Recent Changes for "The California Aggie Controversies" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_ControversiesRecent Changes of the page "The California Aggie Controversies" on Davis Wiki.en-us The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2012-03-16 20:01:06argylejungle fever <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ==Jungle Fever==<br> + Days before the ["November 18, 2011 UC Davis Police Response to Occupy UC Davis" UCD pepper spray incident], weekly columnist Medha Sridha received a lot of criticism for her piece entitled [http://www.theaggie.org/2011/11/15/column-jungle-fever/ "Jungle Fever"] that was published on November 15, 2011. Following the overwhelming public response to Sridha's racist generalizations, The California Aggie's Editorial Board [http://www.theaggie.org/2011/11/21/editorial-response-to-student-feedback/ announced] that they would require all staff members to participate in diversity training.<br> + <br> + "Jungle Fever" is one of the most-commented articles on [http://www.theaggie.org theaggie.org] with 127 comments.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2011-09-11 13:28:16JohnGorenfeld <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 400: </td> <td> Line 400: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Mid-1990s controversies: Does anyone remember who wrote the column resulting in a public apology from the Cal Aggie to English professor and rumored former Raymond Carver buddy W. Jack Hicks? I remember really liking this dude's column, but then he got in trouble for questioning Hicks's commitment to young writers. This might also be the columnist who wrote a harrowing description of cocaine use around 1994. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Mid-1990s controversies: Does anyone remember who wrote the column resulting in a public apology from the Cal Aggie to <span>grumpy </span>English professor and rumored former Raymond Carver buddy W. Jack Hicks? I remember really liking this dude's column, but then he got in trouble for questioning Hicks's commitment to young writers. This might also be the columnist who wrote a harrowing description of cocaine use around 1994. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2011-09-11 13:27:57JohnGorenfeld <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 400: </td> <td> Line 400: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Mid-1990s controversies: Does anyone remember who wrote the column resulting in a public apology from the Cal Aggie to English professor and rumored former Raymond Carver buddy W. Jack Hicks? I remember really liking this dude's column, but then he got in trouble for <span>disparag</span>ing Hicks's commitment to young writers. This might also be the columnist who wrote a harrowing description of cocaine use around 1994. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Mid-1990s controversies: Does anyone remember who wrote the column resulting in a public apology from the Cal Aggie to English professor and rumored former Raymond Carver buddy W. Jack Hicks? I remember really liking this dude's column, but then he got in trouble for <span>question</span>ing Hicks's commitment to young writers. This might also be the columnist who wrote a harrowing description of cocaine use around 1994. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2011-09-11 01:55:48JohnGorenfeldTalk talk <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 399: </td> <td> Line 399: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + Mid-1990s controversies: Does anyone remember who wrote the column resulting in a public apology from the Cal Aggie to English professor and rumored former Raymond Carver buddy W. Jack Hicks? I remember really liking this dude's column, but then he got in trouble for disparaging Hicks's commitment to young writers. This might also be the columnist who wrote a harrowing description of cocaine use around 1994.<br> + ["Users/JohnGorenfeld"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2011-03-01 14:50:52DanielleGearyFixed link to Lew's apology <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p>No differences found!</div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2011-03-01 14:50:26DanielleGearyFixed link to Lew's apology <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 17: </td> <td> Line 17: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The apology: http://theaggie.org/article/<span>2010/01/29/</span>apologies </td> <td> <span>+</span> The apology: http://theaggie.org/article/<span>column-</span>apologies </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2011-03-01 14:03:25DanielleGeary"Article" is a piece reporting facts. This was a an opinion column. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 5: </td> <td> Line 5: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On January 22, 2010, The California Aggie published an <span>article</span> entitled "The Rise of the Girly Men" that some found incredibly offensive and discriminatory. Those who found the <span>article</span> offensive described it as racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> After receiving many critical pieces of feedback, the Aggie retracted the <span>article</span> using the following explanation: </td> <td> <span>+</span> On January 22, 2010, The California Aggie published an <span>opinion column</span> entitled "The Rise of the Girly Men" that some found incredibly offensive and discriminatory. Those who found the <span>column</span> offensive described it as racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> After receiving many critical pieces of feedback, the Aggie retracted the <span>column</span> using the following explanation: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The original <span>art</span>i<span>cle</span>: </td> <td> <span>+</span> The original <span>op</span>i<span>nion</span>: </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-10-04 13:57:24SteveDavisonComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 396: </td> <td> Line 396: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-10-04 13:57:24'' [[nbsp]] RE: "The Rise of the Girly Men"<br> + There was a terrible offense committed here. One so serious that one or more people should have been fired, if not expelled. Yes, very serious indeed. However, it was not in Tiffany Lew's piece. People are free to hold silly ideas. It was not the fault of The Aggie for printing it; walk into any supermarket any day of the year and you can buy newspapers with far crazier ideas. Do not blame them for printing it. Newspapers -and universities- at their best are places for airing and discussing ideas and opinions and thus fostering the learning which grows from it. BUT, when a newspaper is wholly censored (in this case by itself) this is a crime to humanity of the highest order. Damn the censors to Hell! --["Users/SteveDavison"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-28 20:56:59JohnathanQuigleyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 394: </td> <td> Line 394: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-01-28 19:56:59'' [[nbsp]] How can one study when there is so much juicy gossip to learn about our school paper? I'm glad the Waggie (vet school paper) is a little more stable. --["Users/JohnathanQuigley"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-28 20:32:56TomGarbersonComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 392: </td> <td> Line 392: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-01-28 19:32:56'' [[nbsp]] You know, I think the primped and vain trend among guys is a little annoying, but the way Tiffany's letter was phrased was extremely rude and obnoxious. If it weren't written as a page-long version of "lolz don't be gay, fagz!" I might agree with the general point. That said, anyone throwing a fit (I haven't seen it personally, but various comments make it sound like it's a big scandal on campus) need to chill out. If you spend 5 minutes playing online games, you'll hear stuff 100x worse. The Aggie may have been irresponsible for printing it, but IMO the way to react is simply to respond to the author via the same venue. Debunk myths, critique comparison, and reject bogus assumptions. But keep it in perspective. It's a rude, crude, over the top letter to the editor, not an Aggie-sponsored lynching of any person or any group. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-28 20:04:22hankimComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 390: </td> <td> Line 390: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-01-28 19:04:22'' [[nbsp]] I sent a letter to the editor and in case they do not print it: http://www.spincycletimes.com/?p=146 --["Users/hankim"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-28 18:23:00PaulAmnuaypayoatadded info and link to the apology article <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + On January 28, 2010, Tiffany Lew, the author of the offending article, issued an apology.<br> + <br> + The apology: http://theaggie.org/article/2010/01/29/apologies</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-28 04:36:01hankim(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 5: </td> <td> Line 5: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On January 22, 2010, The California Aggie published an article entitled "The Rise of the Girly Men" that some found incredibly offensive and discriminatory. Those who found the article offensive described it as racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist<span>&nbsp;viewpoints</span>. </td> <td> <span>+</span> On January 22, 2010, The California Aggie published an article entitled "The Rise of the Girly Men" that some found incredibly offensive and discriminatory. Those who found the article offensive described it as racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-28 04:34:43hankimMade the description of the article more neutral. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 5: </td> <td> Line 5: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- On January 22, 2010, The California Aggie published an incredibly offensive and discriminatory article entitled "The Rise of the Girly Men" as an opinion column. The article was full of racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist viewpoints (to name a few of the forms of oppression present in the article). Many communities on the UC Davis campus were hugely offended by the article and disturbed by The Aggie's choice to publish it.<br> - <br> - After receiving many critical pieces of feedback, rather than issuing an apology, taking responsibility for the article, or acknowledging how irresponsible it was for the editorial board to have published the piece, the Aggie removed the article from it's online database with a retraction and wrote a defensive and dismissive editorial that claims much of the criticism they received was unfounded.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ On January 22, 2010, The California Aggie published an article entitled "The Rise of the Girly Men" that some found incredibly offensive and discriminatory. Those who found the article offensive described it as racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist viewpoints.<br> + <br> + After receiving many critical pieces of feedback, the Aggie retracted the article using the following explanation:<br> + <br> + "The column made multiple insensitive comments, offending a significant portion of the UC Davis community."</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-27 21:10:11hankimComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 382: </td> <td> Line 382: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-01-27 20:10:11'' [[nbsp]] I personally liked the article. I too have a problem with men being brought up fragile and delicate (although I do not think girls should be brought up this way too much either, but I have less of a problem there), especially since my race seems to be overrun with "pretty boys." There is this one male celebrity who was called by some magazine as the man who is prettier than a woman. Yuck! However, I see no problem with someone dancing to Beyonce's Single Ladies. That song has powers... --["Users/hankim"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-27 21:02:41JasonAllerindent replies. They were raised that way. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 380: </td> <td> Line 380: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Fired? If she were presenting it as a piece of investigative journalism surely, but this was an opinion column. People write offensive things all the time for The Aggie in opinion columns; can't fire her without firing everyone else. --["Users/OliviaY"]<br> <span>-</span> * If there was any other reprimand performed against Lew besides termination, such as a write up, we will likely never know since that stuff tends to remain internal. I suppose they could throw her under a bus in order to really cover themselves, but after talking with a fellow alum about this, I realized that ["The Aggie"] may want this negative attention to increase their readership. - ["Paul Amnuaypayoat"] </td> <td> <span>+ </span> * Fired? If she were presenting it as a piece of investigative journalism surely, but this was an opinion column. People write offensive things all the time for The Aggie in opinion columns; can't fire her without firing everyone else. --["Users/OliviaY"]<br> <span>+ </span> * If there was any other reprimand performed against Lew besides termination, such as a write up, we will likely never know since that stuff tends to remain internal. I suppose they could throw her under a bus in order to really cover themselves, but after talking with a fellow alum about this, I realized that ["The Aggie"] may want this negative attention to increase their readership. - ["Paul Amnuaypayoat"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-27 20:21:29PaulAmnuaypayoatadded my $0.02 <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 380: </td> <td> Line 380: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> Fired? If she were presenting it as a piece of investigative journalism surely, but this was an opinion column. People write offensive things all the time for The Aggie in opinion columns; can't fire her without firing everyone else. --["Users/OliviaY"] </td> <td> <span>+ *</span> Fired? If she were presenting it as a piece of investigative journalism surely, but this was an opinion column. People write offensive things all the time for The Aggie in opinion columns; can't fire her without firing everyone else. --["Users/OliviaY"]<span><br> + * If there was any other reprimand performed against Lew besides termination, such as a write up, we will likely never know since that stuff tends to remain internal. I suppose they could throw her under a bus in order to really cover themselves, but after talking with a fellow alum about this, I realized that ["The Aggie"] may want this negative attention to increase their readership. - ["Paul Amnuaypayoat"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-27 19:23:08OliviaY <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 380: </td> <td> Line 380: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ Fired? If she were presenting it as a piece of investigative journalism surely, but this was an opinion column. People write offensive things all the time for The Aggie in opinion columns; can't fire her without firing everyone else. --["Users/OliviaY"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-27 19:15:52WesOneComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 377: </td> <td> Line 377: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-01-27 18:15:52'' [[nbsp]] Wow.. "Girly-Men" reaks of everything wrong with ignorant people in this society. Not only did Ms. Lew manage to be homophobic and racist, she also somehow managed to place every person who works at a single location into the same category?? To top it off, the Aggie removed the article and apologized but has done nothign further in the matter to Ms. Lew who, it seems to me, would have been indefinitely suspended or outright fired had she worked for any other new publication. Silly and ridiculous come to mind.<br> + --["Users/WesOne"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2010-01-27 15:49:26themitch <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ==The Rise of The Girly Men==<br> + On January 22, 2010, The California Aggie published an incredibly offensive and discriminatory article entitled "The Rise of the Girly Men" as an opinion column. The article was full of racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist viewpoints (to name a few of the forms of oppression present in the article). Many communities on the UC Davis campus were hugely offended by the article and disturbed by The Aggie's choice to publish it.<br> + <br> + After receiving many critical pieces of feedback, rather than issuing an apology, taking responsibility for the article, or acknowledging how irresponsible it was for the editorial board to have published the piece, the Aggie removed the article from it's online database with a retraction and wrote a defensive and dismissive editorial that claims much of the criticism they received was unfounded.<br> + <br> + The retraction: http://theaggie.org/article/column-rise-of-the-girly-men<br> + <br> + The editorial: http://theaggie.org/article/2010/01/26/editorial-column-controversy<br> + <br> + The original article:<br> + {{{<br> + Rise of the girly men<br> + by Tiffany Lew<br> + <br> + After witnessing way too many pink shirts, emotionally-intense conversations and over-the-top reactions,<br> + I've come to the conclusion that the majority of guys these days are girlier than girls themselves (or at<br> + least girlier than me - and I'm not even a tomboy).<br> + <br> + This is a sad, sad fact.<br> + <br> + Now don't jump to the conclusion that my negative reaction toward this … hmm, "trend," means I'm<br> + homophobic. I'm not. (I mean, I do have gay friends and … I enjoy watching "The Ellen Show.")<br> + <br> + At least open gays are set with their sexuality. They know who they are and they've left no room for<br> + confusion. The lines are clear-cut.<br> + <br> + On the other hand, girly-men/emo boys/metro sexuals (or whatever label of choice you slap upon<br> + straight men who behave in an effeminate manner) just leave me super confused. Guy? Girl? Or<br> + a newly invented in-between sex? (Well, I consider that transgender, but that's another topic.)<br> + <br> + Trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'll admit many of the guys I know are Asian and thus<br> + they're statistically and genetically destined to be predisposed with more estrogen than any other race.<br> + (That's my theory, at least.) But still, biology can only go so far. I'm pretty sure the epidemic goes far<br> + beyond the boundaries of race. (It's easy to guarantee over 50 percent of the white guys working at<br> + Urban Outfitters are the aforementioned girly men.)<br> + <br> + So whatever happened to the old saying, "girls will be girls and boys will be boys?" Apparently,<br> + a more accurate saying these days would be "girls will be girls and boys … will also be girls."<br> + <br> + This is an epidemic we've got to fix, but before we can do so, we've got to spot the symptoms - the<br> + stages one goes through. Here go the "girly men/emo boys/metro sexual" characteristics:<br> + <br> + First things first: Appearance. They're super nit-picky. The "part my hair 20 times, gloss my face,<br> + wax-my-eyebrows-then-scrub-my t-zone" (if you're a guy who isn't quite sure what that is, then props<br> + to you) type of clean. After all this scrubbing and rubbing, they throw on a pink Lacoste shirt (collar<br> + popped up). Mandatory first step: fulfilled.<br> + <br> + The amount of time this all consumes ultimately means you're anywhere from 30 minutes to three<br> + hours late to a get-together, reunion, date, you name it. A great difficulty for girly-men is being prompt -<br> + there are just way too many angles you can pose in front of a mirror. And yes, in the process, you're<br> + holding the girl up. Forget the whole classic "girl applying hours of makeup and making the guy wait"<br> + scenario; it's now role-reversal. I'm afraid you're officially one stop closer to all-together ditching<br> + your manhood.<br> + <br> + Actually, there might not even be that said get-together/reunion/date to get to because another<br> + characteristic of the girly man is extreme indecisiveness. Here I was thinking how indecisive I am when<br> + I can't figure out which pair of shoes to buy at the mall. With a girly- man, the choices of making the trip<br> + to the mall, buying the shoe online or friggin' just not buying it all will cause a huge dilemma - I'm<br> + talking about a month-long dilemma with hours of discussion and debate.<br> + <br> + These hours of discussion and debate ultimately turn into hours of "pmsing," mood swings and general<br> + emotional turmoil, which are the last and likely most dominate traits of girly men. I must say extreme<br> + emotional attunement and sensitivity are keys to the girly men. During these moments of distress, remember:<br> + Do not send them random, hilarious YouTube videos or attempt light conversation - trust me, there are<br> + dire consequences. Singing sumo wrestlers just aren't funny when one is focused on his distress over which<br> + shoe to buy.<br> + <br> + When it comes down to it, girly men just don't do much for us. Sure, it's nice and even preferable when guys<br> + appear tidy and are somewhat sensitive, but when these traits are enhanced tenfold, they might as well just<br> + be girls. I'm hoping this girly men trend slowly disappears just as the 1920s lesbian feminists did. But at<br> + least the lesbian feminists had a legit social cause.<br> + <br> + TIFFANY LEW was beginning to gain some hope for masculine Asian pop stars when John Park, a soulful<br> + (and seemingly straight) American Idol contestant made it to Hollywood. That hope was quickly abandoned<br> + when a graphic YouTube video of him dancing and singing to "Single Ladies" popped up.<br> + Contact her at tjlew@ucdavis.edu.<br> + }}}<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2009-02-25 08:38:00SaulSugarmanName to initials. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 241: </td> <td> Line 241: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-13 10:34:13'' [[nbsp]] That letter to the editorial board about Dan Stone was really bitchy. The only mistake he really made was to crumble under the pressure of the other editors. I'm sure it was a mistake, but kind of a minor one. Really, it is the editor-in-chief's ultimate decision on what goes and what doesn't until he's unseated ... and I mean unseated, not told to resign. Plus, what B.S. is it that they wanted the editorial printed since it obviously wasn't a consensus? Whoever wrote that letter was on a bigger power trip than I Dan Stone would have been. --<span>["Users/</span>Saul<span>Sugarman"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-13 10:34:13'' [[nbsp]] That letter to the editorial board about Dan Stone was really bitchy. The only mistake he really made was to crumble under the pressure of the other editors. I'm sure it was a mistake, but kind of a minor one. Really, it is the editor-in-chief's ultimate decision on what goes and what doesn't until he's unseated ... and I mean unseated, not told to resign. Plus, what B.S. is it that they wanted the editorial printed since it obviously wasn't a consensus? Whoever wrote that letter was on a bigger power trip than I Dan Stone would have been. --Saul </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-08-31 12:53:47JasonAllerlink fixes <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 189: </td> <td> Line 189: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ["The California Aggie"] recently refered ["Student Judicial Affairs"] to students ["BrentLaabs"] and ["RevChad" Chad Van Schoelandt] for "misappropriating" copies of the newspaper. Laabs and Van Schoelandt were conducting a study on whether or not the Aggie is overprinted. For more information, refer to ["California Aggie Printing"]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["The California Aggie"] recently refered ["Student Judicial Affairs"] to students ["<span>Users/</span>BrentLaabs"] and ["<span>Users/</span>RevChad" Chad Van Schoelandt] for "misappropriating" copies of the newspaper. Laabs and Van Schoelandt were conducting a study on whether or not the Aggie is overprinted. For more information, refer to ["California Aggie Printing"]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------</span><br> <span>-</span> ''2005-05-11 14:05:19'' [[nbsp]] The Aggie didnt cease the tradition of the spoof editions entirely. Ryan Fuller chose not to do one that year due to various reasons, none of which include the "backlash." If it was due to the backlash of the 2002 edition, then the one in 2003 would never have happened. --["MattJojola"] </td> <td> <span>+ </span><br> <span>+</span> ''2005-05-11 14:05:19'' [[nbsp]] The Aggie didnt cease the tradition of the spoof editions entirely. Ryan Fuller chose not to do one that year due to various reasons, none of which include the "backlash." If it was due to the backlash of the 2002 edition, then the one in 2003 would never have happened. --["<span>Users/</span>MattJojola"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 209: </td> <td> Line 209: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''Yeah, i'd talk about how Fitz nearly got fired for that specific one and not generalize the entire spoof edition in its entirety.''-["MattJojola"]<br> <span>-</span> ''Fuller's [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/06/24/Opinion/In.Memory.Of.Spoof.19722004-1317882.shtml?norewrite200607290121&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com article] was titled such as to suggest there would be no more Aggie Spoofs. It was unbelievably arrogant of him.'' - ["TravisGrathwell"]<br> <span>-</span> *Well, he did say "No word yet on whether the 2005-2006 editor in chief will bring the spoof back to life." -["GeorgeLewis"]<br> <span>-</span> ''According to that article, his reasons for pulling are due to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". I think that suggests that he wasn't too interested in generating the kind of controversy the spoof edition generally comes with. Unless he offers a more detailed explanation, which he doesn't necessarily owe us, I think the original listing stands'' - ["JesseSingh"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> '' Ryan Fuller does not make decisions regarding the Aggie for the 2005-2006 school year or for any year beyond this year one for that matter. The incoming editor in chief (in our case...Daniel Stone) will make the decision to go with a spoof or not this June. I don't get the controversy.''-["MattJojola"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-05-11 17:47:20'' [[nbsp]] I believe there is controversy because it was stupid to kill the spoof...even for one year. --["GeorgeLewis"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-05-11 20:05:25'' [[nbsp]] Well, other than it being a Freedom of Speech issue, it also reflects on the integrity of the paper. Because it generated a modicum of controversy in 2002 (that nobody cares about anymore), it had its balls cut off the next year and was finally put to sleep in '04. Maybe it'll return in '05, who knows? But I think (and others seem to agree) that ending a 33-year old tradition is definitely a controversial decision. --["JesseSingh"]<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-05-11 22:21:30'' [[nbsp]] "The staff members received diversity training" - wtf, does this sound really sinister to anybody else? --["KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-05-12 00:51:02'' [[nbsp]] I purposely emphasized that because I thought that seemed like such a feckless solution to the situation. It's such a corporate thing to do. It reminded me of "The Office". :) --["JesseSingh"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-05-12 04:03:54'' [[nbsp]] The "most notable" part of the '02 controversy was NOT the Tiqula Bledsoe depiction. Not by a long shot. If you don't know what I'm talking about... oh well. --["ElvinLee"]<br> <span>-</span> I believe Mr. Lee is referring here to the giant penis that can be seen on one of the scans on ["The California Aggie: Spoof Edition"] - ["TravisGrathwell"]<br> <span>-</span> I wasn't, actually. And the actual status of the information is unclear, so I will leave it at "if you don't know what I'm talking about..." - ["ElvinLee"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-05-13 02:22:43'' [[nbsp]] Does anyone know if Watson's "Letter to the Editor" in yesterday's Aggie was edited by him from his very long letter? Or was it edited by the Aggie? I know they reserve the right to make edits for spatial reasons. --["JesseSingh"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-06-29 13:35:06'' [[nbsp]] I wrote two letters in, the long one I sent to the staff. I also sent in a 200 word one that was published. --["IanWatson"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-03 00:35:52'' [[nbsp]] i think it's time Stone gets his own no-confidence vote --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-06 09:28:08'' [[nbsp]] I think they should re-form the Aggie as a Wiki. Then they can revert a few times, everyone gets their say, it dies down and no lasting damage is done. Would save a lot of paper too! --["SteveDavison"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-06 22:01:13'' [[nbsp]] OMG I totally called it! --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-06 23:00:05'' [[nbsp]] I was going to write a heated letter to the editor, I might now write a mellowed-out one, but on Sunday an Aggie friend told me there would be some news about Daniel Stone Monday. That could've meant only one thing. The real irony of the situation is that if Stone was worried about getting a letter of recommendation, he might have just killed it. --["KarlMogel"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-07 00:48:54'' [[nbsp]] Maybe Chancellor Vanderhoef can find him a job --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>-</span> Indeed, Stone may actually be well suited to media types that do not strive for objectivity at all, such as the glowing [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=8621 Dateline] report on the Chancellor's actions ... or Fox news. --["KrisFricke"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-13 10:34:13'' [[nbsp]] That letter to the editorial board about Dan Stone was really bitchy. The only mistake he really made was to crumble under the pressure of the other editors. I'm sure it was a mistake, but kind of a minor one. Really, it is the editor-in-chief's ultimate decision on what goes and what doesn't until he's unseated ... and I mean unseated, not told to resign. Plus, what B.S. is it that they wanted the editorial printed since it obviously wasn't a consensus? Whoever wrote that letter was on a bigger power trip than I Dan Stone would have been. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-15 08:53:00'' [[nbsp]] So what the hell is going on with this? sorry if i've missed it, but has there been any official explanation from the Aggie about the Stone brouhaha? The only thing I've seen is that Stone resigned because his leadership caused "challenges"...wtf does that mean? Is the letter on the wiki authentic or not? Did Stone really change the editorial to curry favor with the chancellor? If so, how do we know he hasn't "slightly altered" every article about the chancellor, or even just influenced coverage of the chancellor? How do we know if he was on Larry's secret payroll? i think the aggie has to give some explanation to its readers how its chosen leader sold out...this to me, seems far worse than plagiarism --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Two days after the edited version ran, Stone had a short blurb about how he had edited it without the others consent, and then they ran the original editorial. --["EdWins" ES]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> That's not sufficient explanation. Readers don't know WHY he edited it...isn't that kind of relevant to the situation? If Chancellor Larry had altered personnel contracts to give himself a kickback, and then his official response was that he regrets "slightly altering" the wording of a contract, would the aggie just sit on its hands and be content with that? maybe the aggie should learn to investigate its own house before scrutinizing others'. --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Seriously, no one knows why daniel changed the editorial except for daniel. according to the ed board's letter, they think it was so he could get a letter of recommendation from teh chancellor. I've known and lived with daniel for years and that does not make any sense. daniel never had a chance to get a letter from the chancellor either before or after this editorial fiasco. how could he? i feel like i know daniel very well and i cant even understand why he did it. if you look at the changes though, the changes are only to amplify the editorial board's words, not contradict them so the changes were really very minor. the real problem is that daniel denied it before admiting it. it has to do with his relationship with the ed board more than it has to do with his relationship to the chancellor --["AdamGerber"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Stone's alterations merely "amplified" the board's comments? they were only mad enough to fire him because he improved on their editorial without telling them? please. that's why the aggie, and not a former friend and roommate, should be asking the difficult questions. --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> You asked about Daniel’s relationship with the chancellor and the answer is clear. He never had one that would have lead to a letter of rec. If Daniel was preoccupied with gaining favor with the chancellor, then maybe he wouldn’t have printed articles exposing the scandal in the first place. Also, do you really think that Daniel’s changes in the editorial were substantial enough to impress, or even come to the attention of the chancellor? Clearly, Daniel had a difference in opinion with the editorial board and he inappropriately used his authority to change their expressed opinion – he brought this all on to himself and has lost his job and reputation for it. but weather or not this was done to further his relationship with the chancellor seems like a non-issue --["AdamGerber"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> So you're calling the entire current managing staff of the paper a bunch of liars? They quite clearly claim, that several of them were told by Stone himself about the recommendation letter. as much as I think the staff is doing a poor job of investigating this, I'd believe several of them over you...considering your argument is mainly "I never heard about it, so that must not be the case" --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> No, I am not. I believe that they honestly believe that Daniel did all of this to gain favor with the chancellor – and that’s okay because its what they believe and I don’t have enough credibility to counter that. Considering what they think about Daniel, especially after having gone through this whole deal, I personally think that they are more likely to draw that conclusions that further humiliate Daniel than to seriously consider whether he was actually out for a letter of rec. I do not blame the aggie staff for anything. But, if you look at what happened, it just doesn’t fit with your question of whether he was working secretly for the chancellor or something. I was not challenging them, I was responding to you. --["AdamGerber"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Write an email to the new editor and tell him what you just said - readers deserve to know just a lil more about it. Maybe you'll get something more of what you're looking for Apollo. And Adam, I disagree - "Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university." That's more then a minor change, it changed the intent/point. --["EdWins" ES] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''Yeah, i'd talk about how Fitz nearly got fired for that specific one and not generalize the entire spoof edition in its entirety.''