Talk:Katherine Delmar Burke School

notability

Has Burke's received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? If not, it does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability criterion for having its own article in Wikipedia. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I added in a bunch of reliable info that's being conflicted out and possibly censored because of a reference to yelp. I was threatened by editors so I won't try again. Bet the school is covering something up. I'd delete it since this is propoganda at this point.

It is notable because of the blue blood connection that's been noted in media such as Vanity Fair and others -- I will add that in

Good edits are removed from this page; if not restored deletion seems appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:316E:1F15:E8DA:894B (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

full revision that deleted many sections on January 28, 2022

This page seemed to have been almost erased except the history. There was a lot of good information in the last version. Can someone review that and possibly revert back?

A user did revert it back. Please note that the full copy has been edited by several wikipedia users who asked for further citations that were provided. This is accurate information.

Please do not allow whitewashing and censorship on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:1543:6F0:F816:8D93 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

censorship

Edits with reliable info have been censored. I don't trust wikipedia anymore and will likely not contribute any other factual source-based editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:10CE:A185:EEA:CEFE (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

controversy

this was on the page and then taken off as something that's too "meta" and belongs in talk Recently the school has gotten tangled in controversies similar to other independent schools. The editing of this page shows that controversy with a user just removing what was considered "puffery" and other information that's accurate being removed by the school because of "an anonymous user" despite the material being accurate. These material will not be added again but it covered real concerns in the community about bullying, classism, elitism, and facing the past.[6] The source material is greatschools.net as well as niche and Facebook. At the reviews section on Facebook[7] a recent student laments in 2019, "Absolutely the worst school. Bullied and picked on by teachers. Learning disabilities are HEAVILY frowned upon. Ended up being removed from the school in second grade because the bullying was so excessive. It has an extreme 'rich kids are always right' mentality." This same complaint is often referenced with independent schools and especially ones with such ties to high society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:E18D:D2C5:1243:CAF8 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(Note: includes capitalized responses later added by 2601:645:8300:c6d0:c95a:6797:24d7:41c1)

To resolve your issues, you've come to the right place. Some of your issues relate to my editing (I think) and some do not:

• My edit comment: "meta-comments better placed on talk page" [1] referred to text added to the article: "The editing of this page shows that controversy with a user just removing what was considered 'puffery' and other information that's accurate being removed by the school because of 'an anonymous user' despite the material being accurate.". This material is appropriately handled on the talk page, as you've done here. THANKS!
• Re puffery [2], my edit comment said: "adds a lot of unsourced material, including puffery (remarkable generation of women; a unique 3.5-acre space; our expansive outdoor campus is unsurpassed; large light-filled classrooms, etc.)". I'm not sure why you would object to this revert of mine. It doesn't sound like the sort of material you would wish to have added to the article. I DO NOT OBJECT
• Re "At the reviews section on Facebook", Facebook is rarely considered a reliable source, because anybody can post anything there, there is no oversight, and there's often no way of telling if the poster is reliable. OK

I agree with you re "other information that's accurate being removed by the school because of "an anonymous user"" ([3], by Burkesschool, edit summary: "the communications office corrected edits made by an anonymous online poster"). They mean IP editors, of course, and I don't know if they think there are off-line posters. Edits by IP users are no more subject to judgement than any registered users' edits. And the school does not have any more claim to curating the article than other editors, "anonymous" and registered alike. The school does not own the article and has no extra authority to control what appears in it. AGREED

There is value in what you want to add to the article. But it needs to be done in a way that can be traced to reliable sources, and a way that it fits into the context of the article as a whole. I think, here, you've started a good thread where us editors can manage improving the article in the Wikipedia way. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC) CHEERS BACK

Flooding by IP 2601 (Feb. 8 – Feb. 11, 2022)

