Talk:Tent City 4/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV tag

One thing that might help everyone with this brewing disagreement is sourcing. Just remember, there are three content-driving policies in Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Verifiability and No Original Research are countered by citing the sources of your information. I'm a fan of footnotes, but other varieties of citing sources are acceptable as well. NPOV is a little sketchier as even NPOV is subject to POV. Oh the irony. --Bobblehead 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting to add the tag back in. :-)

I was actually surprised that this hasn't happened sooner. SHARE and the churches that support them are in the midst of a huge battle to try and apply a religious land use act to this use. Every court ruling has said it does not apply but this was the first time it got a full injunction hearing. There is an all out push by the Church Council of Greater Seattle to control the message and distract people from the core issues at hand. I think it is ironic that someone who wants a completly one sided article would be challenging the neutrality of this well balanced article.

I want to thank you for your help to date in cleaning up my work to make sure it avoided POV and in advance for helping to keep this article from being hijacked into a P.R. piece.

Oh, BTW, what is the proper method for adding comments like this so that they are indented and signed. I have been doing it manually and I have a hunch it is a lot easier than that.  ;-)

--[Coz]

That would make things far too easy. Afraid the only way to indent is to manually insert the colons. And, of course, you're welcome. I'm a little surprised it took so long myself. Plus side, there are now people on both sides of the issue making updates, the fun part is finding a happy in median that everyone can agree with.--Bobblehead 21:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Coz, I find that your perspective of 'balance' diverges greatly from mine. I also find that your desire to exclude any perspective but your own seems to speak more about you than it does about TC4. I would point you toward the main TC Talk to have the real 'discussion' that you seem to want to quash here.

--Cyclopedic 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

When I was new here I tended to take others editing my contributions personally but after I learned how this community works to find a co-operative solution I realized that this should be about accuracy and not forcing anyone's will. I am not trying to eliminate your contributing to this site, I am trying to get you to understand that you don't force an article to be your way or you will end up being blocked from participating. You already have forums you can dictate the terms on, this isn't one of them.

So please stop trying to ramrod the NUCC press release down our throats and please stop with the personal attacks.

-- [Coz]

  "...you don't force an article to be your way or you will end up being blocked from participating..."

Hmmm....well, four times you have removed my posting of NUCC's legal case because apparently, not only do you not want to read it, you apparently want no one else to read it. That comes across as dictating terms as clearly as anything you say. And by using inflammatory diatribes like accusing me of personal attacks and 'ramrod the NUCC press release down our throats' (as if you spoke for the Wikipedia community), you seem to want to control more than just your opinion. So you might be well served to take the advice you just gave me.

--Cyclopedic 23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So here it is, for those who want to read NUCC's legal argument. Just like those for whom the only solution is to banish Tent City to anywhere but here, some insist on banshing supportive arguments from public discourse. Whether NUCC's case can stand or fail on its own merits is edited out of sight in the same spririt of exclusion.

Homelessness is an endemic social issue that won't resolve without discourse and fair hearing of all sides. Without significant changes, the same society that excludes the TC residents will simply re-create the same problems, perhaps in the same people, perhaps in new homeless residents.

It could be that TC4 will lose its case...what then? Tent city 4 will have to go somewhere, sooner or later, with different members. Where should they go? Again, whose problem is this? And who is concentrating on the solution?

( Note by Coz: Entire text of the press release can be seen at the link below. I removed it from here ONLY to keep the page size down and I included a link to it on the article )

In response, NUCC has filed an appeal [1] with Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals that will be heard on June 16,] stating:

--[Cyclopedic] 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And this is the problem. The purpose of Wikipedia IS NOT for you to come and post the NUCC press release all over every page. I deleted it because it does not conform to the standards for being part of an article. If that were the case then I can post the entire text of the City of Woodinville Press releases regarding this issue, and reams of documenation on the issue. When you decide you want to contribute great, but right now all you want to do is try and destroy something that many people have worked hard to create and this community is not going to allow that.

-- Coz

Tent City 4 and Crime

I take issue with the assertion that there is a documented significant increase in crime associated with the siting of Tent City 4. There is quite a bit of Verifiable material out there that contradicts the data that has been gathered on TentCitySolutions.Com and the point of view of that site is decidedly not neutral.