-["<span>Users/</span>MattJojola"]<br> <span>+</span> ''Fuller's [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/06/24/Opinion/In.Memory.Of.Spoof.19722004-1317882.shtml?norewrite200607290121&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com article] was titled such as to suggest there would be no more Aggie Spoofs. It was unbelievably arrogant of him.'' - ["<span>Users/</span>TravisGrathwell"]<br> <span>+</span> *Well, he did say "No word yet on whether the 2005-2006 editor in chief will bring the spoof back to life." -["<span>Users/</span>GeorgeLewis"]<br> <span>+</span> ''According to that article, his reasons for pulling are due to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". I think that suggests that he wasn't too interested in generating the kind of controversy the spoof edition generally comes with. Unless he offers a more detailed explanation, which he doesn't necessarily owe us, I think the original listing stands'' - ["<span>Users/</span>JesseSingh"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> '' Ryan Fuller does not make decisions regarding the Aggie for the 2005-2006 school year or for any year beyond this year one for that matter. The incoming editor in chief (in our case...Daniel Stone) will make the decision to go with a spoof or not this June. I don't get the controversy.''-["<span>Users/</span>MattJojola"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-05-11 17:47:20'' [[nbsp]] I believe there is controversy because it was stupid to kill the spoof...even for one year. --["<span>Users/</span>GeorgeLewis"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-05-11 20:05:25'' [[nbsp]] Well, other than it being a Freedom of Speech issue, it also reflects on the integrity of the paper. Because it generated a modicum of controversy in 2002 (that nobody cares about anymore), it had its balls cut off the next year and was finally put to sleep in '04. Maybe it'll return in '05, who knows? But I think (and others seem to agree) that ending a 33-year old tradition is definitely a controversial decision. --["<span>Users/</span>JesseSingh"]<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-05-11 22:21:30'' [[nbsp]] "The staff members received diversity training" - wtf, does this sound really sinister to anybody else? --["<span>Users/</span>KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-05-12 00:51:02'' [[nbsp]] I purposely emphasized that because I thought that seemed like such a feckless solution to the situation. It's such a corporate thing to do. It reminded me of "The Office". :) --["<span>Users/</span>JesseSingh"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-05-12 04:03:54'' [[nbsp]] The "most notable" part of the '02 controversy was NOT the Tiqula Bledsoe depiction. Not by a long shot. If you don't know what I'm talking about... oh well. --["<span>Users/</span>ElvinLee"]<br> <span>+</span> I believe Mr. Lee is referring here to the giant penis that can be seen on one of the scans on ["The California Aggie: Spoof Edition"] - ["<span>Users/</span>TravisGrathwell"]<br> <span>+</span> I wasn't, actually. And the actual status of the information is unclear, so I will leave it at "if you don't know what I'm talking about..." - ["<span>Users/</span>ElvinLee"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-05-13 02:22:43'' [[nbsp]] Does anyone know if Watson's "Letter to the Editor" in yesterday's Aggie was edited by him from his very long letter? Or was it edited by the Aggie? I know they reserve the right to make edits for spatial reasons. --["<span>Users/</span>JesseSingh"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-06-29 13:35:06'' [[nbsp]] I wrote two letters in, the long one I sent to the staff. I also sent in a 200 word one that was published. --["<span>Users/</span>IanWatson"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-03 00:35:52'' [[nbsp]] i think it's time Stone gets his own no-confidence vote --["<span>Users/</span>ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-06 09:28:08'' [[nbsp]] I think they should re-form the Aggie as a Wiki. Then they can revert a few times, everyone gets their say, it dies down and no lasting damage is done. Would save a lot of paper too! --["<span>Users/</span>SteveDavison"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-06 22:01:13'' [[nbsp]] OMG I totally called it! --["<span>Users/</span>ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-06 23:00:05'' [[nbsp]] I was going to write a heated letter to the editor, I might now write a mellowed-out one, but on Sunday an Aggie friend told me there would be some news about Daniel Stone Monday. That could've meant only one thing. The real irony of the situation is that if Stone was worried about getting a letter of recommendation, he might have just killed it. --["<span>Users/</span>KarlMogel"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-07 00:48:54'' [[nbsp]] Maybe Chancellor Vanderhoef can find him a job --["<span>Users/</span>ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>+</span> Indeed, Stone may actually be well suited to media types that do not strive for objectivity at all, such as the glowing [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=8621 Dateline] report on the Chancellor's actions ... or Fox news. --["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-13 10:34:13'' [[nbsp]] That letter to the editorial board about Dan Stone was really bitchy. The only mistake he really made was to crumble under the pressure of the other editors. I'm sure it was a mistake, but kind of a minor one. Really, it is the editor-in-chief's ultimate decision on what goes and what doesn't until he's unseated ... and I mean unseated, not told to resign. Plus, what B.S. is it that they wanted the editorial printed since it obviously wasn't a consensus? Whoever wrote that letter was on a bigger power trip than I Dan Stone would have been. --["<span>Users/</span>SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-15 08:53:00'' [[nbsp]] So what the hell is going on with this? sorry if i've missed it, but has there been any official explanation from the Aggie about the Stone brouhaha? The only thing I've seen is that Stone resigned because his leadership caused "challenges"...wtf does that mean? Is the letter on the wiki authentic or not? Did Stone really change the editorial to curry favor with the chancellor? If so, how do we know he hasn't "slightly altered" every article about the chancellor, or even just influenced coverage of the chancellor? How do we know if he was on Larry's secret payroll? i think the aggie has to give some explanation to its readers how its chosen leader sold out...this to me, seems far worse than plagiarism --["<span>Users/</span>ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Two days after the edited version ran, Stone had a short blurb about how he had edited it without the others consent, and then they ran the original editorial. --["<span>Users/</span>EdWins" ES]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> That's not sufficient explanation. Readers don't know WHY he edited it...isn't that kind of relevant to the situation? If Chancellor Larry had altered personnel contracts to give himself a kickback, and then his official response was that he regrets "slightly altering" the wording of a contract, would the aggie just sit on its hands and be content with that? maybe the aggie should learn to investigate its own house before scrutinizing others'. --["<span>Users/</span>ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Seriously, no one knows why daniel changed the editorial except for daniel. according to the ed board's letter, they think it was so he could get a letter of recommendation from teh chancellor. I've known and lived with daniel for years and that does not make any sense. daniel never had a chance to get a letter from the chancellor either before or after this editorial fiasco. how could he? i feel like i know daniel very well and i cant even understand why he did it. if you look at the changes though, the changes are only to amplify the editorial board's words, not contradict them so the changes were really very minor. the real problem is that daniel denied it before admiting it. it has to do with his relationship with the ed board more than it has to do with his relationship to the chancellor --["<span>Users/</span>AdamGerber"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Stone's alterations merely "amplified" the board's comments? they were only mad enough to fire him because he improved on their editorial without telling them? please. that's why the aggie, and not a former friend and roommate, should be asking the difficult questions. --["<span>Users/</span>ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> You asked about Daniel’s relationship with the chancellor and the answer is clear. He never had one that would have lead to a letter of rec. If Daniel was preoccupied with gaining favor with the chancellor, then maybe he wouldn’t have printed articles exposing the scandal in the first place. Also, do you really think that Daniel’s changes in the editorial were substantial enough to impress, or even come to the attention of the chancellor? Clearly, Daniel had a difference in opinion with the editorial board and he inappropriately used his authority to change their expressed opinion – he brought this all on to himself and has lost his job and reputation for it. but weather or not this was done to further his relationship with the chancellor seems like a non-issue --["<span>Users/</span>AdamGerber"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> So you're calling the entire current managing staff of the paper a bunch of liars? They quite clearly claim, that several of them were told by Stone himself about the recommendation letter. as much as I think the staff is doing a poor job of investigating this, I'd believe several of them over you...considering your argument is mainly "I never heard about it, so that must not be the case" --["<span>Users/</span>ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> No, I am not. I believe that they honestly believe that Daniel did all of this to gain favor with the chancellor – and that’s okay because its what they believe and I don’t have enough credibility to counter that. Considering what they think about Daniel, especially after having gone through this whole deal, I personally think that they are more likely to draw that conclusions that further humiliate Daniel than to seriously consider whether he was actually out for a letter of rec. I do not blame the aggie staff for anything. But, if you look at what happened, it just doesn’t fit with your question of whether he was working secretly for the chancellor or something. I was not challenging them, I was responding to you. --["<span>Users/</span>AdamGerber"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Write an email to the new editor and tell him what you just said - readers deserve to know just a lil more about it. Maybe you'll get something more of what you're looking for Apollo. And Adam, I disagree - "Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university." That's more then a minor change, it changed the intent/point. --["<span>Users/</span>EdWins" ES] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 269: </td> <td> Line 269: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> the fact that no specific dates or sources are given means that this statement has almost no credibility (impossible to verify). without specifics a statement like this is clearly another claim and definatley not evidence of anything.--["MattHh"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> the fact that no specific dates or sources are given means that this statement has almost no credibility (impossible to verify). without specifics a statement like this is clearly another claim and definatley not evidence of anything.--["<span>Users/</span>MattHh"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 272: </td> <td> Line 272: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I can't comment too much on the incident...but I will say that it's a little strange that you call our investigation "poor," seeing as our investigation is what led to his resignation...We can't disclose further details publicly because it's a personnel issue. --["BrianChen"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> A general principle of journalism is that you should avoid reporting on yourself when possible. --["PhilipNeustrom"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-15 21:47:29'' [[nbsp]] I think the general principle for journalists is to not become the story...journalists report on each other all the time, when they screw up. Stone obviously screwed up and became the story. Brian: when news content has been altered, this is no longer a personnel issue...or does the Aggie have a policy of not publically discussing plagiarists and fabricators? didn't the New York Times fully investigate that guy who fabricated stories awhile back? how come that wasn't just a "personnel issue"? So has or hasn't the aggie investigated to see if Stone altered other Larry-related stories? --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-15 22:19:21'' [[nbsp]] We don't publicly discuss our internal affairs because they don't really benefit the student body...We felt that what you've been told is sufficient to understand his resignation. As for stories about the chancellor or changes made to chancellor stories, I can personally assure you that Stone couldn't have done that...because I assign and edit the campus news stories. --["BrianChen"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-02-15 22:56:09'' [[nbsp]] whatever. I think the aggie is a respectable paper, and that's why I expected to give a full account of what actually happened, as would be expected of any organization whose leader did something so wrong that he felt he had to resign, but more importantly, affected the organization's service to the public. I guess the real reason there is no push to give a full account because apparently few of your readers care what gets printed, and the aggie staff is apparently content with that status quo. I think it's believable Stone's love for the chancellor didn't affect anything else...but I guess we just have to take daviswiki's word for that, as opposed to a real questioning of people involved. --["ApolloStumpy"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> I can't comment too much on the incident...but I will say that it's a little strange that you call our investigation "poor," seeing as our investigation is what led to his resignation...We can't disclose further details publicly because it's a personnel issue. --["<span>Users/</span>BrianChen"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> A general principle of journalism is that you should avoid reporting on yourself when possible. --["<span>Users/</span>PhilipNeustrom"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-15 21:47:29'' [[nbsp]] I think the general principle for journalists is to not become the story...journalists report on each other all the time, when they screw up. Stone obviously screwed up and became the story. Brian: when news content has been altered, this is no longer a personnel issue...or does the Aggie have a policy of not publically discussing plagiarists and fabricators? didn't the New York Times fully investigate that guy who fabricated stories awhile back? how come that wasn't just a "personnel issue"? So has or hasn't the aggie investigated to see if Stone altered other Larry-related stories? --["<span>Users/</span>ApolloStumpy"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-15 22:19:21'' [[nbsp]] We don't publicly discuss our internal affairs because they don't really benefit the student body...We felt that what you've been told is sufficient to understand his resignation. As for stories about the chancellor or changes made to chancellor stories, I can personally assure you that Stone couldn't have done that...because I assign and edit the campus news stories. --["<span>Users/</span>BrianChen"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-02-15 22:56:09'' [[nbsp]] whatever. I think the aggie is a respectable paper, and that's why I expected to give a full account of what actually happened, as would be expected of any organization whose leader did something so wrong that he felt he had to resign, but more importantly, affected the organization's service to the public. I guess the real reason there is no push to give a full account because apparently few of your readers care what gets printed, and the aggie staff is apparently content with that status quo. I think it's believable Stone's love for the chancellor didn't affect anything else...but I guess we just have to take daviswiki's word for that, as opposed to a real questioning of people involved. --["<span>Users/</span>ApolloStumpy"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-07-18 17:13:08JeremyOgulcampus judicial report <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 295: </td> <td> Line 295: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * The campus judicial report was restored in Fall 2007. ["Users/JeremyOgul"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-06-10 07:21:58RichardTrendall(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 32: </td> <td> Line 32: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ["Daniel Stone"] had served as Editor in Chief at the Aggie for just over seven months before <span>he before </span>the other members of the editorial board authored ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone editorial" a letter] expressing their disapproval of Stone's actions. They alleged that Stone secretly altered the wording and meaning of an editorial that had been written about the ["Celeste Rose"] case so that it was less critical of ["Chancellor"] ["Larry Vanderhoef"]. Stone was accused by the board of lying about the incident when confronted. </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["Daniel Stone"] had served as Editor in Chief at the Aggie for just over seven months before the other members of the editorial board authored ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone editorial" a letter] expressing their disapproval of Stone's actions. They alleged that Stone secretly altered the wording and meaning of an editorial that had been written about the ["Celeste Rose"] case so that it was less critical of ["Chancellor"] ["Larry Vanderhoef"]. Stone was accused by the board of lying about the incident when confronted. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-05-28 17:49:37PS2tried to make it better! <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Aggie published a correction for plagiarism on May 10, 2007. ["Eddie Lee"], who had just been selected by the ["Campus Media Board"] as the next year's Editor in Chief, was fired from his sports staff writer position for pulling material from a press release without citing it. This is generally not considered egregious, and typically this type of offense only merits a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"].<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Five days later, 31 members of the Aggie staff submitted ["The California Aggie Controversies/Hamilton letter" a letter] calling for the resignation of Editor in Chief ["Peter Hamilton"] and Campus Editor ["Talia Kennedy"]. The letter alleged that training for the incoming Editor in Chief Eddie Lee had been designed unfairly and illogically, causing him to err in the original plagiarized article. The letter demanded an explanation for unnec<span>c</span>essary expenses incurred by Kennedy and Hamilton at a recent awards ceremony. The letter also said that Kennedy and Hamilton had an ongoing relationship that was negatively affecting the newsroom atmosphere, concluding that Hamilton no longer had the Aggie's best interests in mind. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Aggie published a correction for plagiarism on May 10, 2007. ["Eddie Lee"], who had just been selected by the ["Campus Media Board"] as the next year's Editor in Chief, was fired from his sports staff writer position for pulling material from a press release without citing it. This is generally not considered egregious, and typically this type of offense only merits a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"].<span>&nbsp;But Aggie writers had been fired for plagiarism in the past (see below), so it had to have been known that being fired was a possible consequence for plagiarism.</span><br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Five days later, 31 members of the Aggie staff submitted ["The California Aggie Controversies/Hamilton letter" a letter] calling for the resignation of Editor in Chief ["Peter Hamilton"] and Campus Editor ["Talia Kennedy"]. The letter alleged that training for the incoming Editor in Chief Eddie Lee had been designed unfairly and illogically, causing him to err in the original plagiarized article. The letter demanded an explanation for unnecessary expenses incurred by Kennedy and Hamilton at a recent awards ceremony. The letter also said that Kennedy and Hamilton had an ongoing relationship that was negatively affecting the newsroom atmosphere, concluding that Hamilton no longer had the Aggie's best interests in mind. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 32: </td> <td> Line 32: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span>Daniel Stone had served as Editor in Chief at the Aggie for just over seven months before he before the other members of the editorial board authored ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone editorial" a letter] expressing their disapproval of Stone's actions. They alleged that Stone secretly altered the wording and meaning of an editorial that had been written about the ["Celeste Rose"] case so that it was less critical of ["Chancellor"] ["Larry Vanderhoef"]. Stone was accused by the board of lying about the incident when confronted. </td> <td> <span>+ ["</span>Daniel Stone<span>"]</span> had served as Editor in Chief at the Aggie for just over seven months before he before the other members of the editorial board authored ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone editorial" a letter] expressing their disapproval of Stone's actions. They alleged that Stone secretly altered the wording and meaning of an editorial that had been written about the ["Celeste Rose"] case so that it was less critical of ["Chancellor"] ["Larry Vanderhoef"]. Stone was accused by the board of lying about the incident when confronted. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-05-28 04:11:12WilliamLewisRevert to version 174 (Beyond a reasonable doubt. I've explained MANY times why it _HAS_ to be her.). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office.<span>&nbsp;It was determined by several long time ["Davis Wiki"] users, including some at the administrative level, that</span> Kennedy created a sockpuppet account, ["Users/AnonAggie"], on the <span>["Davis W</span>iki<span>" wiki]</span> in September<span>&nbsp;2007</span> and accused former Copy Chief ["Kacey Coburn"] of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation. </td> <td> <span>+</span> According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office. Kennedy created a sockpuppet account, ["Users/AnonAggie"], on the <span>w</span>iki in September and accused former Copy Chief ["Kacey Coburn"] of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-05-28 01:48:37PaulAmnuaypayoatattributed ownership of the sockpuppet assertion to resolve conflict <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office. Kennedy created a sockpuppet account, ["Users/AnonAggie"], on the wiki in September and accused former Copy Chief ["Kacey Coburn"] of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation. </td> <td> <span>+</span> According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office.<span>&nbsp;It was determined by several long time ["Davis Wiki"] users, including some at the administrative level, that</span> Kennedy created a sockpuppet account, ["Users/AnonAggie"], on the <span>["Davis Wiki" </span>wiki<span>]</span> in September<span>&nbsp;2007</span> and accused former Copy Chief ["Kacey Coburn"] of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-05-28 01:31:30BrentLaabsRevert to version 172 (Fact proven in e-court by attorney-@-lol). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office. Kenned<span>y allegedl</span>y created a sockpuppet account, ["Users/AnonAggie"], on the wiki in September and accused former Copy Chief ["Kacey Coburn"] of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation. </td> <td> <span>+</span> According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office. Kennedy created a sockpuppet account, ["Users/AnonAggie"], on the wiki in September and accused former Copy Chief ["Kacey Coburn"] of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-05-27 23:36:07JoseBleckman <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office. Kennedy created a sockpuppet account, ["Users/AnonAggie"], on the wiki in September and accused former Copy Chief ["Kacey Coburn"] of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation. </td> <td> <span>+</span> According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office. Kenned<span>y allegedl</span>y created a sockpuppet account, ["Users/AnonAggie"], on the wiki in September and accused former Copy Chief ["Kacey Coburn"] of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-05-27 22:43:37OscarSabinolink fix <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 34: </td> <td> Line 34: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In an ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone reply"]<span>&nbsp;email</span> to the staff (an excerpt of which was published in the paper), Stone admitted to changing the editorial. The following week he submitted his resignation in ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone letter" a letter] also published in the paper. </td> <td> <span>+</span> In an ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone reply"<span>&nbsp;email</span>] to the staff (an excerpt of which was published in the paper), Stone admitted to changing the editorial. The following week he submitted his resignation in ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone letter" a letter] also published in the paper. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-05-27 22:42:28OscarSabinostone revise <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ==February 5, 2006==<br> - - Stemming from the January 31 incident Daniel Stone [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/02/06/Features/A.Note.To.Readers-1600304.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com resigned his position] as Editor In Chief of the Aggie. {{{<br> - Dear readers,<br> - <br> - Over the last eight months, I have had the pleasure of serving as<br> - the editor in chief of The California Aggie. It has been a job that<br> - has brought me much fulfillment and there was hardly a day when I<br> - was not happy to be working for such an esteemed organization.<br> - <br> - In the past week, however, The Aggie has faced challenges because<br> - of my leadership and I know that my presence is now a hindrance to<br> - the paper's success. Therefore, I regrettably resign my post as<br> - editor in chief.<br> - <br> - I am leaving the future of the paper to an able and talented staff<br> - and I wish The Aggie success. I hope the readership continues to<br> - find value in our remarkable organization.<br> - <br> - Respectfully,<br> - <br> - Daniel Stone<br> - }}}<br> - <br> - Some time after this, it seems Stone [http://jacketseason.livejournal.com/198322.html removed a co-writers' byline from an article] in order to apply for jobs.<br> - <br> - ==January 31, 2006==<br> - - ["Daniel Stone"] changes the intent and language of an Aggie Editorial after the Aggie Editorial Board had agreed on the final version.<br> - <br> - The following is a letter the Aggie Ed Board collectively wrote about the actions of Stone: {{{<br> - To whom it may concern,<br> - <br> - The editorial board of The California Aggie is writing to express its<br> - disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone’s recent actions, which undermine<br> - and override the body’s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes.<br> - <br> - On Jan. 30, the board reached a consensus regarding the petition circulated to<br> - call a no-confidence vote against Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. After some debate<br> - during the editorial board meeting, the majority of editors agreed that the<br> - chancellor should have taken more responsible actions when reaching his<br> - settlement agreement with ex-vice chancellor Celeste Rose. Stone disagreed with<br> - the board, saying he felt the university as a whole should have operated more<br> - responsibly. However, the decisions of the board are made by consensus and the<br> - rest of the editors held the chancellor primarily responsible. This opinion was<br> - stated clearly in the original version of the editorial.<br> - <br> - After turning in the editorial with our collective opinion, Stone impermissibly<br> - made changes to the file at 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 30 when none of the other editors<br> - were present. This is made evident by examining the time when the file was last<br> - modified (a screenshot is attached to this letter) and also comparing the final<br> - version of the editorial to the unedited versions. Furthermore, an employee<br> - verified that Stone called at 9 p.m. requesting the layout staff to re-place the<br> - editorial on the opinion page — a procedure that is only executed when changes<br> - have been made to a story.<br> - <br> - Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase<br> - “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> - word “greatly” in front of “improved” in the sentence that originally read,<br> - “Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> - leadership,” amplifying the board’s original opinion.<br> - <br> - Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about “burning bridges”<br> - with the chancellor. He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> - angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> - from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> - Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> - overstepping his boundaries.<br> - <br> - When questioned about the changes, Stone feigned concern over the matter and<br> - told Managing Editor Melissa Taddei that he had opened the editorial at 7:30<br> - p.m. without making changes. He also told Taddei that he had concurrently opened<br> - both the aforementioned editorial and the second editorial that ran on the same<br> - day, but by viewing his recent documents (screenshot attached), it is evidential<br> - that he never opened the second editorial. Furthermore, Stone asked other<br> - editors when they left the office on that particular day of production in an<br> - attempt to find other suspects he could pin the accusation on after Taddei had<br> - already informed him that she and he were the last editors in the newsroom that<br> - evening.<br> - <br> - In conclusion, Stone knew his actions were wrong since he attempted to cover<br> - them up with lies; his attempt to trace more suspects exemplifies his<br> - selfishness and manipulative tactics. This misconduct marks a culmination of<br> - concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone’s micromanagement, self-vanity<br> - and, ultimately, his abuse of power.<br> - <br> - The editorial board is formally requesting that Stone run the version of the<br> - editorial on which the members of the editorial board had reached consensus and<br> - accompany it with an apology to his staff and readers for his conduct.<br> - Additionally, if Stone is unwilling to comply, the editorial board will approach<br> - the Campus Media Board to seek his formal punishment with the attached evidence<br> - and complaints.