WP:BECONCISE Content refactored by twsabin 20:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[h3 – inserted] [h4 – inserted] February notes on deletions on page Notes from the talk on a recent IP address that did a mass delete in early February: February 2022 Information icon Hello, I'm Maylingoed. I noticed that you recently removed content from Katherine Delmar Burke School without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~~mAyLiNgOeEd (Talk to me!🗣) (See what else I did on Wikipedia!!📜) 01:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Katherine Delmar Burke School, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ~~mAyLiNgOeEd (Talk to me!🗣) (See what else I did on Wikipedia!!📜) 01:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:218B:643D:B483:7A12 (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Editing war on February 8 (when the page got 2500 page views up from 500 the day before and a usual 80-100) FEB 8 This rollbacks without any reason given continues and the material pasted below was deleted without any reason and then restored. This is well sourced important info. Parent and alumnae communities[edit] With this set-up, the issues of parents wielding control is important to the future of the school that like it's peer schools has seen an increase in parents that bully (and alumnnae parents in this case similar to Miss Porters).[43] The article refers to three types of bullying parents -- the Righteous Crusader, the Entitled Intimidator, and the Vicious Gossip -- and in the case of alumnae parents the last two fit the profile of some high-society parents who place reputation above safety in some situations highlighted in this California Association of Independent School training[44]. The Vicious Gossip is known in the independent school community as the writer Rob Evans summarizes: "The Vicious Gossip has what we psychologists call a character problem, one that plays itself out in continually finding fault with the school or with teachers and broadcasting her complaints, often to a group of vigilantes that she recruits. Sometimes she has a valid concern and has identified a genuine teacher weakness or administrative failing. It is her exaggeration of the issue—the relentless, destructive quality of her storytelling to other parents, her repeated gathering of what Richard Chait, professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, has called the 'Volvo caucus in the parking lot'—that qualifies it as bullying. We have both talked with teachers who have been victims of such campaigns and who end up feeling defamed and victimized."[45] While at Burke's the cars are more likely Mercedes sedans than Volvos (status matters in this culture), the parents who bully is an issue that needs to be addressed. This alumnae newsletter from 2011[46] shows the school how it was in an older permutation (cultures at schools take about ten years to change). The tax returns from that year reveal a different place where the head was paid $355,287 (comparable to peer schools at the time) and the school tuition was almost half of what it is now.[47] Values and alignment with economic realities[edit] Yet, the economic inclusion is questionable as it is in many independent schools these days, the most prominently discussed being Brentwood School also in California.[57] This is a moment in the "culture wars" as the article in Los Angeles magazine where schools that exist as exclusive (elite private schools) are now trying to rebrand themselves as inclusive when financially for the operation of many independent schools that isn't possible. Burke's values from the web page that says their commitments reads, "As a longstanding institution in San Francisco and the Bay Area, Burke's espouses the values of our community. These include a dedication to community engagement, the desire to make our school as equitable and welcoming as possible to all kinds of families and students across the city, a responsibility to operating as green and sustainable as possible, and embracing a healthy lifestyle."[58] In these times when the school costs $41,000 for new families, alumnae from the 1980s and 1990s that did not become Burke's parents have openly questioned WHEN is it possible for modern-day Burke's to be equitable and welcoming to all kinds of people. Without a real HOW for making that happen (boarding school Phillips Exeter recently determined to stay need blind[59] and Lick Wilmerding has managed to have a flexible tuition model[60]) where Burke's is not flexible and also not need blind) this is an empty value in that it's likely not possible. Please stay vigilant to censorship and rollbacks of reliable info. Thanks Wikipedia editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:218B:643D:B483:7A12 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Conversation between wikipedia editors starts to break down Hi Willanon @willondon (again wrong handle, old info)-- I went in and made suggested edits. I appreciate the time you've given this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:218B:643D:B483:7A12 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC) (Note: indented and formatted to make clearer that this is a copy of notes I made on another talk page.) Re: Original research and synthesis Most of your recent edits to Katherine Delmar Burke School are not suitable for the encyclopedia because of original research, especially synthesis. From Wikipedia:No original research: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The subsection Synthesis of published material deals more specifically with combining information from different sources to reach or imply conclusions that are not present in the original sources. The edits at Katherine Delmar Burke School must include information that is specifically about Katherine Delmar Burke School. It's no good to reference an ex-staff member, combined with statements they made not referring specifically to the school. And it's no good to source material that is about other schools that (through synthesis and original research) are claimed to be like the school the article is about. Or to refer to statements made by a legal firm that represents the school, but which were not about the school. When I advise about editing Wikipedia, I view success as having your edits "stick". If edits are quickly or eventually reverted or pared down to a stub, they have failed on that count, and are useful only as food for reflection on why they weren't durable. It seems to me your sources include material dealing with a much broader topic, and would be more suitable to improving articles on bullying in general, or bullying by students, or by teachers, or bullying culture in elite schools. In sum, most of the work you are doing at the KDBS article cannot be specifically associated with it, and will not last in that article. Sincerely, signed, Willondon (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC) (end of comment) Please note @willondon put these questions in a separate section that needs discussion towards consensus. My points: Fleishhacker is more than ex-staff especially since he is from a local famous family that adds a bit of old San Francisco to the article that belongs there. source material (and I believe this is legit: plus his book "All Hail With Joyous Voices" and this on the family https://www.fleishhackerfoundation.org/about/ @willlondon 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I believe that the Folger Levin connection is critical and that the UHS and Branson (as well as Sonoma Academy also represented by them) investigations represent peer schools and the same characters overlapped. There is coverage already in the San Francisco Chronicle about this; Rusty Taylor was also well known around Burke's. It's key to showing the culture at the times and areas where there were issues that are on trend with other independent schools, potentially because of the passing of AB218 that temporarily lifts the statute of limitations up to 40. Thanks for your info on this. If you listen to Wilson's talk at the new accrediting agency, you will see why it matters as there are trends in the overall independent school system. The reference to the lawyer Folger Levin is critical since the Folger family also supports the school and has alumnae. Folger Levin also represents Burke's as well as the other schools. In the case of Branson and UHS, these coaches recruited from Burke's. There are investigations that have happened that have this within it and in Wilson's talk she points to the importance of teachers moving around. These references to bullying and educator sexual misconduct are in fact tailored to Burke's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:218B:643D:B483:7A12 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC) It's a common misunderstanding that anything that can be traced to a reliable source is useful for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia stresses secondary sources, because they are relied upon to support notability and draw conclusions. When you say "These references to bullying and educator sexual misconduct are in fact tailored to Burke's", this is the essence of original research. Unless another source can be shown specifically saying that, it is a conclusion presumably drawn by the editor making the edit. All of what you say may be true, and may be supported by many reliable sources, but it's an analysis that is original to you. I strongly recommend that you thoroughly read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Original research. Editors who wish to revert additions to the article (myself included), will rely on those guidelines to support those reverts. So it's wise to have a solid understanding of them. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC) (Note: above hack fixed to remove bolding where I did not put it. And here are collected the comments that were interspersed with the comments above that are under my signature, lest the reader be confused as to who said what): THIS IS THE PART I MOST DISAGREE ON AND SUBMIT TO OTHERS FOR CONSENSUS. WHO SAYS THE SOURCES ARE NO GOOD? FLEISHHACKER IS MORE THAN AN EX-STAFF MEMBER, THE FAMILY IS AN INSTITUTION WHICH IS SPECIFIC TO BURKE'S AS WELL. THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE PROBLEMATIC AND MORE VOICES ARE NEEDED ON THIS. NO THIS IS SAYING THAT THE ISSUES OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ARE RELEVANT, AND THEY ARE. PLEASE MORE CONSENSUS ON THIS AS WELL. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO REVERT LIKE THAT, THAT'S WHAT I LEARNED TODAY IN THOROUGH EDITING, PLEASE LET'S GAIN CONSENSUS ON THAT AND I INVITE YOUR REPLY. Here are some of the points that still need discussion towards consensus. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Note to IP 2601:645:8300:c6d0:39de:441a:6fc4:3c5: Please thoroughly read and understand the instruction given at Help:Talk pages. In future, I will not spend the great deal of time required to fix mistakes in talk page protocol. I will merely revert the edit as "malformed". Sincerely signed, Willondon (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. not sure if there's a "@" or {{user}} equivalent that works with IP's. Sorry Primary sources Right now the wiki is criticized for having too many primary sources when previously secondary sources (that were relevant) were edited out. They include Vanity Fair, Blue Bloods and Billionaires; a book about Alma Spreckles; Nob Hill Gazette coverage; not re-adding since it won't stick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:218B:643D:B483:7A12 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Secondary sources are only relevant if they are specifically talking about the subject. Inferring things when they don't mention the subject is original research. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Please listen to the advice in the above sections and review wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing, including Verifiability, not truth. There are places where you can aggregate research from primary sources. Wikipedia is not one of them. Your comment on my talk page that you are using primary sources (the most reliable), and edit summaries including totally relevant and sourced appropriately, and primary source as requested(which just isn't true) are not a good look. SpinningCeres 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Yikes, I do not like the inferences on saying that primary sources aren't the best sources of info (this is info basic 101). I do know this is a crowdsourced encyclopedia, but more is being taken away than is being added. At one point there were many secondary sources, some of which are added back, and I also added a tertiary (historical newsletter that has the school newspaper). ProPublica is the tax forms -- extremely valuable for info on any school -- the school's site is also what it states as fact and instagram was to the school's instagram -- also a reliable source. I will try and stay away for a bit and see what sticks. The page is attracting attention so censorship is against the goal of any media site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Contention between primary and secondary sources; the next morning (today, February 9) secondary sources criticized as too much Again, Wikipedia deliberately is designed to require and focus on sourcing from secondary sources. Your repeated comments countering this will not somehow change this as it's part of the foundation of the website. Regarding your recent(last few minutes) edits, every passing mention of the school in a news article does not belong on Wikipedia, as it is undue detail. I've removed the section that I feel is most blatantly undue but am mostly waiting for someone else to sort this out. SpinningCeres 01:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Also, you generally don't need to/shouldn't mention every source name every time you reference it's content. This is leading to the recent edits looking like an indiscriminate list of every time the school is mentioned on the news. SpinningCeres 01:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC) A common misconception about primary sources: "do not like the inferences on saying that primary sources aren't the best sources of info (this is info basic 101)". It seems intuitive that "straight from the horse's mouth" is the very best you can get for sourcing. Not so. It does not support notability. If a celebrity twitter says "I just bought a new car!", it may be true, we may have no reason to doubt it, but until a secondary source comments on it, Wikipedia does not consider it notable. It's not necessarily accurate. The celebrity might tweet "The sales staff wouldn't give me the time of day. So I paid cash, then took the same amount of cash and burned it right in front of them!" Well, until a secondary source that has a reputation for checking into things reports on it, it's not necessarily true, even though the celebrity is "the one that was there" at the time. And it's not useful as part of original research (there's that phrase again). If the celebrity tweets "Just in time. My old car was almost a year old! Ugh.", it's original research to say "Celebrity doesn't care about poor people or the damage that rampant consumerism is doing to the environment." Unless a secondary source puts those things together and reports on it, it is not useful to Wikipedia, and will likely be deleted as unsourced. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Response: Huh. I was adding secondary sources without commenting. This is a pretty strict interpretation. I did review the materials mentioned and am now more familiar with the editorial decision making process. Thanks to another commentator for pointing that out. I do not understand why you said my reference to this page pointed to a Wikipedia editor saying to make it Burke's focused with sources that show that. I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC) It seems to me that you made it Burke's focussed with original research, tying sources together to reach your own conclusions (known as synthesis). signed, Willondon (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Hi @Willondon, it would be more instructive if there was an example of where you found improper synthesis done by me. I did pull out key sections that were edited out and put them below. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia policy on sourcing I am reviewing again the primary sourcing rules you suggested Willondon and some other comments. First, this page already is a stub that has been determined to be low-quality in the last review. You commented to me in a message that it might be left a stub, but in fact I was fleshing out a stub with primary sources that meet Wikipedia's conditions posted below: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d]; Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.; A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.; Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy. Yes, from the above: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. [...] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." signed, Willondon (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Trending toward consensus The alumnae magazines deserve inclusion since in some situations (the school alumnae magazine) they can be seen as secondary sources; this is also published and distributed widely as well as made available on the web so it's being used appropriately and focuses mostly on adults The job description is also published widely and available online. It shows the trend towards advancement and how this position both supports donors and oversees alumnae volunteer, which becomes important in the changes in the school towards money being more important than other aspects of a school (namely alumnae relations). There are also secondary sources that support this change and that's the alumnae magazines. It all adds up to a picture that's supported by the San Francisco Chronicle stories, San Francisco Magazine and the Atlantic as well as Independent School Magazine and the accrediting agencies materials posted online. @willondon (this was yesterday but I got your name wrong.) I read these articles already and was referencing them. Please be specific in your sources that do not qualify. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Defense of primary sources used; questionable editing here In earlier iterations there were secondary sources that were removed and then added back in. The primary sources I used DO meet the criterial. The synthesis I was adding was then echoed in San Francisco Chronicle articles that I added in as secondary sources and quoted from that. The primary sources from the school ARE reputably published The secondary sources from the national organization would confirm The secondary sources from local media would confirm The article had plenty of secondary sources before it was blanked out this year 2022 I believe the edits made Feb 8 were nit-picking to delete unfavorable information when the article is being balanced and fleshed out to be what Wikipedia wants -- crowdsourced reliable info that people look at 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC) page protection February 9 this page was marked for page protection with only admin editing. There are some grammatical mistakes I went in to fix before that. February 8 the page was seen by 2500 people when it was 500 the day before and usually more like 100. So the new info is getting noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Sources and bad edits For the sources that weren't allowed, key ones were communications from the school including a recent job posting that's circulating on LinkedIn. https://www.burkes.org/list-detail?pk=190626&fromId=172934 This shows some key content including that the position is expected to "manage a portfolio of donors" which wasn't quoted but this new position perfectly shows the changes at the school. (The position is now completely in fundraising where before it was Director of Alumnae). This follows the type of content that was being censored during the edit war that led to the page being protected and only edited by admin. (There are typos but I figure admin can do that). Here are some of those sources in case anyone later wants to look them over or add them back in: https://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Agonizing-over-S-F-school-options-3-families-2644429.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/garchik/article/Hostess-diary-reveals-details-of-a-long-gone-6422631.php https://issuu.com/burkesschool/docs/kdbs_2017_kdbs_0925 https://issuu.com/burkesschool/docs/burkes_magazine_spring_2020 http://www.robevans.org/Pages/articles/Parents-Who-Bully-the-School.htm https://sais.org/resource/webinar-recording-responding-to-student-abuse-concerns/ https://www.nais.org/media/Nais/Articles/Documents/Prevention-and-Response-Task-Force-Report-2018.pdf https://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/prevent 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC) --- Edits that took out good info The school traditions were different in 2012 -- no snake dance that has become a yearly event under the new leadership -- and also more room for real equity and equality between students than there is when the school is reliant on some families for its very survival as it may be now. This was removed because the other user said that the info was inaccurate since there still is a snake dance; but the sentence says there wasn't one in 2012, that this is a new tradition in the last ten years. Censored. Bad edit. This was Willondon -- you must have some relationship with the school to edit it with personal knowledge of the continuance of a snake dance -- isn't that the original research that was stated to be the reason many of my synthesis was taken down? Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC) This was not Willondon: "This was Willondon -- 'you must have some relationship with the school to edit it with personal knowledge of the continuance of a snake dance'". I never said that. I searched for where it was said, to correct the record, but I couldn't it find anywhere in the edit summaries, or the text of the article, or in this talk page (a related edit is here). In fact, I never made any edits or comments related to the "snake dance" material. Please show the respect of being accurate in your attributions. If you want to point to an edit that was made, view the edit history. Where the list shows "diff" beside that edit, select "copy link" (in my interface, that means a right-click). You can then enter "[", then paste the link, and close with "]". This is a good way to reduce clutter on talk pages, and to verify who said what. Thank you. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Also SineBot and Willondon please see that in fact Willandon asks me to add material specifically tailored to Burke's, and I do, and then that gets taken down as being too much primary sourcing when in fact the Burke's alum magazine is a secondary source. The admin at Wikipedia asked us to hash this out on talk. I asked yesterday during the "edit war" that Willondon in particular try talk before just reverting. I had appreciated the time Willondon was giving, but now looking over what that user censored, I am concerned. Please do explain this is a real world way, as in, how would you explain this to students at the school? Creepy coaches don't apply since they are someone else's hire? This is real. I have italicized some of the removed content to make them stand out. *Sigh* We're not going to talk-page over every edit. We've talked, and my edit comments usually reflect what we have discussed here already. Sorry to say, the fundamental problem is that you've failed to grasp how different sources (primary, secondary) are used, and the concepts of original research and synthesis (no, I'm not going to Wikilink them yet again). signed, Willondon (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC) @willondon I have thoroughly reviewed every page you suggested. Please be more specific to push toward consensus. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC) IP address removals arguing that the national organization that the school belongs to aren't relevant to the school, they are Also the paragraph pasted below was taken out by an IP address that stated repeatedly that NAIS issues (the national organization that the accrediting agency belongs to) is not relevant to Burke's. Graduates know this is relevant as does the larger independent school community. Burke's has experienced the same trends other schools have in the independent system, and one of them is the increase in parent bullying that's described in the accrediting agency's national counterpart NAIS and the story is "Parents who Bully the School." As Paul Tough the New York Times writer states, in public schools the consumer is society and in private school it is the parents. At Burke's some parents are also alumnae, and the rough culture of the 1980s where alums say there was little social and emotional intelligence training, does re-emerge with the same people (former students) taking on a similar role to the bullying dynamics that were notorious in the 1980s and 1990s. Also, this paragraph has real reference to an all-girls school environment (other secondary sources Raising Ophelia; Odd Girl Out; Queen Bees and Wannabes) The issues described in fiction and alumnae conversations are similar to the Miss Porter's School that is known for exclusivity and a group of girls who are allowed to intimidate younger girls. Alumnae parents will insist on the old social structure with the "Oprichniki" at Miss Porter's reappearing. A recent New York Times article on Taft made the same observation that issues will come back continually -- with Taft it was racism and classism, with Miss Porter's it's cruelty and bullying. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC) There was also real resistance to having the head of school's salary listed, which is commonly done. Here's a paragraph that was edited out: The head of school at Burke's is compensated at an unusually high level ($532,753/total annual compensation according to tax forms for 2020) for schools in the area, according to a comparison of the Burke's 2020 tax returns to the Crystal Springs Uplands 2020 tax returns that can be found on propublica. The other head of school who oversees both a high school and a middle school is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars less at $310,610/annual compensation for the same tax year 2020.. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Again, a complete failure to understand original research. Who said it was "unusually" high? Who put the primary facts together, compared them, and drew a conclusion, then published it (here), presuming it was notable. You did that. This is exactly what is meant by original research. The "original" part means research that was done by a Wikipedia editor, and not by published secondary sources. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC) (added proper indents for clarity) I DON'T LIKE THE TONE WITH COMPLETE FAILURE. UNUSUALLY HIGH IS ACCURATE WITH CALCULATIONS AND THOSE ARE NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. LOOK FORWARD TO OTHER EDITORS PITCHING IN TOWARDS CONSENSUS AND CIVIL TONES WITHOUT ACCUSATIONS OF FAILURE WHEN THERE'S DIFFERING INFO FROM WIKIPEDIA. (Sinebot didn't provide the signature, because the comment was malformatted (jammed onto the end of previous post). So ?). @willondon (also a place I spelled your username wrong and you may have missed this comment --> there are many secondary sources (MSNBC, New York Times, Vanity Fair, NBC, Independent School Magazine (of NAIS that's a secondary source). It's unfair to say complete failure when that's just a smattering of the secondary sources that back up the article building knowledge like you describe. Please be fair and civil in discussion. Thanks 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC) This is where the idea of original research is not being understood. Just because there are sources, and they are secondary sources, it doesn't automatically make them a valid reference. The original research part comes in when an editor combines information and then draws a conclusion that none of the sources have stated themselves. You refer to "sources that back up the article building knowledge", which illustrates the point. Wikipedia articles don't build knowledge, they only report on knowledge which has been generated by a secondary source. Not generated by an editor (i.e. original research). signed, Willondon (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC) @willondon - NAIS school magazine Independent School article "Parents Who Bully" supports the San Francisco Chronicle article on how class-stratified the city was becoming in 2007 that agrees with the San Francisco article. That's a lot of secondary sources on how the parents in the independent schools have increasingly become part of the problem, and that includes at Burke's. Many educational publications, especially the Independent School Magazine, write about increasing pressures at the independent schools with rising costs and now COVID19. The MSNBC article supported that. A major supporter is covered in the Vanity Fair article about the upper crust in San Francisco. These are reliable secondary sources that I am reporting on. The stress on primary sources wasn't fair in my opinion. Also, I had read these articles in the Chronicle (most) and San Francisco Magazine plus Vanity Fair before. I was reporting on what I'd read before and then I went back and quoted from it in some circumstances (Chronicle family) and that seems to stick more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC) References Section blanking This was "section blanked" and that's against Wikipedia policy. These are related. I am not sure why (the explanation says it's a separate org with no relation but the last line makes the relation clear and this is factual and covered by local media) but this section was blanked (also not sure what that means) important for censorship concerns. Other peer schools such as University (that was once connected to Burke's and shares a similar culture with many Burke's girls being recruited to play sports at University) have done investigations after #metoo. The University investigation results referenced show the climate at the time, which was similar to Burke's since it was a feeder school to University for many years after they separated locations. The Branson's Covington Report led to the University investigation since there is crossover in employment and access at the independent schools. Burke's who shares the same legal counsel Folger Levin. The coaches in particular were connected to Burke's school since the girls would be recruited to play athletics at these schools and were also preyed upon by the same perpetrators named in the peer school reports. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Legal info erased that was relevant - no reason given The long-time attorney of National Association of Independent Schools NAIS (the national organization) Debra Wilson recently left the organization and explained in a training at her new accreditation group that part of the reason was the ongoing crisis in this system, particularly around hot button issues such as educator sexual misconduct. NAIS oversees California Association of Independent Schools that is Burke's accrediting agency. The issues that Wilson brings to the fore in late 2021 (after switching organizations) are critical to concerns at Burke's and include crisis management lacking. At the new accrediting agency, Wilson focuses on prevention because of the life-long damage that educator boundary issues can cause in students as shown in the recent Redlands (public system in California) grand jury statement has shown. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC) References Relevant community material removed wholesale without discussion I did ask yesterday that talk be used rather than just deleting large sections of reliable info: "In the case of alumnae parents, parents who bully typifies recent rumor spreading among the community. The Entitled Intimidator and the Vicious Gossip subcategories of parents also existed among the student population in the 1980s and the same cliques remain in power as alumnae. This can mean that some high-society parents who place reputation above safety in some situations highlighted in this California Association of Independent School training. This alumnae newsletter from 2011 shows the school how it was in an older permutation (cultures at schools take about ten years to change). The tax returns from that year reveal a different place where the head was paid $355,287 (comparable to peer schools at the time) and the school tuition was almost half of what it is now. In the 2010s, kindergarten was $24,000, the increasing tuition was out of reach to even high paid professionals like doctors. Now it is $41,000. [I realized when I read the SF Chron article again that the numbers are off.] Michael Thomas who was a co-author of the "Parents Who Bully" wrote back in 1996 about the Volvo caucus and its relation to fear: Fear infects the relationship between independent school teachers and independent school parents ─ a fear that is often denied and only painfully approached. I see evidence of this fear throughout the independent school world, no matter how much a particular school may say it is a “community,” or “like family.” Parent-teacher relationships, even when good, are less than they could be because of the latent fear between the parties. Heads of school often feel caught between the two, criticized by teachers for favoring parents, criticized by parents for being insufficiently responsive, or too protective of mediocre faculty. Parents often feel subtly ─ or not too subtly ─ excluded from schools. Teachers feel chronically on trial in front of parents, and worried about what is being said about them in the parking lot by members of what has been called “the Volvo caucus. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC) To get your edits to stick, you need to try harder to understand the concept of original research and synthesis. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Will keep learning but have reviewed and discussed with you @willondon 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC) References Peer school section taken out completely without discussion You'll notice there's a theme in what was reverted yesterday, and these are critical issues. My hope is when the protection is taken off in about five days that this record allows for sourced reintegration. There was only me adding and many people deleting; that's not an edit war, that's a cover up. Another possibility is that it's because of objections being made in the edit line as I saw in the recent Wikipedia material I reviewed. Still learning. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Peer schools Other peer schools such as University (that was once connected to Burke's and shares a similar culture with many Burke's girls being recruited to play sports at University) have done investigations after #metoo. The University investigation results referenced show the climate at the time, which was similar to Burke's since it was a feeder school to University for many years after they separated locations. The Branson's Covington Report led to the University investigation since there is crossover in employment and access at the independent schools. Burke's who shares the same legal counsel Folger Levin. The coaches in particular were connected to Burke's school since the girls would be recruited to play athletics at these schools and were also preyed upon by the same perpetrators named in the peer school reports.'' 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Another deletion Yesterday users basically deleted the same relevant info over and over. If you look at the deleted content, you'll see the trend. Legal issues in the independent schools The long-time attorney of NAIS (the national organization) Debra Wilson recently left the organization and explained in a training at her new accreditation group that part of the reason was the ongoing crisis in this system, particularly around hot button issues such as educator sexual misconduct. At the new accrediting agency, Wilson focuses on prevention because of the life-long damage that educator boundary issues can cause in students as shown in the recent Redlands (public system in California) grand jury statement has shown. While the recent changes in Title IX have made sexual harassment something that can't be ignored, this does not apply to independent schools unless they have taken federal funds. In 2018 independent schools created a Prevention and Response Task Force Report to provide guidelines for private schools, yet this does not have much accountability built in to the system. ' 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Deletion of statement about anti-bullying material The silencing of real issues is concerning. This was also erased yesterday by Willanon (I believe) A search on the schools' web site using the word "bully" brings up very little by way of any anti-bullying materials. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Yet again, this is something I do not recall saying, and I have not found a place where I said that, either in edit comments, article edits, or talk page edits. Please, please, pretty please, get things straight. Otherwise, it's a waste of time to discuss things. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC) @willondon agreed, i did not intend to point the finger at you wrongly at least twice now, i am learning the system and protocol. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) IP:Also note, that regardless of the false attribution of the removal, this is the most clear type of instant-remove original research:It's a claim that a search on a search engine/website didn't return results, and reference the search results. I've also renamed this section as it's title at first appears to be an accusation of bullying. SpinningCeres 20:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC) @SpinningCeres sounds reasonable and good catch on anti-bullying 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Another deletion Yesterday users basically deleted the same relevant info over and over. If you look at the deleted content, you'll see the trend. Legal issues in the independent schools The long-time attorney of NAIS (the national organization) Debra Wilson recently left the organization and explained in a training at her new accreditation group that part of the reason was the ongoing crisis in this system, particularly around hot button issues such as educator sexual misconduct. At the new accrediting agency, Wilson focuses on prevention because of the life-long damage that educator boundary issues can cause in students as shown in the recent Redlands (public system in California) grand jury statement has shown. While the recent changes in Title IX have made sexual harassment something that can't be ignored, this does not apply to independent schools unless they have taken federal funds. In 2018 independent schools created a Prevention and Response Task Force Report to provide guidelines for private schools, yet this does not have much accountability built in to the system. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Another deletion on bullying An IP address said this is commentary; it's not -- do not harm as an educator's ethos is well known A former upper school head's blog about bullying in 2018 that referenced a Rosetta Lee training . The Rosetta Lee training did show the classic girls' school bullying (especially in middle school) and used modern-day terms like indirect aggression and relational aggression as well as class-based bullying. The American Psychological Association has tips for bullying and parenting, but this is tough if the school is not aligned with a do no harm ethos. References More Wikipedia policy Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism. Edit summaries are useful, but do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries; that is generally viewed as edit warring and may incur sanctions. This is from thorough editing on the consensus page. Consensus is needed for further edits now that there's been warring on the page. - Please note that the school Burkestalk, Willondon, and another editor made repeated reversions Consensus defined: A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal. Please get my account name right: Willondon. I don't take personal offense when people mispronounce or mangle my name, but in this context, it makes it hard for me to find where I am being adressed. It also reflects poorly on the writer's ability to attend to accuracy and detail. One Wikipedia convention is to use the "@" symbol or the {{user}} template when including others' account names. The Wiki software then takes care of notifying them when they have been mentioned, which is good form. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. Willanon is a support group that my partner attends to get help from others who share in a struggle to overcome their seemingly hopeless addiction to me. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I am learning and appreciate the tips. @willondon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC) (A repeat of a comment I also made elsewhere in this mess of "discussion":) I won't be spending much more time responding to discussion that does not follow Wikipedia talk page practise as describe at Help:Talk pages, or does not attribute things correctly, or that argues for edits which go against the guidelines listed at WP:OR, WP:PSTS or WP:SYNTH, without describing why the edits do follow those guidelines, or why those guidelines should not apply. This is getting to be too much of a time suck. And to avoid that, it's incumbent on all editors to learn how things are done, and to recognize advice given. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Thorough editing section of Wikipedia Here is the whole thorough editing section: Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus unless it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time. All edits should be explained[under discussion] (unless the reason for them is obvious[under discussion])—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute. Be bold, but not rash. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism. Edit summaries are useful, but do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries; that is generally viewed as edit warring and may incur sanctions. Area for response in order to reach consensus; editors please respond below - Please note that there were not edit summaries; and sometimes they contained factual inaccuracies [This is what I'd like Willonon to explain. How does he know the snake dance continues? Isn't that original research (which this user gently suggested I was doing). Initially Willanon appeared unrelated to the school, but that edit was bad and telling -- plus the original content didn't say that snake dance stopped. It simply said it didn't exist in 2010. - The editing has been all or nothing; you can see that in the copy that I restored on the talk page. - I asked for edits to go through talk and that wasn't granted. I was available all yesterday for consensus. This page protection is for how the page was edited yesterday. No one *else* contributed content. This IP address contributed 17,000 words that have been axed repeatedly. Again: I have never made any edits or comments related to the "snake dance" material. Go back and find in the history what you think you're referring to and get the attributions correct. I won't waste my time dealing with discussion that is not founded on accuracy. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC) OK @willondon the place with the snake dance was the traditions page at the school web site. https://www.burkes.org/life-at-burkes/burkes-traditions Under lower school picnic where the site was quoted with this new tradition: Lower School Picnic Early in the school year, kindergarten through fourth grades join with a parent or special guest on the front field for a picnic. But this is no ordinary picnic — after the blankets and baskets have been cleared, students and visitors team up for a variety of games and dances. Every year, the activities are capped by the Snake Dance, which links the entire Lower School together in one long line, led by the Head of School, that "snakes" around the grass. This was accurate info that was taken out for a false reason. I thought it was you, and apologize for being rash with that @willondon 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Re "Area for response in order to reach consensus; editors please respond below": I won't be spending much more time responding to discussion that does not follow Wikipedia talk page practise as describe at Help:Talk pages, or does not attribute things correctly, or that argues for edits which go against the guidelines listed at WP:OR, WP:PSTS or WP:SYNTH, without describing why the edits do follow those guidelines, or why those guidelines should not apply. This is getting to be too much of a time suck. And to avoid that, it's incumbent on all editors to learn how things are done, and to recognize advice given. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Got this. I have been reviewing the policy you suggest and appreciate that you be kind about a normal learning curve and not say things that are hurtful and don't inspire confidence for another wikipedia user please. I am beginning to understand that the warring edits were the edit tags as well. I did go back and explain why the edits followed the guidelines, you'll see these in the posts after your correctly spelled name that's spaced correctly and uses the sign off2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) To explain, I was getting as much of the back story of the edit war within relevance on the talk page for review. I invited the IP user who did do the snake dance edit (I will strike through our section on that to make simpler). I don't have more to add. While it is in my head I have created some copy that could be added in since by Monday or whenever it goes back to unprotected I do not want to fight about this. Past time to move on, as I can tell you are agreeing ;) @willlondon2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Also another wikipedia editor (not me) dinged the IP address that took the material down as not being constructive and also not having a reason (two different takedowns). So there's some consensus building on that as well. @willondon 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Word Count The count on the actual article is now 1800 words, which would start to qualify it as NOT being stub status. Please consider the quality of what was created before doing anything rash. Bold but not rash. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Other edits that one user considers bad (and this user created the content) curprev 00:15, 9 February 2022‎ 50.201.237.202 talk‎ 19,617 bytes −756‎ →‎Modern-day Burke's: using a former graduates own calculations in this type of setting is not a proper source. A user is citing their own personal conversations as fact. Tag: Visual edit In fact this is OK as original research since it's a calculation. This was an important point that I'd argue to be restored. curprev 22:44, 8 February 2022‎ 2601:645:8300:c6d0:218b:643d:b483:7a12 talk‎ 19,621 bytes +16‎ An error was inserted here where the other user made the headline "Professional Development" and yet this was a training for parents Tag: Reverted curprev 22:42, 8 February 2022‎ 2601:645:8300:c6d0:218b:643d:b483:7a12 talk‎ 19,605 bytes −402‎ →‎Tuition: note that the past edits made the article read strangely and Burke's tax info was removed while Crystal Springs was kept up (including the HOS salary that is much less than Burke's) These are facts Tags: Reverted references removed curprev 21:49, 8 February 2022‎ 50.201.237.202 talk‎ 21,624 bytes −153‎ →‎Bullying: edited this topic, this commentary is about a professional development opportunity. also deleted "The American Psychological Association has tips for bullying and parenting, but this is tough if the school is not aligned with a do no harm ethos." as this is clearly commentary and not fact. Tags: Visual edit references removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by curprev 20:49, 8 February 2022‎ 50.201.237.202 talk‎ 29,026 bytes −1,122‎ →‎Legal issues in independent schools: not relevant to topic. About a separate organization Tags: Visual edit section blanking curprev 22:26, 8 February 2022‎ 2601:645:8300:c6d0:218b:643d:b483:7a12 talk‎ 21,752 bytes +1,412‎ →‎Culture: changed section to show relevance of job listing (primary source from Burke's as wikipedia editors requested) TALK is ready for this if this user wants to engage with the Wikipedia editors Tag: Reverted curprev 23:06, 8 February 2022‎ 2601:645:8300:c6d0:218b:643d:b483:7a12 talk‎ 19,747 bytes −8‎ This is not professional development; someone is inserting errors with their edits today; also note the page views are 500 where usually they are more like 100 curprev 00:15, 9 February 2022‎ 50.201.237.202 talk‎ 19,617 bytes −756‎ →‎Modern-day Burke's: using a former graduates own calculations in this type of setting is not a proper source. A user is citing their own personal conversations as fact. Tag: Visual edit ::WP:CALC/WP:Routine calculation Material here that is relevant and not original research since it is a calculation: Many alumnae determined because of the rising costs, they simply couldn't afford the school. Families have found the Catholic schools more affordable if they've needed to leave the public schools in San Francisco for a private alternative. Notre Dame Vivitore, which is a competitor for families, is $27,070 for three plus children, making it a clearly more affordable option with individual tuition being $10,390. This is what Burke's tuition would have been if you account for inflation from the 1980s tuition of $5,000. (That tuition amount is remembered by alumnae and often discussed in the private school affordability conversations.) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC) References Material removed that had a purpose There's a long history at Burke's and it often celebrates the lineages in the school magazine. In historical documents, the school newspapers still exist . These lineages have a downside and similar to Miss Porter's school that attracted press attention for a "mean girl lawsuit" there are alumnae who have special privileges and always have at Burke's. The school magazine will show any number of the lineage stories. The recent job posting also shows an important shift in the culture. There is a new role that's the Associate Director of Advancement and this is a role about alumnae relations that used to be separate from the fundraising arm. This role is described as "The Associate Director of Advancement is responsible for the Burke’s Annual Fund, Alumnae Relations, Eighth Grade Class Gift, and oversight of an Advancement Associate. This role will ensure a timely and successful Annual Fund, Class Gift and Alumnae Relations program, while focusing on growing the culture of philanthropy at the school." Previously there was a Director of Alumnae who did not pressure alum to fundraise until a shift in the 2010s. This trend can be seen in the old school magazines available at issue.com under burkesschool as well as in the "loyals" who this new role oversees and these individuals (many alumnae and many from brand name families) are to be taken care of in a way a normal volunteer isn't, as shown in the recent job description. (Undid revision 1070716190 by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:218B:643D:B483:7A12 (talk); original research; not heeding guidelines at Primary, secondary and tertiary sources) curprev 21:46, 8 February 2022‎ 50.201.237.202 talk‎ 21,777 bytes −788‎ →‎Culture: removed the commentary from NAIS about bullying in schools. Again, this is not relevant to the topic of Burke's Tag: Visual edit Burke's has experienced the same trends other schools have in the independent system, and one of them is the increase in parent bullying that's described in the accrediting agency's national counterpart NAIS and the story is "Parents who Bully the School." As Paul Tough the New York Times writer states, in public schools the consumer is society and in private school it is the parents. At Burke's some parents are also alumnae, and the rough culture of the 1980s where alums say there was little social and emotional intelligence training, does re-emerge with the same people (former students) taking on a similar role to the bullying dynamics that were notorious in the 1980s and 1990s. Yet, the economic inclusion is questionable as it is in many independent schools these days, the most prominently discussed being Brentwood School also in California. This is a moment in the "culture wars" as the article in Los Angeles magazine where schools that exist as exclusive (elite private schools) are now trying to rebrand themselves as inclusive when financially for the operation of many independent schools that isn't possible. Burke's values from the web page that says their commitments reads, "As a longstanding institution in San Francisco and the Bay Area, Burke's espouses the values of our community. These include a dedication to community engagement, the desire to make our school as equitable and welcoming as possible to all kinds of families and students across the city, a responsibility to operating as green and sustainable as possible, and embracing a healthy lifestyle." Many alumnae determined because of the rising costs, they simply couldn't afford the school. Families have found the Catholic schools more affordable if they've needed to leave the public schools in San Francisco for a private alternative. Notre Dame Vivitore, which is a competitor for families, is $27,070 for three plus children, making it a clearly more affordable option with individual tuition being $10,390. This is what Burke's tuition would have been if you account for inflation from the 1980s tuition of $5,000. (That tuition amount is remembered by alumnae and often discussed in the private school affordability conversations.) @willanon funny story about your name; that will help me remember. you are correct it was not you that said the snake dance still exists. i was wrong there. i am also not a wikipedia editor. i do appreciate your time and tips. thanks and have a great day. @willondon - I got confused at first. I am getting the hand of it. Geneaology is actually a tertiary source and a encyclopedia-like entry of the school's student newspaper. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:CB8:C178:4DA7:9C49 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC) References Contentious areas - This did remain in but there was a lot of criticism about adding the head of school salary although that's standard practice in the media curprev 23:16, 8 February 2022‎ 2601:645:8300:c6d0:218b:643d:b483:7a12 talk‎ 20,091 bytes +172‎ →‎Modern-day Burke's: the heads salary is sourced, critical info; someone said this was commenting on random people's salaries; no, this would be used in any media article 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Snake dance Edit removed This alumnae newsletter from 2011 shows the school how it was in an older permutation (cultures at schools take about ten years to change). The tax returns from that year reveal a different place where the head was paid $355,287 (comparable to peer schools at the time) and the school tuition was almost half of what it is now. The school traditions were different -- no snake dance that has become a yearly event under the new leadership -- and also more room for real equity and equality between students than there is when the school is reliant on some families for its very survival as it may be now. The snake dance is described on the "traditions" page on the web site as part of the "Lower School Picnic Also in the same removal In these times when the school costs $41,000 for new families, alumnae that did not become parents have openly questioned WHEN is that possible for modern-day Burke's to be equitable and welcome? Without a real HOW for making that happen (boarding school Phillips Exeter recently determined to stay need blind and Lick Wilmerding has managed to have a flexible tuition model where Burke's is not flexible and also not need blind) this is an empty value in that it's likely not possible. Families have found the Catholic schools more affordable if they've needed to leave the public schools in San Francisco for a private alternative. Notre Dame Vivitore, which is a competitor for families, is $27,070 for three plus children, making it a clearly more affordable option. Material about the editor (no reason given here in this line) Revision as of 18:45, 7 February 2022 (view source) 2601:645:8300:c6d0:c95a:6797:24d7:41c1 (talk) (→‎Modern-day) ← Previous edit 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC) If you have specific changes you want to be made while the page is protected, please use the {{Edit fully-protected}} template on this page and clearly explain what sentence/wording should be replaced/removed. Otherwise, please stop filling the page with walls of text copied from the article/page history. (Original signature hacked out by another editor's misediting) OK. I see some typos but nothing I need to use the template for. I was done and will take a rest from the page. Hopefully for good! Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I don't believe this comment was initially signed. There's a comment saying the original signature was hacked out -- who was this though? I don't remember an original signature at all, so this was a passing comment. Please take this a little lighter and keep intentions in mind. I had no intention of hacking a signature and don't remember it being there. Please sign in with that signature if you're going to state the signature was hacked. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC) References Changes to be made {{Edit fully-protected}} reads now: In 2007, San Francisco Magazine published a story, "Schools Gone Wild" that quoted the former head of school David Fleishhacker[17] as saying, “All schools have edifice complexes,” says David Fleishhacker, who headed Katherine Burke for 25 years, beginning in 1970. Should read: In 2007, San Francisco Magazine published a story, "Schools Gone Wild" that quoted the former head of school David Fleishhacker[17] as saying, “All schools have edifice complexes” Fleishhacker headed Katherine Burke for 25 years beginning in 1970 and wrote a book on this history of the school, "All Hail With Joyous Voices." For: Sentence structure and grammar; plus secondary sourcing ALSO {{Edit fully-protected}} reads now: A culture of a school is said to change about every ten years, and with the almost doubling of tuition in the last decade along with modernizations in the view of gender, Burke's does change throughout time. should read: A culture of a school is said to change about every ten years, and with steep increase in tuition in the last decade along with modernizations in the view of gender, Burke's does change throughout time. For: Mistake inserted with multiple edits There's also a handful of periods missing. Thanks for your patience. The copy posted above were the wholesale edits that Wikipedia policies do not appear endorse and necessary (in my opinion) for consensus. I will not add more. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You need to copy the template as it appears on the page, not the source code. Don't include the "tlc|" SpinningCeres 22:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Yes, I am a newbie here. I am just presenting how to make it professional and accurate. Again, what I thought was being asked.2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Reviewing talk page protocol and practices To prevent this talk page from becoming a confusing mess in the future, I reiterate some key features from Help:Talk pages: All posts should be signed (if not, a bot will do it, cluttering up the history and the page text) Threads should be linear: comments on a thread should be posted on a new line, after the discussion being commented on. The ":" should be used to indent additions for easy reading (e.g. ":reply", "::reply to reply", ":::comment addressing the above two replies", etc.) Editors should not intersperse their comments with another editor's comments. Those comments appear above the editor's signature, so at best, it muddles up who said what when, and at worst, it could appear as an attempt to distort the record of what another editor said. Editors should never remove or edit comments made by another editor, unless of course it's sheer vandalism that has nothing to do with the article. Editors can remove or edit their own comments, but unless it's a case of copyediting, or "and another thing...", it can be seen as bad form, trying to change the historical record of what was said, especially if another editor has already commented on it. If an editor wants to retract something, a transparant way to do that is to use the "<s>" and "</s>" markup to line through strike the relevant text. As I've said before, going forward, I won't be wasting my time fixing talk page edits that don't conform to those policies. Plenty of time and space has been devoted to guiding users to the appropriate help. And I've been patient. I will simply be reverting them with the edit summary "malformed" or "inept". signed, Willondon (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC) @willondon everyone has a learning curve that does not mean inept. please refrain from this kind of terminiology. "inept" and "complete failure" don't help, especially towards consensus on an article we've both spent too much time on. ;) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC) My comments [4] referred to "a complete failure to understand original research". They did not refer to an editor as a complete failure. Similarly, "inept" would refer to an edit, not the editor, though used as a terse edit summary, it would reasonably be construed as a personal insult. Point taken. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Protected edit request on 9 February 2022 reads now: In 2007, San Francisco Magazine published a story, "Schools Gone Wild" that quoted the former head of school David Fleishhacker[17] as saying, “All schools have edifice complexes,” says David Fleishhacker, who headed Katherine Burke for 25 years, beginning in 1970. Should read: In 2007, San Francisco Magazine published a story, "Schools Gone Wild" that quoted the former head of school David Fleishhacker[17] as saying, “All schools have edifice complexes” Fleishhacker headed Katherine Burke for 25 years beginning in 1970 and wrote a book on this history of the school, "All Hail With Joyous Voices." For: Sentence structure and grammar; plus secondary sourcing ALSO 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)  Not done – no source provided. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Protected edit request on 9 February 2022 (2) reads now: A culture of a school is said to change about every ten years, and with the almost doubling of tuition in the last decade along with modernizations in the view of gender, Burke's does change throughout time. should read: A culture of a school is said to change about every ten years, and with steep increase in tuition in the last decade along with modernizations in the view of gender, Burke's does change throughout time. For: Mistake inserted with multiple edits 2601:645:8300:C6D0:39DE:441A:6FC4:3C5 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)  Not done – no source provided. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC) consensus points Pulling from the discussions, area that need consensus: Can the school's alumnae magazine be used as a source? Look at the issu links and the citation 1. These are secondary sources that support the research. Can the issues of similar, peer schools be used as a comparison to Burke's since the are known to have similar cultures? (Especially UHS that is a feeder)? Do creepy coaches that recruit out of middle schools and have been named in local investigations and are known at Burke's (for recruiting) count towards the article? The reason this comes up is to show the moment that the schools are in, Burke's included. You'll see if you read the San Francisco Magazine and San Francisco Chronicle that the schools are often mentioned in consortium to each other. Will section blanking on this without a good reason be allowed? Can the Independent School Magazine be used as a credible source for Burke's? It's the magazine created in-house by the parent organization of their accrediting agency. This is a great secondary source for Burke's and is repeatedly removed with the idea that what's relevant for the whole system doesn't apply to Burke's? Can the reporting on secondary stories about the "Parents Who Bully" (article Feb 2016 Independent Magazine) be restored in the article on Burke's? Will Wikipedia editors look at this significance and help break a censorship situation? I won't be responding to everything, due to other demands on my time, and the challenges involved in dealing with a rapidly accumulating mass of material. But I offer now my attention to the above: Can the school's alumnae magazine be used as a source? Possibly. Applying to all sources: it depends on what they say, what the context is, and what exactly it is being relied upon to support. All sources includes Independent Magazine, San Francisco Chronicle as mentioned above; depends on context and what it is they're being claimed to support. Can the issues of similar, peer schools be used as a comparison to Burke's since they are known to have similar cultures? Absolutely not. This is the essence of original research, combining "X is an issue at peer school P" + "P and Subject are known to have similar cultures" (definite original research) or + "P and Subject are both feeder schools of Z, where X is an issue" (an implied form of original research). Similarly for "creepy coaches" as above, and sources which mention schools "in consortium to each other", Will section blanking on this without a good reason be allowed? No. Good reasons include obvious vandalism, or a revert of additions made without an edit summary (I'm a stickler for them; I consider any edit made without a summary to be extremely vulnerable to a challenge made with a summary). And note: good reason includes blanking with an edit summary made in good faith, not to be judged on just one editor's opinion as to wether or not it is a "good reason". These comments I can apply generally to a large part of the editing that has taken place on the article, with recurrent themes being sourcing, original research, and the definition of censorship. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Appreciate the synthesis with the issues. Got it. Appreciate the take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC) @willondon please help build consensus. I saw your editing philosophy involves rollbacks etc. Please note that's not considered thorough editing. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I've finished taking the time to hack out your interspersed comments, so that my contribution to the dialogue appears as I wrote it, and as I put my signature on it. Got it? You have not got that you never edit another editor's comments. Feedback is not to be interspersed with other editor's comments. They appear as signed by that other editor, and it's confusing and potentially misleading as to what that editor has said under their signature. Talk page discussion is linear. You append your comments after the others, and hopefully indent them with the appropriate number of colons. You do not edit another editor's contribution. And you've been told this before. So I've hacked out all your interspersed stuff from your edit. This editorial incompetence (and I'm not calling you generally incompetent as a person), but this incompetence at editing the talk page is not only frustrating, but bordering on actionable. That is, some sort of action besides trying to explain over and over why your contributions to Wikipedia are not fitting in, and are hindering and deterring other editors from properly curating the article here. signed, Willondon (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I don't understand the actionable part. I did all the work on this. If other editors want to take action, please use it towards constructive commenting. I don't know what you mean by interspersed comments and I don't believe I did it. Being told something in a language I don't speak doesn't mean much. This wasn't helpful2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Also, you edited my comments, right? Did you add anything new to the article?2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC) So "I don't know what you mean by interspersed comments and I don't believe I did it." Here are the edits where you interspersed your comments with my comment: [5], [6]. It makes it difficult for readers to sort out who said what. It makes it appear that I have said things which I did not say, and in many cases, would be embarrassed to have said. It makes me look bad, and I can do that on my own, thank you. Here's how it works: Person A makes comments 1 Person A makes comments 2 Person A makes comments 3 Person A signs it Person A Person B comments on comments 1 and 2 Person B comments possibly on comment 3 Person B signs it Person B Person A replies, if they've still got the stamina Person A signs it Person A This way, it is clear what each person has said. Nobody has words put in their mouth, with the appearance that they have said things they have not. It's sometimes exhausting to engage in discussion, and usually, there's the option of just dropping it and walking away. But not if someone else keeps altering your contribution with interspersed comments, bolding, strike-throughs and who knows what else. It's unfair that a person can't just walk away, but feels compelled to correct the record, so readers of the discussion are not mislead about what you've said and how you've said it. Leave my comments alone. Don't make it appear that I've said things I haven't, or formatted it in a way that I think makes me look ridiculous. It's exhausting wading through the edit histories to find where you've altered the record, or to double check where you've claimed I said something, or made an edit, where I haven't. That's unfair to me. So stop doing that. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I've been doing the commenting exactly like that. You asked me to signal to you with @willondon and I have. I said I would strike through the snake dance material to make the page read smoother. That's all I did. The bolding and capping was just trying to make sense of a talk page the best I could. None of that was with bad intention; please assume good faith as well. It's exhausting for me as well. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC) No chance I have editorial incompetence -- none -- what you're talking about is the culture of Wikipedia which I do not know. I am adding value to the article though and you can't expect me to know everything.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC) "I've been doing the commenting exactly like that." You have not been doing the commenting exactly like that. Again... Here are the edits where you interspersed your comments with my comment: [7], [8]. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC) @willondon I looked this over and it looks reasonable to me. I'm trying to build to consensus. Interspersed I thought was the ALL CAPS, which is also standard in editing; there wasn't a template for this to begin with; I am trying to use the talk page to talk. I just read the rules aren't hard and fast on Wikipedia in the five pillars. Is there a place that says do not comment after another comment when trying to build consensus? The consensus movement is what we need. I am happy to drop the stick on sourcing -- I really know what I'm talking about on that but I can see it's touchy in Wikipedia and the definitions are different. It's content and consensus that matter. In my opinion.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC) @willondon another point is: Do not bite the newcomers: If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake; gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better approach. Also fifth pillar. I think you're edits are stricter than the conception in Wikipedia pillars. I also believe that you're being too rigid in the code you're telling me. I'm not looking to join a cult; just to add to this page and to be available to discuss material and edits. I've written copy at the end that has responded to your criticisms. If it's constructive, that's great. I believe the order of commenting is nit picky since it can be understood and you're being a little too critical.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I am answering under the question I wrote. I am asking for other comments to build consensus. Not answering after the question would be more confusing to follow. Please chill on these edits. Competency about verifiability is more important.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Please see how these real areas that consensus is needed broke down into nit picking without my doing anything really. I will make more of an effort to not make it look like you said anything, but when the rules are flexible, this level of detail is distracting and adding to the mess.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)@willanon possible language to be included Accreditation Now reads: Burke's is accredited by the California Association of Independent Schools. Copy to add: This is part of the National Association of Independent Schools that publishes the Independent School magazine 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Text that was removed from previous versions that can show what's being taken out in the edits Other copy removed from the site May 2021 This school used to be almost a finishing school when it was established by Katherine Delmar Burke however she wanted young women to be college ready. In the hundred years that it existed, the school was always known as a place for "American royalty" (brand name last names and founding families) to go and bond to create society. After the centennial, there were many leadership changes and different visions for the school. Most recently the school boasts about inclusivity while still costing $40,000 for both kindergarten and upper school. Also in the past two decades, many alum have written and spoken about their experiences with mean girls a concept popularized recently. The luncheons in recent years have been held at the exclusive all-women's Metropolitan Club where a distinguished alum from the early years gave a speech all about how her class was mean girls from start to finish at UHS. This is also recently discussed with legitimate alums who are also now authors mentioning this was their experience on the school's yelp page. One wrote in 2012, "When someone loves a book, they will often write that they 'love love love' the book. Well I hate hate hated Burkes. Like a few others here, I did not have a remotely positive experience there. Talk about mean girls! I've never been in a world where money and status mattered so much, and I think it's pretty sad that this should be true in elementary school. I have spoken with many successful grads who unanimously agree that we'd never in a million years subject a daughter to this place. I had a son, so it's not an issue, but I think it's telling that after a few decades, I still shudder at the thought of my time at Burkes, which was hands down the most miserable part of my mostly happy education." 1929 – Katherine Delmar Burke dies in Egypt; The charitable work of Burke's alumnae (sometimes scion) is noted in local papers like the San Francisco Chronicle that wrote "Levi's heir remakes long-shutter Presidio Theatre for its new life" . References Exact text January 2022 Evolution The school has undergone many changes and the issues of classism, mean girls, and wealth influencing leadership are detailed on the site GreatSchools.net that is a reliable source of public opinion.[5] One recent parent suggested on the site that the school leadership now is in the hands of wealthy donors, which is worth consideration as a reliable source. Others on the site say that class issues were part of Burke's past but not its present. Some reliable media sources such as Vanity Fair describe the social set that Burke's appeals strongly to in the article Blue Bloods and Billionaires from 2013.[6] Other reliable works that speak to the social milieu around Burke's is Oh, the Glory of It All by Sean Wilsey.[7] The Nob Hill Gazette[8] often chronicles the upper crust that traditionally went to Burke's and then University and Stanford, once described in San Francisco magazine as the Jet Set. While the school is small with an enrollment of 400 in K-8, it exists with the other private girls schools in San Francisco such as Hamlin's (the rival) and Convent of the Sacred Heart. Other schools refer to the Burke's girls as "Burke's Jerks." According to their tax forms, the school gave out $1.9 million in financial aid in the tax year 2019. Yet the cost of $40,000 a year is cost prohibitive to all but the elite.[9] The leadership is also paid well ($532,753 in compensation for the tax year ending in 2020) compared to other schools[10] in the region.[11] One of the leadership's crowning glories has been in the introduction of pants as part of the girls' uniform options. The all-girls school has seen gender differently for decades and now is gender inclusive.[12] Modern day While Burke's has always been a traditional school, now in its 100 plus years, and now is more progressive—some recently started to question if the school keeps up with the modern-day requirements of public schools. As many schools locally stage walk-outs,[13] Burke's has been known to ignore serious issues such as bullying[14] and other ways students and community members can be harmed[15] as reported on at sites like niche[16] and other reliable user generated content from students, parents, and alum. There's been a long-standing issue with mean girls that the school can't ever get a grasp on, probably because of the socio-economic realities of a school that costs $40,000.[citation needed] In the 1980s it was $5,000 and with inflation would be $11,000 now.[citation needed] A student wrote on the school's Facebook page in 2019 that she was "bullied and picked on by teachers. Learning disabilities are HEAVILY frowned upon...It has an extreme 'rich kids are always right' mentality."[citation needed] Another issue is that changes in the public system (such as Title IX enforcements)[17] are not used in the private school since it does not accept federal money.[18] This was on the page until recently when the page started attracting so much more attention. You can see the key issues that are intrinsic to the place and the article. Please wikipedia editors mind the censorship. Repeated deletions without reasons given or with questionable reasons given. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Other sources From the Independent School Magazine you have a great secondary source that can provide deep secondary background to the Burke's article since this is the national organization of their accrediting agency. There seemed a real desire to deny this in the warring edits section. The relevant materials that come from here. This month: Board-Head relationships: https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/winter-2022/boardroom-understanding-the-parent-trustee-role/ leads to this great study from Vanderbilt that also backs up that most comparable head of schools make less than Burke's References Parents who Bully article A previous story that was repeatedly wholesale removed was about "Parents Who Bully" from February, 2016. This is well known in private schools and this secondary source supports any anecdotal evidence coming from the school. This being repeatedly removed is bad form in Wikipedia editing and I'd like consensus for including it. Other sources: Oh the Glory of it All, Sean Wilsey (non-fiction); this covers society and his step-mother Dede Wilsey who is also a supporter of Burke's; Wilsey was also known for pressuring employees in the San Francisco arts community to present her son's work and also to have someone fired, this is known as bullying and it's not her, it's the role that the head of school of any independent school needs to manage (this was covered in the SF Chronicle); Mean moms movie that was meant to come out and didn't but the idea is in common culture with the "Volvo caucus." This is where Miss Porter's as an example of girls schools and how the parent alumnae reinforce the student bullying matters. The schools have overlapping cultures, especially since it's girls school, the Rosetta Lee training offers many sources I've mentioned above as well. (Raising Ophelia; Queen Bees and Wannabes; Odd Girl Out). Also Madeline Levine The Price of Privilege. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC) References Specific IPs that are needed to help resolve I did find the user who made the comment snake dance still exists (original research) as well as made edits that need to be looked at and consensus agreed. It is this IP 50.201.237.202 The bolds are for emphasis on their own language that was in the history reason lines. The comments indented are mine. This is the source of the edits that need to be reviewed and I did invite the IP user to this page. If they do NOT appear and help discuss, then please consider that this is an unreliable editor and revert the changes made that are critical to consensus. Here are the comments on edits that made this into an edit war: 22:15, 8 February 2022 diff hist −351‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Modern-day Burke's: deleted the opinion of the difference in events. there still is a snake dance, that information was inaccurate @willondon I did think this was you and was wrong. Please give this user the same amount of attention you gave my edits. Thank you. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) You will see from the edits and comments that this user needs to be part of the consensus and just deleted, they didn't add or talk to the other editors. 01:08, 9 February 2022 diff hist −381‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Press coverage: deleted this because the source was an opinion piece Tag: Visual edit Bad deletion, using arbitrary reasons to censor 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 00:21, 9 February 2022 diff hist −1‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Bullying training: corrected, as this is a more accurate portray what the training's purpose was, according to another user who corrected Professional Development. Tag: Visual edit 00:15, 9 February 2022 diff hist −756‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Modern-day Burke's: using a former graduates own calculations in this type of setting is not a proper source. A user is citing their own personal conversations as fact. Tag: Visual edit [Covered under calculations; this is OK and not considered original research]2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 22:28, 8 February 2022 diff hist −371‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Tuition: removed this due to opinion Tags: Reverted Visual edit references removed 22:23, 8 February 2022 diff hist +1‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Professional Development: edited for clarity Tag: Visual edit Note inserted a mistake with Professional Development that corrects above but this isn't a good edit; this is destructive and adding inaccuracies. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 22:22, 8 February 2022 diff hist −2,507‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Culture: Deleted this job listing again, as it is not relevant to the topic at hand. Again, this commentary about Miss Porter's has no place here and were added to sway readers one way or another. Tags: Manual revert Visual edit 22:16, 8 February 2022 diff hist −83‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Modern-day Burke's: deleted the "two mommies and daddies" comment. Tag: Visual edit 22:15, 8 February 2022 diff hist −351‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Modern-day Burke's: deleted the opinion of the difference in events. there still is a snake dance, that information was inaccurate Tags: Visual edit references removed 21:52, 8 February 2022 diff hist −166‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Accreditation: removed this opinion Tag: Visual edit 21:51, 8 February 2022 diff hist −685‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Notable alumnae: Deleted this as this was more commentary on Miss Porters than the topic at hand. Tag: Visual edit 21:49, 8 February 2022 diff hist −153‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Bullying: edited this topic, this commentary is about a professional development opportunity. also deleted "The American Psychological Association has tips for bullying and parenting, but this is tough if the school is not aligned with a do no harm ethos." as this is clearly commentary and not fact. Tags: Visual edit references removed 21:46, 8 February 2022 diff hist −788‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Culture: removed the commentary from NAIS about bullying in schools. Again, this is not relevant to the topic of Burke's Tag: Visual edit 21:45, 8 February 2022 diff hist −1,031‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Culture: the information added was not relevant to the topic of "Burkes" Tag: Visual edit 21:43, 8 February 2022 diff hist −327‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Modern-day Burke's: removed the "pink slips" instagram is not a valid resource or reference. Tag: Visual edit 21:25, 8 February 2022 diff hist −75‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Bullying: no mention in citation about tolerance policy 20:52, 8 February 2022 diff hist −1,570‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Peer schools: citations do not mention subject "Burke's" Tag: section blanking 20:49, 8 February 2022 diff hist −1,122‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Legal issues in independent schools: not relevant to topic. About a separate organization Tags: Visual edit section blanking 01:30, 8 February 2022 diff hist −13,258‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ edited Tags: Manual revert Reverted Visual edit 01:25, 8 February 2022 diff hist −13,258‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ NNPOV Tags: Reverted Visual edit 17:15, 3 February 2022 diff hist +1,691‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ added to the history page Tags: Reverted Visual edit 19:00, 31 January 2022 diff hist −190‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎History: edited 19:00, 31 January 2022 diff hist −4,870‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ corrected for accuracy Tag: section blanking 23:33, 20 January 2022 diff hist −736‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Evolution: Removed subjective information. Tag: references removed 23:12, 20 January 2022 diff hist +37‎ Katherine Delmar Burke School ‎ →‎Notable alumnae 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Consensus with IP address that made edits needing to be reviewed I dropped this IP user a note: Hi, I noticed that you made edits that are now up for consensus at the Katherine Delmar Burke School. Please participate since as this page notes; your wholesale removals were not thorough editing; and other editors are determining what's legitimate. Your participation is needed there to help create consensus. Please participate. Hope that works and there are less destructive edits that are trying to protect the school's reputation without looking at the sources and doing the work of reporting on them as I have done. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Destructive edits made by one IP Here are the edits that were made that were destructive to the article: The head of school at Burke's is compensated at an unusually high level ($532,753/total annual compensation according to tax forms for 2020) for schools in the area, according to a comparison of the Burke's 2020 tax returns to the Since just that section was removed, the salary and info about the Crystal Springs Uplands head of school (peer school) was left up and made no sense on it's own.2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC) This was removed because it was an opinion piece when that is a reliable secondary source: Burke's sometimes is featured in San Francisco Chronicle pieces about the high costs of education or diversity issues in private schools as in the 2018 article that mentions Burke's about how "White parents need to take responsibility to integrate SF public schools." False reasons were given for the deletion of the snake dance, and the area deleted was accurate, plus this user did original research and must be connected to the school to know that there still is a snake dance: The school traditions were different in 2012 -- no snake dance that has become a yearly event under the new leadership -- and also more room for real equity and equality between students than there is when the school is reliant on some families for its very survival as it may be now. Here this was deleted because "not about the topic at hand" when in fact it is about the culture of elite schools and also the mean girls that Burke's is known for as shown on social media as well as books. The issues described in fiction and alumnae conversations are similar to the Miss Porter's School that is known for exclusivity and a group of girls who are allowed to intimidate younger girls. Alumnae parents will insist on the old social structure with the "Oprichniki" at Miss Porter's reappearing. A recent New York Times article on Taft made the same observation that issues will come back continually -- with Taft it was racism and classism, with Miss Porter's it's cruelty and bullying. This was also said to not be about the topic at hand although it's very much so, bad reasons given to delete good content: Burke's has experienced the same trends other schools have in the independent system, and one of them is the increase in parent bullying that's described in the accrediting agency's national counterpart NAIS and the story is "Parents who Bully the School." As Paul Tough the New York Times writer states, in public schools the consumer is society and in private school it is the parents. At Burke's some parents are also alumnae, and the rough culture of the 1980s where alums say there was little social and emotional intelligence training, does re-emerge with the same people (former students) taking on a similar role to the bullying dynamics that were notorious in the 1980s and 1990s. Another with the same bad reason: One aspect of bullying parents -- divided into three types by the NAIS article in 2016 (The Righteous Crusader, the Entitled Intimidator, and the Vicious Gossip) and they can (especially the vicious gossip) create a mean environment. The article states, "The Vicious Gossip has what we psychologists call a character problem, one that plays itself out in continually finding fault with the school or with teachers and broadcasting her complaints, often to a group of vigilantes that she recruits. Sometimes she has a valid concern and has identified a genuine teacher weakness or administrative failing. It is her exaggeration of the issue — the relentless, destructive quality of her storytelling to other parents, her repeated gathering of what Richard Chait, professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, has called the “Volvo caucus in the parking lot” — that qualifies it as bullying. We have both talked with teachers who have been victims of such campaigns and who end up feeling defamed and victimized." Again, here it says citations do not mention "Burke's" while the coaches mentioned recruited from the school and these are well-known feeder schools to Burke's. This is censorship. The user deleted about 10,000 words that day and added none. Will they help with consensus? If not, my assertion is this text should be added back since the reasons given for removal were not sound. Another edit same bad reasoning: Legal issues in independent schools The long-time attorney of National Association of Independent Schools NAIS (the national organization) Debra Wilson recently left the organization and explained in a training at her new accreditation group that part of the reason was the ongoing crisis in this system, particularly around hot button issues such as educator sexual misconduct. NAIS oversees California Association of Independent Schools that is Burke's accrediting agency. The issues that Wilson brings to the fore in late 2021 (after switching organizations) are critical to concerns at Burke's and include crisis management lacking. At the new accrediting agency, Wilson focuses on prevention because of the life-long damage that educator boundary issues can cause in students as shown in the recent Redlands (public system in California) grand jury statement has shown. There's more of the same and if you look at the page, this user also looks to have submitted the puffery that was taken down by @willondon References Discussion of terms esp. destructive edit 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1:Do not accuse another user of acting in bad faith with "destructive" edits with out clear evidence in the form of diffs. No one is going to read through walls of text where there is no indication what is quoted from the article and what is your commentary on the removal. Also, it looks like that (other) IP has only ever reverted or partially reverted your edits, so they did not originally add the material regardless. Please take a step back for a while and (re-)review Wikipedia policies including WP:TRUTH and WP:DUE and WP:AGF. Please also stop claiming that every removal you disagree with is censorship. Below you also suggest deliberately disrupting wikipedia to make a point by restoring what you again(without evidence) claim as destructive editting. You can consider this your final warning before a request for some type of admin intervention. I have an WP:ANI report/'request for more eyes on this' typed up on a word document that I decided not to post yesterday. SpinningCeres 18:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Striking final warning:Clarifying that I don't intend to report you the very next time you post here. Just please respect talk page guidelines and assume good faith.SpinningCeres 19:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Huh, just confirming that I got this. I am a user and not a power editor. You are making insinuations about me disrupting things based on comments that don't say that. Please step back as well. This is bad faith in practice in some situations so I can't assume (you know what they say about that -- it makes as ass [out of] U [and] me. I welcome other editors and do not know the formatting. Please respect the time I put in adding to this, which no other user has done.2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Also I have clear evidence and have pulled out the different text (I think that's what's DIFFS are?); I am the one creating here. I stand by what I have said and welcome constructive pushes towards consensus. Clearly someone noticed the page is having problems with edits or it would not be protected. I am calling censorship when I see it; not every time. Please provide examples to prove your accusations here against me. It's hard to believe in good faith when I am on the defensive and the only one creating. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC) This isn't, as you say, a moment you can tell me to step back. This is no debate. The other side has not contributed at all although they were invited. That's what matters. Please don't be critical when you haven't created.2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I read the truth, verifiability section and the book references are there FOR verifiability (I know the page you sent me to says not all books know, but these are several books on the same topic below in the books section, How Burke's is part of the history of the city by educating the elite young women2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I looked over the others as well. Please be careful with how you treat me as well. Several things you've said aren't verifiable in my opinion. I'm looking for consensus. I don't know every in and out on Wikipedia. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I DID provide clear evidence in the form of diffs. I showed where mistakes were inserted, where bad reasons were given, etc. Look at the effort I put in to creating and please show some respect.2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC) With the editor who I believe has been destructive to the article, they made an edit (or could be several users since IP) that left this on the page which makes no sense. It was a comparison and with the head of school's salary just taken out for no reason, the Crystal Springs Uplands tax forms remain up and while a peer school, this makes no sense. It was a destructive edit that introduced an error that wasn't there before. Text below: At the price point of $41,000 (this accounts for construction as well as the increase in insurance for private schools), Burke's may have reached what Caitlin Flanagan in "Private Schools are Indefensible" in the April 2021 Atlantic recently stated that money is god in private schools. Crystal Springs Uplands 2020 tax returns that can be found on propublica. Their head of school oversees both a high school and a middle school is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars less at $310,610/annual compensation for the same tax year 2020. @SpinningCeres I do feel just a bit threatened that you said you had a form filled out and were ready to use it. I just circled back to find out what that is. Looks like there is a deletion review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review It would seem courteous that you let another user know and be specific and source the issue at hand. I am at a loss and yet you are threatening and then take it back, but since it's there, I had to look and it caused me concern. Please be aware. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC) (Hard to tell where anything begins and ends anymore) To "IP": Though it seems rude to me, I'll address you as "IP" for now, because you've contributed under a few different addresses. Nothing wrong with that, but it does make it hard to figure out who's saying what, who's being addressed, and whether or not it's a different person, and where to provide feedback. There's a lot of feedback that's better addressed on an editor's talk page, so that it doesn't clutter up an article talk page with things that aren't relevant to the article itself. That said, I offer some recommendations to you, IP: Register an account (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?). At your level of involvement now, it would be good for you to enjoy the benefits, and it would make it easier for the Wikipedia community to interact. You will also be more anonymous (see: Wikipedia is anonymous). Realise that advice from experienced editors is not a personal attack. Wikipedia is criticized for being run by a diverse group of cliques and reactionaries "Wikilawyering" to enforce a Byzantine, Kafkaesque mess of recommendations, guidelines and policies. This is most likely because Wikipedia harbours a diverse group of cliques and reactionaries "Wikilawyering" to enforce a Byzantine, Kafkaesque mess of recommendations, guidelines and policies. But it also includes new editors, who will help carry the project forward, hopefully. Considering that, the advice to step back and "drop the stick" is wise. A new editor wanders into a culture that is already established, and has its own vision of Wikipedia, its own traditions, prejudices, and mores which have guided them well, in the past. Best not to rush. Best to slow down, listen and observe. Being part of the Wikipedia cult cannot be learned by brief exposure to the lore. For instance, a "deletion review" refers to a process regarding deletion of entire articles, not deletion of content in an article. The <big> and <s> markup can be learned, but not how and when to use them in polite society. Most important is to learn what the community thinks Wikipedia is. There are varied and conflicting opinions and beliefs. If you assume what it is, and rush headlong with that conception, you may find yourself running against the brick walls of tradition, eventually only to be blocked from editing. I don't wish any of that to sound threatening or daunting, but that's the reality of it. You will endure by taking things slowly, by assuming not much more than good faith, and by listening quietly and carefully. Sincerely signed, Willondon (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC) My goal is not to be a Wiki editor or to master the culture. My goal is too add relevant knowledge to the World Wide Web.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Hi, I looked over the benefits of membership and am not going to do it now. With the amount of people looking at the page in the past week (500 yesterday, 1000 the day before, 2500 besides that) and the edits taking things away, it's not wise for me to be available to people who would just use this to bother me. I don't plan on continuing involvement. I wanted to leave a great record for others and since this is on protection. Please note no one else who edited the page with section blanks and then added in errors and did NOT create content has come to talk about any issues to raise consensus. I am willing and able now. I will be moving on to other endeavors come next week and this will be unprotected and I won't have the time or energy or inclination to guard it. If there are questions or even people need reliably written copy, it's all on this talk page. Doing the best I can with the knowledge I have. The civility from others was lacking from the start. @willondon. I made a mistake in thinking you did the snake dance edit and thought you were involved with the school. That was my mistake and I admitted it, it wasn't done to be rude. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC) References Path forward My suggestion is restoring the wholesale and destructive edits when the protective period ends. I'll wait to see if the IP user (who it's possible is an acquaintance and is definitely connected to Burke's) comes to talk to explain why they made the edits besides protecting reputation. The national magazine of Independent Schools that goes to every Burke's admin and reflects their population is certainly a credible secondary source that has shown the issues in the school. "Parents who Bully" (article with types) deserves to be mentioned. It is backed up by "Oh the Glory of It All" by Sean Wilsey as well as other secondary sources that have written about independent schools as well as specific people who are supporters of Burke's. The job description posted that this user removed clearly shows a preference for the "loyals" and the responsibility of a position in the school to manage a profile of donors and keep them happy above others and even other alumnae volunteers. The belongs on Wikipedia as it's accurate, real, and supported. Plus the destructive edits came from a user who isn't engaging with the talk page despite that suggestion being made on February 8. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A104:3550:2B65:EF1 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC) More sources on independent school bullying This says NAIS aims to be the national voice for independent schools and talks about the Seattle Girls School situation https://news.jrn.msu.edu/bullying/2012/04/01/private-school-bullying/ The destructive edits were quickly made to anything that involved bullying with the idea that NAIS wasn't relevant; Burke's is a member school of NAIS similar to Seattle Girls School, it's relevant. Also if you see the Chronicle piece in the article now, independent schools typically keep their info under lock and key and will create confidentiality agreements as well as not allow the community to speak to the press. Reputation trumps reliable info. Please keep this in mind as editors look to re-introduce the critical area of parents who bully who were alumnae who bullied as well. This is the case at Miss Porter's as well. They do support each other and the other edits were being made just for reputation. That shouldn't be allowed.2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC) More sources on girls' schools Where Girls Come First: The Rise, Fall, and Surprising Revival of Girls' Schools by Ilana DeBare 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Race to Nowhere, Documentary, featuring Hamlin's and Town school -- at 400 a class, they really do form a small world https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1437364/ Long-time rivalry between Burke's and Hamlin's featured in book Big Alma about Alma Spreckles as well from the early 1900s. Says Hamlin's second rate at that time and that girls wanted to be at Miss Burke's. https://www.amazon.com/Big-Alma-Franciscos-Spreckels-1990-10-03/dp/B01F9FXEX0/ref=pd_sbs_1/134-1355660-6629209?pd_rd_w=VXX0N&pf_rd_p=cd718a0c-f7e0-41b6-9f23-6496d85d1998&pf_rd_r=5QQ6N2XYKKCDD6W9QA1E&pd_rd_r=47f7735d-c1d5-4784-b078-1727ebea3c83&pd_rd_wg=y39Hr&pd_rd_i=B01F9FXEX0&psc=1 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC) More sources private schools New York Times article -- shows how the mentions of parents in private schools are relevant to the larger culture at hand https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/your-money/private-schools-wealthy-parents.html October 2020 The culture and the parent pressure during the coronavirus is newsworthy and deserves mention in the article Relevant sections: Still, these parents are paying tens of thousands of dollars for private Zoom school, and not everyone is happy with that arrangement. In New York, parents at one of the city’s most elite private schools, the Dalton School, which remains remote even when competitors have in-person learning, have begun to complain. This is also bolstered by the Atlantic article by Caitlin Flanagan. The editors who say that the overall culture of private schools right now isn't relevant to Burke's are trying to censor. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC) This wikipedia article is about Burke, not a commentary on the cost of private schools. (I can't view the NYT article so if it mentions burke please let me know). Using the tax documents(or something like them) + this article to comment on burke's cost would be original research and synthesis. SpinningCeres 18:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Private schools is an umbrella term that includes Burke's. The parents are frightened and frustrated since COVID-19 as has been covered in the NYTimes as well as New York Post and the seminal Atlantic piece mentioned in the article. This shows the overall culture that Burke's is a part of, I don't find the editorial reasoning convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC) This is one of many, many, many examples of where you are doing original research. "Private schools is an umbrella term that includes Burke's.", "This shows the overall culture that Burke's is a part of". Yes, that's great research. It's an incisive analysis of the private school zeitgeist, including Burke's. If we could only find a secondary source that assembled this scattering of facts into an important conclusion, vital and essential to any encyclopedic article about Katherine Delmar Burke School... otherwise it's (say it again) original research. signed, Willondon (talk) I'm curious now. Could I ask you to describe what you understand original research to be? signed, Willondon (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC) New language that I'm not understanding on wiki talk. I know someone that was on the Wikimedia board. OR by wiki standards I learned. If you look at any other media source, primary evidence tops secondary; that's common in the info gathering, which I clearly know how to do since I did all the creating. Please give that credit.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Again(again, again): Wikipedia has nearly unanimously decided to be not focused on primary sources, as it is a tertiary source. It's literally part of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Your continued assertion that primary sources are better for info gathering will not change this. You aren't going to out-debate Wikipedia's policies on original research. If a reliable source did the same research you've done above, it would be instantly eligible to be added to this article. I can understand that it's an annoying problem to come up against, but that's how Wikipedia works and I can say with near certainty that you have no chance of changing that, on this page, or the website as a whole. SpinningCeres 16:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Yes Wikipedia may have policies. But in information gathering outside of Wikipedia primary sources are undeniably considered better. This isn't an assertion.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I looked that up and it doesn't say that. Please be civil. It says Wikipedia is not just a collection of documents although some other Wikimedia is. It also says no hard rules and editors should be civil. I have not insulted you. So let's work with the spirit of it.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Wikipedia has no firm rules, but in general it's not a good idea to ignore all rules(which is, in fact, an accepted Wikipedia policy), if other people are disagreeing with your interpretation/following of other policies in guidelines. What I am trying to say is "But in information gathering outside of Wikipedia primary sources are undeniably considered better" can not be used to justify focus on primary sources on Wikipedia. I do not intend to be uncivil. I was only pointing out that I had made (something like) that comment twice already.SpinningCeres 16:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I just learned the don't bite the newbies concept. That's what I needed. Moving forward though. Thanks for the attention to the article.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Books with Burke's mentions San Francisco's Pacific Heights and Presidio Heights, Tricia O'Brien, 2008 https://www.google.com/books/edition/San_Francisco_s_Pacific_Heights_and_Pres/J8dEQubtnqYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=katherine+delmar+burke&printsec=frontcover - This connects it with being part of elite San Francisco and includes early history 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Overloaded and Underprepared: Strategies for Stronger Schools and Healthy Successful Kids Here is evidence that before 2015 climate surveys found stress at the School and they worked to implement mindfulness https://www.google.com/books/edition/Overloaded_and_Underprepared/7XtXCQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=katherine+delmar+burke&pg=PA154&printsec=frontcover 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) History of the San Francisco Bay Region, 1924 https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Region/rbQzAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=katherine+delmar+burke&pg=PA187&printsec=frontcover 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Again, these feel like indiscriminate references to every mention of the school. What do you hope these sources could contribute to the article that is specific to Burke and not (private?) schools in general?SpinningCeres 19:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Thanks for dropping in. Please add to the consensus. This is not to be listed necessarily just the deep source information that @willondon had been asking for. The History of the Bay Region is from 1924 - that's history and there's significant mention of the school -- it shows the place in the city -- the one I am adding now is about the state of mind of girls in 2010 using girls and their families from the school as references. These are deep resources (secondary which I now understand is best) that provide support for the reporting that was unfairly edited out of the article. I really hope you take time with the fixes too! it's about consensus. I checked out your page and see that you're trying to make things good on Wikipedia. Please do that by pushing towards consensus. Also I just have to say that every single book has a specific reference to Burke's. This isn't fair criticism. Girls on the Edge, 2010 (uses interviews from students and families at Burke's) https://www.google.com/books/edition/Girls_on_the_Edge_The_Four_Factors_Drivi/ftE2j_5dDN8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=katherine+delmar+burke&pg=PA305&printsec=frontcover 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC) What I meant by my comment above in this section is what information will a sentence or two cited to a specific source add that is not undue coverage of every facet of the school. Just because the school was covered about subject X, doesn't mean subject X needs to be mentioned on wikipedia. For example in reference to one of the above, a statement and reference stating that "their is some academic and social stress at the school" would be undue as that's almost every school everywhere. A (hypothetical) reference saying something like "the school has a higher dropout rate and lower grades than most other private schools in California" would be appropriate for the article. Hope that clears it up a bit.SpinningCeres 19:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. What its saying though is that the stress levels were high enough to cause concern in a climate survey at the school. While many independent schools conduct climate assessments and they possibly have baseline data, in this case the stress in the 2010s was higher and that's specific to Burke's and the start of the Mindfulness Program. That's all double sourced as well. I'd like to start creating language to add back in and I don't see what's wrong with what I created already. It's hard to just field criticism. I read all the references you suggested.2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Not sure if you saw the copy below. I bolded something saying this could be added back in. This is reporting on verifiable info as requested. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC) To add comment that would be relevant to this research: Potential copy too add once the article is taken off protection2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC) For many years, Burke's was considered a pre-eminent school. With the parochial schools, it and Hamin's school were two of the only private schools in San Francisco in the early twentieth century. The school was nestled in Pacific Heights and the classes were small from the start -- originally starting at the Burke family's house before eventually making it to the Jackson location. The power structure of the school started with Katherine Delmar Burke's mother who was related to the Kennedy family and had run a school. The graduates of her school became part of the city's elite and formed a powerful network as would the Burke's alumnae in years to come. A writer of a definitive work on girls schools identified that Burke's started to shift around the start of the twenty-first century to not being considered as being as coveted a job for a Head of School. This was after the departure of Head of School Kim Wargo for an all-girls school in Houston that was larger and offered more opportunity. When the Head of School changed at the competitor Hamlin's School, Burke's began to take second place in the rankings on academics by reputation -- which was hard for a school that is competitive and cares about reputation. In about 2010, the book "Girls on the Edge: The Four Factors Driving the New Crisis for Girls" by Leonard Sax delved into the areas of sexual identity, the cyberbubble, obsessions, and environmental toxins and used Burke's students and their families as interviews. This shows the changing world for girls and by 2015 a climate survey at Burke's would reveal an underlying stress. The head of school wanted to "do it right" and started a school-wide mindfulness program that's been in effect to date. That kind of reporting adds to the article. Right? To continue: 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) Example of section blanking Here is a wholesale deletion that the user said was for accuracy. The info is accurate. Section blanking is not thorough editing. This user got notified as is pasted higher in this talk to not do mass deletion without a reason. Then bad reasons started to be given. This is all accurate and it's discouraging for other users if the materials that's been gone over by the wikipedia editors gets cut for bad reasons. Thus why I think this specific user is being destructive and have asked on their page that they join the discussion here to move towards consensus.2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Evolution The school has undergone many changes and the issues of classism, mean girls, and wealth influencing leadership are detailed on the site GreatSchools.net that is a reliable source of public opinion. One recent parent suggested on the site that the school leadership now is in the hands of wealthy donors, which is worth consideration as a reliable source. Others on the site say that class issues were part of Burke's past but not its present. Some reliable media sources such as Vanity Fair describe the social set that Burke's appeals strongly to in the article Blue Bloods and Billionaires from 2013. Other reliable works that speak to the social milieu around Burke's is Oh, the Glory of It All by Sean Wilsey. The Nob Hill Gazette often chronicles the upper crust that traditionally went to Burke's and then University and Stanford, once described in San Francisco magazine as the Jet Set. According to their tax forms, the school gave out $1.9 million in financial aid in the tax year 2019. One of the leadership's crowning glories has been in the introduction of pants as part of the girls' uniform options. The all-girls school has seen gender differently for decades and now is gender inclusive. Modern day While Burke's has always been a traditional school, now in its 100 plus years, and now is more progressive—some recently started to question if the school keeps up with the modern-day requirements of public schools. As many schools locally stage walk-outs, Burke's has been known to ignore serious issues such as bullying and other ways students and community members can be harmed as reported on at sites like niche and other reliable user generated content from students, parents, and alum. There's been a long-standing issue with mean girls that the school can't ever get a grasp on, probably because of the socio-economic realities of a school that costs $41,000. This has been shown in the recent article in the Atlantic as well as the recent fiction based on Burke's including "We Run the Tides" by alum Vendela Vida. In the 1980s it was $5,000 and with inflation would be $11,000 now, according to calculations done by an alum using the inflation calculator online. A student wrote on the school's Facebook page in 2019 that she was "bullied and picked on by teachers. Learning disabilities are HEAVILY frowned upon...It has an extreme 'rich kids are always right' mentality." The Facebook page link was added to the reviews here to provide a citation. This concept is well known to the San Francisco extended community. Another issue is that changes in the public system (such as Title IX enforcements) are not used in the private school since it does not accept federal money. The founder Katherine Delmar Burke's phrase was, "I would have the thought of our school in your hearts as a place where the doors are never closed, where the lights are always burning." Recently the school has adopted a more closed approach with the advertised "open campus" often guarded by private security in response to a potential danger in the neighborhood. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC) References new text that could be added Since it's in my head, I figured I'd try again for some text to add back in after hashing out the sourcing issue. Potential new content Since Burke's was one of the only private schools in early 1900s San Francisco, its graduates have formed a portion of the city's elite society since the start. There are pictures in the book about Pacific Heights of old families whose children (known as scions) are now students at Burke's. Many "Burke's girls" each year are debutantes and everyone is invited to learn to dance at the MidWeeklies (now in its sixtieth year) with the other private schools in the network. "This is the little-known world of the MidWeeklies, an invitation-only dance school for sixth- and seventh-graders. The event marks an important steppingstone in a San Francisco social education, the path to etiquette classes, the Cotillion and eventually to the exclusive Francisca and Pacific-Union clubs," states a San Francisco Chronicle piece from 2011. Mid-weeklies are described as looking like this, from the article, "On a spring afternoon outside the California Club, San Francisco society arrives for an evening affair. Expensive cars pull up to the curb, releasing taffeta-clad ladies in 1-inch heels and white gloves, gentlemen in bow ties and cuff links. The oldest is 13." This is a lesser-seen side of San Francisco, but Burke's girls have been part of it from the start and it's a way to socialize with boys from the "brother school" Town or the other boys schools. Here is the background from the Chronicle story: "The schools whose rosters are used as invitation mailing lists have denied any association with it. Yet for eight nights during the academic year, 400 private-school children in the sixth and seventh grades gather at San Francisco's California Club for the invitation-only dance classes. Everything about the MidWeeklies - its exclusivity and 80-year history, its arcane dress code and wedding-style invitations, the way people shuffle and flinch when its name arises - seems from another era." This forms a small world among the San Francisco private school graduates. There is also notable movement of teachers within the independent schools (they don't offer pensions as rewards for staying like the public school). Later these alumnae may meet again at the Olympic Club or the Metropolitan Club (the once women's equivalent of the Olympic Club when it was all male). The annual Burke's luncheon is at the Metropolitan Club and often there are lineages of women who have gone to the school through the decades as well as past teachers and staff. The school's alumnae magazine also prominently features these alumnae and staff gatherings where there is a photographer known for society functions. The recent job posting for a Associate Director of Advancement to handle alumnae affairs shows the shift in recent years towards fundraising. This position as recently as 2016 was the Director of Annual Giving and Alumnae and wasn't directly in charge of a group of donors as the next position will be. These donors may be "loyals" which is also referenced in the magazine and the web site whose gifts in fact keep the school going. This allows for a rich history with traditional families. It can also make for an isolating experience for those from a different background. Parents and alumnae communities Burke's alumnae newsletter as far back as 2012 listed the number of students of alumnae who were at the school, and then the number was 15. With the competition steep to get into kindergarten, alumnae are known to have an advantage, especially if they are also loyals. This creates a system where some families keep the school in business. Head of Schools need to please these families especially and admissions watches out for them as they are known to ensure the survival of the school. The pressure of private school parents has grown as the tuition has increased. A 2016 article "Parents Who Bully" by the National Association of Independent School's Independent Magazine describes how frustrated or entitled parents can create issues in a school environment. This describes the parents as three types that can cause victimization in teachers. The types are called: The Righteous Crusader, the Entitled Intimidator, and the Vicious Gossip. A Harvard professor of education termed the phrase "Volvo Caucus" for the area that the gossiping will occur and the malice of the rumors will become bullying by adults. Parents lobbying like this for changes in independent schools is now against the National Association Independent School best practices, an organization that oversees Burke's accreditation and aims to be the voice of independent schools nationwide. Another similarity of many small independent schools is they share the same attorney at Folger Levin firm in San Francisco. The school list includes Burke's, Hamlin's, University High School, Branson High School, and also recently an attorney of theirs was quoted for Sonoma Academy. The San Francisco independent schools will have events together often Burke's-Town School for Boys (sister-brother schools) or Burke's-Town-Hamlin's-Stuart Hall. In the 1980s, these schools had four school play days at the Burke's campus with its sports equipment. Now they alumnae clubs will hold events that keep a small circle of people in contact over the decades. Another one of the competitor schools is Sacred Heart Convent school for girls whose student high school newspaper recently had a piece on toxic friendships in the small, elite girls' school environment, "Toxic Friendships diminish self esteem." These issues are similar to Burke's that hosts many speakers in to discuss friendships of the issues around privilege (such as Madeline Levine). 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC) References The edit mentioned was caught by a wiki editor as not constructive This was the second warning on the blank deletions that the user got, you can see it on their page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:50.201.237.202 This is where destructive came from. Another way of saying not constructive. Since the edits also inserted errors (as I've shown above), my comments on destructive edits have some source material as well. Please keep criticism on the right things; nit picking is what I think made this shut down, and that wasn't me who did it. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC) More new text to insert Potentially new content Girls schools The 2004 Mean Girls film popularized a notion that most alumnae of all-girls schools know too well: girl-based bullying. Since then the phrase has been part of the discussion around Burke's as shown in the alumnae reviews posted online as well as in novels. This bullying as described in the parent training can also become part of the parent culture, and in some cases the alumnae parents. As the damage of bullying in childhood gets understood more (long-term chronic damage), there's also attention on how mothers can do the same things within independent schools and that's what can keep bullying so cyclical in a school environment -- it's being reinforced by parents. Miss Porter's school was infamous when there was a "mean girls lawsuit" covered in Vanity Fair and the key aspect is that alumnae moms would encourage the bullying on campus by a sanctioned group. The Mean Girls film was also planned to be made into a sequel around 2015 called Mean Moms that would have starred Jennifer Aniston. Managing parents is left with the head of school along with other administrators who are at least aware of if they are "loyals" who have donated for the past nine years. Since the head is also tasked with crisis and managing parents, the skills to push back can become essential in this environment. Otherwise the balance of power is off for the head of school as has been shown during the COVID19 pandemic when private schools re-opened in many cases earlier than public schools. This drew more national attention to the private-public school divide; and Burke's has represented private school in San Francisco for more than a century so it's been in contrast with the nearby public schools like Alamo Elementary and Presidio Middle School. 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:A131:C108:9102:687B (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Source material on coaches/lack of oversight Here's the news in the last year from the Chron (plus Marin IJ that isn't subscription based) -- the comments are important as well. Burke's girls go to these schools. They know these guys. Chronicle on Branson and Daphne Green, notice how the reporter refers to the group of schools: *The comments on this is also revealing. You do need to be a subscriber but sometimes you get a free read and I can pull out material if needed. Pulled out the materials so they can be read. "The Chronicle does not generally identify victims of sexual assault, but Greene agreed to be named in this story. She’s the first alleged victim to speak publicly. And when she came forward in 2018 to police and school officials, she set in motion a series of investigations that would unearth decades of alleged sexual abuse at two elite Bay Area high schools." "A former school official told investigators he heard Taylor make “inappropriate,” “usually sexual” jokes to students, as well as commenting on “how cute they were.” But he told one student’s parents the coach was “harmless,” according to the report. The Branson probe found that a school dean received complaints from two families about “sexual harassment issues” with Taylor. “Nobody filed a lawsuit or anything,” the report found, “they simply banned Rusty from coming to their homes.” With the release of the report in April 2019, Branson’s head of school and board of trustees chair wrote a letter to parents. “As an institution, we acknowledge our failing: Branson did not do enough to protect you and keep you safe while you were in the school’s care,” they wrote. “In several instances when Branson faculty or administrators learned of the sexual misconduct or inappropriate behavior, it is clear ... that some matters should have been handled more swiftly, more thoroughly and with greater sensitivity to the students who were harmed.” "In 1979, Taylor accepted an assistant athletic director and coaching job at University High in San Francisco. The private school had recruited him to give its soccer program a boost. They had no idea about the allegations of abuse." The report found that administrators were warned of Taylor’s behavior on multiple occasions, but tried to calm complaining parents down. He eventually received a warning letter that was placed in a “segregated file” kept apart from other teachers’ personnel files in an administrator’s desk drawer. Taylor stayed at the school until 2004. From 1994 to 2015, Taylor coached girls soccer at a variety of other private high schools across the Bay Area, including Carondelet in Concord, Bentley in Lafayette and The Bay School in San Francisco. None of those schools have received any reports of inappropriate behavior by Taylor, school officials told The Chronicle. He accumulated over 1,300 wins at all his prep stops, becoming the country’s leading prep soccer coach. University High brought him back in 2015, the report found, but the new administrators found the segregated file and ordered Taylor to resign after a few months. “Based on the evidence we reviewed, we conclude that when incidents of sexual misconduct were reported to administrators, the administrators sometimes handled those incidents in a manner that did not promote optimal student safety,” the University High report concluded." Comment: "WARREN57 10 April, 2021 Amazed he could last 25 years at University HS, after what has come out. How could this happen, and who allowed it to be swept aside and ignored?" Marin IJ coverage of Daphne Green's lawsuit for negligence against the school for knowing about her relationship with Rusty Taylor and not acting to protect her Another Branson graduate files a lawsuit about a coach at Branson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Lack of oversight at independent school (also this year; also a client of Folger Levin that represents Branson and UHS), recent story sexual harassment not criminal but affected dozens and the administrators turned a blind eye (one came from teaching at Hamlin's). This shows what President of SAIS accrediting Debra Wilson said about teachers/admin moving around and there often being overlapping investigations: Training on how teachers skip around and what a huge issue educator sexual misconduct has been since 2015 (cited before and certainly relevant): Latest research: Carol Shakeshaft Also Ted Talk by her although I can't find it readily available -- this is a trend heating up in private schools, especially in CA 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Unless and until these stories(not another story that doesn't mention the above) mention Burke is connected to these other schools, then this material would not be appropriate for the article as it is synthesis. SpinningCeres 16:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC) References @SpinningCeres the point I am trying to make is that the schools share coaches, teachers, etc. University and Burke's shared a building and a close history. Rusty recruited from Burke's as well as Hamlin's for soccer. But if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. Thanks for reviewing.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Sections to add back in Here is the copy that I believe should be reinstated: Accounting for inflation from the 1980s tuition of around $5,000, Burke's would be about 11,000 today. That's the cost of one competitor Notre Dame des Victoires and other parochial schools that have also had a long history in San Francisco. The other independent schools in the California Association of Independent Schools have increased more and are in the $40,000 to $50,000/annual tuition. Burke's gave out $1.9 million in financial aid in the last tax year. The calculation was removed by the same user who removed most material and did not respond to my invitation to participate in talk yesterday. The calculation is NOT original research by Wikipedia standards. Feedback is welcome2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC) References Building consensus invite I did extend another invitation to the editor who made the deletions (including snake dance) at their talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC) References Clean up & Focus on edits Hi, I cleaned it up by collapsing text not necessary for consensus. Now please focus attention on the copy that's ready to go at the end of the talk page. This can be added back in when the protection is over. They are available for edits and discussion now. This is the best use of editors time in my opinion. Please let's be constructive and consensus and keep in mind the protection will be taken off in a short time. I'm acting in great faith to have this done and ready with days to review. I've invited the other IP to come to talk twice. I hope they do. Otherwise if no one comments, this is good to go Monday and I will likely drop it in and walk away only to look back from time to time.2601:645:8300:C6D0:9097:AB7E:6821:8D97 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I will not reach out to BurkesTalk but if anyone else does they did make a reversion for the communications department because the material was submitted anonymously.

