Talk:Joyce Kilmer Middle School

Edits Made

Edited to add the most notable thing about Kilmer- the proposed boundary change, which has been in and around local news.

Fair use rationale for Image:KilmerMS.png

Image:KilmerMS.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

The no-touching rule section only gives voice to advocates but not opponents. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Opponents' position is clearly stated in the first sentence Tedickey (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How so? The first sentence merely describes what the policy is. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It describes it as strict, and employs a straw man to detract from the school board's position. The entire topic appears to be a soapbox by one IP-editor. Tedickey (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Didn't think of the word "strict" as clearly summing up a position. If that's how you read it, it should either be re-worded to make it clear that "strict" is the opinion of the opposing side -- or, perhaps better yet, the entire section could be removed per WP:SOAP... no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because it has so many sources. It seemed to touch off a debate that received worldwide coverage based on a Google search I did on the subject ( thousands of hits - no touching policy kilmer) . I suppose the issue of not letting children "touch" does not sit well with some people. I can understand the issue after reading the CNN transcript. Based on the interview in the transcript the school allowed no touching at all. Not even handshakes or hugs.

I did a quick review of the word strict and found it in many of the sources.

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a quiet March day in the cafeteria at Kilmer Middle School in Vienna, Virginia. Everything was normal until 13-year-old Hal Beaulieu did something that was strictly forbidden. CNN Transcript.

KOCH: Busted. Hal had violated the Virginia school's strict "not touching" policy . CNN transcript.

VIENNA, Va. - A rule against physical contact at a Fairfax County middle school is so strict that students can be sent to the principal's office for hugging, holding hands or even high-fiving. Associated Press.

I agree the article is not balanced. Here is a quote from the CNN article that should be included.

KOCH: Experts say that for children touching is an essential part of development. DR MICHAEL BRODY, ACAD OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY: This is a natural thing that goes on in families and friendships. This has been -- and again, this is very much developmentally, which is very important part of this age. There is physical contact. With the physical contact, I have to believe that the kids could be trusted to understand this is appropriate. It is not necessarily a gateway to other things...CNN Transcript. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.12.254 (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the soapbox comment. I can not find where it is in that category at all. In fact, the unbalancing of the article is making it a soap box for the support of the rule. The first paragraph seemed to me to just state the facts.

Per wiki:

Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.12.254 (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the same topic is at FCPS. Editing the section to match the NPOV provided at FCPS. Removing all bias. Wiki is not a soapbox for issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.12.254 (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove "No contact rule controversy"

There is no longer a "no touch" policy at Kilmer Middle School, as the old principal that enforced the rule was fired. I will delete the section in 24 hours if no one is opposed.--Interchange88 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Added the section back with edits. Mostly changed verb tense. The issue is the policy did exist. It is relevant because history can not be erased simply because it is resolved one way or another. This policy did make headlines and was covered in Reader's Digest, and various other outlets - because it is and was a big deal to tell kids they can not hug or shake hands. Also, do we have cite's that the old principal was fired? or was she transferred? Has the new principal stated the rule is no longer in effect? I still changed the tense because I have no reason to doubt what you say, but it does not change the relevancy, right??? 68.119.67.154 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have deleted it. There is a cite for the fact that there is a new principal, and that is the school's main website. The current principal is Douglas A. Tyson, different than the one involved in the incident.--Interchange88 13:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kilmer Middle School

Tedickey, The person who deleted the 'No Contact' section on the Kilmer Middle School page has stated he should not have deleted the section. You undid my edit without any change except to state that the...talk page at FCPS did not say the section should be there. As I am sure you are aware some editors have stated it should be there - if not please read the talk section again. I feel it should be in both places. That does not change the fact that there was a consensus that it should at the least be on the Kilmer page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.154 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

5?

Do we really need five references to the "No Contact Rule" section?--Interchange88 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because it has been attacked before for various reasons. One was notoriety, cites, etc. Apparently it is a very contentious issue for some people. I think it is pretty cut and dried the way it is now and is okay but if the cites are gone the issue will be raised about... 75.139.42.79 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"I think it is pretty cut and dried the way it is now and is okay but if the cites are gone the issue will be raised about..." --- What? --Interchange88 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

about no cites and the issue wasnt covered enough to be on wiki. Sorry I was not clear. 75.139.42.79 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)