User talk:83.243.187.25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] reasons for redoing your undo of the robert frost middle school page (rockville md)

Hi,

The reason that I have put the letters back in is that I feel it is important for people who have children in the school or are considering putting their children in the school understand that the school believes that a teacher had alleged inappropriate activity with a student. I would have simply put a link to the letters, but the school did not make them available online. It is also important that people know not just the good things about the school, but also the bad (I believe that this is in line with the wikipedia policy of neutrality). These are not notices, the school admits alleged criminal activity by a teacher with a student.

Many people move to this area because of the quality of the schools in the montgomery county school system. I feel that it is noteworthy and appropriate to put this type of information in an encyclopedia entry, especially considering that RFMS in 2007 seemed to have an unusual number of teachers with problems requiring police or government intervention, because otherwise people might not have the information that they need to make a decision as the school system is trying to pretend that none of it ever happened as near as I can tell.

Thank you very much for your understanding.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so I know who you are. My edit was based on these points:
  • Does a letter from the school principal belong in any encyclopedia article?
  • The issues with the teachers are already mentioned in the article - how much is added by the letters? The point of view is already neutral - adding the letters tilts the article away from a neutral point of view in my opinion.
  • What is accomplished by putting them in? Neutrality does not mean that WP:STYLE is to be ignored. My edit was primarily a copyedit for style, not a comment, and did not change the tone of the article.
  • The inclusion of the letter is also skating on the edge of copyright issues - just because a letter was issued to the parents does not mean it has entered the public domain, and that it can be placed in Wikipedia. It's not clear-cut, but basically, if it's not explicitly public domain, or if you didn't create it, it shouldn't be quoted.
  • This sort of information comprises primary sourcing; it would be better (and more concise) to include an external link, if these letters have been published elsewhere. That would satisfy style, length, original research and copyright concerns.

I have put a copy of this on the talk page of the article and on your IP talk page. Acroterion (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)