Talk:TASIS Switzerland

Campus

Why does it mention Hell after Spain ? something went wrong there! As far as the campus goes, elegant and laid back would not be my description for it. It's more dilapidated and cramped. But thats just my "point of view." Ahem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.8.215 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 August 2005.

I know this is years later, but according to WP:V information must be verifiable. "Descriptions" must be sourced from published, reliable sources. I.E. if Journalist Sally Smith describes the school as "X, Y, Z," say "Sally Smith said that the school was 'X, Y, and Z'" WhisperToMe (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In Europe, Switzerland especially, there is simply not enough physical space for a large open campus like at other boardins schools, or universities. The TASIS campus itself is comprable to the size of several municipalities around Lugano. It is also undergoing an extensive expansion intended to double the campus size and rennovate existing structures, and so most of the buildings have been under construction at some point in the past few years. --Ourai, writing from 84.55.192.114 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni

-Deleting Koppe and Martin from "Notable Alumni" as they have yet to truly become notables, however promising either young man may be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.148.211 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 February 2006.

Deleted the following names from the "Alumni" list: Kerim Askoy, Vas Rajan, Costas Despotoupolous, Gerardo Dominiguez-Angulo, Phillipa Machin, Johan Soderstrom. My reasoning here is quite simple; they were all batch-added at the same time, I did not find anything notable about them in a quick search, and I know for a fact that Kerim Askoy is entering ninth grade this school year, and he is certainly not an alumnus. For the "Alimni" list, please only add names if they are indeed noteworthy. Ourai 10:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rican sister school

On August 2002 another TASIS sister school was opened in Puerto Rico. This school started with elementary school children from the age of 3 years old up to eighth grade at the present and ongoing to high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prsunshine (talk • contribs) 18:12, September 16, 2006

Changes

I've redone the entire page, added and deleted a lot of info. At least now it doesn't read like a school brochure.

Note to IP-hopper about "Notable students"

Anyone listed as a "Notable student" or "Notable alumni" must have their own Wikipedia article. Please stop adding anyone who does not have a wiki article. Softlavender (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for deletion and comment explaining your position. I would agree with you that this specific student is not "Notable" on her own. It seems that a more neutral list title should have been used. For example, "Current students" would fit a lot better. Unfortunately, I can't agree with you on your request not to add "anyone who does not have a wiki article", since you don't provide valid arguments. --84.245.121.92 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the title of the section is. If you continue to add a student's name anywhere in the article who does not have a wiki article, you will be blocked or prevented from editing. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Softlavender, threats to disrupt a work on Wikipedia with blocks (harassment) are not appropriate. I highly encourage everyone to provide substantive replies if they wish to do so, but not harass. Thank you!--84.245.121.92 (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not harassing; I'm stating facts. If you continue to add inappropriate material to Wikipedia, that is disruptive editing, and you will be prevented from further doing so. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the rules, there are many types of material which are inappropriate to Wikipedia. This includes profanity, certain controversial content, etc. What is being added does not fit into this categories. The request above, to not to add names which are not linked to existing articles as a must, is also not supported by solid grounds. It's material, notable, has value and is of a public interest. Referring back to your point on alumni, individual alumni need a citation to (a) verify that they did indeed attend the school, and (b) verify the statement of their notability in their short one- or two-line description. Both (a) and (b) requirements are met in the edits I made. It is also agreed that all alumni meeting criteria are to be included on an alumni list, regardless of how much time they have spent on a school roll. --84.245.121.92 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As a possible resolution for our discussion here, I suggest to add back mention of a student, but this time not disclosing the name of the child. I hope that you would likely accept it.--84.245.121.92 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We can’t include a non-notable person, unless the kid is independently notable this is a non-starter. Can you imagine the school pages if we included people’s kids? lol Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we can. Anyway, as a solution I suggest not to mention the person's name, as it's not that important in this context. PS: usage of initialisms is controversial, and many notable authors recommend against their use.--84.245.121.92 (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"PS: usage of initialisms is controversial, and many notable authors recommend against their use.” smdh... PS is an initialism. Also, no we can’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit v1, in Notable Alumni section, which does not mention name: "*Daughter of Leonid Slutsky – member of Russian State Duma, listed in Switzerland, EU, US and other countries Ukrainian crisis and other sanction lists"

