Talk:Bullis Charter School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am glad you posted these examples.
Even though I don't see how you can equate an article on Bullis Charter School with any of the articles to which you refer, in all of them, the discussion of the controversy is presented in a balanced way within the overall subject of the entry. The CONTROVERSY is not the main subject in at least two of the three examples.
I would say the example of Eshkol Academy is the one example where the controversy is a dominant portion of the article, but that's because the school was founded by Jack Abramoff and the funding of the school was closely connected to the NATIONAL-level scandal about him. MOREOVER, the school is no longer in existence. If someone were looking for information about that school, it would probably be because of the connection to Jack Abramoff.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that you did not respond to any of the examples I posted about schools--including two charter schools--that are all currently operating. I chose these examples because they all represent very clear models of the type of information that is relevant for a page about a school. I am sure there is some level of controversy somewhere about each of these schools--that would not be at all suprising espcially in the case of a charter school. But such information needs to be presented in a neutral, objective, and fair way. The Wikipedia policy of "neutral point of view."
To me, however, it seems that you don't see that your own examples are able to present information about subject-related controversies in balanced, fair, appropriate ways. Your continued edits of the Bullis Charter School page do not meet the standard that you yourself have referenced.
I am trying to follow the Wikipedia policy of "assume good faith" in this case, but I have not seen any evidence that you are trying IN GOOD FAITH to follow Wikipedia's policies in relation to this article.
I think it's worth repeating that you should step away from editing this article until you are able to approach the subject from a neutral point of view. If you cannot approach it in a balanced, fair, objective way, then this is not an article you should be editing.
--Deepminded 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Examples of other Wikipedia articles that discuss controversy surrounding the subject of each article:
Davecort 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, and the goal is for it to be an encylopedia that anyone in the world can access to find the best information about a subject. It is not an editorial page in the "Los Altos Town Crier."
The controversy about the school may be a huge issue in Los Altos, but the Wikipedia article is about the school itself. While some information about the controversy might be justified, the main focus of the article needs to be about the school itself. The main focus of the SCHOOL is NOT the controversy, and someone who searches for this article on the other side of the country (or the world) is looking for information about the SCHOOL not the local politics.
As for your comment that "The controversy is the most salient issue on the topic of BCS. But don't take my word for it; do a search on Bullis in the Los Altos Town Crier articles (or other local papers) and notice the overall topics and the tenor of these articles. That is the story." That may be A story about Los Altos, the LASD, and the school, but it is not the "the most salient issue on the topic of BCS", at least in terms of a Wikipedia article on the school. The school itself--its mission, its programs, its faculty and staff--all of those subjects are far more important to an encyclopedia-style article about the school.
Please take a look at other Wikipedia entries for other schools to get a better sense of the focus this article needs to have to be compliant with Wikipedia's policies:
Bronx High School of Science
Holly Meadows Elementary School
César Estrada Chávez Dual Language Immersion Charter School
Raleigh Charter High School
Please feel free to start a separate page on "The Controversy about the existence of Bullis Charter School" if THAT'S what you want to focus on [although I can't guarantee that such a page would meet Wikipedia's guidelines for entries.] Or place this information about local politics in an entry on "Los Altos, CA", where information on current political issues might very well be a relevant issue. Or start you own web page where you don't need to be subject to the policies of Wikipedia. But if you want to contribute to THIS article in Wikipedia, you must follow Wikipedia's policies.
The subject of this discussion is neutral point of view, and with that as one of Wikipedia's stated goals, it should not matter whether or not I live in Los Altos. Are you saying that no one in Los Altos could write an encyclopedia-style article on this subject from a neutral point of view? If so, I would strongly disagee with that assumption. Clearly, there are people who cannot write about this subject from a neutral point of view, but I think it is possible.
Also, I don't think you misused the word "hypothesis" in the discussion below. The word was used in context, and the entire context of your comment was about presenting evidence for a particular theory. [NOTE: I see that you have edited out that section of your comments.]
So far you have not demonstrated that you can write about this subject from a neutral point of view. I have continued to refrain from correcting your work because I don't want to be part of an edit war. I'll repeat my request that you step away from continuing to edit this article until you are able to approach the subject from a neutral point of view.
Deepminded 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my misuse of the word "hypothesis". I have changed it to "widely-held view by some in the Los Altos community". Do you even live in the Los Altos community? The controversy is the most salient issue on the topic of BCS. But don't take my word for it; do a search on Bullis in the Los Altos Town Crier articles (or other local papers) and notice the overall topics and the tenor of these articles. That is the story.
Davecort 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is designed to leverage the wisdom of the crowd. But authors are expected to do their best to contribute in a neutral, fair way. That means giving appropriate weight to any and all sides of a controversy, if presenting a controversy is even important to the article.
