Talk:Bullis Charter School

Untitled

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)[reply]

Examples of other Wikipedia articles that discuss controversy surrounding the subject of each article:

Eshkol Academy

Dianetics

The Atkins Diet

Davecort 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

First off: I have a child at BCS, so I wanted that out there first. I've been making edits to the page to reflect factual info and in general to clean up the page (adding an info box, headings etc). These are very npov....but..

I'm about to go through the controversy section and attempt to clean it up. There is a lot of duplication and lack of citation in this, but I'm not sure much of it is fixable, for instance, the sectoin where it says 'The parents of children from the closed school consisted of Silicon Valley professionals, many of whose jobs was to start, run, finance, or staff startup companies.' is right until you see the word 'startup' and while there are clearly some vc and execs, most of the people in the school are technology workers at a different place in their careers. Even if it were true, it is not a citable fact as the parents of the students are in constant flux as people move into and out of hte area/school and the parents change as students matriculate out. So I'd just strike that sentance after 'professionals'. I'll start editing in the next day or two to allow folks to comment. I'll do so pretty granuarly so that those that seem to care about this article can see what I'm doing. I'd welcome any thoughts.

Chris DiBona 20 December 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:CA distinguished.png

The image File:CA distinguished.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and State API Scores

On April 9, 2008, BCS was given a California Distinguished School Award[6], one of only 2 schools in the district and the only one in Los Altos for 2008. Only 12 schools in the county population of 446 were given this award.

The fact that BCS was one of only one or two schools in a particular community to get this award in a given year isn't relevant since the award is valid for multiple years, and schools don't typically apply for a repeat award immediately when eligible. All of the schools in Los Altos, with the exception of the new Gardner Bullis School, have received this award previously, with the most recent being Covington School in 2006.

I also question the usefulness of API comparisons with the District (in this case, the Santa Clara Office of Education), which, with the exception of Moreland Discovery School, has schools with vastly different demographics and goals than BCS. --Flashcube (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with the latter point (what is the point of scores if not to show comparison), the previous is worth noting on those other schools wikipedia pages, I'd think. WRT the distinguished schools part, though, and looking at the language on the page, it isn't really 'against' other schools so much as descriptive of the award. Please note I've not touched the 'controversy' section at this point, and that needs a fair amount of repair. Thanks for the comment. Cdibona (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

There seems to be some edit warring going on here. I'm not going to analyse the edits, but I would like to draw editors' attention to the strict policy at Wikipedia:Edit warring wherein it also states:

Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

I'm not in a hurry to pass judgement, or warn or block anyone, but what I will do if the disruption continues, is WP:GOLDLOCK the page. Perhaps editors can discuss their differences in the proper way on this talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 December

This article has now been protected and may only be edited by administrators. Per WP:PREFER: Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. To edit, please see the banner at the top of this talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the third paragraph of the History section where it currently reads motivation behind the school's creation are an important part of it's history it should read motivation behind the school's creation are an important part of its history to remove the superfluous apostrophe. Minor, but grating on me. Thanks, Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bullis Charter School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bullis Charter School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]