<br> - <br> - Signed,<br> - <br> - Melissa B. Taddei, Managing Editor<br> - Brian Chen, Campus Editor<br> - Vanessa Stumpf, City Editor<br> - Stephanie Hammon, Sports Editor<br> - Rachael R. Bogert, Arts and Entertainment Editor<br> - Peter Hamilton, Science and Technology Editor<br> - Matt Jojola, Photography Editor<br> - Amy Zimmerman, Copy Chief<br> - Jeff Katz, Features Editor<br> - }}}<br> - <br> - And Daniel Stone's rebuttal, an excerpt of which appeared in the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/31/Opinion/Editorial.Chancellors.Actions.Not.Cause.For.Resignation-1545303.shtml February 2, 2006 edition] of the Aggie. In the following form it has not been edited for typos as it was sent to the staff in this version: {{{<br> - <br> - Dear staff members,<br> - <br> - I wanted to inform everyone on a recent series of events within the editorial<br> - board and in the newsroom:<br> - <br> - On Jan. 31, The Aggie published an editorial regarding Chancellor Larry<br> - Vanderhoef and the circulating faculty petition of no confidence. The editorial,<br> - like all published by The Aggie was written and edited to reflect the collective<br> - opinion of The Aggie's editorial board.<br> - <br> - Later in the production process, I mildly altered the editorial to reflect a<br> - personal opinion, without the consent of the rest of the editorial board. The<br> - following day, upon being confronted by the board, I denied the allegations, a<br> - move which I deeply regret and for which I have appologized. Admittedly, it was<br> - a hefty mistake that questions my integrity, character and devotion to this<br> - editorial staff. I now have the difficult staff of rebuilding the trust of many<br> - editorial board and staff members.<br> - <br> - In an attempt to remedy the root problem, the board agreed we would republish<br> - the editorial with my appology on Thursday's editorial page.<br> - <br> - I would like to appologize to the entire staff for my lack of judgement and<br> - leadership in this situation. I work hard to ensure that The Aggie is a<br> - credible, reputable and trusted news source and I hope my momentary lack of<br> - judgement reflects poorly on neither the staff nor the paper.<br> - <br> - If you have further concerns about this situation, please speak to either me or<br> - Melissa in the newsroom.<br> - <br> - Respectfully,<br> - <br> - Daniel Stone<br> - Editor in Chief<br> - The California Aggie<br> - }}}</span> </td> <td> <span>+ ==The Ousting of Daniel Stone==<br> + Daniel Stone had served as Editor in Chief at the Aggie for just over seven months before he before the other members of the editorial board authored ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone editorial" a letter] expressing their disapproval of Stone's actions. They alleged that Stone secretly altered the wording and meaning of an editorial that had been written about the ["Celeste Rose"] case so that it was less critical of ["Chancellor"] ["Larry Vanderhoef"]. Stone was accused by the board of lying about the incident when confronted.<br> + <br> + In an ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone reply"] email to the staff (an excerpt of which was published in the paper), Stone admitted to changing the editorial. The following week he submitted his resignation in ["The California Aggie Controversies/Stone letter" a letter] also published in the paper.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2008-05-24 16:19:39OscarSabinoI think this format is much more effective <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 2: </td> <td> Line 2: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- On a long enough timeline, every newspaper is dogged by a controversy or scandal. ["The California Aggie"] is no exception. While many of its past scandals are wikified, there isn't a page which collates the scandals under one heading. This page is here for organization and informative purposes.<br> - <br> - <br> - = Timeline =<br> - <br> - == September 5, 2007 ==<br> - Posing as ["Users/AnonAggie"], ["Talia Kennedy"] left inflammatory remarks regarding the 2006-2007 copy chief ["Kacey Coburn"], in this effort she made accusations that Ms. Coburn had asked for her and ["Peter Hamilton"]'s resignation with the ''sole'' motivation being an unrequited romantic desire for the latter. Though this is hardly a likely story, it still remains yet another dramatic controversy in the history of the California Aggie.<br> - <br> - == July 1, 2007 ==<br> - At the close of the 2006-2007 school year, The Aggie faced another consecutive year of deficit, this time $117,566.94. The two Aggie staff members responsible for overseeing The Aggie's finances at the time were business manager Mia Szmuch and advertising manager Christina Chin, who was responsible for the newspaper's lack of advertising sales, the paper's sole source of revenue. Nevertheless, incoming editor in chief ["Eddie Lee"] and incoming managing editor Caitlin Kelly-Sneed selected Christina Chin to again serve as advertising manager for the 2007-2008 school year.<br> - <br> - ==May 24, 2007==<br> - While nothing has happened today, many details have emerged. First, it is clear that the ["Campus Media Board" Media Board] put both Peter Hamilton and Talia Kennedy on administrative leave for the remainder of their terms. In response, Hamilton allegedly locked the Aggie staff out of the website (he was drawing pay for both Online Editor and Editor in Chief). Additionally, there are reports that Hamilton changed the lock on his office, preventing access to the rest of the Aggie staff.<br> - <br> - At the current time, the situation seems mostly resolved: Hamilton and Kennedy get to keep their jobs, the rest of the Aggie doesn't have to deal with them, Eddie Lee has been reinstated and is undergoing training to become the next Editor in Chief, $70,000 in cuts were made to next year's budget, and ["Marion Everidge"] has agreed to stay on this summer to help smooth the transition.<br> - <br> - ==May 22, 2007==<br> - Only seven names are on the current editorial board, with Hamilton and Kennedy omitted.<br> - <br> - ==May 17, 2007==<br> - While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion Everidge"], the Managing Editor, was appointed Interim Editor in Chief by the Campus Media Board. Hamilton and Kennedy were placed on administrative leave, but the Aggie staff is sworn to secrecy on the matter. Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk." Rumor has it that Hamilton locked out the Aggie staff from their website as a final "screw you!" to the staff.<br> - <br> - Later the same day, ["Marion Everidge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism, although plagiarizing a press release is reportedly typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"].<br> - <br> - ==May 16, 2007==<br> - <br> - ["Peter Hamilton"] and ["Talia Kennedy"] respond to the demands of the 31 staff members in ["The California Aggie Controversies/Reply to Hamilton letter" an e-mail] sent to the entire staff of The California Aggie.<br> - <br> - ==May 15, 2007==<br> - Thirty-one members of the Aggie staff call for Peter Hamilton's resignation with ["The California Aggie Controversies/Hamilton letter" this] letter. A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by virtually all of the signatories of the Hamilton petition. In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter.<br> - <br> - ==May 10, 2007==<br> - On May 10, 2007, the Aggie published an apology for plagiarism. This is not really out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary was that they noted they had fired Sports Writer ["Eddie Lee"], who had just been selected by the ["Campus Media Board"] to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 school year! So while fired, he will currently still serve as the incoming chief of the Aggie. ["Campus Media Board"] had a secret emergency meeting today, but as yet no members have issued any public statements, and some deny the meeting took place.<br> - <br> - There are several theories about what is happening at the Aggie. While Lee was the only candidate who applied for Editor-in-Chief, some of the editors may have decided to trip him up after they realized they were unlikely to be rehired. Additionally, the offending article was suspiciously removed from the website, as if someone was trying to cover their tracks. ''Articles that have been plagiarized are routinely removed from The Aggie website.''<br> - <br> - It remains unclear at this time who will be running ''The Aggie''. As the newspaper has run up a $120,000 deficit this year, ["Mark Champagne"] has told the Media Board that he may have to take over ''The Aggie''.<br> - <br> - ==April 24, 2006==<br> - - Columnist Anne Clarke is relieved from her position for her April 19th column [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/04/19/Opinion/The-Waiter.Rule-1860937.shtml?norewrite200604251408&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com "The waiter rule."] The column had many similar opinions and statements similar to an April 14th USA Today article [http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-04-14-ceos-waiter-rule_x.htm "CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character."] Hilariously, USA Today's article was [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/business/24rules.html also plagiarized]. The public explanation for why she was terminated was printed on the front page of the April 24th issue, but does not appear to be online.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ In its nearly century-long history, the Aggie has had its share of controversies and scandals. Some of these are catalogued in different places on the wiki (mostly in the pages for individual people), but this page serves to organize them all under one heading for informative purposes.<br> + <br> + ==The Hamilton - Kennedy Affair==<br> + <br> + The Aggie published a correction for plagiarism on May 10, 2007. ["Eddie Lee"], who had just been selected by the ["Campus Media Board"] as the next year's Editor in Chief, was fired from his sports staff writer position for pulling material from a press release without citing it. This is generally not considered egregious, and typically this type of offense only merits a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"].<br> + <br> + Five days later, 31 members of the Aggie staff submitted ["The California Aggie Controversies/Hamilton letter" a letter] calling for the resignation of Editor in Chief ["Peter Hamilton"] and Campus Editor ["Talia Kennedy"]. The letter alleged that training for the incoming Editor in Chief Eddie Lee had been designed unfairly and illogically, causing him to err in the original plagiarized article. The letter demanded an explanation for unneccessary expenses incurred by Kennedy and Hamilton at a recent awards ceremony. The letter also said that Kennedy and Hamilton had an ongoing relationship that was negatively affecting the newsroom atmosphere, concluding that Hamilton no longer had the Aggie's best interests in mind.<br> + <br> + Hamilton and Kennedy responded with ["The California Aggie Controversies/Reply to Hamilton letter" a letter] denying all the accusations and demanding the resignation of all 31 signatories of the first letter.<br> + <br> + The ["Campus Media Board"] decided to put Hamilton and Kennedy on administrative leave for the remainder of the year and appointed Managing Editor ["Marion Everidge"] as interim Editor in Chief. Everidge immediately reinstated Lee as a staff member and allowed him to continue his training to become Editor in Chief for the upcoming school year.<br> + <br> + According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office. Kennedy created a sockpuppet account, ["Users/AnonAggie"], on the wiki in September and accused former Copy Chief ["Kacey Coburn"] of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation.<br> + <br> + The Aggie staff regrouped after the departure of Hamilton and Kennedy and the basement was much less volatile the following year.<br> + <br> + ==Budget Woes==<br> + <br> + Due to poor management and the general downturn in the economic fortunes of the newspaper industry, the Aggie has experienced several years of deficit.<br> + <br> + At the close of the 2006-07 school year, the deficit stood at $117,566.94 (please provide a source for this information). The Aggie's finances are the responsibility of three members of the staff: the Editor in Chief, the Business Manager, and the Advertising Manager. These positions were held by Peter Hamilton, Mia Szmuch, and Christina Chin, respectively.<br> + <br> + Despite the deficit, Christina Chin was again selected as Advertising Manager for the 2007-08 school year by incoming Editor in Chief ["Eddie Lee"] and incoming Managing Editor Caitlin Kelly-Sneed.<br> + <br> + No information is currently available on previous deficit years.<br> + <br> + ==Anne Clarke's Waiter Rule==<br> + Weekly columnist Anne Clarke was relieved from her contract on April 26, 2006 for a column the week before called "The Waiter Rule." The column had many similarities to an April 14 USA Today article [http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-04-14-ceos-waiter-rule_x.htm "CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character."] Hilariously, USA Today's article was [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/business/24rules.html also plagiarized]. The public explanation for why she was terminated was printed on the front page of the April 24th issue, but does not appear to be online.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 32: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> - <span>- </span>Stemming from the<span>&nbsp;</span> January 31 incident Daniel Stone [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/02/06/Features/A.Note.To.Readers-1600304.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com resigned his position] as Editor In Chief of the Aggie. {{{ </td> <td> <span>+ </span>- Stemming from the January 31 incident Daniel Stone [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/02/06/Features/A.Note.To.Readers-1600304.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com resigned his position] as Editor In Chief of the Aggie. {{{ </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-11-01 19:09:04EdWins <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 394: </td> <td> Line 394: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Two days after the edited version ran, Stone had a short blurb about how he had edited it without the others consent, and then they ran the original editorial. --["Ed<span>w</span>inS<span>aada"</span>] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Two days after the edited version ran, Stone had a short blurb about how he had edited it without the others consent, and then they ran the original editorial. --["Ed<span>W</span>in<span>s" E</span>S] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 409: </td> <td> Line 409: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Write an email to the new editor and tell him what you just said - readers deserve to know just a lil more about it. Maybe you'll get something more of what you're looking for Apollo. And Adam, I disagree - "Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university." That's more then a minor change, it changed the intent/point. --["Ed<span>win</span>S<span>aada"</span>] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Write an email to the new editor and tell him what you just said - readers deserve to know just a lil more about it. Maybe you'll get something more of what you're looking for Apollo. And Adam, I disagree - "Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university." That's more then a minor change, it changed the intent/point. --["Ed<span>Wins" E</span>S] </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-10-11 21:53:44PhilipNeustromold controversy fuels up again <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 65: </td> <td> Line 65: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + Some time after this, it seems Stone [http://jacketseason.livejournal.com/198322.html removed a co-writers' byline from an article] in order to apply for jobs.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-10-11 15:49:09DavidPooleRemoving drama, condensation, rarefaction. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Please see the post about ["Kacey Coburn"] the 06-07 copy chief:<br> - <br> - I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"])</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Posing as ["Users/AnonAggie"], ["Talia Kennedy"] left inflammatory remarks regarding the 2006-2007 copy chief ["Kacey Coburn"], in this effort she made accusations that Ms. Coburn had asked for her and ["Peter Hamilton"]'s resignation with the ''sole'' motivation being an unrequited romantic desire for the latter. Though this is hardly a likely story, it still remains yet another dramatic controversy in the history of the California Aggie.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-10-10 12:44:31WilliamLewisWe've been here already. It's her. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"]<span>&nbsp;(allegedly</span>)<span>)</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"]) </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-10-10 10:53:21JoseBleckman <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"]) </td> <td> <span>+</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"]<span>&nbsp;(allegedly</span>)<span>)</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-10-10 00:39:32MaxMikalonisRevert to version 162 (Public Record exists for a Reason, Aggie won't report on itself, come on.). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 7: </td> <td> Line 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ == September 5, 2007 ==<br> + Please see the post about ["Kacey Coburn"] the 06-07 copy chief:<br> + <br> + I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"])</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-10-10 00:37:31PeterNgHearsay. Can't we all just leave the past where it belongs and get along? <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 7: </td> <td> Line 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- == September 5, 2007 ==<br> - Please see the post about ["Kacey Coburn"] the 06-07 copy chief:<br> - <br> - I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"])</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-09-10 02:15:32PhilipNeustromRevert to version 160. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (<span>possibly</span> ["Talia Kennedy"<span>&nbsp;Darth Kennedy</span>]) </td> <td> <span>+</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (<span>aka</span> ["Talia Kennedy"]) </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-09-10 01:37:15JoseBleckman <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (<span>aka</span> ["Talia Kennedy"]) </td> <td> <span>+</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —["Users/AnonAggie"] (<span>possibly</span> ["Talia Kennedy"<span>&nbsp;Darth Kennedy</span>]) </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-09-10 01:30:56SteveOstrowski <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —<span>{</span>"Users/AnonAggie"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"]) </td> <td> <span>+</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —<span>[</span>"Users/AnonAggie"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"]) </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-09-05 21:08:10WilliamLewis(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —AnonAggie </td> <td> <span>+</span> I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —<span>{"Users/</span>AnonAggie<span>"] (aka ["Talia Kennedy"])</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-09-05 11:59:35JamesSchwabComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 444: </td> <td> Line 444: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2007-09-05 11:59:35'' [[nbsp]] If only the Aggie would write about their internal drama, people actually might read the articles. --["Users/JamesSchwab"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-09-05 11:24:28AnonAggieput my info here <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + == September 5, 2007 ==<br> + Please see the post about ["Kacey Coburn"] the 06-07 copy chief:<br> + <br> + I have not posted this before but feel that I have too because it is the right thing to do, but I am apprehensive about it because I think Kacey will retaliate against me or that I will lose my job. But Kacey, you did these things and I cannot be quiet about it anymore. Kacey spoke on multiple occasions last school year about the relationships she had with several staff members at The California Aggie. I recall her talking about how she lost her virginity to David Asen, a former Aggie political columnist. She breifly dated Ben Pulliam, a 06-07 staff writer, which she talked about in front of many peopel in the newsroom, and she also said she had sex with Adam Tanguay, an 06-07 arts writer. I just feel this information should be out there because 1) she spoke about it all the time in The Aggie's newsroom and 2) she also obviously had a crush on Peter Hamilton, and then when it became apparent he didn't like her but liked Talia Kennedy instead, she became angry and retaliated by helping organize the call for their resignations. I'm glad they didn't resign because Kacey is a selfish girl who was motivated by her own jealosy. I must remain anonymous to protect myself from what she did to Peter and Talia. How ironic it is that she asked them to resign for their perceived relationship, yet she was involved in three of her own. —AnonAggie</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-08-24 11:51:45EdWinsRevert to version 154 (info removed.). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 33: </td> <td> Line 33: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> There are several theories about what is happening at the Aggie<span>, but nothing has been confirmed</span>. While Lee was the only candidate who applied for Editor-in-Chief, some of the editors may have decided to trip him up after they realized they were unlikely to be rehired. Additionally, the offending article was suspiciously removed from the website, as if someone was trying to cover their tracks. ''Articles that have been plagiarized are routinely removed from The Aggie website.'' </td> <td> <span>+</span> There are several theories about what is happening at the Aggie. While Lee was the only candidate who applied for Editor-in-Chief, some of the editors may have decided to trip him up after they realized they were unlikely to be rehired. Additionally, the offending article was suspiciously removed from the website, as if someone was trying to cover their tracks. ''Articles that have been plagiarized are routinely removed from The Aggie website.'' </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The Aggie Ed Board collectively confronted Stone about the change.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ The following is a letter the Aggie Ed Board collectively wrote about the actions of Stone: {{{<br> + To whom it may concern,<br> + <br> + The editorial board of The California Aggie is writing to express its<br> + disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone’s recent actions, which undermine<br> + and override the body’s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes.<br> + <br> + On Jan. 30, the board reached a consensus regarding the petition circulated to<br> + call a no-confidence vote against Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. After some debate<br> + during the editorial board meeting, the majority of editors agreed that the<br> + chancellor should have taken more responsible actions when reaching his<br> + settlement agreement with ex-vice chancellor Celeste Rose. Stone disagreed with<br> + the board, saying he felt the university as a whole should have operated more<br> + responsibly. However, the decisions of the board are made by consensus and the<br> + rest of the editors held the chancellor primarily responsible. This opinion was<br> + stated clearly in the original version of the editorial.<br> + <br> + After turning in the editorial with our collective opinion, Stone impermissibly<br> + made changes to the file at 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 30 when none of the other editors<br> + were present. This is made evident by examining the time when the file was last<br> + modified (a screenshot is attached to this letter) and also comparing the final<br> + version of the editorial to the unedited versions. Furthermore, an employee<br> + verified that Stone called at 9 p.m. requesting the layout staff to re-place the<br> + editorial on the opinion page — a procedure that is only executed when changes<br> + have been made to a story.<br> + <br> + Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase<br> + “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> + word “greatly” in front of “improved” in the sentence that originally read,<br> + “Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> + leadership,” amplifying the board’s original opinion.<br> + <br> + Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about “burning bridges”<br> + with the chancellor. He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> + angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> + from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> + Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> + overstepping his boundaries.<br> + <br> + When questioned about the changes, Stone feigned concern over the matter and<br> + told Managing Editor Melissa Taddei that he had opened the editorial at 7:30<br> + p.m. without making changes. He also told Taddei that he had concurrently opened<br> + both the aforementioned editorial and the second editorial that ran on the same<br> + day, but by viewing his recent documents (screenshot attached), it is evidential<br> + that he never opened the second editorial. Furthermore, Stone asked other<br> + editors when they left the office on that particular day of production in an<br> + attempt to find other suspects he could pin the accusation on after Taddei had<br> + already informed him that she and he were the last editors in the newsroom that<br> + evening.<br> + <br> + In conclusion, Stone knew his actions were wrong since he attempted to cover<br> + them up with lies; his attempt to trace more suspects exemplifies his<br> + selfishness and manipulative tactics. This misconduct marks a culmination of<br> + concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone’s micromanagement, self-vanity<br> + and, ultimately, his abuse of power.<br> + <br> + The editorial board is formally requesting that Stone run the version of the<br> + editorial on which the members of the editorial board had reached consensus and<br> + accompany it with an apology to his staff and readers for his conduct.<br> + Additionally, if Stone is unwilling to comply, the editorial board will approach<br> + the Campus Media Board to seek his formal punishment with the attached evidence<br> + and complaints.<br> + <br> + Signed,<br> + <br> + Melissa B. Taddei, Managing Editor<br> + Brian Chen, Campus Editor<br> + Vanessa Stumpf, City Editor<br> + Stephanie Hammon, Sports Editor<br> + Rachael R. Bogert, Arts and Entertainment Editor<br> + Peter Hamilton, Science and Technology Editor<br> + Matt Jojola, Photography Editor<br> + Amy Zimmerman, Copy Chief<br> + Jeff Katz, Features Editor<br> + }}}<br> + <br> + And Daniel Stone's rebuttal, an excerpt of which appeared in the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/31/Opinion/Editorial.Chancellors.Actions.Not.Cause.For.Resignation-1545303.shtml February 2, 2006 edition] of the Aggie. In the following form it has not been edited for typos as it was sent to the staff in this version: {{{<br> + <br> + Dear staff members,<br> + <br> + I wanted to inform everyone on a recent series of events within the editorial<br> + board and in the newsroom:<br> + <br> + On Jan. 31, The Aggie published an editorial regarding Chancellor Larry<br> + Vanderhoef and the circulating faculty petition of no confidence. The editorial,<br> + like all published by The Aggie was written and edited to reflect the collective<br> + opinion of The Aggie's editorial board.<br> + <br> + Later in the production process, I mildly altered the editorial to reflect a<br> + personal opinion, without the consent of the rest of the editorial board. The<br> + following day, upon being confronted by the board, I denied the allegations, a<br> + move which I deeply regret and for which I have appologized. Admittedly, it was<br> + a hefty mistake that questions my integrity, character and devotion to this<br> + editorial staff. I now have the difficult staff of rebuilding the trust of many<br> + editorial board and staff members.<br> + <br> + In an attempt to remedy the root problem, the board agreed we would republish<br> + the editorial with my appology on Thursday's editorial page.<br> + <br> + I would like to appologize to the entire staff for my lack of judgement and<br> + leadership in this situation. I work hard to ensure that The Aggie is a<br> + credible, reputable and trusted news source and I hope my momentary lack of<br> + judgement reflects poorly on neither the staff nor the paper.<br> + <br> + If you have further concerns about this situation, please speak to either me or<br> + Melissa in the newsroom.<br> + <br> + Respectfully,<br> + <br> + Daniel Stone<br> + Editor in Chief<br> + The California Aggie<br> + }}}</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-08-24 11:43:31HakonHope <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 33: </td> <td> Line 33: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> There are several theories about what is happening at the Aggie. While Lee was the only candidate who applied for Editor-in-Chief, some of the editors may have decided to trip him up after they realized they were unlikely to be rehired. Additionally, the offending article was suspiciously removed from the website, as if someone was trying to cover their tracks. ''Articles that have been plagiarized are routinely removed from The Aggie website.'' </td> <td> <span>+</span> There are several theories about what is happening at the Aggie<span>, but nothing has been confirmed</span>. While Lee was the only candidate who applied for Editor-in-Chief, some of the editors may have decided to trip him up after they realized they were unlikely to be rehired. Additionally, the offending article was suspiciously removed from the website, as if someone was trying to cover their tracks. ''Articles that have been plagiarized are routinely removed from The Aggie website.'' </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The following is a letter the Aggie Ed Board collectively wrote about the actions of Stone: {{{<br> - To whom it may concern,<br> - <br> - The editorial board of The California Aggie is writing to express its<br> - disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone’s recent actions, which undermine<br> - and override the body’s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes.<br> - <br> - On Jan. 30, the board reached a consensus regarding the petition circulated to<br> - call a no-confidence vote against Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. After some debate<br> - during the editorial board meeting, the majority of editors agreed that the<br> - chancellor should have taken more responsible actions when reaching his<br> - settlement agreement with ex-vice chancellor Celeste Rose. Stone disagreed with<br> - the board, saying he felt the university as a whole should have operated more<br> - responsibly. However, the decisions of the board are made by consensus and the<br> - rest of the editors held the chancellor primarily responsible. This opinion was<br> - stated clearly in the original version of the editorial.<br> - <br> - After turning in the editorial with our collective opinion, Stone impermissibly<br> - made changes to the file at 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 30 when none of the other editors<br> - were present. This is made evident by examining the time when the file was last<br> - modified (a screenshot is attached to this letter) and also comparing the final<br> - version of the editorial to the unedited versions. Furthermore, an employee<br> - verified that Stone called at 9 p.m. requesting the layout staff to re-place the<br> - editorial on the opinion page — a procedure that is only executed when changes<br> - have been made to a story.<br> - <br> - Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase<br> - “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> - word “greatly” in front of “improved” in the sentence that originally read,<br> - “Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> - leadership,” amplifying the board’s original opinion.<br> - <br> - Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about “burning bridges”<br> - with the chancellor. He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> - angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> - from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> - Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> - overstepping his boundaries.<br> - <br> - When questioned about the changes, Stone feigned concern over the matter and<br> - told Managing Editor Melissa Taddei that he had opened the editorial at 7:30<br> - p.m. without making changes. He also told Taddei that he had concurrently opened<br> - both the aforementioned editorial and the second editorial that ran on the same<br> - day, but by viewing his recent documents (screenshot attached), it is evidential<br> - that he never opened the second editorial. Furthermore, Stone asked other<br> - editors when they left the office on that particular day of production in an<br> - attempt to find other suspects he could pin the accusation on after Taddei had<br> - already informed him that she and he were the last editors in the newsroom that<br> - evening.<br> - <br> - In conclusion, Stone knew his actions were wrong since he attempted to cover<br> - them up with lies; his attempt to trace more suspects exemplifies his<br> - selfishness and manipulative tactics. This misconduct marks a culmination of<br> - concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone’s micromanagement, self-vanity<br> - and, ultimately, his abuse of power.<br> - <br> - The editorial board is formally requesting that Stone run the version of the<br> - editorial on which the members of the editorial board had reached consensus and<br> - accompany it with an apology to his staff and readers for his conduct.