This is an article about an elementary school. The first problem with neutrality is that the information about the controversy is lengthier than the information about the school itself. If you don't have anything to add about the school, cut the section on the controversy. The goal is for the entry to be encyclopedic in nature, and weighting information about the controversy so heavily does not achieve this goal.
Second, my guess is that there are two main sides to this issue, with most people falling somewhere in the middle, so I think it's appropriate to give equal time to both viewpoints. HOWEVER, that means that if you are going to fully cite and reference information for one side, you must match that same level of detail for the other. This is NOT the place for you to advocate for your particular view. While Wikipedia may be designed to leverage the wisdom of the crowd, it is explicitly NOT the place to advocate a particular viewpoint and leave it to someone else to provide the needed counterweight. In fact, when others have attemped to provide this counterweight, you have altered or removed their changes to keep your own position as the more prominent one.
Moreover, you have said on this page that your information on one side of the controversy is simply a "hypothesis" about why the school was orginally founded. If that's what you beleieve--that the information is merely supports a hypothesis--then that whole section is clearly outside of the content guidelines for a Wikipedia article.
See the section on original research:
No original research WP:NOR
What is original research? Material counts as original research if it:
. . . introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.
Developing your own hypothesis based on other sources is considered original research and is outside of Wikipedia's content guidelines.
As for my anonymous posting. I do have an account, but I am not always signed in. I can tell you that I was not involved in the formation of this school, so I only know what I've read about that time. I'm not sure posting under my user name would tell you much--but I've signed in this time for your information. I DO NOT wish to be contacted privately.
You've clearly read the policies on neutrality, but I am still puzzled about why you think you can advocate for a particular side in this entry.
I have stopped trying to edit this article, and I'd be happy to see you make the necessary changes to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia's policies.
Deepminded 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The Controversy section does present both viewpoints, Anonymous Poster; have you read it recently? I admit that I only wrote one half of that section, but there is no requirement that that one person be such an expert in any topic to write the full story of an article. The whole point of Wikipedia is to leverage the wisdom of the crowd. Even though one person does not know the whole story, the bits and pieces we each can contribute add up to the full story.
Since you're such a stickler for the rules, allow me to quote verbatim from the Wikipedia Five Pillars page:
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing reliable sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.
So, given that as guidance, and given that we are representing multiple points of view in this article, how do you propose we resolve your claim that the article isn't compliant with the text quoted above?
As an aside (though a very important one), I'd have a lot more respect for your position if you weren't posting anonymously. It makes me think you have something to hide and perhaps are not entirely comfortable associating your real identity with your actions here. So I encourage you to register for an account and start using it when you make edits to this article.
Davecort 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The person who wrote the fully-referenced section under the "controversy" heading ALSO needs to provide AT LEAST the same level of detail for the other side IF the author wants this article to meet Wikipedia requirements for neutral POV.
The author cannot add details supporting one side without providing the an appropiate level of detail to other side (please read the Wikipedia policies for more details on handling controversal subjects with two or more points of view.) That is not the point of Wikipedia.
He has been asked to step away from this article unless and until he can fairly and accurately represent ALL sides in an appropriate way. If this person would carefully read the Wikipedia guidelines, he would understand that simply giving equal space to both sides of an issue is NOT evidence of a neutral POV.
The most recent edits in support of BCS are *not* backed up by credible references which makes it difficult for readers to decide whether they are true, or just puff marketing from charter supporters. Please back up these claims with references.
It is not fair to say "those who oppose BCS". The information presented simply supports a widely-held view by some in the Los Altos community that the charter exists to reëstablish a public school to Los Altos Hills.
Also of note: the diæresis above the e in reëstablish is purposeful. Read the Wikipedia article on the diæresis for more information.
Davecort 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There are several facts about the BCS backed up by references to articles in the SJ Mercury News and the Los Altos Town Crier. Please do not remove this information from the article.
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Bullis_Charter_School. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
There have been claims by anonymous editors that the content of this article is biased. This is not true. All of the items in the article are factual, and are cited from estabilshed newspapers as references. This particular topic has been very contentious in the community, and to ignore that fact in the article it to lie via omission and censorship. Take a look at the articles on wars, massacres, terrorist attacks and the like. It'd be hard to argue that one should remove the negative content because it is biased.
So, to the anonymous critics, I'd be happy for you to actuall *edit* the text to clarify or add value. But wholesale deletion is not the way to edit for a biased voice. And feel free to add your own side of the story to the Controversy section; but I'd *highly* encourage you to site credible references.
Davecort 24 February 2007
