Talk:International Community School (Kirkland, Washington)/Archive 1

I think it is important to realize that Wikipedia should have neutral pages. There is no need to destroy a school's reputation without sources. Qwerty 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where everyone is seeing this "destruction of the school's reputation". Could you please point to specific passages that attack the school's reputation? Walker9010 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

• I would like to get rid of the NPOV tag as soon as possible. Please reply with the specific passages that you find NPOV and we can work with them to make them more neutral. If no replies, I will remove the tag in two weeks. Walker9010 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep NPOV for Now

• I believe the NPOV tag is appropriate as is.
  • First of all, I don't understand the inclusion of a "Controversy" section in this article about ICS. These statements resemble those typically found in a blog, rather than those purported to provide information suitable for an encyclopedia. Why should the author's opinions be considered a bona fide "controversy"?
  • Below I cite excerpts that sound like anecdotal hearsay and personal opinions:
  • " There are claims that the school, in recent years, has lost some of its former glory. "
    • Who stated these claims? And how does a school "lose its ... glory?"
  • " Additionally, some of the founding families feel that under Cindy Duenas, the school has shifted away from its focus on creating a positive environment in which to nurture all type of growth to a college-prep environment. "
    • Does "some" constitute a majority of founding families? Even if this were the case, how do the families of the current student body feel about this? I believe these are the families with the most at stake here.
  • " It is widely acknowledged that there has been a shift in the school away from this early vision. While some claim that it is natural as the school matures, others point to policies that have been implemented as creating this negative environment."
    • Upon what basis does one claim that the school has deviated from this vision, and that it is "widely acknowledged"? I have been involved with this school for 3 years, and my opinion is that the school has a very positive environment!
  • " The recent school-wide policy banning the rounding of grades is often pointed to as a tangible example of the policies Cindy Duenas has implemented, which, by reducing teacher discretion, is claimed to negatively affect student-teacher interaction."
    • How does this affect student-teacher interaction, exactly? Has this policy incited student misbehavior, encouraged students to transfer, or created noticeable angst within the student body? To make a vague statement of harm to "student-teacher" relations doesn't convey real information.
  • "Duenas's recent appointment to become principal of the Community School, as well as the other two schools she is currently principal of, seems a worrying sign for the school, as students already claim to have problems reaching her."
    • Okay, so how many students are actually complaining? Is this a real problem?
  • "The school's last official student publication, The Line, was shutdown at the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Some believe this has left the school without a medium for student voice, while others feel that the publication was ineffective for this purpose. Regardless, with a student press, Duenas has been able to operate effectively without oversight from a media outlet."
    • This implies that Cindy Duenas shut down this newsletter. Did she?
    • Also, equating a student newsletter to the nation's free press with the same role as the guarantor of freedom from government excesses seems, well, excessive. A school is not a democracy, and to my knowledge, student newsletters do not bear the responsibility of providing oversight to the school administration.
    • The last paragraph of the Controversy section in particular seems to be a grievance against a principal who is perceived to be sufficiently arrogant and wayward that she "needs" to be reined in by the press. Hard to see how this can't be viewed as a personal gripe.
    • In summary, I strongly feel that this NPOV is appropriate, and that the Controversy section should be deleted. Quite a few statements contained in this section of the article offer anecdotal hearsay, and appear to be opinions from a person with a personal ax to grind. There are other venues available on the internet suitable for sharing one's opinions.

Mwmfairview 02:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)mwmfairview

• Comment
  • Thanks for your response! I agree with your Controvery point, and have changed the title. Just a note: NPOV tags are meant to be temporary. We must work to resolve the issue to get rid of the tag.

• • Second. In regards to many of your points, I have reviwed the article. I am a founding family, have been involved with ICS for the past 10 years and have had close relations with multiple PTSA presidents and ASB presidents as well as former superintdendent Karen Bates (who was instrumental in ICS's development.) Regardless, to start from the bottom, I disagree that your inference is valid. You seem to be adding your own thoughts to what is written. As to your point about whether Cindy is available, it is required that she spend time at the other schools in order to serve as principal, by district policy and law. As such, if she is spending more time there, she is spending less time at ICS. I also was a bit iffy on the claim of student-teacher interaction, but, once again, you must be careful not to go beyond what is written (which you seem to do in your response). You claim about founding families is a similar point (and also begs the question--How would people who are currently at the school know what it used to be like?) NOTE: many of the founding families are still involved with the school--Melissa Nelson being a prime example.

• • If you have some suggestions on how sentences that you still feel need to be reworked can be implemented, please feel free to suggest them here. Thanks! Walker9010 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources

With accordance to Wikipedia article standards, I feel it is my responsibility to remove any original research to which no source is provided. In the wikipedia article discussing how to cite sources "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources" it clearly states that "any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." Should the author of the article find evidence for his claims, please feel free to repost your "facts" with the proper citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.91.180 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review the requirements for deletion before acting. Thanks! Walker9010 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the "requirments for deletion" pertain solely to the deletion of entire articles, in which case, yes I would need to go through the lengthy procedure, this was simply an edit to further evolve the quality of Wikipedia and since "Wikipedia is a wiki and this means anyone can easily edit any unprotected page and save those changes immediately to that page." "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page" I would like to thank you for adding some citations to your section and I hope that you continue citing your sources or as they say in spanish <<Ojala que ud. continue citando su fuentes.>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.91.180 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would disagree with you, as there is further consensus amoung Wikipedia editors about removing content from articles, however, I did not realize the aggrecious lack of citations until you pointed it out, so perhaps this worked out for the best. In your future editing, however, I urge you to take note of this information at WP:ATD Walker9010 07:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:International Community School Logo.gif

Image:International Community School Logo.gif 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 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 05:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)