I'd like to see better citing in this area. Are there links to reliable sources that can be used to support the statement "documented increased crime rates in the area of TC4" that exist outside of the Original Research on TentCitySolutions?

InTheFiveByFive 00:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It amazes me that people can read an article where someone says the sun doesn't rise but the side bar of the article shows a table that says what time the sun rises and sets. Just because there is a cloud in the sky does not mean the sun is not there. LOOK at the DATA and it is clear, crime rates increased dramaticlly in every city that hosted the camp and the Bothell Police contacts, arrests, and reports all clearly showed a substantial amount of crime. Sorry, this is not a debatable issue, the facts clearly show that the rhetoric is wrong. --Coz 06:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While you may be correct, TentcitySolutions.Com does not constitute a 'reliable source' according to the standards of Wikipedia. Do you have other citations that you can use to support your claim that contradict the three existing citations on this issue? I'm willing to work with you to increase the quality of the citations -- we may even be able to use the 'documented' phrase once we've worked on the citations. As it stands now however, the information on TentCitySolutions is not itself properly cited with reliable sources. InTheFiveByFive 13:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to laugh at the Tent City Advocates that show up here on occasion and contribute ONLY to this article, nothing else, and are bent on putting a "spin" on the truth. They, like you, focus on trying to clense the article to give the impression that these squaters camps have no impact and are safe, something every community that has hosted them knows to be false. The Seattle Times Articles on Woodinville and Finn Hill, ALL the other articles as well, that post DATA show the fact that crime increases when Tent City visits. Reams of testimony before every city council has also validated the claim. There is ZERO real data offered up by you guys with the Church Council to show otherwise because it doesn't exist. This can't be denied simply by choosing to ignore it. --Coz 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Determining reliable sources is always subjective and determining Tent City Solutions reliability even more so. There is no denying that TCS is a partisan website, so the information there should be taken with a grain of salt, but they are reliable enough that they are included in most public debates and reviews regarding tent cities.[2] Just because TCS is a partisan website does not mean they should be labelled as not meeting the reliable source meter. From what I can tell their claims of increased police activity in relation to TC4 are based on actual police reports which are not easy to provide as references (would have to post each individual report, etc). The downside is that they are rather liberal with their definition of increased police activity and crime rates and attributing all increases to the presence of TC4. Crime isn't a constant (ie, there aren't always 4 car thefts per month) so even if the number in one year is higher than the previous year it doesn't necessarily mean there is an increase in the crime rate and that the cause of that higher number is due to TC4. TCS also tends to ignore a decrease in the numbers from year to year. As an example, using TCS's logic, in Woodinville, TC4 decreases the number of disturbances by 13%, vandalism by 21%, aggravated assaults by 33%, and liquor/tobacco violations by 82%. However, that also doesn't mean that TC4 is the cause for the change in crime rate. Increases in population, changes in demographics of the population, changes in economy of the area, etc, also have an effect on crime rate. But then, we're not here to discuss the validity of TCS's claims, but whether they are a reliable source or not. By the strictest interpretation of WP:RS they are not a reliable source because they are self-published and are not a professional researcher or reputable journalist. One way around it is to attribute the crime rate increase to TCS with a Reliable Source for support and leave it at that. Whether or not there is a change in crime rates doesn't matter at that point. --Bobblehead 18:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Coz, you're making some pretty emotional and unsupported statements here and I don't think it's contributing positively to this discussion. I'm not a member of the Church Council, I've never attempted to make a statement that TC4 has 'zero or no impact' (like Bobblehead I don't believe that), and I'm not trying to ignore the issue of TC4 and crime -- on the opposite I created this talk section to try and hash this out. Instead of responding to my questions, you've resorted to insinuation and innuendo. You talk about the preponderance of reliable evidence that supports your POV, but you haven't posted any supporting references from a reliable source.

I'm concerned about crime and tent city and I want to understand the real depth of the issue here. I've read much of the material on Tent City Solutions and I agree with Bobblehead that I think good work has been done there in collecting police reports, but the good work is thoroughly mixed with strong advocacy positions and some very questionable assertions. That's the right of the owners of Tent City Solutions to do this but this disqualifies them as a reliable source. Going back to the beginning of the thread and dropping the personal attacks, can we take the information that's been collected by Tent City Solutions and try and 'sort the wheat from the chaff'? I don't feel that I can trust a simple 'list of police reports' from TCSolutions as a 'list of TC4 crime' because with a simple scan of TCSolutions I've been able to find a couple of places where 'supporting materials' links to content that is unrelated or contradictory. For instance, on the TCSolutions page onBothell under the heading "King County Sheriff reports increase in crime", the linked article 'supporting' this entry states, "King County Sheriff's Office and Bothell Police Department reports show that since Tent City 4 started on the Eastside in May, no major crimes or incidents have been reported.".