Article

@Willondon and SpinningCeres: An administrator has protected this talk page due to the flooding activity coming from the IP editor who has voiced many concerns, apparently. It seems unlikely that editors will read this content. You seem to be aware of some of the concerns. Is there something important to be noted here? tw^sabin 20:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: I'm not sure there's much left to be said. My opinion of this is that it was just a unwillingness by the IP to understand or accept(quickly enough to prevent disruption once protection expired) that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources and strives to avoid synthesis. The IP was mostly attempting to make a connection between issues at other private schools with Burke despite most of the (news)articles not mentioning Burke. The IP seemed willing to review guidelines, so I hope the IP editor will take the time of the block to really review WP policies and understand the guidelines about synthesis and reliable and primary sources.
To the IP: IAR(aka Wikipedia has no firm rules) only applies until other editors agree that the rules were ignored improperly. There is overwhelming consensus to disallow synthesis and primary source-focused content.SpinningCeres 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: Thank you. I was prepared to walk away, but the editor didn't understand the linear nature of talk page discussion, and kept altering the visible record after the fact, with rearranging comment, interspersing comment in signed statements, breaking up dialogues into separate subsections, altering others' comments with mass formatting, strike-through, etc. *phew* I felt I had to attend at least to preserving my reputation from the record of who said what, when, and how.

I don't think there's anything more important to note. I think the whole mess illustrates just two main take-aways: (1) there's an issue with understanding how talk page discussion is traditionally conducted, and (2) the understanding of original research and proper use of various types of sources. I do fear for the future, when the lock is lifted. It's a shame, because the IP editor shows genuine good faith. Unfortunately it's mixed with unbridled ardor. I'm not hopeful that they can sit back and take the time to understand how to do things here, and what the aim of articles is. I suspect their understanding of "consensus" is a lot of back and forth until it's finally apparent that their take on things is the correct one. But I shouldn't predict what will happen. We will see. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Reworking article

@Twsabin: Restoring to an earlier date (you suggest about Feb 8 [9]) is one possibility. But even as early as mid-January there started to be some COI editing from an IP, and later Burkesschool, intending to scrub the article of all taint, and add a pile of peacock feathers. I've been monitoring the article for a few months, and I remember a few brief points in time where it was good and balanced, in my opinion. Heaven knows I won't be able to find that among the haystack of editing. I even noted a couple rare sources that came up that could actually add something germaine to the subject.

So I'm prepared to go piece by piece, to whip the article back in to shape. Attributed to Michelangelo (and probably Mark Twain, too) is a description of sculpting as taking a block of marble and hacking away all the parts that aren't the sculpture.

I think we all trust the non-involved, seasoned editors who've dipped their fingers into this cauldron. And it would be hard to make any edit that wouldn't be an improvement at this point. So, I think I'll continue to chip away (it's a bit of an interesting disctraction and time-filler for me, actually). But I will not be put out in the least if you or someone else just decides to blow it all up and return to a point in the past. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon: Thanks for the ping. I think that we should take the Feb 8 revision as a starting point (suggested by SpinningCeres here), and chip away at that, as needed, instead of "chipping away" at this (shudder). Could lead to roughly the same result, with much less effort. Now, if there's any due information that was removed because of COI editing, that would be something to investigate and resolve down the line. tw^sabin 01:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. To note for potential future expansion: This is the usual layout for school articles, recommended by WikiProject Shools. tw^sabin 02:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin and Willondon: You both appear to be active right now and I'm about to sign off for a few hours, so I just wanted to let you both know that Yamla has indicated that the pblock does not apply to the IPs new account User:Factsforsure44, and they have resumed editting the page. SpinningCeres 17:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my. It was always my opinion that a block on Factsforsure44 (at least right away) was not the wise move. I outlined my thoughts at admin Tol's talk page. But I knew it would come to this eventually. I intend to carry on "playing the puck, not the player", by just focussing on the article edits, and not getting involved in personal drama. I think it behooves the editor @Factsforsure44: to sit back and reflect that they've taken a number of runs at it, and hit a brick wall at every turn; and then to consult a friend or advisor in "real life" who could provide some insight on why everybody seems to be against them. But that's not our job, though we may have tried. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

reverts

Moved from User talk:Twsabin/Archive 1 § reverts

 – tw^sabin 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw that @spinninceres encouraged you to block my edits with @willondon. Please don't. I wrote on his page about how destructive the heavy handed revertions are and the complaints that don't stand up. This is not facile referencing to bullying as I saw in some of your notes. I wonder if you have a conflict of interest? I've already tried to see if @willondon could be kept off me since it's awful to be edited that heavily for reasons I don't trust. The only positive was adding in bad punctuation as upstander is widely used as one word these days.Factsforsure44 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Factsforsure44: I'm signing off for now, and can't give a more detailed reply, but please read WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and also read a featured article about a school to see what the structure is supposed to look like. tw^sabin 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

additions to history

forgot to add an edit summary. this is from a book checked out of the san francisco library https://sfpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/record/S93C2532669 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

note that this was edited for "promotional fluff" but it's not promotional. the book is custom published but is also in the library and is referenced in secondary sources meeting Wiki criteria2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit was challenged and a request was made to take it to talk -- I had already made these notes and hope that @meter sees it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There was a note sent saying the contribution was unconstructive when if you look at the content it wasn't2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec)No, I challenged its inclusion and you restored it before posting here, and I undid it again at the same time as you posted here. It should not have been restored without consensus on the talk page.

Note that the IP is the same IPV6/64 range as the IP making the extensive edits prior to the recent page protection. Meters (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Restoring a challenged edit without following WP:BRD is not constructive. Meters (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@meters that comment on unconstructive wasn't clear, my confusion. since it wasn't promotional fluff I reverted thinking there were two undos, the WP:BRD says this is optional for consensus and I did in fact start the talk right away. The timestamps would show that, no? 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where the revision samples I tried putting in went. 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs please note this book is already cited in the article2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Please see reference above to the author as local published historian (as well as past headmaster of the school for 25 years)2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I also vote for this inclusion on modern day. Diff from a while back. 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec)The time stamps clearly show that you restored your version of the material before you opened a discussion here, let alone before anyone responded or there was any consensus for the material. And yes, comments such as "the school deserves a spot in San Francisco history for making girls college ready" and "the Kennedy family is slightly related to the school" are promotional fluff. So is the mere fact that a copy was sent to The Irish Herald and someone there looked at it and mentioned the fact. Meters (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) again

I think there's a problem with weight and balance. The edit takes a nine line History section and adds an additional thirteen lines devoted to the book. The descriptions given from the book refer to some historical events not really noteworthy in the broader summary that this article offers. I saw some notability in "the changes from the time when it was known as a finishing school", and the newspaper's conclusion that "[Burke's] innovative work of preparing young girls to attend college is an important chapter in San Francisco’s history." I remember this article used to have some notes on its origins with the goal of offering college preparation to girls. That appears to be just in the lede, now.

The lede includes "Originally it could have been a finishing school but the founder Katherine Delmar Burke wanted girls to be college ready." (with a reference), but it doesn't summarize anything appearing in the article body. I suggest adding a couple of lines to the History section, using the Irish Herald article and the book as references to support summary statements. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying we can't use anything, but it has to be written neutrally and properly sourced. The Irish Herald is simply a mention in passing of a book that was sent to them, and the book itself was written by someone with a COI in the subject, since he was a former head. Meters (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon How about: While once known as a finishing school where a school play made local headlines, Burke's in 2009 was cited in the Irish American newspaper the Herald that concluded, "[Burke's] innovative work of preparing young girls to attend college is an important chapter in San Francisco’s history." 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Notes from April 6 The notes before on the time stamp show the reverse. I am not sure why @meters would say that, please check again. Another user adding in relevant info from talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.31 (talk • contribs) 22:14, April 9, 2022 (UTC)

Again, The time stamps clearly show that you [IP 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7] restored your version of the material before you opened a discussion here, let alone before anyone responded or there was any consensus for the material. I undid the IP's initial edit at 21:12, April 3, 2022‎ [10]. The IP restored the material to the article at 21:50, April 3, 2022 [11], and the IP opened talk page discussion about the reverted material at 21:51, April 3, 2022 [12] Meters (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Not going through this again.

Nope. Not going through this again. This edit [13] offers two primary sources from Burke's showing reference to a program (Rosetta Lee training), and another primary source to a slide show from the training plan (which doesn't even mention Burke's). All to support complete original research (I'm not even going to link to WP:OR anymore).

This is the same incompetence and failure to listen, reflect and understand that allowed an editor to barrel through the article and talk page with a prolonged, useless torrent of invalid, challenged and reversed edits, along with the mess in cleaning up incompetent talk page refactoring and explaining over and over again (by a multitude of editors) what the problem with the edits was.

Wikipedia is not a free-for-all where the most righteous or prolific person wins. I will be quite assertive in preventing the mess that happened pre- all the blocks and page protections. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon Burke's is mentioned in the Rosetta Lee url. The blog is a primary source from the school, and the Rosetta Lee training is clearly tailored to the school. She's well known as well and credible. 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is legit and past muster before. Will reverse that change. @willondon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.31 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's spam.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

The notes suggested getting consensus from the talk page as a duty, and I'd like to recruit volunteer editors on this diff .

The content (which has been up before for some time) is summarized as that the school came to the attention of the F.B.I. because of a potential school shooter in 2019 and that year according to public tax forms approximately (rounding up) $170,000 was spent in security and $100,000 was spent on the (well-known) law form Folger Levin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.31 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is another significant diff

Info to be reintroduced is cost of private school, rise in tuition, governance -- all mentioned in the school template and certainly not fluff.204.102.74.31 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

We are not going through this again:

• Diff 1: "the school came to the attention of the F.B.I. because of a potential school shooter", and "that year according to public tax forms approximately (rounding up) $170,000 was spent in security" -- synthesis;
• Diff 2: "which shows the general concept in the Atlantic by Caitlin Flanagan that "Money is God in Private School"", referenced to The Atlantic in an article which does not mention Burke's.

It is original research and synthesis. Last time you should need to be told about this. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosetta Lee

Guest editor: Rosetta Lee training does in fact specifically mention that it is tailored to the school. Please do not revert. @willondon 204.102.74.7 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the talk page, and multiple named editors have removed this content. A series of SPA IPs are trying to push inappropriate content into this article, and the page has been protected more than once because of this. The latest protection was for one month, and the material was immediately restored when the protection ended. The particular content raised in this thread (The Rosetta Lee training and blog) has been an issue for at least the last year. It seems likely these IPs are the SPA user:Factsforsure44 since they are restoring material added by that user, in which case then they are evading that user's block. Meters (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

pinging users who have recently (last three months) been involved in this article (substantial content edits, protections, user blocks related to this): user:Willondon, user:Firefangledfeathers, user:Bbb23, user:Ohnoitsjamie, user:Deepfriedokra. My apologies if I missed anyone. Meters (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there's been enough committed disruption, and a low enough need for constructive edits, that we should try a lengthy protection period. Maybe a year or more? I'd request at RFPP but there's a tidy pile of mops right here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Added to my grab-bag edit filter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but I agree with the reasoning for a longer period of protection. Disruption has been a steady, committed presence over a span of months. Good point, the article isn't likely to be a candidate for frequent updates, and protection provides only a small cost to incorporate those improvements. Currently, this article is one of a handful on my permanent watch list, so I would likely see a valid request on the talk page. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

As an IP user, the source looks legit to me. It is from a reliable expert, it cites the school, it is almost terciary (which is good as sourcing) and then there is a link to a blog from the school putting the training in context. This vote is it stays up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C200:1D90:0:0:0:10B0 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is a diff [14] Please do not bite newbies and IPs. 2601:646:C200:1D90:0:0:0:10B0 (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are some resources that support Rosetta Lee being significant and her working with Burke's -- it is mentioned on her list several times specifically https://sites.google.com/a/sgs-wa.org/sgsprofessionaloutreach/

trainings at the school include inclusion equity; navigating microaggressions; Gender and Sexual Diversity: https://sites.google.com/a/sgs-wa.org/sgsprofessionaloutreach/katherine-delmar-burke-school-gsd-for-board (this also connects previous posting info about how the school changed the uniform recently to include pants)

Also considers other people have gone through and done the citations and this was vetted already; if idea is to freeze for a year, at least have consensus about material that may deserve entry such as this written in the Wikipedia style and well sourced with slideshare as well as a blog from a school leader that puts it in context and the bystander role, which is valuable info in this entry as well and already archived by the Wiki community207.62.246.166 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

As already explained to you, those sites do not meet our WP:RS guidlines. Please take the time to read them. Further attempts to re-add that material without consensus will result in you being blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)