<br> - Additionally, if Stone is unwilling to comply, the editorial board will approach<br> - the Campus Media Board to seek his formal punishment with the attached evidence<br> - and complaints.<br> - <br> - Signed,<br> - <br> - Melissa B. Taddei, Managing Editor<br> - Brian Chen, Campus Editor<br> - Vanessa Stumpf, City Editor<br> - Stephanie Hammon, Sports Editor<br> - Rachael R. Bogert, Arts and Entertainment Editor<br> - Peter Hamilton, Science and Technology Editor<br> - Matt Jojola, Photography Editor<br> - Amy Zimmerman, Copy Chief<br> - Jeff Katz, Features Editor<br> - }}}<br> - <br> - And Daniel Stone's rebuttal, an excerpt of which appeared in the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/31/Opinion/Editorial.Chancellors.Actions.Not.Cause.For.Resignation-1545303.shtml February 2, 2006 edition] of the Aggie. In the following form it has not been edited for typos as it was sent to the staff in this version: {{{<br> - <br> - Dear staff members,<br> - <br> - I wanted to inform everyone on a recent series of events within the editorial<br> - board and in the newsroom:<br> - <br> - On Jan. 31, The Aggie published an editorial regarding Chancellor Larry<br> - Vanderhoef and the circulating faculty petition of no confidence. The editorial,<br> - like all published by The Aggie was written and edited to reflect the collective<br> - opinion of The Aggie's editorial board.<br> - <br> - Later in the production process, I mildly altered the editorial to reflect a<br> - personal opinion, without the consent of the rest of the editorial board. The<br> - following day, upon being confronted by the board, I denied the allegations, a<br> - move which I deeply regret and for which I have appologized. Admittedly, it was<br> - a hefty mistake that questions my integrity, character and devotion to this<br> - editorial staff. I now have the difficult staff of rebuilding the trust of many<br> - editorial board and staff members.<br> - <br> - In an attempt to remedy the root problem, the board agreed we would republish<br> - the editorial with my appology on Thursday's editorial page.<br> - <br> - I would like to appologize to the entire staff for my lack of judgement and<br> - leadership in this situation. I work hard to ensure that The Aggie is a<br> - credible, reputable and trusted news source and I hope my momentary lack of<br> - judgement reflects poorly on neither the staff nor the paper.<br> - <br> - If you have further concerns about this situation, please speak to either me or<br> - Melissa in the newsroom.<br> - <br> - Respectfully,<br> - <br> - Daniel Stone<br> - Editor in Chief<br> - The California Aggie<br> - }}}</span> </td> <td> <span>+ The Aggie Ed Board collectively confronted Stone about the change.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-08-15 18:53:39LisaAdamsupdated, added info <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While nothing has happened today, many details have emerged. First, it is clear that the ["Campus Media Board" Media Board] put both Peter Hamilton and Talia Kennedy on administrative leave for the remainder of their terms. In response, Hamilton locked the Aggie staff out of the website (he was drawing pay for both Online Editor and Editor in Chief). <span>&nbsp;</span>Additionally, there are reports that Hamilton changed the lock on his office, preventing access <span>from</span> the rest of the Aggie staff.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> At the current time, the situation seems mostly resolved: Hamilton and Kennedy get to keep their jobs, the rest of the Aggie doesn't have to deal with them, Eddie Lee has been reinstated and is undergoing training to become the next Editor in Chief, $70,000 in cuts were made to next year's budget, and Marion Everidge has agreed to stay on this summer to help smooth the transition. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While nothing has happened today, many details have emerged. First, it is clear that the ["Campus Media Board" Media Board] put both Peter Hamilton and Talia Kennedy on administrative leave for the remainder of their terms. In response, Hamilton <span>allegedly </span>locked the Aggie staff out of the website (he was drawing pay for both Online Editor and Editor in Chief). Additionally, there are reports that Hamilton changed the lock on his office, preventing access <span>to</span> the rest of the Aggie staff.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> At the current time, the situation seems mostly resolved: Hamilton and Kennedy get to keep their jobs, the rest of the Aggie doesn't have to deal with them, Eddie Lee has been reinstated and is undergoing training to become the next Editor in Chief, $70,000 in cuts were made to next year's budget, and <span>["</span>Marion Everidge<span>"]</span> has agreed to stay on this summer to help smooth the transition. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion Everidge"], the Managing Editor, <span>has taken on the role of</span> Interim Editor in Chief. <span>There is no word as to whether this was a decision made</span> b<span>y Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board</span>.<span>&nbsp;It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter. </span> Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk." Rumor has it that Hamilton locked out the Aggie staff from their website as a final "screw you!" to the staff.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Later the same day, ["Marion Everidge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism, although plagiarizing a press release is typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion Everidge"], the Managing Editor, <span>was appointed</span> Interim Editor in Chief<span>&nbsp;by the Campus Media Board</span>. <span>Hamilton and Kennedy were placed on administrative leave,</span> b<span>ut the Aggie staff is sworn to secrecy on the matter</span>. Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk." Rumor has it that Hamilton locked out the Aggie staff from their website as a final "screw you!" to the staff.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Later the same day, ["Marion Everidge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism, although plagiarizing a press release is <span>reportedly </span>typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On May 10, 2007, the Aggie published an apology for plagiarism. This is not really out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary was that they noted they had fired Sports Writer ["Eddie Lee"], who had just been <span>hired</span> to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 school year! So while fired, he will currently still serve as the chief of the Aggie. ["Campus Media Board"] had a secret emergency meeting today, but as yet no members have issued any public statements, and some deny the meeting took place. </td> <td> <span>+</span> On May 10, 2007, the Aggie published an apology for plagiarism. This is not really out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary was that they noted they had fired Sports Writer ["Eddie Lee"], who had just been <span>selected by the ["Campus Media Board"]</span> to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 school year! So while fired, he will currently still serve as the <span>incoming </span>chief of the Aggie. ["Campus Media Board"] had a secret emergency meeting today, but as yet no members have issued any public statements, and some deny the meeting took place. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-08-15 18:45:25LisaAdamsadded info <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - At the end of FY2006-07, The California Aggie had run a deficit of $117,566.94.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ At the close of the 2006-2007 school year, The Aggie faced another consecutive year of deficit, this time $117,566.94. The two Aggie staff members responsible for overseeing The Aggie's finances at the time were business manager Mia Szmuch and advertising manager Christina Chin, who was responsible for the newspaper's lack of advertising sales, the paper's sole source of revenue. Nevertheless, incoming editor in chief ["Eddie Lee"] and incoming managing editor Caitlin Kelly-Sneed selected Christina Chin to again serve as advertising manager for the 2007-2008 school year.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-07-16 11:40:15PaulHarmsCorrection: 17,500 of deficit went to reserves, does not count towards total <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> At the end of FY2006-07, The California Aggie had run a deficit of $1<span>3</span>1,<span>0</span>64.<span>34.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> At the end of FY2006-07, The California Aggie had run a deficit of $11<span>7</span>,<span>5</span>6<span>6.9</span>4. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-07-12 01:11:15AlexQuanComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 438: </td> <td> Line 438: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2007-07-12 01:11:15'' [[nbsp]] During Spring 2007, The Cal Aggie discontinued publications of the Campus Judicial Reports after an abrupt notice made of such fact to the Campus Judicial Board. I would add that to the list of Controversies but I do not have an exact date of the event. --["Users/AlexQuan"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-07-09 17:10:45BrentLaabsmore accurate loss figure (more encumberance resolved) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> At the end of FY2006-07, The California Aggie had run a deficit of $11<span>2</span>,<span>171</span>.<span>96</span>. </td> <td> <span>+</span> At the end of FY2006-07, The California Aggie had run a deficit of $1<span>3</span>1,<span>064</span>.<span>34</span>. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-07-05 17:46:31GarrettGallegos <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 437: </td> <td> Line 437: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Haha, Of course you do. --["Users/UncleBob"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-07-05 17:28:09BrentLaabssmall update <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + == July 1, 2007 ==<br> + <br> + At the end of FY2006-07, The California Aggie had run a deficit of $112,171.96.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-07-05 17:25:37BrentLaabsreply <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 432: </td> <td> Line 432: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Technically, it's the Media Board's job to do cost control and not the ASUCD Senate, despite the fact that it's an ASUCD unit. It's something we call freedom of the press. I also believe that the Crossword is more popular than Sudoku. --["Users/BrentLaabs"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-07-05 15:13:07UncleBobComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 430: </td> <td> Line 430: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2007-07-05 15:13:07'' [[nbsp]] The California Aggie is a great example of the lack of ASUCD Cost Control and checks and balances and ever-growing money-wasting bureaucracy at UC Davis. While many of these people spend their time hanging out on Facebook, leaving the actual work to just a few, various wrong facts and other mis-information is flagrantly published on a regular basis. The recent drama with the editor and what not was ridiculously lame and a horrible waste of student's fees. The only reason most people even pick up a copy of the Aggie is for SODUKU anyways. --["Users/UncleBob"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-06-04 21:39:05WilliamLewisRevert to version 143 (Link to public page was appropriate.You wouldn't link to your fb/myspace profile). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 16: </td> <td> Line 16: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["MarionEveridge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter. Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk." Rumor has it that Hamilton locked out the Aggie staff from their website as a final "screw you!" to the staff.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Later the same day, ["MarionEveridge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism, although plagiarizing a press release is typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion<span>&nbsp;</span>Everidge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter. Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk." Rumor has it that Hamilton locked out the Aggie staff from their website as a final "screw you!" to the staff.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Later the same day, ["Marion<span>&nbsp;</span>Everidge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism, although plagiarizing a press release is typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-06-04 21:13:01MarionEveridge <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 16: </td> <td> Line 16: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion<span>&nbsp;</span>Everidge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter. Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk." Rumor has it that Hamilton locked out the Aggie staff from their website as a final "screw you!" to the staff.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Later the same day, ["Marion<span>&nbsp;</span>Everidge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism, although plagiarizing a press release is typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["MarionEveridge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter. Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk." Rumor has it that Hamilton locked out the Aggie staff from their website as a final "screw you!" to the staff.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Later the same day, ["MarionEveridge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism, although plagiarizing a press release is typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-24 12:35:21BrentLaabsi feel like it's time for another update <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ==May 24, 2007==<br> + While nothing has happened today, many details have emerged. First, it is clear that the ["Campus Media Board" Media Board] put both Peter Hamilton and Talia Kennedy on administrative leave for the remainder of their terms. In response, Hamilton locked the Aggie staff out of the website (he was drawing pay for both Online Editor and Editor in Chief). Additionally, there are reports that Hamilton changed the lock on his office, preventing access from the rest of the Aggie staff.<br> + <br> + At the current time, the situation seems mostly resolved: Hamilton and Kennedy get to keep their jobs, the rest of the Aggie doesn't have to deal with them, Eddie Lee has been reinstated and is undergoing training to become the next Editor in Chief, $70,000 in cuts were made to next year's budget, and Marion Everidge has agreed to stay on this summer to help smooth the transition.<br> + <br> + ==May 22, 2007==<br> + Only seven names are on the current editorial board, with Hamilton and Kennedy omitted.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-21 14:04:36DavidPoole(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 319: </td> <td> Line 319: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ==<span>The week of </span>May 2nd, 2005== </td> <td> <span>+</span> ==May 2nd, 2005== </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-21 14:04:10DavidPooleTruth is often better <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 330: </td> <td> Line 330: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ==2003<span>?</span>==<br> <span>- -</span> Conservative columnist ["Igor Birman"] successfully sues ["The California Aggie"] after being fired for "being too controversial"<br> <span>-</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ==<span>March 7, </span>2003==<br> <span>+</span> Conservative columnist ["Igor Birman"] successfully sues ["The California Aggie"] after being fired for "being too controversial"<br> <span>+</span> <span>&nbsp;Source: [http://collegefreedom.org/03.htm]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-21 13:33:40WilliamLewisrumors are fun. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion Everidge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter. Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk." </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion Everidge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter. Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk."<span>&nbsp;Rumor has it that Hamilton locked out the Aggie staff from their website as a final "screw you!" to the staff.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-19 01:47:32BrentLaabsadded factual information <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion Everidge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion Everidge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;Likewise, members of the Media Board had stated "our lawyers have instructed us not to talk."</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-19 01:16:22WilliamLewis+ some somewhat informed speculation <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion Everidge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion Everidge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board.<span>&nbsp;It's likely that Hamilton and Kennedy are history at this point, but the Aggie staff are sworn to secrecy on the matter.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-19 01:03:11KateWaterman(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Later the same day, ["Marion Everidge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism, although plag<span>aris</span>ing a press release is typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Later the same day, ["Marion Everidge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism, although plag<span>iariz</span>ing a press release is typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-18 14:37:33BrentLaabsPOVing it up! <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Later the same day, ["Marion Everidge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Later the same day, ["Marion Everidge"] reinstated ["Eddie Lee"], the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism<span>, although plagarising a press release is typically something that only mandates a warning in major newspapers such as ["The Sacramento Bee"]</span>. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-18 14:16:45TravisBrownadding links <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["MarionEveridge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Later the same day, ["MarionEveridge"] reinstated Eddie Lee, the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, ["Marion<span>&nbsp;</span>Everidge"], the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Later the same day, ["Marion<span>&nbsp;</span>Everidge"] reinstated <span>["</span>Eddie Lee<span>"]</span>, the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 20: </td> <td> Line 20: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On May 10, 2007, the Aggie published an apology for plagiarism. This is not really out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary was that they noted they had fired Sports Writer <span>'''</span>Eddie Lee<span>'''</span>, who had just been hired to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 school year! So while fired, he will currently still serve as the chief of the Aggie. ["Campus Media Board"] had a secret emergency meeting today, but as yet no members have issued any public statements, and some deny the meeting took place. </td> <td> <span>+</span> On May 10, 2007, the Aggie published an apology for plagiarism. This is not really out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary was that they noted they had fired Sports Writer <span>["</span>Eddie Lee<span>"]</span>, who had just been hired to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 school year! So while fired, he will currently still serve as the chief of the Aggie. ["Campus Media Board"] had a secret emergency meeting today, but as yet no members have issued any public statements, and some deny the meeting took place. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-18 13:51:10TravisBrownAdding factual information <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion<span>&nbsp;</span>Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, <span>["</span>MarionEveridge<span>"]</span>, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board.<span><br> + <br> + Later the same day, ["MarionEveridge"] reinstated Eddie Lee, the senior staff writer who had been terminated for plagiarism earlier in the week, to resume his training to become editor in chief of The Aggie for the 2007-2008 school year. This is the first time a writer has been allowed to continue working for The Aggie after committing plagiarism.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-18 13:44:15TravisBrownRevert to version 131 (Information about Marion Everidge relevant to controversy). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ==May 17, 2007==<br> + While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-18 13:17:12MarionEveridge <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - ==May 17, 2007==<br> - While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or a decision made by the Editorial Board.</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-17 22:19:26WilliamLewisThis was an internal decision. Beyond that, I don't know what happened. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a <span>["Media Board"] decision or a </span>decision made by Hamilton or the Editorial Board. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a decision made by Hamilton or <span>a decision made by </span>the Editorial Board. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-17 17:59:28JabberWokkyRevert to version 128 (Vandalism). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a ["Media Board"] decision or a decision made by Hamilton or the Editorial Board.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;However, membership in the "Peter Hamilton is a Douche" club has quadrupled in the past 24 hours.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a ["Media Board"] decision or a decision made by Hamilton or the Editorial Board. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-17 17:45:57tripod <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a ["Media Board"] decision or a decision made by Hamilton or the Editorial Board. </td> <td> <span>+</span> While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a ["Media Board"] decision or a decision made by Hamilton or the Editorial Board.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;However, membership in the "Peter Hamilton is a Douche" club has quadrupled in the past 24 hours.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-17 17:07:09BrentLaabsupdate, interim editor in chief <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ==May 17, 2007==<br> + While it appears that none of ''The California Aggie'' staff resigned by 5PM, Marion Everidge, the Managing Editor, has taken on the role of Interim Editor in Chief. There is no word as to whether this was a ["Media Board"] decision or a decision made by Hamilton or the Editorial Board.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-17 06:52:13PeterNg <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 416: </td> <td> Line 416: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> -- Former Editor in Chief Matt Jojola in his column "Good night and good luck." Printed May 17, 2006. --["<span>Users/</span>PeterNg"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> -- Former Editor in Chief Matt Jojola in his column "Good night and good luck." Printed May 17, 2006. --["Peter<span>&nbsp;</span>Ng"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-17 06:50:41PeterNgComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 411: </td> <td> Line 411: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2007-05-17 06:50:41'' [[nbsp]] I was browsing The Aggie's archives and came across something interesting printed exactly one year ago.<br> + <br> + "Alas, The Aggie is now in the hands of Peter Hamilton. I am incredibly better-looking than he is, yet he's stealing her away from me. Let's hope when he's writing this column next year, he'll have the same great memories and will have just as hard of a time letting go."<br> + <br> + -- Former Editor in Chief Matt Jojola in his column "Good night and good luck." Printed May 17, 2006. --["Users/PeterNg"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 23:37:39WilliamLewissplitting out the reply <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ["Peter Hamilton"] and ["Talia Kennedy"] respond to the demands of the 31 staff members in an e-mail sent to the entire staff of The California Aggie:<br> - <br> - To the staff of The California Aggie,<br> - <br> - Yesterday, a group of Aggie staff members attended a scheduled Campus Media Board meeting in Dutton Hall and presented a letter requesting our resignations as editor in chief and campus editor, respectively.<br> - <br> - While we are open to hearing and discussing the issues these 31 staff members presented, we are incredibly disheartened by the unprofessional manner in which these concerns were addressed.<br> - <br> - There is a very clear method to addressing concerns at The Aggie. If a problem is perceived to involve a desk editor, for example, the concerned party must first address the desk editor. If that method fails, the concerned party must then approach the managing editor, whose job it is to oversee the desk editors and field personnel complaints. If that medium does not adequately satisfy the concerned party, he or she can then address the perceived issue with the editor in chief. Only after all three methods fail may a party file a fair and justified grievance with the Campus Media Board, a body that oversees the selection of The Aggie’s editor in chief each year.<br> - <br> - Unfortunately, the staff members who have asked for our resignations did not follow this clear-cut method of addressing concerns. None of them approached either of us nor did any of them ever approach Marion Everidge, the managing editor, about any of these concerns. This group of staff members instead elected to directly confront and publicly humiliate us — and our institution — at yesterday’s Campus Media Board meeting by dragging internal personal issues into the public.<br> - <br> - Had these staff members chosen to resolve their perceived complaints within The Aggie first, we would have worked to immediately resolve them. Unfortunately, we were never given that opportunity.<br> - <br> - That being said, we remain open to hearing any concerns any staff member may have. If you would like to have an individual, sit-down meeting with either of us or with Marion, please contact us by phone, e-mail or in person so we may arrange a meeting. We would be happy to continue to help any staff member resolve any problems that may arise, but we are unable to do that if we are not made aware of the problems.<br> - <br> - However inappropriate the manner in which the 31 staff members chose to present their perceived complaints, we have heard them and would like to address each of their “demands,” which they ask be met by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007.<br> - <br> - The first “demand” states: “…the desk editor overseeing the section where plagiarism takes place should meet the same fate as the writer accused of committing the act. If you so determine that former Senior Staff Writer Eddie Lee has no place in The Aggie, then you should proceed by asking Campus Editor Talia Kennedy for an immediate resignation.”<br> - <br> - Though desk editors are not responsible for writers’ decisions to commit plagiarism — one of the worst infractions someone who claims to be a writer can commit — Peter Hamilton has gladly met this demand and asked Talia Kennedy for her resignation. She has politely and respectfully refused to give it. She is not responsible for Eddie Lee’s choice to plagiarize.<br> - <br> - Furthermore, Talia Kennedy discussed plagiarism with Eddie Lee when they edited his ill-fated story, and Eddie Lee chose not to inform Talia Kennedy, as is a writer’s duty, that the story was plagiarized. He did, however, admit to plagiarism during a meeting with Peter Hamilton, Marion Everidge and Talia Kennedy, during which time he admirably apologized for the shame his act has brought on The Aggie.<br> - <br> - In their letter, the staff members accuse Talia Kennedy and Peter Hamilton of having “ulterior motives” in firing Eddie Lee, stating that “Ms. Kennedy’s most recent interest in ascending to the position of editor in chief for the 2007-2008 production year.” To clarify, Talia Kennedy did not apply for the position of editor in chief nor did she ever express interest in applying for it. Talia Kennedy has been accepted to a top graduate school of journalism, which she will be attending this fall. Those closest to Talia Kennedy are aware of this fact, further proving that those staff members who elected to sign the letter are not in regular contact or discussion with Talia Kennedy.<br> - <br> - The second “demand” outlined in the letter states that the undersigned “can no longer stand behind any format of training [Peter Hamilton] devise[s] for the future staff of editors.” Again, we are happy to meet this “demand.” No formal training will be provided for the incoming 2007-2008 editors, managers and directors.<br> - <br> - The final “demand” involves the expenditure request submitted by Talia Kennedy to The Aggie’s business manager, Mia Szmuch, to be reimbursed for expenses incurred while attending and traveling to and from the 2007 California College Media Association Awards Banquet in San Simeon, Calif. over the weekend of Apr. 28, 2007. We have a few concerns regarding this “demand:” First, Mia Szmuch deplorably chose to share the contents of the confidential expenditure request with the rest of the staff, an action deserving of a reprimand at least and her termination at most. However, because Mia Szmuch has breached the bounds of her job description, we feel forced to discuss the CCMA expenses.<br> - <br> - While every editor was invited to attend the CCMA awards, none but Peter Hamilton and Talia Kennedy chose to; thus, they were the only employees who represented The Aggie at the weekend event. The expenditure request form asks for reimbursement for hotel and travel expenses, no different than expenses for which other editors have requested they be reimbursed.<br> - <br> - However, because the staff members who signed the letter feel the amount requested is exorbitant, Talia Kennedy would be happy to sit down with Mark Champagne, who oversees the approval of expenditure requests, to address the concerns. Because the staff has demanded it, she is willing to pay for a portion of the business trip expenses out of her own pocket, though she acknowledges she is being forced to comply with this unfair and discriminatory demand by the staff members who signed the letter.<br> - <br> - We would like to formally express the level of discomfort we now feel in being at The Aggie with the staff members who elected to sign the letter. To be the victims of such malicious slander as we were at the Media Board meeting is something no one should have to experience.<br> - <br> - Nevertheless, we are committed to completing our 2006-2007 terms as editor in chief and campus editor, respectively. We feel that the issues raised by those who signed the letter are important, but do not warrant calling for our resignations — an extreme request that should only be resorted to when all other avenues of communication and attempts at conflict resolution have been exhausted.<br> - <br> - It is ironic that many of the sentiments of those staff members present at the Media Board meeting stressed ideals of professionalism, while clearly showing they lack any by taking such a course of action. Moreover, if they truly did have the best interests of The Aggie in mind, as they repeatedly stated, they would not have made a mockery of our institution by bringing these internal issues into the public spotlight.<br> - <br> - As stated during the Media Board meeting, we respectfully request the resignation of those staff members who signed or endorse the letter who are unwilling to work with us to resolve any issues. We request they kindly submit their resignations by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007.<br> - <br> - We would like to thank those of you who have expressed your support of and continued faith in us. Again, if any staff member would like to voice concerns, ask questions or suggest recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact us.<br> - <br> - We look forward to hearing from you.<br> - <br> - <br> - Peter Hamilton<br> - Editor in Chief<br> - 530.752.9887<br> - editor@californiaaggie.com<br> - <br> - Talia Kennedy<br> - Campus Editor<br> - 530.752.9891<br> - campus@californiaaggie.com</span> </td> <td> <span>+ ["Peter Hamilton"] and ["Talia Kennedy"] respond to the demands of the 31 staff members in ["The California Aggie Controversies/Reply to Hamilton letter" an e-mail] sent to the entire staff of The California Aggie.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 23:33:13WilliamLewis splitting the letter out. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 67: </td> <td> Line 67: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The staff of the Aggie respond with the following letter:<br> - <br> - Mr. Peter Hamilton:<br> - <br> - Despite the recognition that you are currently slate to continue as editor in chief of ''The California Aggie'' for the next 15 days, you conduct in recent months has led to our overwhelming sentiment of "no confidence" in your leadership. We no longer feel that you are capable of determining the best interests of ''The Aggie'' and its readership. In order for you to respectfully step down from your tenure as editor-in-chief, we believe that it is imperative that you meet the following demands by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007.