How I'd like to move forward is to see the assertions made by TCSolutions backed up with references that can be checked. A good way to approach this might be to get a copy of the various police reports and post them for viewing on the web, much like TCSolutions has done with many other pieces of documenting evidence. If I can read the police reports and see the direct link between them and the TC4 location or TC4 resident and the amount of evidence is substantial enough to merit the word "increased" then I will be open to using the phrases you like. Until then, we need to follow the established Wikipedia rules for verifiable statements and reliable sources. The current supporting references in the TC4 article strongly support the assertion that crime doesn't increase around TC4 so we're stuck with the situation that 'it may not be fact but it is verifiable'.

InTheFiveByFive 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the challenges was that a group in Bothell called "Care4Schools" had extensive documentation from the actual police reports, letters, hard data, etc, from the say in Bothell on their site. TCS, obviously in an effort to avoid duplication effort and conservation of resources, simply linked to the reports rather than storing copies of them on their server. Unfortunatly a year after the fiasco in Bothell the domain came up for renewal and whoever was running the site wasn't involved anymore and the domain name expired leaving the data unreachable and the links died. There is an effort underway to reconstruct that record. There is also extensive data that was collected by a group in Bellevue about the very serious crime problems and high crime rates surrounding TC4's stay there. After seeing the problems that occured in the Kirkland stays (Finn Hill, downtown, and Rose Hill) where the actual data on crime showed that the "official statements" were false this group ordered public records and compiled the hard data on the crime rates in Woodinville. There were shocking numbers that resulted and this stack of documentation was submitted as public record in Bellevue and Woodinville. Unfortunatly neither enity posts it online, nor did any of the media choose to publish it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Efforts are being made to get this information into electronic form.

To be fair I understand that just because an area has no car thefts one year, and several that year TC4 there, is not proof that TC4 had any relation to the thefts. However when EVERY community experiences the same pattern of increased crime during the TC4 stay, and the crime rate the following year goes back down, it becomes clear to anyone taking an honest look at the situation that the presence of the encampment brings with it a crime problem. Most don't think it is the actual residents of TC4 committing the crime, they think it is those that are rejected from the camp or that follow the camp because they know they will get "spillover" of support because of it. What is even more telling is communications with local retailers who see a huge "blip" in shoplifting and other losses that tie directly to the location of the camp. They will not document this because companies never want their competition to know information about this kind of loss and they only call police if they catch someone in the act.

Lastly there was extensive converstations with police departments about why they make these statements when the data shows otherwise. What is interesting is that they all say simular things. That patrol officers are used to dealing with these issues on a daily basis, typically in their downtown core, or near business parks and freeways. When TC4 comes to town most the these events that they handle daily tend to migrate into the residential community where the camp is located. So you have a perception by the police that nothing is different, but you have a community that is suddenly being exposed to increased crime that they didn't have before. Another challenge is that crime data is seldom, if ever, compiled on a neighborhood basis but jurisdiction wide. When located in King County a precinct covers a massive amount of area and crime increases in one area do not cause a significant blip in the crime rate for the whole precinct. Raw data could be compiled into more accurate reports if elected officials directed staff to do it, but they don't because they don't want to know that answer. Which also brings us to the fact that the only way to give direct data points police reports must be tagged with references that the report is associated with TC4. This becomes difficult if you have a crime, but did not have an arrest at the time, so the report and the person committing the act are not tied together. Common sense tells you what is really happening, eye witness's can see it, but putting hard data to it is difficult and the media doesn't see it as worthy of covering because it is so localized, so you end up with the advocates claiming that the tree didn't fall in the forrest because you couldn't hear it. --Coz 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Update suggestion

Rather than outright removal/inclusion how about meeting some acceptable middle ground? Just to throw something out there:

On June 13, 2006, NUCC and SHARE/WHEEL filed an appeal with the state Court of Appeals arguing that the city's land use code is an unconstitutional infringement upon the church's religious expression, that the church did not violate the 2004 agreement between the church and city, and that the church was denied it's constitutional right to a trial by jury.

