Talk:Year-round school/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This page in a nutshell: The article must remain neutral, and facts must be cited. The article will continue to include images, provided that they are valid, factual, and provably representative of the topic. This has been established for the images in question.

Contents

Major Edits

When I first encountered this article, it was not quite up to quality standards. I have re-written nearly the entire article. I believe that the original article had some factual errors and did not appear to be purely neutral. I have organized pros and cons into a list; uploaded photographs, and I am now tracking down as many citations as possible. Nimur 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is still not up to quality standards, but is now more neutral than it was when I revisited the article. I plan more edits in the near future along with adding citations specific to the pros and cons. --WesWalker 15:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Regarding Edits

This issue has been a controversial one in many areas. However, it is important to keep several important Wikipedia principles in mind:

The purpose of this article is to inform readers about Year Round Education. This is an encyclopedia article. This is not a message board of pros and cons, nor is it a forum for argument.

Several sources were recently added by editor WesWalker which are clearly of his/her own creation:

This is not appropriate for inclusion in the article, as these sources are neither neutral nor reputable as per the Wikipedia guidelines cited above. Wikipedia does not permit original research as a matter of official policy. Note that the other sources cited in the article come from reputable third-parties, such as government education departments or school districts, and they use statistics, facts, and real data to make their point. This is precisely what is meant by "neutral."

Many edits inserted the word "claim" in front of various sentences. It is considered bad style to do this. Either the fact is true, or not true; it should be kept or removed; but it should not be described as a "claim" every time it is mentioned.

The edits by WesWalker during this time frame also removed photographs of a Year-Round School. Images were specifically requested to improve this article's quality, and should not be removed without a very good reason.

The season, "summer", is written with a lower-case "s", unless it is a person's name.

During the course of this article's history, the phrase "disputed" was removed regarding findings about academic merit because no reliable sources could be found which dispute these findings. One of these edits misquoted the Los Angeles Assistant Superintendent, attributing quotes by the author of an LA Weekly article to the superintendent. Such edits are clearly unacceptable.

In summary, let's work to make this article an informed and reliable source of knowledge for people who are seeking to learn about Year-round school.

Please use the Discussion Page to post comments regarding your major disruptive edits. Further reversion, incorrect quotations, and removal of the photographs will be treated as vandalism. See the above discussion for full explanation of all edits in question. Nimur 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations are without merit. If you would take the time to read the policies that you state, you would find that these edits are in compliance. Just because someone has asked that pictures be added does not mean that they have to be your picures, or that any pictures at all need to be added. I could just as easily request that they be removed. I surely will as soon as I learn how.

I believe you to be a year-round school advocate based on the edits that you insist upon. I highly recommend that we get some kind of arbitration as you have sunk to the level of making personal accusations.

You have used my name in your edits in false accusations. Doing so again will be treated as libel.

Lets work together. I will need some time to familiarize myself with the Wikipedia tools. I have been an active opponent of year-round education for no less than ten years so I know the subject extremely well. Please be patient with me and I will be patient with you. I am perfectly able to be neutral - which is to show both points of view. I have been approaching this by stating both points of view since there are only a few facts that are proven about year-round school. Most of them are effects on populations that are forced to use it. If you wish, I will reorganize the page to show only facts and no issues. This would remove all content that is currently listed as pro and con along with the links at the bottom. It will describe single-tracking, multi-tracking, balanced calendars, modified calendars (BTW, all year-round schools are modified calendars), alternative calendars, and will be renamed from year-round school to its proper term, year-round education. An article like that will tell the reader absolutely nothing that the NAYRE website does not already say on their advocacy site.

In order to comply with one of your wishes, I will delete all references to Wake County since they are currently under conflict concerning this issue.

If you truly think that I am out of compliance with policy, please quote from the policy or policies that you refer to. After reading though the policies, I find that my edits are in compliance and am very curious as to what text in the policies you are referring to.