<br> - <br> - First, the desk editor overseeing the section where plagiarism takes place should meet the same fate as the writer accused of committing the act. If you so determine that former Senior Staff Writer Eddie Lee has no place in ''The Aggie'', then you should proceed by asking Campus Editor Talia Kennedy for an immediate resignation.<br> - <br> - Second, we believe that we can no longer stand behind any format of training you devise for the future staff of editors. Not only was Mr. Lee's training unfair and illogical, but the fashion in which it was designed and implemented has left many on the staff to suspect that ulterior motives were involved -- namely, Ms. Kennedy's most recent interest in ascending to the position of editor in chief for the 2007-2008 production year.<br> - <br> - Third, it is crucial that you address any and all accusation leveled against you and Ms. Kennedy in regard to unnecessary expenses incurred while attending the 2007 California College Media Association awards banquet. Extraneous spending of this nature is an insult to our institution and is tantamount to embezzlement.<br> - <br> - The general atmosphere you have fostered in 25 Lower Freeborn is divisive and unprofessional. In particular, your secretive relationship with Ms. Kennedy, regardless of its nature, has detrimentally affected the comfort level of many staff members in approaching both you and Ms. Kennedy in regard to work-related concerns and grievances. Your behavior would sure not be tolerated in a professional work environment -- an atmosphere you have claimed on numerous occasions to emulate. Your actions have clearly demonstrated that you are no longer interested in considering the collective opinion or the overall well-being of the newspaper. We as a staff feel that the current situation can only be ameliorated by your prompt resignation and adherence to the above demands.<br> - <br> - If you choose to ignore our collective request, we will then have no other recourse but to plead our case to the UC Davis Campus Media Board and recommend termination of your employment as editor in chief of ''The Aggie''.<br> - <br> - As you said in your own words: Let your "actions serve as a lesson to us all, and as a reminder that our integrity is something we must continue to strive to uphold," through every staff, every writer, every editor.<br> - <br> - Sincerely,<br> - Concerned members of ''The California Aggie'' staff<br> - <br> - The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership.<br> - <br> - || Kati Johnson || Office Manager ||<br> - || Elisa Hough || Copy Reader ||<br> - || Henry Dao || Asst. Design Director ||<br> - || Andrew Leonard || Staff Photographer ||<br> - || Jackson Yan || Sports Staff Writer ||<br> - || Jennifer Wolf || Science Writer ||<br> - || Lizeth Cazares || City Writer ||<br> - || Melanie Glover || Arts Editor ||<br> - || Kacey Coburn || Copy Chief ||<br> - || Carmen Lau || Asst. Copy Chief ||<br> - || Geoff Johnson || City Staff Writer ||<br> - || Jayne Wilson || Arts Staff Writer ||<br> - || Teresa Pham || City Writer ||<br> - || Nicole L. Browner || Arts Staff Writer ||<br> - || Timothy Jue || City Staff Writer ||<br> - || Colleen Belcher || Night Editor ||<br> - || Richard Procter || Campus Writer ||<br> - || Michael Steinwand || Science Editor ||<br> - || Patrick McCartney || Campus Writer ||<br> - || Ivan Ilagan || Sports Staff Writer ||<br> - || Maia Bradley || Science Writer ||<br> - || Eric Lin || Photography Editor ||<br> - || Mia Szmuch || Business Manager ||<br> - || Caitlin Kelly-Sneed || Copy Reader ||<br> - || Ongie Chin || Layout Artist ||<br> - || Bo Hee Kim || Campus Staff Writer ||<br> - || Jonas Mari || Layout Artists/Copy Reader/Science Writer/Former Editor ||<br> - || Michael Gehlken || Sports Writer ||<br> - || Adam Loberstein || Sports Writer ||<br> - || Peter Ng || Sports Editor ||<br> - || Leigh Balfour || Layout Artist ||<br> - <br> - A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by virtually all of the signatories of the Hamilton petition. In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Thirty-one members of the Aggie staff call for Peter Hamilton's resignation with ["The California Aggie Controversies/Hamilton letter" this] letter. A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by virtually all of the signatories of the Hamilton petition. In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 23:21:21DavidPoole(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [Peter Hamilton] and [TaliaKennedy] respond to the demands of the 31 staff members in an e-mail sent to the entire staff of The California Aggie: </td> <td> <span>+</span> [<span>"</span>Peter Hamilton<span>"</span>] and [<span>"</span>Talia<span>&nbsp;</span>Kennedy<span>"</span>] respond to the demands of the 31 staff members in an e-mail sent to the entire staff of The California Aggie: </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 23:19:43TaliaKennedyAdded official response. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ==May 16, 2007==<br> + <br> + [Peter Hamilton] and [TaliaKennedy] respond to the demands of the 31 staff members in an e-mail sent to the entire staff of The California Aggie:<br> + <br> + To the staff of The California Aggie,<br> + <br> + Yesterday, a group of Aggie staff members attended a scheduled Campus Media Board meeting in Dutton Hall and presented a letter requesting our resignations as editor in chief and campus editor, respectively.<br> + <br> + While we are open to hearing and discussing the issues these 31 staff members presented, we are incredibly disheartened by the unprofessional manner in which these concerns were addressed.<br> + <br> + There is a very clear method to addressing concerns at The Aggie. If a problem is perceived to involve a desk editor, for example, the concerned party must first address the desk editor. If that method fails, the concerned party must then approach the managing editor, whose job it is to oversee the desk editors and field personnel complaints. If that medium does not adequately satisfy the concerned party, he or she can then address the perceived issue with the editor in chief. Only after all three methods fail may a party file a fair and justified grievance with the Campus Media Board, a body that oversees the selection of The Aggie’s editor in chief each year.<br> + <br> + Unfortunately, the staff members who have asked for our resignations did not follow this clear-cut method of addressing concerns. None of them approached either of us nor did any of them ever approach Marion Everidge, the managing editor, about any of these concerns. This group of staff members instead elected to directly confront and publicly humiliate us — and our institution — at yesterday’s Campus Media Board meeting by dragging internal personal issues into the public.<br> + <br> + Had these staff members chosen to resolve their perceived complaints within The Aggie first, we would have worked to immediately resolve them. Unfortunately, we were never given that opportunity.<br> + <br> + That being said, we remain open to hearing any concerns any staff member may have. If you would like to have an individual, sit-down meeting with either of us or with Marion, please contact us by phone, e-mail or in person so we may arrange a meeting. We would be happy to continue to help any staff member resolve any problems that may arise, but we are unable to do that if we are not made aware of the problems.<br> + <br> + However inappropriate the manner in which the 31 staff members chose to present their perceived complaints, we have heard them and would like to address each of their “demands,” which they ask be met by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007.<br> + <br> + The first “demand” states: “…the desk editor overseeing the section where plagiarism takes place should meet the same fate as the writer accused of committing the act. If you so determine that former Senior Staff Writer Eddie Lee has no place in The Aggie, then you should proceed by asking Campus Editor Talia Kennedy for an immediate resignation.”<br> + <br> + Though desk editors are not responsible for writers’ decisions to commit plagiarism — one of the worst infractions someone who claims to be a writer can commit — Peter Hamilton has gladly met this demand and asked Talia Kennedy for her resignation. She has politely and respectfully refused to give it. She is not responsible for Eddie Lee’s choice to plagiarize.<br> + <br> + Furthermore, Talia Kennedy discussed plagiarism with Eddie Lee when they edited his ill-fated story, and Eddie Lee chose not to inform Talia Kennedy, as is a writer’s duty, that the story was plagiarized. He did, however, admit to plagiarism during a meeting with Peter Hamilton, Marion Everidge and Talia Kennedy, during which time he admirably apologized for the shame his act has brought on The Aggie.<br> + <br> + In their letter, the staff members accuse Talia Kennedy and Peter Hamilton of having “ulterior motives” in firing Eddie Lee, stating that “Ms. Kennedy’s most recent interest in ascending to the position of editor in chief for the 2007-2008 production year.” To clarify, Talia Kennedy did not apply for the position of editor in chief nor did she ever express interest in applying for it. Talia Kennedy has been accepted to a top graduate school of journalism, which she will be attending this fall. Those closest to Talia Kennedy are aware of this fact, further proving that those staff members who elected to sign the letter are not in regular contact or discussion with Talia Kennedy.<br> + <br> + The second “demand” outlined in the letter states that the undersigned “can no longer stand behind any format of training [Peter Hamilton] devise[s] for the future staff of editors.” Again, we are happy to meet this “demand.” No formal training will be provided for the incoming 2007-2008 editors, managers and directors.<br> + <br> + The final “demand” involves the expenditure request submitted by Talia Kennedy to The Aggie’s business manager, Mia Szmuch, to be reimbursed for expenses incurred while attending and traveling to and from the 2007 California College Media Association Awards Banquet in San Simeon, Calif. over the weekend of Apr. 28, 2007. We have a few concerns regarding this “demand:” First, Mia Szmuch deplorably chose to share the contents of the confidential expenditure request with the rest of the staff, an action deserving of a reprimand at least and her termination at most. However, because Mia Szmuch has breached the bounds of her job description, we feel forced to discuss the CCMA expenses.<br> + <br> + While every editor was invited to attend the CCMA awards, none but Peter Hamilton and Talia Kennedy chose to; thus, they were the only employees who represented The Aggie at the weekend event. The expenditure request form asks for reimbursement for hotel and travel expenses, no different than expenses for which other editors have requested they be reimbursed.<br> + <br> + However, because the staff members who signed the letter feel the amount requested is exorbitant, Talia Kennedy would be happy to sit down with Mark Champagne, who oversees the approval of expenditure requests, to address the concerns. Because the staff has demanded it, she is willing to pay for a portion of the business trip expenses out of her own pocket, though she acknowledges she is being forced to comply with this unfair and discriminatory demand by the staff members who signed the letter.<br> + <br> + We would like to formally express the level of discomfort we now feel in being at The Aggie with the staff members who elected to sign the letter. To be the victims of such malicious slander as we were at the Media Board meeting is something no one should have to experience.<br> + <br> + Nevertheless, we are committed to completing our 2006-2007 terms as editor in chief and campus editor, respectively. We feel that the issues raised by those who signed the letter are important, but do not warrant calling for our resignations — an extreme request that should only be resorted to when all other avenues of communication and attempts at conflict resolution have been exhausted.<br> + <br> + It is ironic that many of the sentiments of those staff members present at the Media Board meeting stressed ideals of professionalism, while clearly showing they lack any by taking such a course of action. Moreover, if they truly did have the best interests of The Aggie in mind, as they repeatedly stated, they would not have made a mockery of our institution by bringing these internal issues into the public spotlight.<br> + <br> + As stated during the Media Board meeting, we respectfully request the resignation of those staff members who signed or endorse the letter who are unwilling to work with us to resolve any issues. We request they kindly submit their resignations by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007.<br> + <br> + We would like to thank those of you who have expressed your support of and continued faith in us. Again, if any staff member would like to voice concerns, ask questions or suggest recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact us.<br> + <br> + We look forward to hearing from you.<br> + <br> + <br> + Peter Hamilton<br> + Editor in Chief<br> + 530.752.9887<br> + editor@californiaaggie.com<br> + <br> + Talia Kennedy<br> + Campus Editor<br> + 530.752.9891<br> + campus@californiaaggie.com<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 22:51:09BrentLaabscloser to the truth <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 62: </td> <td> Line 62: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by <span>many</span> of the signatories of the Hamilton petition. In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter. </td> <td> <span>+</span> A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by <span>virtually all</span> of the signatories of the Hamilton petition. In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 22:29:17WilliamLewisFix the error, don't add a conflicting statement. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 28: </td> <td> Line 28: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership.<span>&nbsp;[A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by the same undersigned people.] (Note: The list of signatures for Peter Hamilton is not identical to the list of signatures for Talia Kennedy; not everyone signed both.)</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 62: </td> <td> Line 62: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter. </td> <td> <span>+ A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by many of the signatories of the Hamilton petition.</span> In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 22:26:56KevinZhang <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 28: </td> <td> Line 28: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership. [A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by the same undersigned people.] (Note: The list<span>s of signatures for the two petitions are not the same</span>; not everyone signed both.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership. [A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by the same undersigned people.] (Note: The list<span>&nbsp;of signatures for Peter Hamilton is not identical to the list of signatures for Talia Kennedy</span>; not everyone signed both.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 22:25:06KevinZhang <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 28: </td> <td> Line 28: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership. [A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by the same undersigned people.] (Note: <span>N</span>ot everyone signed both<span>&nbsp;petitions</span>.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership. [A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by the same undersigned people.] (Note: <span>The lists of signatures for the two petitions are not the same; n</span>ot everyone signed both.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 22:18:40KevinZhangAdded note that not everyone signed both petitions. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 28: </td> <td> Line 28: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership. [A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by the same undersigned people.] </td> <td> <span>+</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership. [A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by the same undersigned people.]<span>&nbsp;(Note: Not everyone signed both petitions.)</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 11:24:00CarlaLewisRevert to version 114. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 95: </td> <td> Line 95: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 99: </td> <td> Line 98: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- - The editorial board drafts a letter to the media board, concerned about the change of an editorial by Daniel Stone after the Aggie Editorial Board had agreed on the final version.<br> - </span> </td> <td> <span>+ - ["Daniel Stone"] changes the intent and language of an Aggie Editorial after the Aggie Editorial Board had agreed on the final version.<br> + <br> + The following is a letter the Aggie Ed Board collectively wrote about the actions of Stone: {{{<br> + To whom it may concern,<br> + <br> + The editorial board of The California Aggie is writing to express its<br> + disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone’s recent actions, which undermine<br> + and override the body’s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes.<br> + <br> + On Jan. 30, the board reached a consensus regarding the petition circulated to<br> + call a no-confidence vote against Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. After some debate<br> + during the editorial board meeting, the majority of editors agreed that the<br> + chancellor should have taken more responsible actions when reaching his<br> + settlement agreement with ex-vice chancellor Celeste Rose. Stone disagreed with<br> + the board, saying he felt the university as a whole should have operated more<br> + responsibly. However, the decisions of the board are made by consensus and the<br> + rest of the editors held the chancellor primarily responsible. This opinion was<br> + stated clearly in the original version of the editorial.<br> + <br> + After turning in the editorial with our collective opinion, Stone impermissibly<br> + made changes to the file at 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 30 when none of the other editors<br> + were present. This is made evident by examining the time when the file was last<br> + modified (a screenshot is attached to this letter) and also comparing the final<br> + version of the editorial to the unedited versions. Furthermore, an employee<br> + verified that Stone called at 9 p.m. requesting the layout staff to re-place the<br> + editorial on the opinion page — a procedure that is only executed when changes<br> + have been made to a story.<br> + <br> + Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase<br> + “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> + word “greatly” in front of “improved” in the sentence that originally read,<br> + “Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> + leadership,” amplifying the board’s original opinion.<br> + <br> + Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about “burning bridges”<br> + with the chancellor. He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> + angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> + from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> + Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> + overstepping his boundaries.<br> + <br> + When questioned about the changes, Stone feigned concern over the matter and<br> + told Managing Editor Melissa Taddei that he had opened the editorial at 7:30<br> + p.m. without making changes. He also told Taddei that he had concurrently opened<br> + both the aforementioned editorial and the second editorial that ran on the same<br> + day, but by viewing his recent documents (screenshot attached), it is evidential<br> + that he never opened the second editorial. Furthermore, Stone asked other<br> + editors when they left the office on that particular day of production in an<br> + attempt to find other suspects he could pin the accusation on after Taddei had<br> + already informed him that she and he were the last editors in the newsroom that<br> + evening.<br> + <br> + In conclusion, Stone knew his actions were wrong since he attempted to cover<br> + them up with lies; his attempt to trace more suspects exemplifies his<br> + selfishness and manipulative tactics. This misconduct marks a culmination of<br> + concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone’s micromanagement, self-vanity<br> + and, ultimately, his abuse of power.<br> + <br> + The editorial board is formally requesting that Stone run the version of the<br> + editorial on which the members of the editorial board had reached consensus and<br> + accompany it with an apology to his staff and readers for his conduct.<br> + Additionally, if Stone is unwilling to comply, the editorial board will approach<br> + the Campus Media Board to seek his formal punishment with the attached evidence<br> + and complaints.<br> + <br> + Signed,<br> + <br> + Melissa B. Taddei, Managing Editor<br> + Brian Chen, Campus Editor<br> + Vanessa Stumpf, City Editor<br> + Stephanie Hammon, Sports Editor<br> + Rachael R. Bogert, Arts and Entertainment Editor<br> + Peter Hamilton, Science and Technology Editor<br> + Matt Jojola, Photography Editor<br> + Amy Zimmerman, Copy Chief<br> + Jeff Katz, Features Editor<br> + }}}</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 10:54:11TomHakon <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 95: </td> <td> Line 95: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 98: </td> <td> Line 99: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- - ["Daniel Stone"] changes the intent and language of an Aggie Editorial after the Aggie Editorial Board had agreed on the final version.<br> - <br> - The following is a letter the Aggie Ed Board collectively wrote about the actions of Stone: {{{<br> - To whom it may concern,<br> - <br> - The editorial board of The California Aggie is writing to express its<br> - disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone’s recent actions, which undermine<br> - and override the body’s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes.<br> - <br> - On Jan. 30, the board reached a consensus regarding the petition circulated to<br> - call a no-confidence vote against Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. After some debate<br> - during the editorial board meeting, the majority of editors agreed that the<br> - chancellor should have taken more responsible actions when reaching his<br> - settlement agreement with ex-vice chancellor Celeste Rose. Stone disagreed with<br> - the board, saying he felt the university as a whole should have operated more<br> - responsibly. However, the decisions of the board are made by consensus and the<br> - rest of the editors held the chancellor primarily responsible. This opinion was<br> - stated clearly in the original version of the editorial.<br> - <br> - After turning in the editorial with our collective opinion, Stone impermissibly<br> - made changes to the file at 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 30 when none of the other editors<br> - were present. This is made evident by examining the time when the file was last<br> - modified (a screenshot is attached to this letter) and also comparing the final<br> - version of the editorial to the unedited versions. Furthermore, an employee<br> - verified that Stone called at 9 p.m. requesting the layout staff to re-place the<br> - editorial on the opinion page — a procedure that is only executed when changes<br> - have been made to a story.<br> - <br> - Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase<br> - “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> - word “greatly” in front of “improved” in the sentence that originally read,<br> - “Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> - leadership,” amplifying the board’s original opinion.<br> - <br> - Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about “burning bridges”<br> - with the chancellor. He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> - angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> - from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> - Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> - overstepping his boundaries.<br> - <br> - When questioned about the changes, Stone feigned concern over the matter and<br> - told Managing Editor Melissa Taddei that he had opened the editorial at 7:30<br> - p.m. without making changes. He also told Taddei that he had concurrently opened<br> - both the aforementioned editorial and the second editorial that ran on the same<br> - day, but by viewing his recent documents (screenshot attached), it is evidential<br> - that he never opened the second editorial. Furthermore, Stone asked other<br> - editors when they left the office on that particular day of production in an<br> - attempt to find other suspects he could pin the accusation on after Taddei had<br> - already informed him that she and he were the last editors in the newsroom that<br> - evening.<br> - <br> - In conclusion, Stone knew his actions were wrong since he attempted to cover<br> - them up with lies; his attempt to trace more suspects exemplifies his<br> - selfishness and manipulative tactics. This misconduct marks a culmination of<br> - concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone’s micromanagement, self-vanity<br> - and, ultimately, his abuse of power.<br> - <br> - The editorial board is formally requesting that Stone run the version of the<br> - editorial on which the members of the editorial board had reached consensus and<br> - accompany it with an apology to his staff and readers for his conduct.<br> - Additionally, if Stone is unwilling to comply, the editorial board will approach<br> - the Campus Media Board to seek his formal punishment with the attached evidence<br> - and complaints.<br> - <br> - Signed,<br> - <br> - Melissa B. Taddei, Managing Editor<br> - Brian Chen, Campus Editor<br> - Vanessa Stumpf, City Editor<br> - Stephanie Hammon, Sports Editor<br> - Rachael R. Bogert, Arts and Entertainment Editor<br> - Peter Hamilton, Science and Technology Editor<br> - Matt Jojola, Photography Editor<br> - Amy Zimmerman, Copy Chief<br> - Jeff Katz, Features Editor<br> - }}}</span> </td> <td> <span>+ - The editorial board drafts a letter to the media board, concerned about the change of an editorial by Daniel Stone after the Aggie Editorial Board had agreed on the final version.<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 09:02:30DavidPoole(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 75: </td> <td> Line 75: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> - Stemming from the January 31 incident Daniel Stone [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/02/06/Features/A.Note.To.Readers-1600304.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com resigned his position] as Editor In Chief of the Aggie. {{{ </td> <td> <span>+</span> - Stemming from the January 31 incident Daniel Stone [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/02/06/Features/A.Note.To.Readers-1600304.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com resigned his position] as Editor In Chief of the Aggie. {{{ </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 09:02:06DavidPooleokay the letter was posted here <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- {{{</span> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 63: </td> <td> Line 63: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- }}]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 09:01:28DavidPooleheadings plus table of contents <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ [[tableofcontents(right)]]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 5: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> <span><br> - '''</span>May 15, 2007<span>'''</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> <span>==</span>May 15, 2007<span>==</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ {{{</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 63: </td> <td> Line 63: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> <span>'''</span>May 10, 2007<span>'''</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> <span>}}]</span><br> <span>+</span> <span>==</span>May 10, 2007<span>==</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 71: </td> <td> Line 71: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- '''</span>April 24, 2006<span>'''</span> - Columnist Anne Clarke is relieved from her position for her April 19th column [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/04/19/Opinion/The-Waiter.Rule-1860937.shtml?norewrite200604251408&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com "The waiter rule."] The column had many similar opinions and statements similar to an April 14th USA Today article [http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-04-14-ceos-waiter-rule_x.htm "CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character."] Hilariously, USA Today's article was [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/business/24rules.html also plagiarized]. The public explanation for why she was terminated was printed on the front page of the April 24th issue, but does not appear to be online.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>- '''</span>February 5, 2006<span>'''</span> - Stemming from the January 31 incident Daniel Stone [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/02/06/Features/A.Note.To.Readers-1600304.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com resigned his position] as Editor In Chief of the Aggie. {{{ </td> <td> <span>+ ==</span>April 24, 2006<span>==<br> +</span> - Columnist Anne Clarke is relieved from her position for her April 19th column [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/04/19/Opinion/The-Waiter.Rule-1860937.shtml?norewrite200604251408&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com "The waiter rule."] The column had many similar opinions and statements similar to an April 14th USA Today article [http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-04-14-ceos-waiter-rule_x.htm "CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character."] Hilariously, USA Today's article was [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/business/24rules.html also plagiarized]. The public explanation for why she was terminated was printed on the front page of the April 24th issue, but does not appear to be online.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+ ==</span>February 5, 2006<span>==<br> + </span> - Stemming from the January 31 incident Daniel Stone [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/02/06/Features/A.Note.To.Readers-1600304.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com resigned his position] as Editor In Chief of the Aggie. {{{ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 95: </td> <td> Line 97: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> <span>'''</span>January 31, 2006<span>'''</span> - ["Daniel Stone"] changes the intent and language of an Aggie Editorial after the Aggie Editorial Board had agreed on the final version. </td> <td> <span>+</span> <span>==</span>January 31, 2006<span>==<br> + </span> - ["Daniel Stone"] changes the intent and language of an Aggie Editorial after the Aggie Editorial Board had agreed on the final version. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 211: </td> <td> Line 214: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- '''</span>May 11th, 2005<span>'''</span> - Conservative columnist Ian Watson is [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2005/05/11/Opinion/Editors.Note-1320511.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com released] from ["The California Aggie"] for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Ryan P. Fuller, editor at the time, Watson's article [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/05/10/Features/Maybe.Not.So.Dark-1320485.shtml?norewrite200607290112&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com Maybe not so dark] "bore a striking resemblance to" The Daily Standard columnist Johnathon V. Last's [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp "Case For The Empire"]. </td> <td> <span>+ ==</span>May 11th, 2005<span>==<br> +</span> - Conservative columnist Ian Watson is [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2005/05/11/Opinion/Editors.Note-1320511.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com released] from ["The California Aggie"] for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Ryan P. Fuller, editor at the time, Watson's article [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/05/10/Features/Maybe.Not.So.Dark-1320485.shtml?norewrite200607290112&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com Maybe not so dark] "bore a striking resemblance to" The Daily Standard columnist Johnathon V. Last's [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp "Case For The Empire"]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 360: </td> <td> Line 364: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- '''</span>The week of May 2nd, 2005<span>'''</span> - Responding to accusations from ["R4 Recycling"], former ASUCD President Kalen Galleger, and others suggesting ["The California Aggie"] is ["California Aggie Printing" overprinted], Editor-in-Chief ["Ryan P. Fuller"] issues a statement refusing to recognize any legislation on the issue by the ASUCD. On May 5th, the ASUCD passed a resolution urging on-campus printings to reduce excess waste. </td> <td> <span>+ ==</span>The week of May 2nd, 2005<span>==<br> + </span> - Responding to accusations from ["R4 Recycling"], former ASUCD President Kalen Galleger, and others suggesting ["The California Aggie"] is ["California Aggie Printing" overprinted], Editor-in-Chief ["Ryan P. Fuller"] issues a statement refusing to recognize any legislation on the issue by the ASUCD. On May 5th, the ASUCD passed a resolution urging on-campus printings to reduce excess waste. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 364: </td> <td> Line 369: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- '''</span>Finals Week 2004<span>'''</span> - ["The California Aggie"] ceases its tradition of ["The California Aggie: Spoof edition" spoof editions]. The spoof editions were an Aggie tradition, albeit a controversial one. Most notably in 2002, when it depicted then-ASUCD President ["Tiqula Bledsoe" Tiqula "Black Caesar" Bledsoe] being assassinated by the ASUCD. The 2003 spoof was noticably more mild in content. It was finally killed off in 2004 by Editor-in-Chief Ryan P. Fuller, who [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/06/24/Opinion/In.Memory.Of.Spoof.19722004-1317882.shtml?norewrite200607290121&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com attributes the decision] to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". No word as to whether or not it will return for the 2005-06 season.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>- '''</span>March 10, 2004<span>'''</span> - Features columnist Arturo Garcia, writer of ["Sex and the University"], is [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/03/10/Features/To.The.Readers-1316843.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&amp;MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com released] from ["The California Aggie"] for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Andrew Whelan, editor at the time, Garcia's article ''I wish you knew'' "borrowed without citation the tone and ideas of a piece originally printed in [http://www.dailycollegian.com/ The Massachusetts Daily Collegian] in November 2003, titled ''[http://philhuang.com/reading-shedoesntknow.php What she doesn't know will kill you]''." The Aggie also took Garcia's column off from its webpage so it can not be read later in comparison. ["Daniel Stone"] replaced Garcia's columnist position.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>- '''?</span>2003?<span>'''</span> - Conservative columnist ["Igor Birman"] successfully sues ["The California Aggie"] after being fired for "being too controversial"<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>- '''</span>April 23, 1999<span>'''</span> - "Another Dimentian", a comic strip in ["The California Aggie"], depicts a missile striking the Ethnic Studies program. Many people decry the strip to be racist and in poor taste, including from the Provost and Chancellor. Editor-in-Chief Sara Raley issues a front page apology the following Tuesday. The cartoon is removed from the website and the staff members received diversity training. [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/043099/DL_aggiecartoon.html Detailed here]. </td> <td> <span>+ ==</span>Finals Week 2004<span>==<br> + </span> - ["The California Aggie"] ceases its tradition of ["The California Aggie: Spoof edition" spoof editions]. The spoof editions were an Aggie tradition, albeit a controversial one. Most notably in 2002, when it depicted then-ASUCD President ["Tiqula Bledsoe" Tiqula "Black Caesar" Bledsoe] being assassinated by the ASUCD. The 2003 spoof was noticably more mild in content. It was finally killed off in 2004 by Editor-in-Chief Ryan P. Fuller, who [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/06/24/Opinion/In.Memory.Of.Spoof.19722004-1317882.shtml?norewrite200607290121&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com attributes the decision] to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". No word as to whether or not it will return for the 2005-06 season.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+ ==</span>March 10, 2004<span>==<br> + </span> - Features columnist Arturo Garcia, writer of ["Sex and the University"], is [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/03/10/Features/To.The.Readers-1316843.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&amp;MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com released] from ["The California Aggie"] for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Andrew Whelan, editor at the time, Garcia's article ''I wish you knew'' "borrowed without citation the tone and ideas of a piece originally printed in [http://www.dailycollegian.com/ The Massachusetts Daily Collegian] in November 2003, titled ''[http://philhuang.com/reading-shedoesntknow.php What she doesn't know will kill you]''." The Aggie also took Garcia's column off from its webpage so it can not be read later in comparison. ["Daniel Stone"] replaced Garcia's columnist position.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+ ==</span>2003?<span>==<br> + </span> - Conservative columnist ["Igor Birman"] successfully sues ["The California Aggie"] after being fired for "being too controversial"<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+ ==</span>April 23, 1999<span>==<br> +</span> - "Another Dimentian", a comic strip in ["The California Aggie"], depicts a missile striking the Ethnic Studies program. Many people decry the strip to be racist and in poor taste, including from the Provost and Chancellor. Editor-in-Chief Sara Raley issues a front page apology the following Tuesday. The cartoon is removed from the website and the staff members received diversity training. [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/043099/DL_aggiecartoon.html Detailed here]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 08:58:41DavidPooleComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 450: </td> <td> Line 450: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2007-05-16 08:58:41'' [[nbsp]] I would like to note the irony of the number of errors in the edits to this page by the staff, anyway, that is hardly a controversy or anywhere near sensationalist enough for this page --["Users/DavidPoole"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 08:24:59BrentLaabsnoted that there was a petition for talia kennedy too <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 28: </td> <td> Line 28: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership.<span>&nbsp;[A similar petition regarding Talia Kennedy was endorsed by the same undersigned people.]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 01:31:38TravisGrathwellRevert to version 107 (it should, shouldn't it?). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 62: </td> <td> Line 62: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter.<span>&nbsp;It should go without saying that without the work and knowledge of these 31 crucial staff members, The Aggie would not be able to be printed.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 00:35:35ElisaHoughthe aggie is wack <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 62: </td> <td> Line 62: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter. </td> <td> <span>+</span> In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter.<span>&nbsp;It should go without saying that without the work and knowledge of these 31 crucial staff members, The Aggie would not be able to be printed.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-16 00:32:06ElisaHough(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> || Eli<span>z</span>a Hough || Copy Reader || </td> <td> <span>+</span> || Eli<span>s</span>a Hough || Copy Reader || </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-15 21:50:52MaxMikalonis(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 13: </td> <td> Line 13: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> First, the desk editor overseeing the section where plagiarism takes place should meet the same fat as the writer accused of committing the act. If you so determine that former Senior Staff Writer Eddie Lee has no place in ''The Aggie'', then you should proceed by asking Campus Editor Talia Kennedy for an immediate resignation. </td> <td> <span>+</span> First, the desk editor overseeing the section where plagiarism takes place should meet the same fat<span>e</span> as the writer accused of committing the act. If you so determine that former Senior Staff Writer Eddie Lee has no place in ''The Aggie'', then you should proceed by asking Campus Editor Talia Kennedy for an immediate resignation. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-15 20:21:43AndrewPeake <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 62: </td> <td> Line 62: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ In response Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Hamilton asked for the resignation of all 31 employees who signed the letter.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 101: </td> <td> Line 101: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone<span>’</span>s recent actions, which undermine<br> <span>-</span> and override the body<span>’</span>s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes. </td> <td> <span>+</span> disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone<span>’</span>s recent actions, which undermine<br> <span>+</span> and override the body<span>’</span>s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 120: </td> <td> Line 120: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> editorial on the opinion page <span>—</span> a procedure that is only executed when changes </td> <td> <span>+</span> editorial on the opinion page <span>—</span> a procedure that is only executed when changes </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 124: </td> <td> Line 124: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- “</span>university-wide<span>”</span> to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> <span>-</span> word <span>“greatly” in front of “</span>improved<span>”</span> in the sentence that originally read,<br> <span>- “</span>Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> <span>-</span> leadership,<span>” amplifying the board’</span>s original opinion.<br> <span>- <br> -</span> Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about <span>“burning bridges”</span> </td> <td> <span>+ “</span>university-wide<span>”</span> to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> <span>+</span> word <span>“greatly” in front of “</span>improved<span>”</span> in the sentence that originally read,<br> <span>+ “</span>Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> <span>+</span> leadership,<span>” amplifying the board’</span>s original opinion.<br> <span>+ <br> +</span> Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about <span>“burning bridges”</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 132: </td> <td> Line 132: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> from the chancellor because of The Aggie<span>’</span>s coverage. Our interpretation is that </td> <td> <span>+</span> from the chancellor because of The Aggie<span>’</span>s coverage. Our interpretation is that </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 150: </td> <td> Line 150: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone<span>’</span>s micromanagement, self-vanity </td> <td> <span>+</span> concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone<span>’</span>s micromanagement, self-vanity </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 422: </td> <td> Line 422: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> You asked about Daniel<span>’</span>s relationship with the chancellor and the answer is clear. He never had one that would have lead to a letter of rec. If Daniel was preoccupied with gaining favor with the chancellor, then maybe he wouldn<span>’</span>t have printed articles exposing the scandal in the first place. Also, do you really think that Daniel<span>’</span>s changes in the editorial were substantial enough to impress, or even come to the attention of the chancellor? Clearly, Daniel had a difference in opinion with the editorial board and he inappropriately used his authority to change their expressed opinion <span>–</span> he brought this all on to himself and has lost his job and reputation for it. but weather or not this was done to further his relationship with the chancellor seems like a non-issue --["AdamGerber"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> You asked about Daniel<span>’</span>s relationship with the chancellor and the answer is clear. He never had one that would have lead to a letter of rec. If Daniel was preoccupied with gaining favor with the chancellor, then maybe he wouldn<span>’</span>t have printed articles exposing the scandal in the first place. Also, do you really think that Daniel<span>’</span>s changes in the editorial were substantial enough to impress, or even come to the attention of the chancellor? Clearly, Daniel had a difference in opinion with the editorial board and he inappropriately used his authority to change their expressed opinion <span>–</span> he brought this all on to himself and has lost his job and reputation for it. but weather or not this was done to further his relationship with the chancellor seems like a non-issue --["AdamGerber"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 426: </td> <td> Line 426: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> No, I am not. I believe that they honestly believe that Daniel did all of this to gain favor with the chancellor <span>– and that’</span>s okay because its what they believe and I don<span>’</span>t have enough credibility to counter that. Considering what they think about Daniel, especially after having gone through this whole deal, I personally think that they are more likely to draw that conclusions that further humiliate Daniel than to seriously consider whether he was actually out for a letter of rec. I do not blame the aggie staff for anything. But, if you look at what happened, it just doesn<span>’</span>t fit with your question of whether he was working secretly for the chancellor or something. I was not challenging them, I was responding to you. --["AdamGerber"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Write an email to the new editor and tell him what you just said - readers deserve to know just a lil more about it. Maybe you'll get something more of what you're looking for Apollo. And Adam, I disagree - "Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase <span>“</span>university-wide<span>”</span> to direct blame at the entire university." That's more then a minor change, it changed the intent/point. --["EdwinSaada"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> No, I am not. I believe that they honestly believe that Daniel did all of this to gain favor with the chancellor <span>– and that’</span>s okay because its what they believe and I don<span>’</span>t have enough credibility to counter that. Considering what they think about Daniel, especially after having gone through this whole deal, I personally think that they are more likely to draw that conclusions that further humiliate Daniel than to seriously consider whether he was actually out for a letter of rec. I do not blame the aggie staff for anything. But, if you look at what happened, it just doesn<span>’</span>t fit with your question of whether he was working secretly for the chancellor or something. I was not challenging them, I was responding to you. --["AdamGerber"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Write an email to the new editor and tell him what you just said - readers deserve to know just a lil more about it. Maybe you'll get something more of what you're looking for Apollo. And Adam, I disagree - "Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase <span>“</span>university-wide<span>”</span> to direct blame at the entire university." That's more then a minor change, it changed the intent/point. --["EdwinSaada"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 435: </td> <td> Line 435: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> from the chancellor because of The Aggie<span>’</span>s coverage. Our interpretation is that </td> <td> <span>+</span> from the chancellor because of The Aggie<span>’</span>s coverage. Our interpretation is that </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-15 19:27:28JabberWokky(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 65: </td> <td> Line 65: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On May 10, 2007, the Aggie published an apology for plagiarism. This is not really out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary was that they noted they had fired Sports Writer'''Eddie Lee''', who had just been hired to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 school year! So while fired, he will currently still serve as the chief of the Aggie. ["Campus Media Board"] had a secret emergency meeting today, but as yet no members have issued any public statements, and some deny the meeting took place. </td> <td> <span>+</span> On May 10, 2007, the Aggie published an apology for plagiarism. This is not really out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary was that they noted they had fired Sports Writer<span>&nbsp;</span>'''Eddie Lee''', who had just been hired to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 school year! So while fired, he will currently still serve as the chief of the Aggie. ["Campus Media Board"] had a secret emergency meeting today, but as yet no members have issued any public statements, and some deny the meeting took place. </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-15 19:16:37BrentLaabsRevert to version 101. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- deleted</span> </td> <td> <span>+ On a long enough timeline, every newspaper is dogged by a controversy or scandal. ["The California Aggie"] is no exception. While many of its past scandals are wikified, there isn't a page which collates the scandals under one heading. This page is here for organization and informative purposes.<br> + <br> + <br> + = Timeline =<br> + <br> + '''May 15, 2007'''<br> + The staff of the Aggie respond with the following letter:<br> + <br> + Mr. Peter Hamilton:<br> + <br> + Despite the recognition that you are currently slate to continue as editor in chief of ''The California Aggie'' for the next 15 days, you conduct in recent months has led to our overwhelming sentiment of "no confidence" in your leadership. We no longer feel that you are capable of determining the best interests of ''The Aggie'' and its readership. In order for you to respectfully step down from your tenure as editor-in-chief, we believe that it is imperative that you meet the following demands by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007.<br> + <br> + First, the desk editor overseeing the section where plagiarism takes place should meet the same fat as the writer accused of committing the act. If you so determine that former Senior Staff Writer Eddie Lee has no place in ''The Aggie'', then you should proceed by asking Campus Editor Talia Kennedy for an immediate resignation.<br> + <br> + Second, we believe that we can no longer stand behind any format of training you devise for the future staff of editors. Not only was Mr. Lee's training unfair and illogical, but the fashion in which it was designed and implemented has left many on the staff to suspect that ulterior motives were involved -- namely, Ms. Kennedy's most recent interest in ascending to the position of editor in chief for the 2007-2008 production year.<br> + <br> + Third, it is crucial that you address any and all accusation leveled against you and Ms. Kennedy in regard to unnecessary expenses incurred while attending the 2007 California College Media Association awards banquet. Extraneous spending of this nature is an insult to our institution and is tantamount to embezzlement.<br> + <br> + The general atmosphere you have fostered in 25 Lower Freeborn is divisive and unprofessional. In particular, your secretive relationship with Ms. Kennedy, regardless of its nature, has detrimentally affected the comfort level of many staff members in approaching both you and Ms. Kennedy in regard to work-related concerns and grievances. Your behavior would sure not be tolerated in a professional work environment -- an atmosphere you have claimed on numerous occasions to emulate. Your actions have clearly demonstrated that you are no longer interested in considering the collective opinion or the overall well-being of the newspaper. We as a staff feel that the current situation can only be ameliorated by your prompt resignation and adherence to the above demands.<br> + <br> + If you choose to ignore our collective request, we will then have no other recourse but to plead our case to the UC Davis Campus Media Board and recommend termination of your employment as editor in chief of ''The Aggie''.<br> + <br> + As you said in your own words: Let your "actions serve as a lesson to us all, and as a reminder that our integrity is something we must continue to strive to uphold," through every staff, every writer, every editor.<br> + <br> + Sincerely,<br> + Concerned members of ''The California Aggie'' staff<br> + <br> + The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership.<br> + <br> + || Kati Johnson || Office Manager ||<br> + || Eliza Hough || Copy Reader ||<br> + || Henry Dao || Asst. Design Director ||<br> + || Andrew Leonard || Staff Photographer ||<br> + || Jackson Yan || Sports Staff Writer ||<br> + || Jennifer Wolf || Science Writer ||<br> + || Lizeth Cazares || City Writer ||<br> + || Melanie Glover || Arts Editor ||<br> + || Kacey Coburn || Copy Chief ||<br> + || Carmen Lau || Asst. Copy Chief ||<br> + || Geoff Johnson || City Staff Writer ||<br> + || Jayne Wilson || Arts Staff Writer ||<br> + || Teresa Pham || City Writer ||<br> + || Nicole L. Browner || Arts Staff Writer ||<br> + || Timothy Jue || City Staff Writer ||<br> + || Colleen Belcher || Night Editor ||<br> + || Richard Procter || Campus Writer ||<br> + || Michael Steinwand || Science Editor ||<br> + || Patrick McCartney || Campus Writer ||<br> + || Ivan Ilagan || Sports Staff Writer ||<br> + || Maia Bradley || Science Writer ||<br> + || Eric Lin || Photography Editor ||<br> + || Mia Szmuch || Business Manager ||<br> + || Caitlin Kelly-Sneed || Copy Reader ||<br> + || Ongie Chin || Layout Artist ||<br> + || Bo Hee Kim || Campus Staff Writer ||<br> + || Jonas Mari || Layout Artists/Copy Reader/Science Writer/Former Editor ||<br> + || Michael Gehlken || Sports Writer ||<br> + || Adam Loberstein || Sports Writer ||<br> + || Peter Ng || Sports Editor ||<br> + || Leigh Balfour || Layout Artist ||<br> + <br> + <br> + <br> + '''May 10, 2007'''<br> + On May 10, 2007, the Aggie published an apology for plagiarism. This is not really out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary was that they noted they had fired Sports Writer'''Eddie Lee''', who had just been hired to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 school year! So while fired, he will currently still serve as the chief of the Aggie. ["Campus Media Board"] had a secret emergency meeting today, but as yet no members have issued any public statements, and some deny the meeting took place.<br> + <br> + There are several theories about what is happening at the Aggie. While Lee was the only candidate who applied for Editor-in-Chief, some of the editors may have decided to trip him up after they realized they were unlikely to be rehired. Additionally, the offending article was suspiciously removed from the website, as if someone was trying to cover their tracks. ''Articles that have been plagiarized are routinely removed from The Aggie website.''<br> + <br> + It remains unclear at this time who will be running ''The Aggie''. As the newspaper has run up a $120,000 deficit this year, ["Mark Champagne"] has told the Media Board that he may have to take over ''The Aggie''.<br> + <br> + '''April 24, 2006''' - Columnist Anne Clarke is relieved from her position for her April 19th column [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/04/19/Opinion/The-Waiter.Rule-1860937.shtml?norewrite200604251408&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com "The waiter rule."] The column had many similar opinions and statements similar to an April 14th USA Today article [http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-04-14-ceos-waiter-rule_x.htm "CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character."] Hilariously, USA Today's article was [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/business/24rules.html also plagiarized]. The public explanation for why she was terminated was printed on the front page of the April 24th issue, but does not appear to be online.<br> + <br> + '''February 5, 2006''' - Stemming from the January 31 incident Daniel Stone [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/02/06/Features/A.Note.To.Readers-1600304.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com resigned his position] as Editor In Chief of the Aggie. {{{<br> + Dear readers,<br> + <br> + Over the last eight months, I have had the pleasure of serving as<br> + the editor in chief of The California Aggie. It has been a job that<br> + has brought me much fulfillment and there was hardly a day when I<br> + was not happy to be working for such an esteemed organization.<br> + <br> + In the past week, however, The Aggie has faced challenges because<br> + of my leadership and I know that my presence is now a hindrance to<br> + the paper's success. Therefore, I regrettably resign my post as<br> + editor in chief.<br> + <br> + I am leaving the future of the paper to an able and talented staff<br> + and I wish The Aggie success. I hope the readership continues to<br> + find value in our remarkable organization.<br> + <br> + Respectfully,<br> + <br> + Daniel Stone<br> + }}}<br> + <br> + '''January 31, 2006''' - ["Daniel Stone"] changes the intent and language of an Aggie Editorial after the Aggie Editorial Board had agreed on the final version.<br> + <br> + The following is a letter the Aggie Ed Board collectively wrote about the actions of Stone: {{{<br> + To whom it may concern,<br> + <br> + The editorial board of The California Aggie is writing to express its<br> + disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone’s recent actions, which undermine<br> + and override the body’s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes.<br> + <br> + On Jan. 30, the board reached a consensus regarding the petition circulated to<br> + call a no-confidence vote against Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. After some debate<br> + during the editorial board meeting, the majority of editors agreed that the<br> + chancellor should have taken more responsible actions when reaching his<br> + settlement agreement with ex-vice chancellor Celeste Rose. Stone disagreed with<br> + the board, saying he felt the university as a whole should have operated more<br> + responsibly. However, the decisions of the board are made by consensus and the<br> + rest of the editors held the chancellor primarily responsible. This opinion was<br> + stated clearly in the original version of the editorial.<br> + <br> + After turning in the editorial with our collective opinion, Stone impermissibly<br> + made changes to the file at 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 30 when none of the other editors<br> + were present. This is made evident by examining the time when the file was last<br> + modified (a screenshot is attached to this letter) and also comparing the final<br> + version of the editorial to the unedited versions. Furthermore, an employee<br> + verified that Stone called at 9 p.m. requesting the layout staff to re-place the<br> + editorial on the opinion page — a procedure that is only executed when changes<br> + have been made to a story.<br> + <br> + Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase<br> + “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> + word “greatly” in front of “improved” in the sentence that originally read,<br> + “Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> + leadership,” amplifying the board’s original opinion.<br> + <br> + Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about “burning bridges”<br> + with the chancellor. He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> + angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> + from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> + Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> + overstepping his boundaries.<br> + <br> + When questioned about the changes, Stone feigned concern over the matter and<br> + told Managing Editor Melissa Taddei that he had opened the editorial at 7:30<br> + p.m. without making changes. He also told Taddei that he had concurrently opened<br> + both the aforementioned editorial and the second editorial that ran on the same<br> + day, but by viewing his recent documents (screenshot attached), it is evidential<br> + that he never opened the second editorial. Furthermore, Stone asked other<br> + editors when they left the office on that particular day of production in an<br> + attempt to find other suspects he could pin the accusation on after Taddei had<br> + already informed him that she and he were the last editors in the newsroom that<br> + evening.<br> + <br> + In conclusion, Stone knew his actions were wrong since he attempted to cover<br> + them up with lies; his attempt to trace more suspects exemplifies his<br> + selfishness and manipulative tactics. This misconduct marks a culmination of<br> + concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone’s micromanagement, self-vanity<br> + and, ultimately, his abuse of power.<br> + <br> + The editorial board is formally requesting that Stone run the version of the<br> + editorial on which the members of the editorial board had reached consensus and<br> + accompany it with an apology to his staff and readers for his conduct.<br> + Additionally, if Stone is unwilling to comply, the editorial board will approach<br> + the Campus Media Board to seek his formal punishment with the attached evidence<br> + and complaints.<br> + <br> + Signed,<br> + <br> + Melissa B. Taddei, Managing Editor<br> + Brian Chen, Campus Editor<br> + Vanessa Stumpf, City Editor<br> + Stephanie Hammon, Sports Editor<br> + Rachael R. Bogert, Arts and Entertainment Editor<br> + Peter Hamilton, Science and Technology Editor<br> + Matt Jojola, Photography Editor<br> + Amy Zimmerman, Copy Chief<br> + Jeff Katz, Features Editor<br> + }}}<br> + <br> + And Daniel Stone's rebuttal, an excerpt of which appeared in the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/31/Opinion/Editorial.Chancellors.Actions.Not.Cause.For.Resignation-1545303.shtml February 2, 2006 edition] of the Aggie. In the following form it has not been edited for typos as it was sent to the staff in this version: {{{<br> + <br> + Dear staff members,<br> + <br> + I wanted to inform everyone on a recent series of events within the editorial<br> + board and in the newsroom:<br> + <br> + On Jan. 31, The Aggie published an editorial regarding Chancellor Larry<br> + Vanderhoef and the circulating faculty petition of no confidence. The editorial,<br> + like all published by The Aggie was written and edited to reflect the collective<br> + opinion of The Aggie's editorial board.<br> + <br> + Later in the production process, I mildly altered the editorial to reflect a<br> + personal opinion, without the consent of the rest of the editorial board. The<br> + following day, upon being confronted by the board, I denied the allegations, a<br> + move which I deeply regret and for which I have appologized. Admittedly, it was<br> + a hefty mistake that questions my integrity, character and devotion to this<br> + editorial staff. I now have the difficult staff of rebuilding the trust of many<br> + editorial board and staff members.<br> + <br> + In an attempt to remedy the root problem, the board agreed we would republish<br> + the editorial with my appology on Thursday's editorial page.<br> + <br> + I would like to appologize to the entire staff for my lack of judgement and<br> + leadership in this situation. I work hard to ensure that The Aggie is a<br> + credible, reputable and trusted news source and I hope my momentary lack of<br> + judgement reflects poorly on neither the staff nor the paper.<br> + <br> + If you have further concerns about this situation, please speak to either me or<br> + Melissa in the newsroom.<br> + <br> + Respectfully,<br> + <br> + Daniel Stone<br> + Editor in Chief<br> + The California Aggie<br> + }}}<br> + <br> + '''May 11th, 2005''' - Conservative columnist Ian Watson is [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2005/05/11/Opinion/Editors.Note-1320511.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com released] from ["The California Aggie"] for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Ryan P. Fuller, editor at the time, Watson's article [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/05/10/Features/Maybe.Not.So.Dark-1320485.shtml?norewrite200607290112&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com Maybe not so dark] "bore a striking resemblance to" The Daily Standard columnist Johnathon V. Last's [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp "Case For The Empire"].<br> + <br> + Ryan P. Fuller sent an email to the Aggie staff explaining the termination.<br> + <br> + {{{<br> + Dear staff,<br> + <br> + As some of you may have heard, I had to remove Ian Watson from the staff today. I've<br> + included the editor's note that is running on tomorrow's front page. The similarity<br> + between his column "Maybe not so dark" and Jonathan V. Last's column, "The Case for<br> + the Empire" (May 16, 2002, The Daily Standard) is highly noticable. Several people<br> + have compared the two columns and agree, including The Aggie's attorney, Rochelle<br> + Wilcox. Watson admitted that he read Last's column, but that this is an arugment he<br> + has made several times. He said that he did not deliberately lift anything from the<br> + article.<br> + <br> + I'm including the links for all of you to judge for yourselves.<br> + <br> + http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=3D9029 (Ian Watson's column)<br> + <br> + http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp<br> + (Jonathan Last's column)<br> + <br> + The Aggie has a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism. The best definitition that I can<br> + give for plagiarism is claiming an idea or writing to be originally yours when it is<br> + not. Plagiarism is not just copying something verbatim, but includes emulating the<br> + structure and tone. The best way to avoid plagiarizing is to cite. Attribution is one<br> + key factor that lends credibility to news institutions. I edited Ian's column and I<br> + thought the idea of the empire (referred to as the dark side) was unique, as I had<br> + never heard of it before. He has breached my trust and that of our staff and readers.