This way we have a summary view that is sourced and allows the reader to go to the NUCC website to see the press release if they want. Thoughts? Feel free to edit my suggestion. --Bobblehead 06:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. That put more detail into what I added. This is a lot of discusion over what may be nothing as tomorrow is the hearing and when I get back from it i'll be posting the results so the whole issue may change. --Coz

Central to this issue is what role NUCC or any other spiritual or religious community plays in the existence or nonexistence of TC4. This entry went from inclusion of the NUCC argument that was deleted yesterday by Coz as 'spin', to his statement today that it 'works for me' to have an edited summary with citation. The ongoing reality is that whatever the court decides on the 17th, the issue is not going to disappear, even if the current constituents were to disperse and never return. TC4 has a permit to be in Bothell on August 12. Churches and individuals from all parts of East King County host and serve meals to the residents. Homelessness, classism, and poverty persist in the midst of upper middle class King County, and many Eastside residents oppose the concept of Tent Cities prima facie.

The current TC4 entry and accompanying debate currently seem to show bias: The first paragraph begins, "In response to a threat by SHARE...", and the second paragraph "As a result of the Brickyard failure...", then the two paragraphs about NUCC both recount a history of events from the perspective of opponents, omitting the NUCC legal argument. The last line in the TC controversy paragraph states, "Legislation with the intent to bring County code in line with those of the suburban cites is currently being drafted." These quotes all imply wrongdoing: Threat, failure, bring county code in line, as though code is currently 'out of line'. This bias infuses much of the main entry, which is seems to be continuously rewritten to the exclusion of other perspectives.

The issue that many churches assert their rights to host TC4 against the wishes of city government is central to this particular entry, whether on June 17, 2006, or on other noteworthy days in the history of TC4. A debate that frames the issue as one solely of crime and punishment to the exclusion of churches and their supporting members misses the complexity of the phenomenon. It seems that there is ample evidence of less than ideal behavior on the part of residents, yet local churches and communities keep hosting and feeding them. The causative factors of why tent cities exist or why churches continue to host them are ignored or underrepresented in this article.

Regardless of the outcome of the state appeals court ruling, homelessness and tent cities will likely be a reality in East King County for the foreseeable future.

--Cyclopedic 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyclopedic, you have a point in that this article is currently biased towards the opponents of Tent Cities. The main reason for this is that up until now there have been two active editors on this article and only one is really knowledgeable on the topic and that person seems to belong in the opposition camp. Now that you're here the content of the article can be updated to provide a more 'balanced' view. However, some of the edits you have made so far have been to expunge the opposition view and have made the article biased towards the proponents of Tent Cities. The way that wikipedia is supposed to work is to show all viewpoints of a topic. You are welcome to add content (within reason) to the articles but you have to make sure the opposition view remains. In one of your comments above you seemed to be wondering why Coz was not okay with your inclusion of the NUCC press release, but was okay with my cited summary. The reason for this is that wikipedia is because wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a place for press releases. Providing links to the press release so the reader can go and view the full details is fine, but the actual inclusion of the press release in the article is not.

The hard part is finding a way to satisfy all sides and there are many ways to do it. Some of which are listed here WP:NPOV.--Bobblehead 16:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I acknowledge your observations about the structure and bringing NPOV to articles, and the methodology of citation of the NUCC 'press release' (legal argument). I have no desire to be the sole arbiter of the article, even though those who oppose tent city may rewrite the main article to exclude other perspectives. I think in 36 hours we have shed significant light on issues heretofore not mentioned. I also have no desire to barge in and co-opt the piece, although the initial posts may reflect my bias. I do appreciate that for now my comments in 'Talk' can reflect a divergent view that is omitted in the main article, and that in time, a measured assessment can reflect more than the perspectives of either simply Coz or Cyclopedia. The NPOV flag will likely stay on this work in progress for a while. --Cyclopedic 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, right now the article is just a reflection of Coz, but if you don't have any interest in making any more updates to the article itself, fair enough. :) Thanks for stopping by. --Bobblehead 20:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think based on my initial experience I'm going to pay mind to the big three NPOV criteria you brought up earlier.

