede, with a flawed source, so I believe it would be wise to check for bias throughout the page, as well as to get someone of a different viewpoint to do the same, and maybe to do the whole GA review as well MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@MRN2electricboogaloo, unless I'm missing something in your position, the whole intent of putting the article up for GA review is to get an external opinion on the article's standing with respect to Wikipedia's core policies. It also is a great leap, especially after reading only the lede, to take a single sentence (from an article I didn't compose) and make the other assumptions you have made. czar 00:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Katie Sierra suspension controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 21:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'll be reviewing this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is clear, no obvious errors.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead summarizes the article. Layout is properly formatted and uses a standard chronological structure. Some WP:WTW issues involving words that may introduce bias. Uses of "claimed" and similar words should be replaced with "said". Use of quotation marks should be carefully examined so they can't be construed as scare quotes. Ensure that any use of contentious labels is attributed and directly followed by a citation.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Standard reflist.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   This article is held at a higher standard for citations due to extensive political and BLP content. The body is well-cited, but citations should be added to the lead for published opinion and controversial statements. Most sources are reliable as standard newspapers. Some sources (Infoshop, Reason, and Democracy Now) risk introducing bias, but in all cases the authors are attributed or they are used for uncontested facts. Replace with better sources if possible, but it's not a major issue.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Information generally follows sources. One BLP concern: it says that Reed "contacted Katie via Facebook and apologized for lying", but this claim is not supported by either of the citations associated with that sentence.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Concerning WP:EARWIG score suggests over-reliance on direct quotes and identical phrasing in some areas.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Covers the background, the controversy, and the trial. Further information on subsequent developments would be beneficial, but a quick search suggests information on this aspect is limited.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The article lingers on certain incidents and interactions. I don't think it's severe enough to count it against the GA criteria, but it might be worth pruning a few quotes or other smaller details.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See below.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No ongoing edit wars.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are available under Creative Commons.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Few relevant images exist. Images are not of the topic but help illustrate relevant subjects and are explained through captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The information and formatting of this article are good, but there are some major issues to be addressed regarding verifiability and point of view. I considered failing the article given the wide scope of these issues, but none of them are too in depth, so I'm going to hold the article for seven days if there's any interest in addressing them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

   Thanks for the thorough review! I will work through these over the next seven days. czar 04:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

The wording and content of the article present serious NPOV issues. The text of the article should at no point suggest or even imply that someone is in the right or in the wrong (regardless of how obvious it might seem to you or me), and WP:WEIGHT needs to be considered so that sources and attributed opinions don't disproportionately favor one side of the dispute. I've listed examples below:

• Lead
  • wearing clothes with handwritten messages objecting to U.S. militarism, racism, sexism, and homophobia. – This wording attributes motives that are not explicitly described in the body and takes for granted that these are attributes of the U.S.
  • Incendiary comments by the principal and the members of the school board were reported in the press and provoked a controversy that garnered national and international media attention. – "Incendiary" is a subjective description made by Sierra's attorneys and must be attributed. This sentence implies that fault or blame for the controversy lies on the principal and the school board.
  • The actions and attitude of the school toward Sierra were sharply criticized in the media for what critics perceived as censorship and McCarthyism, as a dark sign of post–September 11 American society and its concept of freedom of speech. – This sentence implies near-universal support for Sierra in the media, which contradicts both the sources and the body of the article. Describing anything as a "dark sign" needs to be attributed as part of a quote and certainly doesn't belong in the lead.
• Background and suspension
  • In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, she was taken aback by the swell of "flag-waving" patriotism and "blind, unthinking" war advocacy among her fellow students – This is opinion and should be attributed to her.
  • The club's charter declared that it would "not tolerate hate or violence" and exist "to dispel myths about anarchism, especially the belief that anarchy is chaos and destruction". Without reading Sierra's literature, Mann refused to grant permission for such a club in the school, and according to Sierra had to ask her several times to return to class when he would not explain his decision. – This is pointedly written to portray a hero and a villain. It should simply state in plain language that he declined the request without citing a reason.
• Controversy
  • However, comments turned hostile towards the end of the meeting – The comments should be presented plainly. Descriptors such as "hostile" should only be used when attributed.
• Reaction to controversy
  • Too much WP:WEIGHT is given to the respective opinions of Metz, Sartwell, and Maharidge. These should all be reduced to a sentence or two.
  • Metz observed that the story had caught the attention of Poles, some of whom wanted Sierra to come and study in their country, and to the Japanese, whose response he called "more irrational" – Who in Poland and who in Japan? Even when attributed, this suggests an overwhelming consensus in these countries that is not supported by sources.
  • National and international observers were supportive of Sierra and sharply critical of the actions of the state. – Universally? This entire section creates the impression that there was no opposition outside of West Virginia to Sierra's ideas or actions.
• Further reading and external links
  • Most of the links in this section are persuasive in nature, which presents serious NPOV issues. I would recommend removing all of them except for the manifesto and the flyer (which provide valuable background information).

Edits

@Thebiguglyalien, I've completely rewritten the Background and Suspension sections, and very heavily edited the rest of the article to address your above comments. Take a look when you have a chance and let me know if they are satisfactory? czar 05:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you've addressed everything. I fixed a few typos as I was reading through it, but there are no other issues. It easily passes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)