Talk:Peoria Unified School District
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have added the links to the schools back. If you are going to make changes to this page, have the decency to look at what you are removing. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by PUSDemployee (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have re-inserted the paragraph about closed campuses. It is notable, as is corroborated by this article and This site. Admittedly, the phrasing and coverage aren't perfect, and if the user(s) who removed it think it conflicts with the Neutral point of view policy, I encourage them to comment here. -- The_socialist talk? 06:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is not only an incredibly touchy subject, but one which entails arguments that will always degenerate into logicless, purely opinionated slander-slinging. This has no place on Wikipedia, be it on the article or the discussion page of this school district. --Adam Maras 06:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also true of God, Abortion, the Iraq War, Communism, and many others. We can (and really should) have a section on it, we just need to agree on the wording. -- The_socialist talk? 06:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a feeling that agreeing on the wording for this article is going to be about as difficult as our board agreeing on the wording for the policy we're discussing right now. I'm forced to take the position of the Devil's advocate, however, a unilateral "solution" will not make this issue go away (whether it comes to the policy or this article.) --Adam Maras 06:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The objective isn't a perfectly true description of the controversy, it's neutral, verifiable description. What is un-neutral or unverifiable about the page as it now stands? -- The_socialist talk? 07:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- We also need to keep in mind that the administration doesn't want the paragraph on the page; as Mr. Wheeler continually comes back and removes it. --Adam Maras 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- The objective isn't a perfectly true description of the controversy, it's neutral, verifiable description. What is un-neutral or unverifiable about the page as it now stands? -- The_socialist talk? 07:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a feeling that agreeing on the wording for this article is going to be about as difficult as our board agreeing on the wording for the policy we're discussing right now. I'm forced to take the position of the Devil's advocate, however, a unilateral "solution" will not make this issue go away (whether it comes to the policy or this article.) --Adam Maras 06:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also true of God, Abortion, the Iraq War, Communism, and many others. We can (and really should) have a section on it, we just need to agree on the wording. -- The_socialist talk? 06:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The issue is not as much the Administration doesn’t want it on Wikipedia, it is more of why is it there. Consider the age of PUSD and all of the history around the district. This is not the first issue to strike a nerve in the community and it will not be the last.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Why is there such a strong desire to make closed campus the only issue list on this page? Why not one of the many others in past 118 years. Why not post all the positive and negative events in the history of PUSD?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If reason for this paragraph is only motivated by politics, there are better forums.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Why don't we come to a simple resolution, then: let's build a comprehensive list of issues that have come up in the past. --Adam Maras 02:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The fact that there have been other issues in the past does not justify removing an NPOV paragraph on the closed campus issue. There is no "strong desire" to talk about closed campuses to the exclusion of other issues. You are free to add other information about other controversies, in fact you're encouraged to do so and I'll probably help you. But unless there is some reason that the closed campus debate is not notable, you may not delete it and doing so is considered Vandalism. Thanks, -- The_socialist talk? 13:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I give up. I put up a COI2 tag on the article... --Adam Maras 06:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that there have been other issues in the past does not justify removing an NPOV paragraph on the closed campus issue. There is no "strong desire" to talk about closed campuses to the exclusion of other issues. You are free to add other information about other controversies, in fact you're encouraged to do so and I'll probably help you. But unless there is some reason that the closed campus debate is not notable, you may not delete it and doing so is considered Vandalism. Thanks, -- The_socialist talk? 13:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Although I'm not convinced of the notability of the closed lunch issue yet, I've restored it in response to a new editor that replaced the entire paragraph with a claim that "PUSD" removed it, which is a pretty blatant WP:COI if it's true and just plain vandalism if it's not. I've also expanded it a little, and added citations for everything but the walkouts and school board meeting claims, which I haven't found reliable third-party articles about yet. --Closeapple 12:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good luck with that "reliable third-party article." This is one of those issues where everyone simply seems to be on one side or the other. --Adam Maras 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- As long as there are enough sources to get both sides of the issue and maintain WP:NPOV on the article itself despite the POVs being described, it would work, assuming it's notable. I managed to find sources for the other parts of the paragraph. --Closeapple (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] COI editing on this page
I would encourage all of you to read this page, before continuing to edit this article. It seems several people who are editing here are personally involved with the subject matter. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