Thank you for all the work you do. I know that this is time consuming but I think we can end up with a good quality article on year-round education if we can stop the accusations and go by facts. I consider issues surrounding year-round education to be part of the subject. If you believe this not to be so, then that is another point we are going to have to work on. But simply editing out my changes is only going to result in contention. I think two engineers can do better than that.


Persistent Vandalism

This page has become target of many vandals in recent weeks. I will keep it on my watchlist; hopefully we will not need to resort to protecting the page. Nimur 20:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wake County North Carolina is currently under hot debate on year-round school. The pictures of North Carolina year-round schools serves to make Wiki a commercial for year-round school by making a subliminal suggestion that year-round school is accepted in North Carolina. This violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Therefore, I am temporarily removing the pictures of North Carolina year-round schools. They may be returned at a future time when the issue is settled. See http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1278446/ for current information.

Please don't bother calling this action vandalism. It is not.WesWalker 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We won't. Nimur 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
3
It's really pretty simple:
→ Mind NPOV ←
→ Don't be a dick ←
→ Ignore all rules ←

Independent view

Hi, I've been asked to step in and contribute to the discussion. Let me just summarise what I think has been said thus far, and what the core issues are:

  1. Images improve the article. The article was previously labelled with the "requested images" template and photos of a year-round-school in North Carolina were added.
  2. Year-round school is currently being debated in North Carolina and WesWalker feels the images should be removed while this debate goes on. He believes including the images demonstrates bias on the part of Wikipedia.
  3. Nimur, on the other hand, believes the images should stay in the article.

Here are my views:

  1. Firstly, in the great scheme of things, this is quite a trivial issue and not worth getting worked up about. The images do make the article look better, but it's no less accurate without them.
  2. Wikipedia does not shy away from controversy. Removing the images is just as big a demonstration of bias as leaving them there. WP:NPOV says that editors should report facts, not opinions. If the fact is that the school in question is a year-round school (and therefore illustrative of the subject), then there's no reason not to include an image of it.
Here is the academic calendar for that exact school, as pictured. There is no debate about what calendar this school uses. Nimur 06:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. An even better solution though would be to find alternative images to illustrate the article, if that can be done. That would alleviate the issue around the controversy as well as making the article "future-proof" should the school in question cease to operate as a year-round school. If alternative pictures can't be found, the images that WesWalker keeps removing are perfectly adequate.

Now those are just my opinions. I recommend that you seek out others to build up a consensus, by making a request for comment or a(nother) third opinion. Meanwhile, please bear in mind WP:3RR and WP:AGF. Hope this helps, Waggers 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, another (probably better) place to get other editors involved is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Waggers 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Waggers comment about this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. is my reason for being here. And my only reason for commenting is this article appears to concern something that is specific to one country, USA. It might seem a small point, but if it is purely specific to one country then surely the article needs to reflect this? Should the article not state in the lead thus - "Year-Round School is the operation of educational institutions in USA on a calendar-system that tracks students into class schedules throughout the entire calendar year". ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Another direction is my recommendation. As noted the picture issue is trivial. Pictures are "nice", I'm not sure that a picture of a year round school is that informative ... although I agree that theybreak up the text. An alternative approach is to read the current article ..... there are no sources. Step 1. Find some independent sources. Step 2. Write the article from these. You might even find a peer reviewed graph which shows the advantages by country. If that work has not been done then we can only have supposition. Which is OK ... but make sure it is published independent supposition and show the alternative view. OK ... thanks for your attention.

PS - If you are really locked into this dispute then come and help with assessment ... its a more productive use of your time :-) Victuallers 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine a better source than the actual calendar of the school in question. It is completely false to say that there is any doubt about this particular year-round school. There is no justification for removing the image of an undisputed school, even if other calendars in other areas are under consideration. For further proof of the undisputed status, you can look at the image in question, where the school prominently displays its status as year-round operation. For some reason, a few people dislike this calendar and so they want to deny its existence. In any case, the images improve the article; they are factually accurate; images were specifically requested to improve this article. There is no reason to remove them at the whim of an activist editor. Nimur 06:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been upgrading the citations on this article as well. Please place any new citations in the References section, as per Wikipedia:Footnotes. Nimur 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The actual calendar of the school in question is a very standard 45/15 schedule. It is irrelevant. That the school is already a year-round is irrelevant. That there are probably numerous parents who dislike the schedule is irrelevant. That there may be numerous parents who love the calendar is irrelevant. That parents have risen up and started a lawsuit to keep the calendar out of their lives is irrelevant. (BTW, proaction is not denial.) That the Board of Education had the option of asking for a bigger bond in turn for no MultiTracking Year-Round Calendar but decided to go for the smaller bond and the conversion of 22 schools rather than do the right thing, the inevitable thing and build new schools is irrelevant.