<br> + Additionally, I will be going back over Watson's work since he started working to see<br> + if there are suspect columns.<br> + <br> + Check with your editors if you are unsure about anything about what constitutes<br> + plagiarism.<br> + <br> + Best,<br> + <br> + Ryan<br> + }}}<br> + <br> + <br> + Ian then defended himself in the following letter:<br> + <br> + {{{<br> + Hello everyone,<br> + <br> + I haven't met most of you, but since Ryan's staff email went out I thought that I had<br> + might as well respond. I'll start with a little background.<br> + <br> + I have been (feel like I am coming clean with a drug addiction here or something) a total<br> + Star Wars nut for years. I have watched the movies more times than I can remember, I<br> + played the card game (think Magic) when I was younger, I have read many of the expanded<br> + universe books, and played countless hours of the video games (the MMORPG included...<br> + obsessively for a stint). This may seem like pointless information, but it is not because<br> + I have made this similar argument many, many times.<br> + <br> + See, I am a person that takes the conservative and often contrary position on many things<br> + just for kicks. Taking the Empire's side is just another example of this. Me and my geeky<br> + friends would ramble on about this constantly because it is a constant point of debate on<br> + the online game Star Wars Galaxies (because players can be both sides... look at the<br> + forums if you don't believe me). I have made this argument many, many times. To further<br> + drive this point home, I read a lot of Objectivist literature (which is probably worse<br> + than being a Star Wars nut), and argue with folks about it constantly. Star Wars is a fun<br> + debating point amongst them (again, look it up if you don't believe me).<br> + <br> + The problem with the "Empire is Good" argument, especially with regards to possible<br> + plagiarism, are as follows: if you stick to the movies (which I did) there is very little<br> + source material to work from, the argument must be made by comparing actual results of<br> + the governmental systems (further numbering down the possible ways to approach the<br> + topic), and you need to do it in a chronological fashion (otherwise it makes very little<br> + sense... you can't put the chicken before the egg).<br> + <br> + Consequently there is very little room for variation if you are making the same argument.<br> + I wanted to write on the topic because I am a "down with the rabble" sort of guy (heh,<br> + should have used that) and the new movie is coming out. The complaints that Ryan had with<br> + the column, and my responses, are as follows.<br> + <br> + 1. Similarity of structure: you have to make the point chronologically, otherwise the<br> + reader will get confused. You also have to dismiss imagery, a key point that Lucas drives<br> + home (constantly... borderline Scarlet Letterish). You can not explain the empire<br> + properly without showing that it is a direct contrast to what was before it; before there<br> + was a republic but chaos and death, after there was an empire that provided peace and<br> + stability. You have to explain the republic, the power behind the republic as being<br> + undemocratic, the change, and what resulted. It was not plagiarism, just the structure<br> + the argument had to follow. Stupid problem for me to get in? Yes. Plagiarism? No.<br> + <br> + 2. The quotations were the same: This results from limited source material. Governmental<br> + structures and their effectiveness are only mentioned a couple of times in the movies. In<br> + order (off the top of my head)... Queen Amadala has one good quote in the first movie,<br> + Senator Palpatine has two rather vague quotes (didn't use his because... well he is an<br> + evil nasty dude and it hurts the argument), Tarkin has a couple of lines early in the<br> + first movie (more on that later), and then... Vader (Anakin had one in the first movie,<br> + but it was the same point that Amadala made). Of course I am going to use the best<br> + possible quote the movie has to offer to support my point, the fact that we use the same<br> + very limited source material doesn't make it plagiarism.<br> + <br> + 3. Similarity of adjectives: the ones that I can see are "meritocracy", "patrol the<br> + skies", "divine right", and "regional governors". The regional governors is a direct<br> + quote from GM Tarkin in Episode IV. Divine right and meritocracy are frequently debating<br> + points amongst objectivist folks... but that patrol the skies /collect taxes part?<br> + Well...<br> + <br> + This is where I admit that I did read that column. About three years ago. Because I talk<br> + about this sort of stuff all the time, and I really liked the column, I must have<br> + internalized it more than I had thought. His column is thrown around all the time on SW<br> + Galaxies forums, and his wording is used frequently. I guess I just picked up his phrases<br> + without thinking about it.<br> + <br> + For that I am sorry, I should have looked up his column again to make sure that the<br> + similarities were not so pronounced (and they are in some parts, I admit that). I should<br> + have picked a topic where the argument could be made from a variety of standpoints, with<br> + only one logical mold for it I put myself into a bad situation. But I want to reiterate<br> + this point: I did not copy his column. I wrote this column in the car and the quotes were<br> + (sad, I know) off the top of my head and later confirmed with the DVD's that I own. I was<br> + stunned when a friend emailed me the DS column, which was shortly followed up by a phone<br> + call from Ryan. I was disappointed that I got fired before I was even allowed to speak in<br> + my own defense, regardless of whether it mattered or not the illusion would have been<br> + nice. The editors probably made the right decision anyway, excuses are just excuses after<br> + all.<br> + <br> + Anyway, what would be the purpose of my plagiarism to begin with? We make little to no<br> + money, I got tons of grief for what I wrote on a daily basis, and I have no intentions of<br> + making this a career (peanut gallery: thank god). I did this for fun, as soon as it was<br> + no longer fun I would have just quit. I wrote on Star Wars because... it was fun and I<br> + know an unhealthy amount about the topic. Again, plagiarism is inexcusable and I<br> + understand the editors reasons for canning me, but I'd at least like this to be seen as a<br> + me getting into a stupid situation rather than stealing someone's work.<br> + <br> + Anyway, it was nice working with you all. And by working with you all I mean thanks<br> + editors and copy folks for changing my might of's to might have's, explaining to me what<br> + a semicolon actually is, offering 4 times to give me additional copies of the Aggie Style<br> + book, and giving me a chance to write. It was fun while it lasted.<br> + <br> + Ryan: Can I get a letter published to respond to my firing? It'll be nice, I swear.<br> + <br> + Ian Watson<br> + Fired California Aggie Columnist<br> + ijwatson@ucdavis.edu<br> + <br> + ps: please don't pick apart the problems with my defense, I know it was stupid, I'm sorry,<br> + let me get fired in peace [[and if this is the second time you got this email, sorry... I<br> + hate Geckomail]]<br> + }}}<br> + <br> + Ian Watson's [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/05/12/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1320546.shtml?norewrite200607290114&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com public reply] was published on May 12, 2005.<br> + <br> + <br> + <br> + '''The week of May 2nd, 2005''' - Responding to accusations from ["R4 Recycling"], former ASUCD President Kalen Galleger, and others suggesting ["The California Aggie"] is ["California Aggie Printing" overprinted], Editor-in-Chief ["Ryan P. Fuller"] issues a statement refusing to recognize any legislation on the issue by the ASUCD. On May 5th, the ASUCD passed a resolution urging on-campus printings to reduce excess waste.<br> + <br> + ["The California Aggie"] recently refered ["Student Judicial Affairs"] to students ["BrentLaabs"] and ["RevChad" Chad Van Schoelandt] for "misappropriating" copies of the newspaper. Laabs and Van Schoelandt were conducting a study on whether or not the Aggie is overprinted. For more information, refer to ["California Aggie Printing"].<br> + <br> + '''Finals Week 2004''' - ["The California Aggie"] ceases its tradition of ["The California Aggie: Spoof edition" spoof editions]. The spoof editions were an Aggie tradition, albeit a controversial one. Most notably in 2002, when it depicted then-ASUCD President ["Tiqula Bledsoe" Tiqula "Black Caesar" Bledsoe] being assassinated by the ASUCD. The 2003 spoof was noticably more mild in content. It was finally killed off in 2004 by Editor-in-Chief Ryan P. Fuller, who [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/06/24/Opinion/In.Memory.Of.Spoof.19722004-1317882.shtml?norewrite200607290121&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com attributes the decision] to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". No word as to whether or not it will return for the 2005-06 season.<br> + <br> + '''March 10, 2004''' - Features columnist Arturo Garcia, writer of ["Sex and the University"], is [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/03/10/Features/To.The.Readers-1316843.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&amp;MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com released] from ["The California Aggie"] for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Andrew Whelan, editor at the time, Garcia's article ''I wish you knew'' "borrowed without citation the tone and ideas of a piece originally printed in [http://www.dailycollegian.com/ The Massachusetts Daily Collegian] in November 2003, titled ''[http://philhuang.com/reading-shedoesntknow.php What she doesn't know will kill you]''." The Aggie also took Garcia's column off from its webpage so it can not be read later in comparison. ["Daniel Stone"] replaced Garcia's columnist position.<br> + <br> + '''?2003?''' - Conservative columnist ["Igor Birman"] successfully sues ["The California Aggie"] after being fired for "being too controversial"<br> + <br> + '''April 23, 1999''' - "Another Dimentian", a comic strip in ["The California Aggie"], depicts a missile striking the Ethnic Studies program. Many people decry the strip to be racist and in poor taste, including from the Provost and Chancellor. Editor-in-Chief Sara Raley issues a front page apology the following Tuesday. The cartoon is removed from the website and the staff members received diversity training. [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/043099/DL_aggiecartoon.html Detailed here].<br> + <br> + Jonah Ptak, the strip's author, felt his strip had been misinterpreted. His argument can be found here. [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/050799/DL_aggiecartoon2.html]<br> + <br> + [[Comments]]<br> + ------<br> + ''2005-05-11 14:05:19'' [[nbsp]] The Aggie didnt cease the tradition of the spoof editions entirely. Ryan Fuller chose not to do one that year due to various reasons, none of which include the "backlash." If it was due to the backlash of the 2002 edition, then the one in 2003 would never have happened. --["MattJojola"]<br> + ''Yeah, I'd say the spoof in 02 was more of a controversy (racist charges) -- not the stopping of spoofs. We should just put that one instead?''<br> + ''Yeah, i'd talk about how Fitz nearly got fired for that specific one and not generalize the entire spoof edition in its entirety.''-["MattJojola"]<br> + ''Fuller's [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/06/24/Opinion/In.Memory.Of.Spoof.19722004-1317882.shtml?norewrite200607290121&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com article] was titled such as to suggest there would be no more Aggie Spoofs. It was unbelievably arrogant of him.'' - ["TravisGrathwell"]<br> + *Well, he did say "No word yet on whether the 2005-2006 editor in chief will bring the spoof back to life." -["GeorgeLewis"]<br> + ''According to that article, his reasons for pulling are due to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". I think that suggests that he wasn't too interested in generating the kind of controversy the spoof edition generally comes with. Unless he offers a more detailed explanation, which he doesn't necessarily owe us, I think the original listing stands'' - ["JesseSingh"]<br> + <br> + '' Ryan Fuller does not make decisions regarding the Aggie for the 2005-2006 school year or for any year beyond this year one for that matter. The incoming editor in chief (in our case...Daniel Stone) will make the decision to go with a spoof or not this June. I don't get the controversy.''-["MattJojola"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2005-05-11 17:47:20'' [[nbsp]] I believe there is controversy because it was stupid to kill the spoof...even for one year. --["GeorgeLewis"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2005-05-11 20:05:25'' [[nbsp]] Well, other than it being a Freedom of Speech issue, it also reflects on the integrity of the paper. Because it generated a modicum of controversy in 2002 (that nobody cares about anymore), it had its balls cut off the next year and was finally put to sleep in '04. Maybe it'll return in '05, who knows? But I think (and others seem to agree) that ending a 33-year old tradition is definitely a controversial decision. --["JesseSingh"]<br> + ''2005-05-11 22:21:30'' [[nbsp]] "The staff members received diversity training" - wtf, does this sound really sinister to anybody else? --["KenjiYamada"]<br> + ''2005-05-12 00:51:02'' [[nbsp]] I purposely emphasized that because I thought that seemed like such a feckless solution to the situation. It's such a corporate thing to do. It reminded me of "The Office". :) --["JesseSingh"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2005-05-12 04:03:54'' [[nbsp]] The "most notable" part of the '02 controversy was NOT the Tiqula Bledsoe depiction. Not by a long shot. If you don't know what I'm talking about... oh well. --["ElvinLee"]<br> + I believe Mr. Lee is referring here to the giant penis that can be seen on one of the scans on ["The California Aggie: Spoof Edition"] - ["TravisGrathwell"]<br> + I wasn't, actually. And the actual status of the information is unclear, so I will leave it at "if you don't know what I'm talking about..." - ["ElvinLee"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2005-05-13 02:22:43'' [[nbsp]] Does anyone know if Watson's "Letter to the Editor" in yesterday's Aggie was edited by him from his very long letter? Or was it edited by the Aggie? I know they reserve the right to make edits for spatial reasons. --["JesseSingh"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2005-06-29 13:35:06'' [[nbsp]] I wrote two letters in, the long one I sent to the staff. I also sent in a 200 word one that was published. --["IanWatson"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-02-03 00:35:52'' [[nbsp]] i think it's time Stone gets his own no-confidence vote --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-02-06 09:28:08'' [[nbsp]] I think they should re-form the Aggie as a Wiki. Then they can revert a few times, everyone gets their say, it dies down and no lasting damage is done. Would save a lot of paper too! --["SteveDavison"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-02-06 22:01:13'' [[nbsp]] OMG I totally called it! --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-02-06 23:00:05'' [[nbsp]] I was going to write a heated letter to the editor, I might now write a mellowed-out one, but on Sunday an Aggie friend told me there would be some news about Daniel Stone Monday. That could've meant only one thing. The real irony of the situation is that if Stone was worried about getting a letter of recommendation, he might have just killed it. --["KarlMogel"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-02-07 00:48:54'' [[nbsp]] Maybe Chancellor Vanderhoef can find him a job --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> + Indeed, Stone may actually be well suited to media types that do not strive for objectivity at all, such as the glowing [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=8621 Dateline] report on the Chancellor's actions ... or Fox news. --["KrisFricke"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-02-13 10:34:13'' [[nbsp]] That letter to the editorial board about Dan Stone was really bitchy. The only mistake he really made was to crumble under the pressure of the other editors. I'm sure it was a mistake, but kind of a minor one. Really, it is the editor-in-chief's ultimate decision on what goes and what doesn't until he's unseated ... and I mean unseated, not told to resign. Plus, what B.S. is it that they wanted the editorial printed since it obviously wasn't a consensus? Whoever wrote that letter was on a bigger power trip than I Dan Stone would have been. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-02-15 08:53:00'' [[nbsp]] So what the hell is going on with this? sorry if i've missed it, but has there been any official explanation from the Aggie about the Stone brouhaha? The only thing I've seen is that Stone resigned because his leadership caused "challenges"...wtf does that mean? Is the letter on the wiki authentic or not? Did Stone really change the editorial to curry favor with the chancellor? If so, how do we know he hasn't "slightly altered" every article about the chancellor, or even just influenced coverage of the chancellor? How do we know if he was on Larry's secret payroll? i think the aggie has to give some explanation to its readers how its chosen leader sold out...this to me, seems far worse than plagiarism --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> + <br> + Two days after the edited version ran, Stone had a short blurb about how he had edited it without the others consent, and then they ran the original editorial. --["EdwinSaada"]<br> + <br> + That's not sufficient explanation. Readers don't know WHY he edited it...isn't that kind of relevant to the situation? If Chancellor Larry had altered personnel contracts to give himself a kickback, and then his official response was that he regrets "slightly altering" the wording of a contract, would the aggie just sit on its hands and be content with that? maybe the aggie should learn to investigate its own house before scrutinizing others'. --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> + <br> + Seriously, no one knows why daniel changed the editorial except for daniel. according to the ed board's letter, they think it was so he could get a letter of recommendation from teh chancellor. I've known and lived with daniel for years and that does not make any sense. daniel never had a chance to get a letter from the chancellor either before or after this editorial fiasco. how could he? i feel like i know daniel very well and i cant even understand why he did it. if you look at the changes though, the changes are only to amplify the editorial board's words, not contradict them so the changes were really very minor. the real problem is that daniel denied it before admiting it. it has to do with his relationship with the ed board more than it has to do with his relationship to the chancellor --["AdamGerber"]<br> + <br> + Stone's alterations merely "amplified" the board's comments? they were only mad enough to fire him because he improved on their editorial without telling them? please. that's why the aggie, and not a former friend and roommate, should be asking the difficult questions. --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> + <br> + You asked about Daniel’s relationship with the chancellor and the answer is clear. He never had one that would have lead to a letter of rec. If Daniel was preoccupied with gaining favor with the chancellor, then maybe he wouldn’t have printed articles exposing the scandal in the first place. Also, do you really think that Daniel’s changes in the editorial were substantial enough to impress, or even come to the attention of the chancellor? Clearly, Daniel had a difference in opinion with the editorial board and he inappropriately used his authority to change their expressed opinion – he brought this all on to himself and has lost his job and reputation for it. but weather or not this was done to further his relationship with the chancellor seems like a non-issue --["AdamGerber"]<br> + <br> + So you're calling the entire current managing staff of the paper a bunch of liars? They quite clearly claim, that several of them were told by Stone himself about the recommendation letter. as much as I think the staff is doing a poor job of investigating this, I'd believe several of them over you...considering your argument is mainly "I never heard about it, so that must not be the case" --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> + <br> + No, I am not. I believe that they honestly believe that Daniel did all of this to gain favor with the chancellor – and that’s okay because its what they believe and I don’t have enough credibility to counter that. Considering what they think about Daniel, especially after having gone through this whole deal, I personally think that they are more likely to draw that conclusions that further humiliate Daniel than to seriously consider whether he was actually out for a letter of rec. I do not blame the aggie staff for anything. But, if you look at what happened, it just doesn’t fit with your question of whether he was working secretly for the chancellor or something. I was not challenging them, I was responding to you. --["AdamGerber"]<br> + <br> + <br> + Write an email to the new editor and tell him what you just said - readers deserve to know just a lil more about it. Maybe you'll get something more of what you're looking for Apollo. And Adam, I disagree - "Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university." That's more then a minor change, it changed the intent/point. --["EdwinSaada"]<br> + ----<br> + <br> + It seems like Adam's focus is not on Daniel's actions but rather his intent. There is no evidence beyond a "he said she said" that Daniel had any personal motivation from the chancellor. the simplest theory is normally true, so i believe he just changed the article because that was an opinion he felt strongly about. Any other suggestion to his motives is just a conspiracy theory unless further evidence is provided. to suggest that the board is a credible source, is like suggesting daniel himself would be a credible source. The board seemed upset which means that they are likely to repeat rumors that are unfounded.<br> + "He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> + angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> + from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> + Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> + overstepping his boundaries."<br> + the fact that no specific dates or sources are given means that this statement has almost no credibility (impossible to verify). without specifics a statement like this is clearly another claim and definatley not evidence of anything.--["MattHh"]<br> + ----<br> + <br> + I can't comment too much on the incident...but I will say that it's a little strange that you call our investigation "poor," seeing as our investigation is what led to his resignation...We can't disclose further details publicly because it's a personnel issue. --["BrianChen"]<br> + <br> + A general principle of journalism is that you should avoid reporting on yourself when possible. --["PhilipNeustrom"]<br> + <br> + ''2006-02-15 21:47:29'' [[nbsp]] I think the general principle for journalists is to not become the story...journalists report on each other all the time, when they screw up. Stone obviously screwed up and became the story. Brian: when news content has been altered, this is no longer a personnel issue...or does the Aggie have a policy of not publically discussing plagiarists and fabricators? didn't the New York Times fully investigate that guy who fabricated stories awhile back? how come that wasn't just a "personnel issue"? So has or hasn't the aggie investigated to see if Stone altered other Larry-related stories? --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> + <br> + ''2006-02-15 22:19:21'' [[nbsp]] We don't publicly discuss our internal affairs because they don't really benefit the student body...We felt that what you've been told is sufficient to understand his resignation. As for stories about the chancellor or changes made to chancellor stories, I can personally assure you that Stone couldn't have done that...because I assign and edit the campus news stories. --["BrianChen"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-02-15 22:56:09'' [[nbsp]] whatever. I think the aggie is a respectable paper, and that's why I expected to give a full account of what actually happened, as would be expected of any organization whose leader did something so wrong that he felt he had to resign, but more importantly, affected the organization's service to the public. I guess the real reason there is no push to give a full account because apparently few of your readers care what gets printed, and the aggie staff is apparently content with that status quo. I think it's believable Stone's love for the chancellor didn't affect anything else...but I guess we just have to take daviswiki's word for that, as opposed to a real questioning of people involved. --["ApolloStumpy"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> The California Aggie Controversieshttp://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies2007-05-15 19:16:08TravisBrownPage deleted (no comment) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- On a long enough timeline, every newspaper is dogged by a controversy or scandal. ["The California Aggie"] is no exception. While many of its past scandals are wikified, there isn't a page which collates the scandals under one heading. This page is here for organization and informative purposes.<br> - <br> - <br> - = Timeline =<br> - <br> - '''May 15, 2007'''<br> - The staff of the Aggie respond with the following letter:<br> - <br> - Mr. Peter Hamilton:<br> - <br> - Despite the recognition that you are currently slate to continue as editor in chief of ''The California Aggie'' for the next 15 days, you conduct in recent months has led to our overwhelming sentiment of "no confidence" in your leadership. We no longer feel that you are capable of determining the best interests of ''The Aggie'' and its readership. In order for you to respectfully step down from your tenure as editor-in-chief, we believe that it is imperative that you meet the following demands by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007.<br> - <br> - First, the desk editor overseeing the section where plagiarism takes place should meet the same fat as the writer accused of committing the act. If you so determine that former Senior Staff Writer Eddie Lee has no place in ''The Aggie'', then you should proceed by asking Campus Editor Talia Kennedy for an immediate resignation.<br> - <br> - Second, we believe that we can no longer stand behind any format of training you devise for the future staff of editors. Not only was Mr. Lee's training unfair and illogical, but the fashion in which it was designed and implemented has left many on the staff to suspect that ulterior motives were involved -- namely, Ms. Kennedy's most recent interest in ascending to the position of editor in chief for the 2007-2008 production year.<br> - <br> - Third, it is crucial that you address any and all accusation leveled against you and Ms. Kennedy in regard to unnecessary expenses incurred while attending the 2007 California College Media Association awards banquet. Extraneous spending of this nature is an insult to our institution and is tantamount to embezzlement.<br> - <br> - The general atmosphere you have fostered in 25 Lower Freeborn is divisive and unprofessional. In particular, your secretive relationship with Ms. Kennedy, regardless of its nature, has detrimentally affected the comfort level of many staff members in approaching both you and Ms. Kennedy in regard to work-related concerns and grievances. Your behavior would sure not be tolerated in a professional work environment -- an atmosphere you have claimed on numerous occasions to emulate. Your actions have clearly demonstrated that you are no longer interested in considering the collective opinion or the overall well-being of the newspaper. We as a staff feel that the current situation can only be ameliorated by your prompt resignation and adherence to the above demands.<br> - <br> - If you choose to ignore our collective request, we will then have no other recourse but to plead our case to the UC Davis Campus Media Board and recommend termination of your employment as editor in chief of ''The Aggie''.<br> - <br> - As you said in your own words: Let your "actions serve as a lesson to us all, and as a reminder that our integrity is something we must continue to strive to uphold," through every staff, every writer, every editor.<br> - <br> - Sincerely,<br> - Concerned members of ''The California Aggie'' staff<br> - <br> - The following people support the call for the resignation of Peter Hamilton by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2007. We believe it is in the best interest of ''The California Aggie'' newspaper and its readers, and we are not comfortable under his leadership.<br> - <br> - || Kati Johnson || Office Manager ||<br> - || Eliza Hough || Copy Reader ||<br> - || Henry Dao || Asst. Design Director ||<br> - || Andrew Leonard || Staff Photographer ||<br> - || Jackson Yan || Sports Staff Writer ||<br> - || Jennifer Wolf || Science Writer ||<br> - || Lizeth Cazares || City Writer ||<br> - || Melanie Glover || Arts Editor ||<br> - || Kacey Coburn || Copy Chief ||<br> - || Carmen Lau || Asst. Copy Chief ||<br> - || Geoff Johnson || City Staff Writer ||<br> - || Jayne Wilson || Arts Staff Writer ||<br> - || Teresa Pham || City Writer ||<br> - || Nicole L. Browner || Arts Staff Writer ||<br> - || Timothy Jue || City Staff Writer ||<br> - || Colleen Belcher || Night Editor ||<br> - || Richard Procter || Campus Writer ||<br> - || Michael Steinwand || Science Editor ||<br> - || Patrick McCartney || Campus Writer ||<br> - || Ivan Ilagan || Sports Staff Writer ||<br> - || Maia Bradley || Science Writer ||<br> - || Eric Lin || Photography Editor ||<br> - || Mia Szmuch || Business Manager ||<br> - || Caitlin Kelly-Sneed || Copy Reader ||<br> - || Ongie Chin || Layout Artist ||<br> - || Bo Hee Kim || Campus Staff Writer ||<br> - || Jonas Mari || Layout Artists/Copy Reader/Science Writer/Former Editor ||<br> - || Michael Gehlken || Sports Writer ||<br> - || Adam Loberstein || Sports Writer ||<br> - || Peter Ng || Sports Editor ||<br> - || Leigh Balfour || Layout Artist ||<br> - <br> - <br> - <br> - '''May 10, 2007'''<br> - On May 10, 2007, the Aggie published an apology for plagiarism. This is not really out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary was that they noted they had fired Sports Writer'''Eddie Lee''', who had just been hired to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 school year! So while fired, he will currently still serve as the chief of the Aggie. ["Campus Media Board"] had a secret emergency meeting today, but as yet no members have issued any public statements, and some deny the meeting took place.<br> - <br> - There are several theories about what is happening at the Aggie. While Lee was the only candidate who applied for Editor-in-Chief, some of the editors may have decided to trip him up after they realized they were unlikely to be rehired. Additionally, the offending article was suspiciously removed from the website, as if someone was trying to cover their tracks. ''Articles that have been plagiarized are routinely removed from The Aggie website.''<br> - <br> - It remains unclear at this time who will be running ''The Aggie''. As the newspaper has run up a $120,000 deficit this year, ["Mark Champagne"] has told the Media Board that he may have to take over ''The Aggie''.<br> - <br> - '''April 24, 2006''' - Columnist Anne Clarke is relieved from her position for her April 19th column [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/04/19/Opinion/The-Waiter.Rule-1860937.shtml?norewrite200604251408&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com "The waiter rule."] The column had many similar opinions and statements similar to an April 14th USA Today article [http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-04-14-ceos-waiter-rule_x.htm "CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character."] Hilariously, USA Today's article was [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/business/24rules.html also plagiarized]. The public explanation for why she was terminated was printed on the front page of the April 24th issue, but does not appear to be online.<br> - <br> - '''February 5, 2006''' - Stemming from the January 31 incident Daniel Stone [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/02/06/Features/A.Note.To.Readers-1600304.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com resigned his position] as Editor In Chief of the Aggie. {{{<br> - Dear readers,<br> - <br> - Over the last eight months, I have had the pleasure of serving as<br> - the editor in chief of The California Aggie. It has been a job that<br> - has brought me much fulfillment and there was hardly a day when I<br> - was not happy to be working for such an esteemed organization.<br> - <br> - In the past week, however, The Aggie has faced challenges because<br> - of my leadership and I know that my presence is now a hindrance to<br> - the paper's success. Therefore, I regrettably resign my post as<br> - editor in chief.<br> - <br> - I am leaving the future of the paper to an able and talented staff<br> - and I wish The Aggie success. I hope the readership continues to<br> - find value in our remarkable organization.<br> - <br> - Respectfully,<br> - <br> - Daniel Stone<br> - }}}<br> - <br> - '''January 31, 2006''' - ["Daniel Stone"] changes the intent and language of an Aggie Editorial after the Aggie Editorial Board had agreed on the final version.