Ken Schram quote from June 12 is "The Sheriff's Department told me that in tracking Tent City 4 in its moves all over King County, there's never been a statistical increase attributable to the homeless encampment." I'd like to source the statistics a little better. This adds weight to the need for balance. Again, we can quote anecdotals or who did what when, or why Tent City is a bunch of criminals based on the actions of a few, but this ads weight to my initial contention, common knowledge for those who look, is that there is no statistical difference in the crime rate from the homeless population vs. those with fixed abodes.

I think I'm just getting started here. : ) --Cyclopedic 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken Schram is not a source, he is paid to introduce point of view (his own) into a subject. If you are going to cite Schram then we can also cite Kirby Wilber, John Carlson, Dave Ross and a Rusty Humphries (you'll love his take on Tent City). John Urquart stated his OPINION based on experiences with Tent City 3 and did so without any data to back it up. Later that day, on his other show, John Carlson presented the data FROM THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT that refuted the opinion he made. Interesting enough, to show how distorted the reporting of the crime is, the Article in the times you cited (saying there was no increase in crime) had a side bar with the crime stats from the Finn Hill stay that showed a huge increase in crime. This would be like insisting that no service men have been killed in Iraq, and doing so in an article right next to the data showing how many were killed to date.

While there has been a significant amount of crime (both minor and serious) in the camp, and by campers outside the camp, that is well documented (and denied by everyone associated with SHARE) it is the increase in crime in each community that hosts the camp as compared with the previous 90 days and the same time period the year before. Of course you have to wait 90 days, and also 12 months, to see if the crime goes back down, where those numbers are available it shows that it has. This is like having a picnic in the park. While you personally did not bring the ants, wasps, etc, the fact you set up the picnic meant that there was going to be a pest problem. Be it the campers themselves, or just those that follow the camp, the data shows without any doubt that crime goes up across the board when the camp comes to town. It's a fact and no amount of denial can change it. You stating that it is common knowledge to anyone that looks that there isn't any crime is completly unfounded. NO ONE has ever offered up hard data to show other wise, they just try and tell the same lie often enough hoping that people will believe it. Meanwhile some very smart number crunchers have been using public records requests to get the raw data and calculate the trends. In every location (except Bothell) law enforcement has admitted that they did not run any numbers and that their statements that crime did not go up was not based on any data. They also have a habit of narrowing their comments to actual crime inside the camp and do not consider crime outside the camp in their statements. This is because most cities do not keyword the reports so there is no way of knowing without someone requesting the raw data.

The claim that "there is no statistical difference in the crime rate from the homeless population vs. those with fixed abodes" is completly false. The numbers in Bothell showed that while TC4 residents made up only 1 third of 1 percent of the population they were directly responsible for 3 percent of the police calls. The ratio went way up when you limited it to the serious crimes that occured. No matter how you slice it ANY claim that crime is not a problem is pure fantasy and wishful thinking.

And lastly this whole idea that if a camper is not caught in the act then it is treated as if the act never happened is bunk. The break in at Macks Corner is a prime example. Only a fool would think that there was no connection to the camp moving in just days before. -- [Coz]

Bobblehead has some excellent ideas about NPOV and balance. I am pleased to read his feedback and learn from him about how Wiki articles can be improved.

If this page is to look like a thousand other Wikipedia pages where divergent voices are edited off the the main and talk pages, it diminishes the value of the forum as a whole. If the listing then becomes a war of attrition, its value is even more diminished. War carried out with words is still war. I look forward to balance on this article that is hard to introduce in the current environment. I'm reminded of the Elie Wiesel and John Siegenthaler entries when I visit this and the main Tent City pages. --Cyclopedic 06:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Coz, according to Verifiability it doesn't matter if the statements are true or not, it only matters that it is verifiable via a reputable source. The Seattle Times, PI, and the police are reputable sources so if they say there is no increases in crime rates, then it is permissable in the article, regardless of truth. --Bobblehead 08:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. However if we go down that road I can cite each and every police report and statistical breakdown on crime to disprove it. In an effort to keep the article as short and concise as possible it would be best to just cite that there is documented evidence of increased crime and leave it at that. -- [Coz]