Suggested edit v2, end of History section, which also does not mention name: "The school became widely noticed in 2021, when it accepted for study a daughter of Leonid Slutsky – member of Russian State Duma, listed in Switzerland, EU, US and other countries Ukrainian crisis and other sanction lists."--84.245.121.92 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The source given doesn’t support that edit, theres nothing in there about the school becoming widely noticed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that the source doesn't say it. However, the spike of interest is visible from reposts of the investigation, significant raise of search requests and page views. How would you recommend to phrase suggested edit v2 better?--84.245.121.92 (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Then you are suggesting that we include WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems so, looks very much like WP:OR. How would you recommend to phrase suggested edit v2 better?

What is it that you are not understanding about what we're all saying here? There is no way to restructure the edit to "make it better" for inclusion (nor is there ever anyway to make original research better, it's not allowed plain and simple). No reference to Slutsky will be included on this article. At this point, @Horse Eye's Back: and @Softlavender:, I feel like we're not dealing with a misguided IP but with a WP:Troll. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• IP, this is trivia and is not going to be added to this article in any way, shape or form. Please stop this campaign; by now it equates to disruptive editing and borderline trolling. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather merely to push a trivial agenda which by now four highly experienced editors have told you is not going to happen. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Softlavender, please, follow Dealing with disruptive editors procedure. Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.--84.245.121.92 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, you can lecture on policy all you want, but you're ignoring the most important part: WP:Notability. The student's father is clearly notable, but simply being the child of someone notable is not relevant enough for inclusion. User:Softlavender and Horse Eye's Back are in the right. Not to mention that your claim that this incident is what made the school "widely noticed" is ludicrous and way overstated when talking about one of Europe's most famous boarding schools full of children of famous personalities, of which Slutsky is probably one of the least notable. This isn't even a discussion, Slutsky's daughter has no basis for inclusion. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, when the disruption is as surface level and uncontroversially disruptive as this theres no need to take this anywhere unless you want to get blocked. Editors here simply aren’t going to let you use wikipedia to cyberbully a high school student, it might shock you but this is something we deal with all the time. School pages are a magnet for disruptive editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

No intent to cyberbully at all. It was a great suggestion to avoid using student's name, and also helps to follow Child protection rules.--84.245.121.111 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No personal interest- Why the blanket assertion and blanket deletion of edits?

I want to stress I have no personal interest or connection with the subject matter. To: 174.208.228.250 and any other affiliated IP addresses, if you have disagreements with any of the specific sources I added as citations or with any of the text that was added please let me know. I thought they were all supported by secondary independent sources. Can you let me know which edits violated NPOV and which sources are not usable per Wikipedia policy? Just because something provides supposed positive coverage does not make it inadmissible as a source. Wickster12345 (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me elaborate:

I believe the reversion of my contributions under the claim of restoring a "consensus version" warrants further discussion.

Firstly, it's crucial to clarify the nature of the edits in question. These were not alterations to existing content where consensus might have previously been established. Instead, they constituted new additions to the article, introducing previously unmentioned subject matter supported by reliable sources.

In such cases, the concept of a "consensus version" becomes somewhat irrelevant. Consensus implies a general agreement among editors regarding specific content. When entirely new information is added, there hasn't been an opportunity for such consensus to form.

Several Wikipedia policies and guidelines support this perspective:

• WP:BOLD: Encourages editors to be bold in updating pages. New additions, especially when well-sourced, are generally seen as positive contributions unless they violate other policies.
• WP:PRESERVE: Emphasizes the importance of preserving information. Reverting well-sourced additions goes against this principle.
• WP:BRD: (Bold, Revert, Discuss) outlines a process for handling disagreements. While you were correct in reverting, the next step should be discussion, not simply reverting to a non-existent "consensus."

Furthermore, assuming a conflict of interest (COI) solely based on adding new content is premature. While COI is a valid concern, it's important to differentiate between promotional editing and good-faith contributions. The edits in question were made with the intent of expanding the article's scope and providing comprehensive information, adhering to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability.

I invite you to review the specific content added. If you have any concerns about the sources' reliability or the neutrality of the additions, let's discuss them HERE. Reverting without a constructive dialogue hinders collaborative editing and the improvement of Wikipedia. Wickster12345 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)