<br> - <br> - The following is a letter the Aggie Ed Board collectively wrote about the actions of Stone: {{{<br> - To whom it may concern,<br> - <br> - The editorial board of The California Aggie is writing to express its<br> - disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone’s recent actions, which undermine<br> - and override the body’s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes.<br> - <br> - On Jan. 30, the board reached a consensus regarding the petition circulated to<br> - call a no-confidence vote against Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. After some debate<br> - during the editorial board meeting, the majority of editors agreed that the<br> - chancellor should have taken more responsible actions when reaching his<br> - settlement agreement with ex-vice chancellor Celeste Rose. Stone disagreed with<br> - the board, saying he felt the university as a whole should have operated more<br> - responsibly. However, the decisions of the board are made by consensus and the<br> - rest of the editors held the chancellor primarily responsible. This opinion was<br> - stated clearly in the original version of the editorial.<br> - <br> - After turning in the editorial with our collective opinion, Stone impermissibly<br> - made changes to the file at 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 30 when none of the other editors<br> - were present. This is made evident by examining the time when the file was last<br> - modified (a screenshot is attached to this letter) and also comparing the final<br> - version of the editorial to the unedited versions. Furthermore, an employee<br> - verified that Stone called at 9 p.m. requesting the layout staff to re-place the<br> - editorial on the opinion page — a procedure that is only executed when changes<br> - have been made to a story.<br> - <br> - Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase<br> - “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> - word “greatly” in front of “improved” in the sentence that originally read,<br> - “Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> - leadership,” amplifying the board’s original opinion.<br> - <br> - Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about “burning bridges”<br> - with the chancellor. He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> - angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> - from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> - Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> - overstepping his boundaries.<br> - <br> - When questioned about the changes, Stone feigned concern over the matter and<br> - told Managing Editor Melissa Taddei that he had opened the editorial at 7:30<br> - p.m. without making changes. He also told Taddei that he had concurrently opened<br> - both the aforementioned editorial and the second editorial that ran on the same<br> - day, but by viewing his recent documents (screenshot attached), it is evidential<br> - that he never opened the second editorial. Furthermore, Stone asked other<br> - editors when they left the office on that particular day of production in an<br> - attempt to find other suspects he could pin the accusation on after Taddei had<br> - already informed him that she and he were the last editors in the newsroom that<br> - evening.<br> - <br> - In conclusion, Stone knew his actions were wrong since he attempted to cover<br> - them up with lies; his attempt to trace more suspects exemplifies his<br> - selfishness and manipulative tactics. This misconduct marks a culmination of<br> - concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone’s micromanagement, self-vanity<br> - and, ultimately, his abuse of power.<br> - <br> - The editorial board is formally requesting that Stone run the version of the<br> - editorial on which the members of the editorial board had reached consensus and<br> - accompany it with an apology to his staff and readers for his conduct.<br> - Additionally, if Stone is unwilling to comply, the editorial board will approach<br> - the Campus Media Board to seek his formal punishment with the attached evidence<br> - and complaints.<br> - <br> - Signed,<br> - <br> - Melissa B. Taddei, Managing Editor<br> - Brian Chen, Campus Editor<br> - Vanessa Stumpf, City Editor<br> - Stephanie Hammon, Sports Editor<br> - Rachael R. Bogert, Arts and Entertainment Editor<br> - Peter Hamilton, Science and Technology Editor<br> - Matt Jojola, Photography Editor<br> - Amy Zimmerman, Copy Chief<br> - Jeff Katz, Features Editor<br> - }}}<br> - <br> - And Daniel Stone's rebuttal, an excerpt of which appeared in the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/31/Opinion/Editorial.Chancellors.Actions.Not.Cause.For.Resignation-1545303.shtml February 2, 2006 edition] of the Aggie. In the following form it has not been edited for typos as it was sent to the staff in this version: {{{<br> - <br> - Dear staff members,<br> - <br> - I wanted to inform everyone on a recent series of events within the editorial<br> - board and in the newsroom:<br> - <br> - On Jan. 31, The Aggie published an editorial regarding Chancellor Larry<br> - Vanderhoef and the circulating faculty petition of no confidence. The editorial,<br> - like all published by The Aggie was written and edited to reflect the collective<br> - opinion of The Aggie's editorial board.<br> - <br> - Later in the production process, I mildly altered the editorial to reflect a<br> - personal opinion, without the consent of the rest of the editorial board. The<br> - following day, upon being confronted by the board, I denied the allegations, a<br> - move which I deeply regret and for which I have appologized. Admittedly, it was<br> - a hefty mistake that questions my integrity, character and devotion to this<br> - editorial staff. I now have the difficult staff of rebuilding the trust of many<br> - editorial board and staff members.<br> - <br> - In an attempt to remedy the root problem, the board agreed we would republish<br> - the editorial with my appology on Thursday's editorial page.<br> - <br> - I would like to appologize to the entire staff for my lack of judgement and<br> - leadership in this situation. I work hard to ensure that The Aggie is a<br> - credible, reputable and trusted news source and I hope my momentary lack of<br> - judgement reflects poorly on neither the staff nor the paper.<br> - <br> - If you have further concerns about this situation, please speak to either me or<br> - Melissa in the newsroom.<br> - <br> - Respectfully,<br> - <br> - Daniel Stone<br> - Editor in Chief<br> - The California Aggie<br> - }}}<br> - <br> - '''May 11th, 2005''' - Conservative columnist Ian Watson is [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2005/05/11/Opinion/Editors.Note-1320511.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com released] from ["The California Aggie"] for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Ryan P. Fuller, editor at the time, Watson's article [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/05/10/Features/Maybe.Not.So.Dark-1320485.shtml?norewrite200607290112&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com Maybe not so dark] "bore a striking resemblance to" The Daily Standard columnist Johnathon V. Last's [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp "Case For The Empire"].<br> - <br> - Ryan P. Fuller sent an email to the Aggie staff explaining the termination.<br> - <br> - {{{<br> - Dear staff,<br> - <br> - As some of you may have heard, I had to remove Ian Watson from the staff today. I've<br> - included the editor's note that is running on tomorrow's front page. The similarity<br> - between his column "Maybe not so dark" and Jonathan V. Last's column, "The Case for<br> - the Empire" (May 16, 2002, The Daily Standard) is highly noticable. Several people<br> - have compared the two columns and agree, including The Aggie's attorney, Rochelle<br> - Wilcox. Watson admitted that he read Last's column, but that this is an arugment he<br> - has made several times. He said that he did not deliberately lift anything from the<br> - article.<br> - <br> - I'm including the links for all of you to judge for yourselves.<br> - <br> - http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=3D9029 (Ian Watson's column)<br> - <br> - http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp<br> - (Jonathan Last's column)<br> - <br> - The Aggie has a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism. The best definitition that I can<br> - give for plagiarism is claiming an idea or writing to be originally yours when it is<br> - not. Plagiarism is not just copying something verbatim, but includes emulating the<br> - structure and tone. The best way to avoid plagiarizing is to cite. Attribution is one<br> - key factor that lends credibility to news institutions. I edited Ian's column and I<br> - thought the idea of the empire (referred to as the dark side) was unique, as I had<br> - never heard of it before. He has breached my trust and that of our staff and readers.<br> - Additionally, I will be going back over Watson's work since he started working to see<br> - if there are suspect columns.<br> - <br> - Check with your editors if you are unsure about anything about what constitutes<br> - plagiarism.<br> - <br> - Best,<br> - <br> - Ryan<br> - }}}<br> - <br> - <br> - Ian then defended himself in the following letter:<br> - <br> - {{{<br> - Hello everyone,<br> - <br> - I haven't met most of you, but since Ryan's staff email went out I thought that I had<br> - might as well respond. I'll start with a little background.<br> - <br> - I have been (feel like I am coming clean with a drug addiction here or something) a total<br> - Star Wars nut for years. I have watched the movies more times than I can remember, I<br> - played the card game (think Magic) when I was younger, I have read many of the expanded<br> - universe books, and played countless hours of the video games (the MMORPG included...<br> - obsessively for a stint). This may seem like pointless information, but it is not because<br> - I have made this similar argument many, many times.<br> - <br> - See, I am a person that takes the conservative and often contrary position on many things<br> - just for kicks. Taking the Empire's side is just another example of this. Me and my geeky<br> - friends would ramble on about this constantly because it is a constant point of debate on<br> - the online game Star Wars Galaxies (because players can be both sides... look at the<br> - forums if you don't believe me). I have made this argument many, many times. To further<br> - drive this point home, I read a lot of Objectivist literature (which is probably worse<br> - than being a Star Wars nut), and argue with folks about it constantly. Star Wars is a fun<br> - debating point amongst them (again, look it up if you don't believe me).<br> - <br> - The problem with the "Empire is Good" argument, especially with regards to possible<br> - plagiarism, are as follows: if you stick to the movies (which I did) there is very little<br> - source material to work from, the argument must be made by comparing actual results of<br> - the governmental systems (further numbering down the possible ways to approach the<br> - topic), and you need to do it in a chronological fashion (otherwise it makes very little<br> - sense... you can't put the chicken before the egg).<br> - <br> - Consequently there is very little room for variation if you are making the same argument.<br> - I wanted to write on the topic because I am a "down with the rabble" sort of guy (heh,<br> - should have used that) and the new movie is coming out. The complaints that Ryan had with<br> - the column, and my responses, are as follows.<br> - <br> - 1. Similarity of structure: you have to make the point chronologically, otherwise the<br> - reader will get confused. You also have to dismiss imagery, a key point that Lucas drives<br> - home (constantly... borderline Scarlet Letterish). You can not explain the empire<br> - properly without showing that it is a direct contrast to what was before it; before there<br> - was a republic but chaos and death, after there was an empire that provided peace and<br> - stability. You have to explain the republic, the power behind the republic as being<br> - undemocratic, the change, and what resulted. It was not plagiarism, just the structure<br> - the argument had to follow. Stupid problem for me to get in? Yes. Plagiarism? No.<br> - <br> - 2. The quotations were the same: This results from limited source material. Governmental<br> - structures and their effectiveness are only mentioned a couple of times in the movies. In<br> - order (off the top of my head)... Queen Amadala has one good quote in the first movie,<br> - Senator Palpatine has two rather vague quotes (didn't use his because... well he is an<br> - evil nasty dude and it hurts the argument), Tarkin has a couple of lines early in the<br> - first movie (more on that later), and then... Vader (Anakin had one in the first movie,<br> - but it was the same point that Amadala made). Of course I am going to use the best<br> - possible quote the movie has to offer to support my point, the fact that we use the same<br> - very limited source material doesn't make it plagiarism.<br> - <br> - 3. Similarity of adjectives: the ones that I can see are "meritocracy", "patrol the<br> - skies", "divine right", and "regional governors". The regional governors is a direct<br> - quote from GM Tarkin in Episode IV. Divine right and meritocracy are frequently debating<br> - points amongst objectivist folks... but that patrol the skies /collect taxes part?<br> - Well...<br> - <br> - This is where I admit that I did read that column. About three years ago. Because I talk<br> - about this sort of stuff all the time, and I really liked the column, I must have<br> - internalized it more than I had thought. His column is thrown around all the time on SW<br> - Galaxies forums, and his wording is used frequently. I guess I just picked up his phrases<br> - without thinking about it.<br> - <br> - For that I am sorry, I should have looked up his column again to make sure that the<br> - similarities were not so pronounced (and they are in some parts, I admit that). I should<br> - have picked a topic where the argument could be made from a variety of standpoints, with<br> - only one logical mold for it I put myself into a bad situation. But I want to reiterate<br> - this point: I did not copy his column. I wrote this column in the car and the quotes were<br> - (sad, I know) off the top of my head and later confirmed with the DVD's that I own. I was<br> - stunned when a friend emailed me the DS column, which was shortly followed up by a phone<br> - call from Ryan. I was disappointed that I got fired before I was even allowed to speak in<br> - my own defense, regardless of whether it mattered or not the illusion would have been<br> - nice. The editors probably made the right decision anyway, excuses are just excuses after<br> - all.<br> - <br> - Anyway, what would be the purpose of my plagiarism to begin with? We make little to no<br> - money, I got tons of grief for what I wrote on a daily basis, and I have no intentions of<br> - making this a career (peanut gallery: thank god). I did this for fun, as soon as it was<br> - no longer fun I would have just quit. I wrote on Star Wars because... it was fun and I<br> - know an unhealthy amount about the topic. Again, plagiarism is inexcusable and I<br> - understand the editors reasons for canning me, but I'd at least like this to be seen as a<br> - me getting into a stupid situation rather than stealing someone's work.<br> - <br> - Anyway, it was nice working with you all. And by working with you all I mean thanks<br> - editors and copy folks for changing my might of's to might have's, explaining to me what<br> - a semicolon actually is, offering 4 times to give me additional copies of the Aggie Style<br> - book, and giving me a chance to write. It was fun while it lasted.<br> - <br> - Ryan: Can I get a letter published to respond to my firing? It'll be nice, I swear.<br> - <br> - Ian Watson<br> - Fired California Aggie Columnist<br> - ijwatson@ucdavis.edu<br> - <br> - ps: please don't pick apart the problems with my defense, I know it was stupid, I'm sorry,<br> - let me get fired in peace [[and if this is the second time you got this email, sorry... I<br> - hate Geckomail]]<br> - }}}<br> - <br> - Ian Watson's [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/05/12/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1320546.shtml?norewrite200607290114&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com public reply] was published on May 12, 2005.<br> - <br> - <br> - <br> - '''The week of May 2nd, 2005''' - Responding to accusations from ["R4 Recycling"], former ASUCD President Kalen Galleger, and others suggesting ["The California Aggie"] is ["California Aggie Printing" overprinted], Editor-in-Chief ["Ryan P. Fuller"] issues a statement refusing to recognize any legislation on the issue by the ASUCD. On May 5th, the ASUCD passed a resolution urging on-campus printings to reduce excess waste.<br> - <br> - ["The California Aggie"] recently refered ["Student Judicial Affairs"] to students ["BrentLaabs"] and ["RevChad" Chad Van Schoelandt] for "misappropriating" copies of the newspaper. Laabs and Van Schoelandt were conducting a study on whether or not the Aggie is overprinted. For more information, refer to ["California Aggie Printing"].<br> - <br> - '''Finals Week 2004''' - ["The California Aggie"] ceases its tradition of ["The California Aggie: Spoof edition" spoof editions]. The spoof editions were an Aggie tradition, albeit a controversial one. Most notably in 2002, when it depicted then-ASUCD President ["Tiqula Bledsoe" Tiqula "Black Caesar" Bledsoe] being assassinated by the ASUCD. The 2003 spoof was noticably more mild in content. It was finally killed off in 2004 by Editor-in-Chief Ryan P. Fuller, who [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/06/24/Opinion/In.Memory.Of.Spoof.19722004-1317882.shtml?norewrite200607290121&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com attributes the decision] to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". No word as to whether or not it will return for the 2005-06 season.<br> - <br> - '''March 10, 2004''' - Features columnist Arturo Garcia, writer of ["Sex and the University"], is [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/03/10/Features/To.The.Readers-1316843.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&amp;MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com released] from ["The California Aggie"] for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Andrew Whelan, editor at the time, Garcia's article ''I wish you knew'' "borrowed without citation the tone and ideas of a piece originally printed in [http://www.dailycollegian.com/ The Massachusetts Daily Collegian] in November 2003, titled ''[http://philhuang.com/reading-shedoesntknow.php What she doesn't know will kill you]''." The Aggie also took Garcia's column off from its webpage so it can not be read later in comparison. ["Daniel Stone"] replaced Garcia's columnist position.<br> - <br> - '''?2003?''' - Conservative columnist ["Igor Birman"] successfully sues ["The California Aggie"] after being fired for "being too controversial"<br> - <br> - '''April 23, 1999''' - "Another Dimentian", a comic strip in ["The California Aggie"], depicts a missile striking the Ethnic Studies program. Many people decry the strip to be racist and in poor taste, including from the Provost and Chancellor. Editor-in-Chief Sara Raley issues a front page apology the following Tuesday. The cartoon is removed from the website and the staff members received diversity training. [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/043099/DL_aggiecartoon.html Detailed here].<br> - <br> - Jonah Ptak, the strip's author, felt his strip had been misinterpreted. His argument can be found here. [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/050799/DL_aggiecartoon2.html]<br> - <br> - [[Comments]]<br> - ------<br> - ''2005-05-11 14:05:19'' [[nbsp]] The Aggie didnt cease the tradition of the spoof editions entirely. Ryan Fuller chose not to do one that year due to various reasons, none of which include the "backlash." If it was due to the backlash of the 2002 edition, then the one in 2003 would never have happened. --["MattJojola"]<br> - ''Yeah, I'd say the spoof in 02 was more of a controversy (racist charges) -- not the stopping of spoofs. We should just put that one instead?''<br> - ''Yeah, i'd talk about how Fitz nearly got fired for that specific one and not generalize the entire spoof edition in its entirety.''-["MattJojola"]<br> - ''Fuller's [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/06/24/Opinion/In.Memory.Of.Spoof.19722004-1317882.shtml?norewrite200607290121&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com article] was titled such as to suggest there would be no more Aggie Spoofs. It was unbelievably arrogant of him.'' - ["TravisGrathwell"]<br> - *Well, he did say "No word yet on whether the 2005-2006 editor in chief will bring the spoof back to life." -["GeorgeLewis"]<br> - ''According to that article, his reasons for pulling are due to "missed deadlines" and "objectionable content". I think that suggests that he wasn't too interested in generating the kind of controversy the spoof edition generally comes with. Unless he offers a more detailed explanation, which he doesn't necessarily owe us, I think the original listing stands'' - ["JesseSingh"]<br> - <br> - '' Ryan Fuller does not make decisions regarding the Aggie for the 2005-2006 school year or for any year beyond this year one for that matter. The incoming editor in chief (in our case...Daniel Stone) will make the decision to go with a spoof or not this June. I don't get the controversy.''-["MattJojola"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2005-05-11 17:47:20'' [[nbsp]] I believe there is controversy because it was stupid to kill the spoof...even for one year. --["GeorgeLewis"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2005-05-11 20:05:25'' [[nbsp]] Well, other than it being a Freedom of Speech issue, it also reflects on the integrity of the paper. Because it generated a modicum of controversy in 2002 (that nobody cares about anymore), it had its balls cut off the next year and was finally put to sleep in '04. Maybe it'll return in '05, who knows? But I think (and others seem to agree) that ending a 33-year old tradition is definitely a controversial decision. --["JesseSingh"]<br> - ''2005-05-11 22:21:30'' [[nbsp]] "The staff members received diversity training" - wtf, does this sound really sinister to anybody else? --["KenjiYamada"]<br> - ''2005-05-12 00:51:02'' [[nbsp]] I purposely emphasized that because I thought that seemed like such a feckless solution to the situation. It's such a corporate thing to do. It reminded me of "The Office". :) --["JesseSingh"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2005-05-12 04:03:54'' [[nbsp]] The "most notable" part of the '02 controversy was NOT the Tiqula Bledsoe depiction. Not by a long shot. If you don't know what I'm talking about... oh well. --["ElvinLee"]<br> - I believe Mr. Lee is referring here to the giant penis that can be seen on one of the scans on ["The California Aggie: Spoof Edition"] - ["TravisGrathwell"]<br> - I wasn't, actually. And the actual status of the information is unclear, so I will leave it at "if you don't know what I'm talking about..." - ["ElvinLee"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2005-05-13 02:22:43'' [[nbsp]] Does anyone know if Watson's "Letter to the Editor" in yesterday's Aggie was edited by him from his very long letter? Or was it edited by the Aggie? I know they reserve the right to make edits for spatial reasons. --["JesseSingh"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2005-06-29 13:35:06'' [[nbsp]] I wrote two letters in, the long one I sent to the staff. I also sent in a 200 word one that was published. --["IanWatson"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-02-03 00:35:52'' [[nbsp]] i think it's time Stone gets his own no-confidence vote --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-02-06 09:28:08'' [[nbsp]] I think they should re-form the Aggie as a Wiki. Then they can revert a few times, everyone gets their say, it dies down and no lasting damage is done. Would save a lot of paper too! --["SteveDavison"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-02-06 22:01:13'' [[nbsp]] OMG I totally called it! --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-02-06 23:00:05'' [[nbsp]] I was going to write a heated letter to the editor, I might now write a mellowed-out one, but on Sunday an Aggie friend told me there would be some news about Daniel Stone Monday. That could've meant only one thing. The real irony of the situation is that if Stone was worried about getting a letter of recommendation, he might have just killed it. --["KarlMogel"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-02-07 00:48:54'' [[nbsp]] Maybe Chancellor Vanderhoef can find him a job --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> - Indeed, Stone may actually be well suited to media types that do not strive for objectivity at all, such as the glowing [http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=8621 Dateline] report on the Chancellor's actions ... or Fox news. --["KrisFricke"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-02-13 10:34:13'' [[nbsp]] That letter to the editorial board about Dan Stone was really bitchy. The only mistake he really made was to crumble under the pressure of the other editors. I'm sure it was a mistake, but kind of a minor one. Really, it is the editor-in-chief's ultimate decision on what goes and what doesn't until he's unseated ... and I mean unseated, not told to resign. Plus, what B.S. is it that they wanted the editorial printed since it obviously wasn't a consensus? Whoever wrote that letter was on a bigger power trip than I Dan Stone would have been. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-02-15 08:53:00'' [[nbsp]] So what the hell is going on with this? sorry if i've missed it, but has there been any official explanation from the Aggie about the Stone brouhaha? The only thing I've seen is that Stone resigned because his leadership caused "challenges"...wtf does that mean? Is the letter on the wiki authentic or not? Did Stone really change the editorial to curry favor with the chancellor? If so, how do we know he hasn't "slightly altered" every article about the chancellor, or even just influenced coverage of the chancellor? How do we know if he was on Larry's secret payroll? i think the aggie has to give some explanation to its readers how its chosen leader sold out...this to me, seems far worse than plagiarism --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> - <br> - Two days after the edited version ran, Stone had a short blurb about how he had edited it without the others consent, and then they ran the original editorial. --["EdwinSaada"]<br> - <br> - That's not sufficient explanation. Readers don't know WHY he edited it...isn't that kind of relevant to the situation? If Chancellor Larry had altered personnel contracts to give himself a kickback, and then his official response was that he regrets "slightly altering" the wording of a contract, would the aggie just sit on its hands and be content with that? maybe the aggie should learn to investigate its own house before scrutinizing others'. --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> - <br> - Seriously, no one knows why daniel changed the editorial except for daniel. according to the ed board's letter, they think it was so he could get a letter of recommendation from teh chancellor. I've known and lived with daniel for years and that does not make any sense. daniel never had a chance to get a letter from the chancellor either before or after this editorial fiasco. how could he? i feel like i know daniel very well and i cant even understand why he did it. if you look at the changes though, the changes are only to amplify the editorial board's words, not contradict them so the changes were really very minor. the real problem is that daniel denied it before admiting it. it has to do with his relationship with the ed board more than it has to do with his relationship to the chancellor --["AdamGerber"]<br> - <br> - Stone's alterations merely "amplified" the board's comments? they were only mad enough to fire him because he improved on their editorial without telling them? please. that's why the aggie, and not a former friend and roommate, should be asking the difficult questions. --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> - <br> - You asked about Daniel’s relationship with the chancellor and the answer is clear. He never had one that would have lead to a letter of rec. If Daniel was preoccupied with gaining favor with the chancellor, then maybe he wouldn’t have printed articles exposing the scandal in the first place. Also, do you really think that Daniel’s changes in the editorial were substantial enough to impress, or even come to the attention of the chancellor? Clearly, Daniel had a difference in opinion with the editorial board and he inappropriately used his authority to change their expressed opinion – he brought this all on to himself and has lost his job and reputation for it. but weather or not this was done to further his relationship with the chancellor seems like a non-issue --["AdamGerber"]<br> - <br> - So you're calling the entire current managing staff of the paper a bunch of liars? They quite clearly claim, that several of them were told by Stone himself about the recommendation letter. as much as I think the staff is doing a poor job of investigating this, I'd believe several of them over you...considering your argument is mainly "I never heard about it, so that must not be the case" --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> - <br> - No, I am not. I believe that they honestly believe that Daniel did all of this to gain favor with the chancellor – and that’s okay because its what they believe and I don’t have enough credibility to counter that. Considering what they think about Daniel, especially after having gone through this whole deal, I personally think that they are more likely to draw that conclusions that further humiliate Daniel than to seriously consider whether he was actually out for a letter of rec. I do not blame the aggie staff for anything. But, if you look at what happened, it just doesn’t fit with your question of whether he was working secretly for the chancellor or something. I was not challenging them, I was responding to you. --["AdamGerber"]<br> - <br> - <br> - Write an email to the new editor and tell him what you just said - readers deserve to know just a lil more about it. Maybe you'll get something more of what you're looking for Apollo. And Adam, I disagree - "Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university." That's more then a minor change, it changed the intent/point. --["EdwinSaada"]<br> - ----<br> - <br> - It seems like Adam's focus is not on Daniel's actions but rather his intent. There is no evidence beyond a "he said she said" that Daniel had any personal motivation from the chancellor. the simplest theory is normally true, so i believe he just changed the article because that was an opinion he felt strongly about. Any other suggestion to his motives is just a conspiracy theory unless further evidence is provided. to suggest that the board is a credible source, is like suggesting daniel himself would be a credible source. The board seemed upset which means that they are likely to repeat rumors that are unfounded.<br> - "He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> - angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> - from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> - Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> - overstepping his boundaries."<br> - the fact that no specific dates or sources are given means that this statement has almost no credibility (impossible to verify). without specifics a statement like this is clearly another claim and definatley not evidence of anything.--["MattHh"]<br> - ----<br> - <br> - I can't comment too much on the incident...but I will say that it's a little strange that you call our investigation "poor," seeing as our investigation is what led to his resignation...We can't disclose further details publicly because it's a personnel issue. --["BrianChen"]<br> - <br> - A general principle of journalism is that you should avoid reporting on yourself when possible. --["PhilipNeustrom"]<br> - <br> - ''2006-02-15 21:47:29'' [[nbsp]] I think the general principle for journalists is to not become the story...journalists report on each other all the time, when they screw up. Stone obviously screwed up and became the story. Brian: when news content has been altered, this is no longer a personnel issue...or does the Aggie have a policy of not publically discussing plagiarists and fabricators? didn't the New York Times fully investigate that guy who fabricated stories awhile back? how come that wasn't just a "personnel issue"? So has or hasn't the aggie investigated to see if Stone altered other Larry-related stories? --["ApolloStumpy"]<br> - <br> - ''2006-02-15 22:19:21'' [[nbsp]] We don't publicly discuss our internal affairs because they don't really benefit the student body...We felt that what you've been told is sufficient to understand his resignation. As for stories about the chancellor or changes made to chancellor stories, I can personally assure you that Stone couldn't have done that...because I assign and edit the campus news stories. --["BrianChen"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-02-15 22:56:09'' [[nbsp]] whatever. I think the aggie is a respectable paper, and that's why I expected to give a full account of what actually happened, as would be expected of any organization whose leader did something so wrong that he felt he had to resign, but more importantly, affected the organization's service to the public. I guess the real reason there is no push to give a full account because apparently few of your readers care what gets printed, and the aggie staff is apparently content with that status quo. I think it's believable Stone's love for the chancellor didn't affect anything else...but I guess we just have to take daviswiki's word for that, as opposed to a real questioning of people involved. --["ApolloStumpy"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ deleted</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div>