Unfortunately that would fall under original research. Wikipedia is not about proving who is right and who is wrong. We've included information from sources saying there hasn't been increases in actual crime rates and we've included information from sources saying there is. Somewhere in between is probably the truth, but as I mentioned before as long as somthing is verifiable it can be included, regardless of the level of truth. --Bobblehead 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Twain's quote that there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics" remind me why quoting numbers can be a slippery slope argument. I cited Schramm because he seems verifiable and middle-of-the-road mainstream. If I quote source like www.realchangenews.org, regardless of how verifiable and accurate the source may be, it often leads to more ad hominem attacks from opponents. Although I personally don't listen much to Schramm, he is an editor and respected source broadcast on the local ABC affilliate. And when his news story states, "If they bothered to check with the King County Sheriff's Department, they'd find tent city has a pretty damn good track record", I'm inclined to cite the other part of the article where he quotes the Sheriff's department assessment of their own statistics.

Again, I have no dispute that individuals who have stayed-or maybe even currently stay-at Tent City 4 have been involved in illegal activity. I don't advocate for that. If the entire TC4 entry becomes a littany of crime and punishment, legal wranglings, and 'proposed' code changes, and all references to core issues of classism, causative factors, and the role of spiritual communities in isses of social justice are edited out, the article loses balance. --Cyclopedic 18:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken Schram "middle-of-the-road mainstreem"? Who are you trying to kid. He doesn't even try to sell that, he openly admits to being left wing liberal. That is why he and John Carlson do the show together. It pits left wing liberal vrs right wing conservative. You can cite a source like real change, but that will be countered by statements about its obvious bias. There was no "assessment of their own statistics" by the Sheriff because they never did any statistics. I have statements to that effect that I can post. As I said, even the article the times did disproved the claim by printing a side bar that showed the claim to be false.

But I think you miss the point here. The article is about Tent City not about the greater issue of homelessness. It would be like taking an article about the Chevy Corvette and going off on a global warming tangent. I would be thrilled if you wrote about the 10 year plan or other greater issues, i'll even help, it just doesn't belong in the Tent City Article. For instance start here. [3] -- [Coz]

By calling liberal v conservative, etc. your argument becomes ad hominem and appeal to ridicule. If KCSO is quoted in the KOMO website and airwaves in a general assessment of their own statistics, their conclusions become part of the history of the issue. And dear sir, the point is mine to make and yours to miss. If you want the entire content of the listing to reflect your bias, others-not just me-others will edit. Many recent edits to balance your appeal to authority perspective were done by others, not me, and many solutions are ideas you might not endorse. Today's NYTimes article about 'revert wars' could have been written for this page. --Cyclopedic 20:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. That is how Schram and Carlson describe their show. It isn't an attack, it is their own descriptions of themselves. As I said before, I am not intersted in this degenerating into personal attacks as you seem to want to take it. And I am not going to waste any further space on this talk page going round and round about issues all over the board. ONCE AGAIN... This article is about a narrow topic, has been well researched and vetted by many people (my contributions were challenged as well along the way), and this page is not about a "revert war" but about keeping the article as short and concise as possible, factual as possible, and on topic. Like I said, there are LOTS of other articles where your "social justice" issues are right on target and you should contribute to them. -- [Coz]

Refutations of logical fallacies in an argument are hardly ad hominem or personal attacks, no matter how many times one says they are, and Schram v. Carlson seems like a red herring. An Appeal to Authority fallacy often reflects an effort to define all aspects of an entry; the beauty of Wikipedia lies in its ability to refine the focus through multiple authors. For many, this is its shortcoming as well. I've been able to get past the 'take this somewhere else' admonition that sounds remarkably like the opponents' response as to what to do with Tent City 4. --Cyclopedic 23:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bobblehead, after reviewing your rework of the entry, I find we are much closer to the goal of balance. I see that you have made a couple of my links into citations, and if I didn't do so, it's because I'm not yet as adept at creating a citation.