Images do not improve the article in this case and have nothing to do with facts. At best, they merely break up the text. They do not add to understanding or definition of the year-round calendar concepts.

These particular images serve as a promotion for Wake County, NC. Why not use photos of other YRE schools that are not in Wake County? Why these photos?

I already stated my justification for removing the photos here, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools as recomended. Are we discussing it here or there? WesWalker 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Because these photos are free,free, and available. If you can find alternative images, please do. Nimur 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, this school has been part of a multi-decade county-wide project. "With the school system's 16 year history with multi track year round calendar schools, it has found that schools on the multi-track year-round calendar can serve 20-33 percent more students than those on a traditional calendar." There is no debate at this school, which has been year-round since it was built! I'm sorry you disapprove of this fact, but that does not change it. Nimur 21:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I neither approve nor disapprove. They are irrelevant. The visual propaganda promoting year-round school in Wake County North Carolina will be removed. It is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Your citation pointing to a Wake County survey of teachers is not relevant. It is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since Wake County is promoting year-round school, a political position, and you are from Wake County obviously promoting year-round school. It will be removed.

The survey is also unpublished. This makes it in violation of Wikipedia:No original research

Further, surveys do not establish or demonstrate facts. They demonstrate opinions of those surveyed on the subject, but do not define the subject. Of what relevance are the opinions of the teachers in one school district, advancing their own position, as shown by one survey? How reliable are surveys that advance positions, especially political positions like year-round school? Q: Where is the parent survey? A: It does not matter. It would only show opinions of parents. It would not belong here.

I just thought I would warn you first and give you the opportunity to do the right thing and remove the propaganda put out by Wake County Schools.

It is my opinion that you are using Wikipedia to promote the issue of year-round school in Wake County, North Carolina, your home county. Prove me wrong and remove the propaganda. WesWalker 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The study in question was published at this location, which is a web-page maintained by the Growth and Planning Department of Wake County Government. It is not original research, since I had no part in conducting that survey. It was conducted by a reputable government institution (the Wake County Public School System).
This article is about schools, so citing a primary source from a school board is the best way to establish factual information. Some of these sources happen to be from Wake County, which has a convenient web-site. Many sources are from other areas, including the United States Department of Education. By all means, if you can find other reliable sources, please go ahead add such information (and cite it). I suggest you make use of the immense United States Department of Education website.
The article includes an entire sub-section listing arguments against this calendar system. This section was partially written by yourself, and was edited over the last few months by dozens of contributors. I am not trying to stifle your point of view in any way.
All I want is to make sure that you don't remove valuable, factual, cited information just because you have a philosophical disagreement with it. You are more than welcome to add constructively to this article, and please provide your alternative viewpoint with factual evidence. However, if you simply wish to remove items you dislike, you should not expect it to go unchecked.
I hope at this point I have convinced you that there is no propaganda; but if you choose to believe that the entire Department of Education, plus the Wake County School Board, are in cahoots with me to promote Year-Round Education, then I suggest you read WP:TINC and lighten up a bit.
Last, but not least, you mention my "home county" and a "conflict of interest," - but this is not correct. I am not trying to promote any type of educational policy in North Carolina. I am presently a resident of California; and for fiscal-year 2006 I was a resident of Massachusetts. Neither of these states include Wake County, North Carolina; and both of these states have a mixture of traditional and year-round school systems. Hope this helps, Nimur 07:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)