A Slashdot dialog created in response to the NYTimes article has a few pearls that help me see structure here. --Cyclopedic 16:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

At this point I see little choice but to request a moderator to review the situation here. I have consistently tried to observe the big three in the NPOV. This page, like every other is subject to defacement. I see a situation where one person with set views repeatedly removes material that diverges from his viewpoint. Bobblehead has consistently shown edits that respect the input of all contributors...if not him, then another. I can say how many years I've been involved with this issue, but it isn't going to protect the environment that Wikipedia strives to create. --Cyclopedic 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation on this and other Tent City entry pending. --Cyclopedic 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll go easy on lists. I really like the advice at the mediation page that says take a break, laugh a little, and put things in perspective. The foundation of all communication still remains to me, "first seek to understand, then seek to be understood", and I'm open to listening. --Cyclopedic 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A good foundation for all communication would be honesty as well. Adding content that is flat untrue, then citing articles that do not address the content at all, is dishonest. Once is a mistake, repeatedly doing the same thing is dishonest. Removing everything from an article that you don't like, is dishonest. I have shown a willingness to work with you to include information you want as long as it is valid and supportable but you have shown that you don't want an honest article, you want distortions. -- [Coz]

Hello! I'm one of the mediators at Mediation Cabal, but not necessarily the one who will be mediating the case. As a courtesy, I've finished creating the mediation page started by Cyclopedic but have not filled out any sections, as this would be rather improper. :)

Anywho, if you are willing to persue mediation, your case page is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Tent City and Tent City 4(King County, Washington). If not, please tell us so we may close the case, or if you'd just rather use it in an attempt to negotiate in a neutral setting, that's fine. We'd like to suggest using the talkpage for the case, in the event that you might wish to use the main page to record the outcome.

Of course, it's always better to resolve issues amicably between yourselves, but if you do wish for mediator assistance to attain a compromise, we'll be happy to help! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead a volunteered to be the mediator for this mediation request. If there is any objections to that just let me know and I'll recuse myself and open it up for someone else to be a mediator. --Bobblehead 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly we have no need for a mediator. We have a new user that thinks they can discredit anything that doesn't support their viewpoint by throwing fear, doubt, and uncertianty into the process by exploiting tags and mediation requests rather than participating in the process the way it is designed to be. This is the tactic that is being used by the Church Council in every single forum where this topic is discused and I was actually quite surprised it took this long for them to stir the pot here. You have done a great job of helping this, and other articles, stay on track and I do not see any reason that this article won't continue to grow well with your assistance. Thank you! --Coz 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyclopedic hasn't completed the mediation request yet and doesn't seem to be around right now anways. I'm waiting for him to complete the request before I jump in so I make sure I have all the issues identified. I've given him until July 9 to complete the request before I close it and get it off the open case list. This does not, however, mean that he can not re-open it at a later date if he so chooses. --Bobblehead 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Cyclopedic has not completed the mediation request form yet and hasn't been active since making the request, I've gone ahead and closed the case. The case can be re-opened by asking me to do so, or going here and making the request to re-open there, or by changing the category to [[Category: Wikipedia Medcab open cases]] --Bobblehead 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect we will see him/her again. They were putting out an all out push to control the message when they were concerned that the court would make them post a $250,000 bond. When that didn't happen they didn't have the need to spin the issue anymore.

--Coz 05:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Cyclopedic's updates bring up an issue I've been having with the general formatting in this article. It's not the month and year that is really important, but the location of the move. how about instead of having the Month Year be the section header, we have the name of the location? So instead of May 2004 we have St. Brendan's Church (May 2004). I'm about to head out for a bit, but I'll see about making the transition later tonight if there aren't any objections. --Bobblehead 22:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WUCC edits

Quick summary of the changes I made and why:

• I removed the sentence about courts requiring a warrant check be conducted because the cited source directly contradicts that statement by saying:

A King County Superior Court judge ruled in a lawsuit the city of Bothell filed against St. Brendan Catholic Church in May of that year that Tent City 4 residents could not be required to present verifiable identification for warrant or sex-offender checks. But the ruling also stated that the city had the right to require permits and impose conditions.

This tends to mean the city is within it's rights to require a warrant check as long as it doesn't not require verifiable identification be presented, not that the courts require the checks. It also made no mention of the fact that TC4 already conducts voluntary warrant checks (which kind of makes you wonder why they object to that condition).

• The paragraph regarding surprise of the city officials and the pastor's participation in TACAC looks like original research as the cite provided does not indicate surpise of city officials, but is a link to TACAC's findings. Find a source that supports the claim and it can be included. I also took the paragraph out because, in my opinion, the surprise of the city officials is more newsy than encyclopedic, but that's just my opinion and I'm open to it being included with the proper source.
• I added the citation needed tag to the final paragraph in that section as it's rather POV and needs to have a citation before it can remain for any extended period of time.

--Bobblehead 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)